I'm at a loss for words...

Not really... I have many words I'd like to use, but we do try and keep this a "family-ready" sort of site.

Sunday's NFL games and the officiating that went with them brought to new heights the questions and concerns about what the replacement officials are doing to football in general.  Then came the Monday Night Game...

I am an unabashed Packer fan, I admit.  I cannot deny that I want to see them win.  However, Seattle's QB Russell Wilson has no bigger fan then me, either.  I was delighted that these two teams, one with the absolute WORST defense in football only last year and the other routinely ignored and ridiculed for being "sub-par" in light of the rest of the NFC West division (mainly SF and AZ), put up what I'd have to say was the best defensive game I've seen in many years.

It was a great game, hardly diminished by the bad (and I mean BAD) officiating all through the effort... right until the last 8 seconds of the game.

Now, I know you are ALL going to assume that I am sore because Green Bay lost.  You are wrong.  I am sore because the integrity of the game of football was tarnished, severely.  What happened on that last desperation play not only took a win from the Packers, but it diminished and belittled the effort of the entire Seattle Seahawk's organization, who put forth one of the most monumental efforts in decades.  They not only stopped Aaron Rodgers from scoring a touchdown (no easy task there), they sacked him 9 times in the game (officially, that is... I'm really only counting 8) with a four-man rush!  For as long as they keep records, those players will have this game, which should be one celebrated as a real, lasting achievement, be over-shadowed by the end-of-game call (multiple calls, actually) that spoiled an otherwise epic effort.

League Commissioner Roger Goodell has made it his mission to make the NFL the unquestionable pinnacle of athletic excellence, and anything or anyone that puts that mission at risk, be it bounties or PEDs or criminal activity by the players outside the game, is attacked by him like it was the Black Plague returned... yet he seems content to stand by and watch the game's integrity, and the subsequent efforts of all the players and coaches within the game, be systematically destroyed by the inept and incompetent officiating during the games... of which, each Team only has 16 a year, so each and every one counts for far more than the average fan can imagine.  19% of this year's games have already slipped by, and the bad officiating has effected nearly all of them... none more so than the two teams last night.

Yes, my Packers got robbed last night... but so did Russell Wilson and the Seahawks.  That is a crying shame, and that shame rests squarely on the shoulders of the man who has promised to keep football "pure"... Roger Goodell.  Shame on you, Mr. Goodell.

I hate to say this...

... but F. Ryan is right.  There is no other way to describe what is happening as "falling apart".

I won't... can't is probably more accurate... argue the indefensible ideology that the President and his Cabinet have embraced from the start.  All I can say is that America is still, well... America.  We are a "center-right" nation, at worst... and we are a nation of principles as defined in the Constitution at best.  The vast majority of us want a balance between what the President sees as "rule of law" (larger, more intrusive and influential government) and the personal freedoms and liberties that so many Americans have died to preserve and protect... like the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and justice fair and swift.  The individual freedoms that the nation was founded on, balanced with the needs of the greater society and how those needs will be met.

I can't imagine how someone could NOT see the hypocrisy of the "left"... but it is plain that millions do not.  That is NOT Obama's fault, nor is it the fault of the "Liberal Left" or the Democratic Party.  It IS the fault of the conservative movement, the GOP and the conservative leadership in Washington (such as it is).  As we here at the Bund have known for more than a decade... the truth is plainly seen.  It simply isn't being presented as well as the lies and distortions that the Left are throwing out there.

The liberal agenda will end once the majority of Americans see, feel and experience the sort of intrusive failures that pseudo-Marxist ideology inevitably bring to any society they are applied to:  all facets of society and the standards by which they are experienced are reduced to the lowest common denominator.  This is the greatest fallacy of the Marxist promise... we are NOT going to be "equal" in the manner that we live/work/play/learn, but instead we are going to be reduced to the lowest possible strata of standards we could hope to impose.  That is the "promise" of socialism:  the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so the weakest link will measure our "standard".

We seem to have forgotten that the nation our grandparents, parents, and even some of us here, were raised in said that the "standard" by which we measure our society is the highest it could be... the sky being the limit.  Children dreamed of becoming astronauts, scientists, Presidents, rock stars... and followed those dreams as far as their abilities and drive would take them.  The President himself, being the the same generation as myself, was of African descent, raised in Indonesia, went to the finest schools, and has reached the pinnacle of political power... all under that same "sky is the limit" society.  The very society he insists needs to change, be reformed, or transformed, or whatever.

I'm making my bed now... I don't have a good feeling about Romney's chances in November unless something rather drastic happens or is found out in the interim.  I'd be ecstatic if we could hope for an honest investigation by Congress... but let's not hold our breath for that.  I'm just rather worried that, once again, the GOP has dropped the ball and failed to pick it up.

Things fall apart...

Congressional hearings are starting today. SoS Clinton, NID Katleen Sabyllis and various other high ranking officials are testifying behind closed doors to top members of congress. The story (that even I bought into initially) that a video caused a "spontaneous" protest in Benghazi, Libya is unraveling quicker than my prom date's formal wear.

The original story was simple - a movie degrading the Prophet Mohammad sparked protests outside the embassies in Cairo, Egypt and Benghazi, Libya. In the following days the knowledge of this movie spread, causing protests at US embassies from the Sudan to London.

On the morning of 9/11/12 the US embassy itself put out a statement condemning the You Tube video. A statement that reads almost like a pre-apology. That afternoon the attacks in Cairo began. That night the attacks in Benghazi occurred. On 9/12/12 White House spokesman Jay Carney explicitly described the attacks as not a response or protest to US policy, but a reprehensible, disgusting video. In the days immediately after the attacks the Secretary of State reiterated the fault of this video, also noting that it was the source of the spontaneous violence. She also described it as demeaning to Islam, horrible, and even cut commercials, now playing in Pakistan, reiterating that the US government had nothing to do with the video. National Intelligence Director Sabyllius followed suit, describing the video as "haneous" and identifying it as the source of unrest. UN Ambassador Susan Rice added that the video was "egregious", and made the rounds on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows asserting the administration line: "[the Benghazi incident] was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video," and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, "those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons." Even the President of the United States weighed in several times on this story line, " ...the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants." Just today the President was asked by a reporter at a Spanish language forum on Univision whether or not the attacks were linked to Al Qeada. He responded, “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose over the video were used by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests,” Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident - the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks - was simply a coincidence, a senior U.S. official said Monday "It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events."

What's been clear the last 8 days is that the administration has had a storyline as their response that always includes three aspects.1) the video caused spontaneous protests/attacks. 2) the video was "despicable, haneous, and egregious." 3) the video is no excuse for the violence. And in that order.

There's a problem. Fox News (where I pulled the following), CNN, NBC, and CBS are now reporting various versions of the following:

"There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous," the [consulate] source said, adding the attack "was planned and had nothing to do with the movie." The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG's and mortar fire, and consisted of two waves. The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack. "There wasn't a single ant outside," said the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital.

These were organised, planned attacks my friends. And there was no protest that preceeded them. Some believe the point was to kidnap the ambassador, perhaps to trade for an imprisoned militant. What is know now he was tortured the moments before his death.

It gets worse for the administration. On the very CBS show "Face the Nation" that UN Ambassador Rice adamantly pushed the administration line, that the attacks were a spontaneous result of protests over the video, the Libyan President said the government in Tripoli harbors "no doubt" that the Sept. 11, 2012 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "preplanned, predetermined." That bastion of Right Wing propaganda, CBS, later went on to report: Witnesses of last week’s deadly attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya have told CBS News that the alleged anti-American protest that U.S. officials say morphed into the assault never actually took place.

Wait, it gets worse.

In 2011, the New York Times reported that Sufyan Ben Qumu, who had helped finance the September 11, 2001 attacks was released from detention in 2007.  He was described by the New York Times as an “ally of sorts” of the US backed Libyan coalition during their April, 2011 push to overthrow Qaddafi. Reports are now surfacing that he helped plan and led the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi.

As early as Wednsday Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Committe on Homeland Security and Governmental affairs, “I would say they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack." Furthermore, reports are indicating that the embassy Intel had warned for days that a 9/11 anniversary attack was in the works.

It's now been revealed that out of the 4 Americans killed (which of course included the US Ambassador) there were 2 Navy SEALS. Naturally most people, including me, concluded that they were part of the Ambassasdor's security detail. They were not. In fact they were ex SEALS, hired through a private security firm, charged with protecting the data services within the embassy. When the attacks happened they did what SEALS do - they fought back and attempted to get the ambassador clear of the building. This raises what is at the core of the controversy in my opinion - why did two private citizens feel compelled to protect the ambassador? Why was there not beefed up security on the anniversary of 9/11, especially personal security for the ambassador who was known to be on an Al Qeada hit list? Why was the embassy itself simply a convereted civilian home and not a fortress? Various anonymous Intel officials have intamated that the politics of having beefed up American boots on the ground didn't sit well with the president and his administration. What's becoming clear to me is that this You Tube video - 3 months old - served as a convenient way of explaining away how under protected the administration left our embassies due to political considerations. It was "spontaneous"after all, a surprise, how could we prepare for a movie igniting a sudden protest?

Allow me a conspiratorial moment. The administration makes the decision that they will not beef up security so as not to upset the political situation on the ground in these countries where an increased US military presence may cause offense. They know the attacks are possible though, so they have the embassy put out a statement condemning this You Tube video, before any attacks occur. Now, if the attacks come, they have a scape goat as to the cause - nothing's their fault.

Before I close this post I want to address something somewhat more fundamental. I have concluded the video was a scape goat, however, lets say the protests following Benghazi - after the little known video was made famous by the administration - were in fact because of the video, which is entirely possible. I noticed, perhaps you did too, that the statements from the highest levels of our government all included explicit adjectives of condemnation of the video. Not nearly as strong were their condemnations of the violence. Their statements essentially went, This is a haneous, awful, disgusting movie created by a "shadowy character" (the POTUS' words) ... but it doesn't excuse the violence.  In fact, the LA Times op-ed piece today likened any disparaging remarks, video, etc of the Prophet Muhammad to shouting "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. And that since it can lead to direct incitement of violence that perhaps it should be as illegal as the fire euphemism. Now just take a moment and think about this dynamic - these are presumably card carrying members of the ACLU, advocating suppression of the First Amendment because of religious considerations. Hillary Clinton gave a standing ovation at the conclusion of the Broadway play "The Book of Mormon", which takes searing shots at Latter Day Saints. There are countless movies that portray nuns, priests, and even the Pope as sadistic power hungry sociopaths, not to mention "art" displays of the Virgin Mary smeared in feces and the crucifix soaked in urine. Can you imagine if there were any violence, even a single window broken, by Mormons or Catholics? How would the LA Times op-ed read then?

The bottom line is no matter how awful this obscure movie is, it can be defended under the First Amendment, but the murder of four Americans can not be defended under any circumstance. So the fundamental question I want to ask is why the American Left (and by extension the Western Left) feel the need to coddle and excuse Muslim religious extremism?

I have a theory (of course).

Everything I know of what informed the President's formative years tells me that he came to office believing that America had a lot to apologize for. "For the tension between the U.S. and the Muslim world has been fed by colonialism and the Cold War.", he said in his June 2009  "New Beginning" speech in Cairo. This was his first big communication to the world as  the US President. There, he implicitly contrasted George W. Bush's emphasis on universal human rights by admitting that "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone." I believe that a man weened on Jeremiah Wright (listening to tapes on his headphones late into the night); a man influenced by Cass Sunstein and  Bill Ayres; a man mentored by avowed communist Frank Marshall Davis; a man who's father was a member of the communist party of Kenya; a man who's book is entitled Dreams From (not of ) My Father - implying they were dreams passed in to his ideology; that a man who readily stated in 2000 that the Constitution was a charter of negative liberties; a man whom has routinely proved he sees our founding document as an obstacle to overcome not adhered to; that this man feels the West in general, and the United States in specific, gained its' position in the world illegitimately. And that quite frankly those whom we have oppressed - in this case the Muslim world - have a legitimate beef. We've been "takers", oppressors, exploiters, gluttons on the world stage and now we're simply getting our much deserved, long over due "come up-ins." That our chickens are coming home to roost. And I believe this notion permeates the entire hard Left of this nation. They find some odd connection with Muslim rage because they share a common disdain for American preeminence. 

And in the President's view he is not about to defend the indefensible - America.

I have my pencil...

The litany of why I (or anyone here) thinks Obama should not get another four years is long... very long.  Save your brother the hassle and simply send him the link to this page.  Jeez... why make the boy work for it?

Now, would it be rude of me to ask for a response to my earlier post?

I ask (again) for this response because it is still pertinent to the subject.  Today, while picking up my son from school, I listened to Ingraham on the radio.  She had nearly an hour of discussion (far more rational than Levin's) about why Romney is avoiding the topic of reduced taxes should he win the White House.  The example her and her guests kept using was Reagan's reduction of taxes once he won in 1980.

My question (should you have missed it) is:  Reagan only lowered taxes in 1981/82... he raised them again in 1983, and by 1987, they were back to 88% of what they were for everyone earning less than $200,000 under Carter, while those earning more than $200k were paying only 33% of what they were under Carter.  If Reagan's paradigm WORKED (and I maintain it did), then why wouldn't we follow it WITHOUT the empty promise of lower taxes for EVERYONE?  WHY is there this blatant false understanding of exactly what Reagan did and didn't do?  Why this insistence on making it seem like he slashed taxes and never raised them again?  There is NO empirical evidence that shows that government revenues went UP in 1981/82 (that I can find anyway)... the revenues went UP after 1985... once taxes were raised (for the second time) and the capital gains tax was back in place.  Yes, ALL taxes were lowered, especially initially in 1981... and he did deliver on his promise with that reduction... but by 1984, they were up again and would rise two more times before he left office.

The genius of Reagan's plans was that he had finally figured out what J. M. Keynes had been saying since the 1920s... finding a balanced budget doesn't depend on the percentage of taxes levied by the government, but by the number of taxpayers contributing to the bill.  More people paying in, the less each individual has to contribute to meet the same revenue threshold.  I readily admit that NO PRESIDENT prior to Reagan had this understanding, especially FDR.  No President after Reagan managed it either... which is worse, since they had his example to follow.

So, Reagan lowered taxes to jump-start the economy.  Nothing happened, and Fed revenues took a nosedive.  Deficits were through the roof... literally.  Then, he raised taxes (slowly) over six years, while also reducing spending by the government.  By the end of his second term, spending was down more than 12% and the rate at which government grew was reduced to the lowest it had been since before Teddy Roosevelt.  There were still deficits... he never managed to balance the budget... but they were a far smaller percentage of our GNP than anything we had seen in the forty years prior to his terms.

Could it be that Romney is avoiding the topic of tax reductions because he and Ryan finally understand this as well?  Could we finally see real "Reagan Republicans" running for office?  If that is true, then they need to sing it from the highest mountain tops because THAT is what is going to get them elected.

"I should have brought a pencil."

So my brother comes by the other day and was looking for some rhetorical ammo to fire at his debate adversary from work. It would seem that the Obama supporting colleague was enamored with the president's decision to kill Bin Laden, and wanted to know what exactly Obama has done that's "so bad."  My brother was caught off guard as to an off the top of his head run down. This is a byproduct of being surrounded by my family - one rarely has to justify his disapproval of Obama.

In an effort to aide my brother, I gave him a quick run down - off  the top of my head - including a stat that I very recently heard which was so staggering to me I felt compelled to repeat it here, along with the short list I gave my brother.

The national average for a gallon of gasoline in January of 2008 was $1.86. It's now $3.45, more than double. The POTUS signed an executive order closing GITMO his first day in office, it's still open. For the first time in US history America's credit rating was down graded from AAA to AA. For the second time in US history America's credit rating was downgraded, this time from AA to -AA. Under Obama's confused foreign policy America has lost Egypt as an ally while Iran has gained uranium. The president's own words just two days ago were, "...Egypt is neither an ally nor an enemy." Setting aside my opinion that there is no neutral in North Africa, I'd say this is a man attempting to walk back his support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Iran is nearing 20% enrichment of uranium - the red line number at which no one can stop them from achieving weaponizing - with no clear policy objective from Washington on how to stop them. Unemployment has never dropped below 8%, something he assured Americans would happen after QE1. We're now on QE3 (that's Quantitative Easing, or put plainly, printing money to give banks in the hopes that they will loan it out to business and business will hire you and me. And here I thought Leftists didn't believe in trickle down economics). The yearly cost of health insurance premiums has risen on average by $2,500, per family. A record 98 million Americans now receive some form of federal or state benefit, that's nearly 1 in 3. When Dubya left office 17 million Americans were on food stamps. That number under Obama has reached 47 million. He has spent more money in 3 1/2 years than the adjusted dollars spent by President George Washington to President George H. Bush, combined. George W set a debt accumulation record of 4.9 Trillion in 8 years. Obama is at 4.4 Trillion, in just over 3 years. And this spending figure does not account for implementation of the benefit portion of Obamacare, scheduled for 2014. It should be noted, Obama promised to cut the national debt in half by the end of his first term. It was at 12 Trillion when he assumed office. It stands now at 16.4 Trillion. The man whom promised to improve America's image around the world, in particular the Muslim world, has seen no les than 4 embassies attacked this week, two overrun, and one US Ambassador murdered - the first such assassination in 30+ years. And most damning of all, the number you will never hear reported even though Bush was routinely crucified for it - according to DoD records 70% of all US military casualties in the Afghanistan war occurred within the last 3 1/2 years. 80% of all those wounded were wounded in the last 3 1/2 years (source). Where have you heard that reported? Thinking of it in that context I almost don't blame my brother's coworker for not knowing. If he simply watches the nightly news or reads the occasional online headline, how could he?

By the way,  the title quotes my brother as I paused to catch my breath. I hope he has a better day at work tomorrow. But hey, in this economy, at least he's employed.

On the end of the Arab Spring...

Since these embassy attacks began on 9/11, I can't help but notice something very disturbing...

The rumors and accusations associated with where the responsibility rests for the attacks are many and varied beyond belief.  Did the President know of the danger?  Did the Department of State ignore intelligence that said the attacks might happen?  What were the circumstances of the death of Ambassador Stevens, and how is the death effecting State Dept. efforts in the region?

It is exactly this sort of firestorm that can result from a foreign policy agenda that is too concerned with international perception and not concerned enough with US interests abroad.  While I am not typically a fan of calls for Congressional investigations, I'm beginning to feel this situation might warrant one rather badly.

When the leaders of nations such as Libya, Egypt, India, Sudan, et al, fail to see the danger in allowing mob violence to dominate their foreign relations efforts and obligations, and refuse to recognize the difference between a society that embraces "free speech" from one that endorses and supports ethnic and racial hatred... all the while retaining and exercising the right to protest America by burning flags or effigies whenever the urge hits them... certainly do not seem like the sorts of leaders, or even societies, that the US should be investing tens of billions of dollars in on an annual basis.  In short, if these places can't see where their bread is getting buttered (or even who is giving them the bread in the first place!), then the tap needs to be cut off.  I heard both the SoS and the President talk about how important it was to continue to support the "new democratic" governments in places like Libya and Egypt, and that "knee-jerk" reactions will do more harm than good... but not reacting at all would be the WORST alternative I can imagine.

F. Ryan's initial reaction to the news was to see it as a declaration of war... and justly so... but I think it would be a more effective reaction to simply see it for what it is:  a declaration of an end to diplomatic relations, since all diplomatic relations between nations flow through the embassies and consulates that the mobs are attacking.  If the mobs want to burn the embassies, I say pull our people out and let them burn the places to the ground.  When those same mobs are looking for money/food/medicine/aid/whatever... let them turn to the ash and rubble that was their avenue of assistance and ask.  If the new leadership of those same nations want to ask for help or support, they can turn to the same ash heaps and ponder on the obligations expected as a "host nation" and learn to implement better security measures in the future.

And if there are any "liberals" out there asking why it would be okay for the US to ignore the cries and pleas from starving Libyan or Egyptian children who need US aide while this diplomatic "vacuum" was sorted out... I'd have them discuss the issue with the family of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three other Embassy staff members who died at the hands of the mobs.

And now, for something completely different...

I love this kind of thing...

I read this today.  Imagine, finding Richard III after more than 500 years... and confirming what tradition (and Bill Shakespeare) have told us for centuries... that he was a hunchback.

I'd even go so far as to compare this with the finding of Tutankhamen... for the English.  A king, killed in battle at the end of an important dynastic age, revered by as many as reviled him, lost to the ages after the destruction of the monasteries by Henry VIII, found again under a parking lot.  If the DNA tests come back positive, we will see the first royal burial in England since 1951... for a king that has been dead more than half a millennia.

To think we could live to see the last Plantagenet king of England buried again... that's friggin' cool.

On Warships...

I understand your frustration, brother... fully.  How frustrating can it be to know the two nations we supported the most during the "Arab Spring" revolutions are turning on us over a stupid You Tube video?

I'm wondering, tho... the warships are there.  Two of them, in fact, with a contingent of the USMC's finest counter-terrorism troops.  What would you have them do?

To the best of my knowledge, the Libyan government had police and armed soldiers trying to stop the violence, but they were overwhelmed by sheer force of numbers.  The same with the Egyptian and Yemen embassies.  I can't see sending in cruise missiles or dropping sticks of elite US forces to combat mob violence.

I'm wondering why US embassies in the region were caught so unaware, especially on the date this was all happening... 9/11.  I would have thought that security would have been at an all-time high in ALL these embassies and consulates... regardless of criticisms over internet movies.

Here's the test I'm going to use...

Obama needs to pull ALL embassy personnel out of the countries in question, and any other that flairs up with similar violent protest, and until order is restored, END ALL AID AND ASSISTANCE to the said countries, beginning with Libya and Egypt.  No trade, no money, no economic support, no use of US facilities, ports, banks or institutions.  When those ultimately responsible for the deaths are turned over to justice, then we can talk about reinstating what was suspended.

Show us you WANT US support and assistance, and it will be provided.  Show us you hate us, or (worse) can't control your own nation's violent tendencies, and learn to survive without anything from us.

Are you listening, Mr. President?

Where are the warships?

An act of war has been perpetrated on the United States. From time and memorial the assassination of an ambassador has been an open declaration of war. I woke up to the news that two US embassies have been over run - in Egypt and Lybia. In Lybia the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and two others, were murdered as they tried to flee the consulate. The ambassador was suffocated. Let that sink in - he was smothered to death, up close and personal. It started late Tuesday ... 9/11.

Message received.

This coincides with Israeli PM Netanyahu's open feud with President Obama on when the world will issue a "redline" for Iran, a here and no further demarcation for military action. Israel has said the line should be 20% uranium enrichment, above which would indicate a use other than simple energy use. Our madam SoS said flatly, there will be no redline from the US. Netanyahu responded, "Those unwilling to put a redline in front of Iran, have no right to put a redlight in front of Israel." I agree. The Israeli PM requested to meet in person with the President at the end of this month to discuss the situation. The White House denied the request ... he won't even meet with the man. Yet this month the head of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood will have that face to face meeting, as will David Letterman.

Now here is how these two stories relate ... every Friday the Iranian president participates in the death to America rallies, and routinely, explicitly, articulates the need to wipe Israel off the map. And do you know what started the embassy attacks? An Israeli-American from California posted a You Tube video that supposedly disrespected Mohammad. My point is I am SICK AND TIRED of the West giving the Muslim world a pass on literal and rhetorical barbarism while Israel gets hammered for using rubber bullets on a flotilla and the US is widely condemned for GITMO. What the HELL is wrong with Western Civilization? Europe, the US et al, what is wrong with you? Leftists and media outlets uphold this draconian double standard and the rest of us allow it. By all definitions Sharia Law is a 7th Century mind set. By modern Western standards it allows murder, rape, the subjugation and mutilation of women, racism, and intolerance on a level that should leave any sane person breathless. Don't give me Abu Graib, GITMO, Israel's "disproportionate" response, or Predator Drone collateral damage - WE ARE DEALING WITH ABSOLUTE BARBARIANS. And brother, they are at the gates.

One lesson any student of history should embrace when it comes to the tale of human tragedy  - when a madman stands up and makes a threat, believe him. I predict that Israel will hit Iran's facilities before the November election. Others have suggested this is a win/win for Netenyahu because Obama will need to look like a supporter of Israel while in the middle of a contentious reelection campaign. I disagree, that's not why they'll hit before November. They'll hit Iran because the prospect of genocide is not theoretical for the them. They believe the threats of mad men.

Today...

No politics. No sports.  Today is a special day.

God Bless the USA.

God Bless the Military and all who serve.

God Bless the victims and their families.

I won't forget...

On Scars...

Please, don't think I don't "wax nostalgic" at memories of the old days, before Katrina.  It isn't just missing family and friends, because I do... it is missing the security and comfort of being "established".

After more than six years in NEPA, I'm only just now starting to feel like this is "home".  I have managed to cultivate a crop of friends that are the very "salt of the earth", I have neighbors and co-workers that I enjoy spending time with that probably aren't "close" by any means of the word.  I'm secure in my job (or as secure as anyone can be) with a solid seniority status that is growing in value each year I stay here.

As far as I am concerned, what changed more than anything else after the storm was my fiscal security.  I could afford, in my pre-storm life, a $1200/month mortgage, a $400/month truck note, and all the rest very nearly disposable income.  Now, my house note is less than $600, my truck is paid for... and I still don't have two nickles to rub together.  What I do have is three beautiful kids, a rambling old house that I really do sort of (in a sick way) love, a loving wife, and a very busy schedule that is almost never mine alone.  Any break in what I have coming into my accounts now is 20 times the tragedy that it was in 2005... and my circumstances in the months that followed the storm is very good evidence of that.

Our (meaning more than just me and my family, but all the Bund-extended brotherhood) circumstances really boil down to the simple fact that our personal "Great Recession" started in Sept of '05... and still have not recovered to what they were in Aug of '05.  The rest of the country felt this in '08... but ours started early, and has lasted longer.  Even scattered across the American landscape as we are, were the fiscal means available to us that we had back in '05 still with each of us, visits and get-togethers would be far more common and frequent, don't you think?

To continue...

More on taxes...

To follow my last thought, Reagan raised taxes in four times in his last six years in office.  His only "lowering of taxes" was in 1981.  Yet revenues for the Fed went up each year he was in office.  Today, we are told this is due to his understanding of the Laffer Curve, but I'm beginning to question that.

I don't question the premise of the curve... it is simply common sense and mathematically proven beyond question... but simply saying that lowering taxes always increases revenue is NOT showing any understanding of the curve.  By making the same argument over and over again ("lower taxes means more revenue") we are ignoring the "curve" and instead making the case that it is nothing more than a rising vector... which it is not.

History shows us this is, indeed, the case.  Bush Sr. needed to better understand this "curve" so he could have avoided the "read my lips" gaff... he did increase taxes, revenues continued to climb through every one of his years in office, and they continued to climb through the next two administrations, as well... with even higher rates.

The long and short of it is, even if Obama got what he wanted... taxes to return to pre-Bush (Jr.) levels (meaning Clinton era levels), they would still be lower then they were in 1988, when Reagan left office.  Reagan's rates in '88 were between 21% and 22%... through Clinton's eight years, they averaged less than 20%. (Source HERE)  We can talk about the point at which the revenues for the Fed start to fall off on the Curve all day long... they might be 68% (under LBJ) or 75% (under FDR) or 50% (under Carter)... but they are all far higher than what we were paying prior to 2002 (39% top rate) and the economy was booming like it had never done before.

The difference, in my opinion, wasn't TAXES... it was the way in which the Government spent money.  The GOP Congress in 1994 brought into effect the Pay as You Go Act... and nothing turned the US economy around like a government that had spending under control.  Yes, that is what I am saying happened.  If the bill trying to be made into law couldn't pay for itself, then it didn't pass the House and Senate floors.  Today, that is seen as potentially dozens of small tax hikes spread over a four year time frame... it doesn't even seem to be what the GOP wants, let alone the Dems... but history shows us that it works.

Frankly, I simply do not see how we can reduce or eliminate the deficit without a tax hike in our future.  I'm not saying that we need Carter-era rates simply to maintain the rate of spending today... but reduced spending coupled with small, limited tax increases will do for us what they did for Reagan in 1988.  His plan was for every $1 in tax rate increases, there would be a $3 reduction in spending.  Why wouldn't THAT work now?  Why isn't THAT the Reagan model we are shooting for?

We really need to stop calling Obama the "tax and spend" President... his rates for the first term are far lower than the President that the GOP touts as the "yardstick" of fiscal conservatism.  We're probably pretty lucky THAT has not been a focus of Democratic campaign headlines, right?

Let's play a game...

I'm going to make some rather serious posts in the next coming days.  Let me tell you why...

I was driving home last night (Friday night) and was listening to Levin on the radio.  He was, of course, beating up Obama and beating up anyone calling in to his show, conservative or otherwise.  His discourse (I can't call it a discussion) brought up several points that struck me as more than odd, so I spent hours last night after I got home checking on what he said.

I know F. Ryan and Jambo are both busy people... but I'm really hoping there is some time for both of them to chime in as I post and check my thinking.  The game I want to play?  Let's look as closely at the Romney-Ryan campaign promises and the conservative agenda (as it stands now in 2012) as we have with what the Democrats are saying and doing.  As I do this, I'm hoping Ryan can rebut or counter my questions, and Jambo can offer some objective rationale as it is needed.  We have all spent time criticizing Obama's policies and agendas, but after hearing Levin last night, I'm wondering how much "Kool Aid" we are drinking by simply accepting as gospel all that the conservative realm tells us.  I'm not singling out Levin here, either... I'm rapidly growing very very tired of Beck's fixation (bordering on obsession) with the term "progressive".  And I still have unanswered questions about statements made by the Romney-Ryan camp since the GOP convention.


So, I'm simply going to begin.

Let's look at the single biggest issue between the two candidates and their parties as I understand it to be:

TAXES.

Obama has said he wants taxes raised, mostly for those individuals making more than $250k annually.  He wants to do this to raise revenue for the Federal government, without massive spending cuts.

Romney-Ryan want to (at best) cut taxes, or (at least) leave them where they were since Bush's tax cuts in 2002.  They insist this will increase revenue by stimulating economic growth and generating a greater income tax base.  They give credit for their idea/plan by calling it "Reaganomics"... or at least harkening back to those heady days when Ron Reagan was at the helm.

Can we take a look at this, just a little bit closer?  Bare with me here...

Dec. 1980.  US Prime lending interest rate hits the all-time high of 21.5%... meaning, in short, that borrowing money had become more expensive than at any other time in American history.  To counter this, Fed Chair Paul Volker sets interest rates at an all-time high, too.  By the time Reagan is sworn in, Fed revenues will fall short enough to make the biggest deficit to date.  Reagan cuts taxes.  It's a big cut, too.  What happens?

Nothing.  Really... nothing happens.  The first full year that the tax cuts were in place (so by the end of 1982), the growth rate of the GDP was -8.9%. Unemployment had risen 1.1%.

Ahhh... but then, what happened?  The Fed dropped rates to below 11% for the first time in almost 6 years, and by the end of the next calendar year, the GDP had grown 5%.  By the '84 elections, the GDP was 34% bigger than it was when Ron took office.  Good news, huh?   What else happened in 1982, BEFORE the "recovery" began?

Reagan signed into Law the Tax Equality and Fiscal Responsibility Act 1982, which was the single largest tax increase in US history to that date.  Reagan raised taxes, but reduced spending, and thus reduced the deficit by increasing revenue AND slowing spending.  This is important... the TEFRA increased revenue by raising taxes, which was 100% contrary to what Reagan promised would happen when he detailed the Laffer Curve during his election campaign and his first year in office.

So, which was actually responsible for the "boom" that followed the Reagan Era?  Was it the tax cuts that were all but erased in 1982/83, or the Federal Reserve interest rate manipulation?  One is squarely on the shoulders of the CIC... the other is utterly out of his control.

Reagan came into a disastrous economy, and did what it took to turn it around.  The size of government grew at roughly 2.3% for his first term.  GDP growth averaged 5.1% his first term.  Taxes ended up roughly 1.7% lower across the board, but the only real cuts were to the poorest of Americans when he raised the tax threshold to $12k/year.

Obama's also came into a troubled economy.  Government has grown at a rate LOWER than Reagan's did... 2.2% in his first term.  GDP has grown at a rate of 15.9% in the first three years... substantially better than Reagan.  Taxes remain the same (for now) at 2002 levels... just where Bush Jr. had them.

The big difference is the national debt as a percentage of GDP.  When Reagan came into office, it was roughly 33% of GDP, and when he left it was a whopping 52%.  When Obama came into office it was 86%, and now sits just over 101% of GDP.  According to my math, Reagan increased the debt by 37%, while Obama has increased it by only 15%... so how does that jibe with what we keep hearing about "fiscal responsibility?"

I hope you all see the disparity here.  I'm NOT voting for Obama... but I'd like this discussed, at length if it isn't too much trouble.  I'm confident that less spending is the best road... but how to get there?  Lower taxes would be nice, but a balanced budget WON'T happen unless we raise taxes significantly over the short term, or slightly over the very long term.

Am I wrong?

Scars... Admittedly a bit late.

I think the final tally on hours lost comes to three full shifts. That's a lot, considering I am part time and I am scheduled eight shifts max in a pay period. This check is going to suck.

 I have commented in the past about scars, symptoms of trauma, crap like that. I try to be pro-active about anniversaries... If you don't like a date because shit happened that time last year or two years ago or a decade, then do something to change it. Me? My divorce was finalized Aug 29, 2008. So when Isaac was pissing on us I looked around and thought, "Shit, didn't those four years fly by?"

 What makes me kind of quiet and sad is the inevitable reality of the post storm world. Our Bund scattered to the wind seven years ago. I've seen Ryan and Titus twice in the time period. Neither Titus nor I have seen Ryan's kids in seven years. Titus hasn't seen mine in six years. The people I work with now, out of the literally hundreds, less than five were veterans of the shift Titus, Ryan and I worked. Scattered. Other things cause the occasional pang. Shift pitchers at Famous Joe's. Tournament dealing. Ms. Selma jokes. Watching Mic chase the ball rolling off Titus' roof. When people move, there is a chance they come back to visit, and you can see places you haunted in the past and have an anchor point, a "I was Here" moment that plots a GPS marker on the path of life. But the storm took all that away. No revisiting. No GPS marker. Except for fading memories, it's a world that has no physical trace except for before and after pictures. Sad.

 Oh well. My exercise in nostalgia is done. Next Aug 29 Carpe Diem.

No surprise...

Of course, Ryan latches on to the ONLY reference to a Democratic President in the entire speech... and that a reference to FDR.  I would expect no less, mores the pity.

Want to find something to be afraid of?  How about the over-all nature of the entire speech?  How about the vast amount of coverage it is getting this morning compared to what came out of the RNC last week?  How about the enthusiasm it is garnering in otherwise rather tepid circles?

I listened to the entire thing.  It was a good speech, and it was very well given.  Obama did a masterful job of making himself seem personable, friendly, enthusiastic and energetic... all at the same time.  He mocked the "right" while ignoring the "left", all without making anyone but Romney and Ryan into specific examples.  He brought the baggage of special interest into the ring by touching on gay marriage, coverage for birth control and abortions, amnesty for illegals, the future of Medicare and unemployment coverage... all without addressing them, but only as examples of GOP intolerance and bigotry.

He is very, very good at purposely misleading the issues in the eyes of his audience.  He spoke of the GOP's drive to keep "health" decision choices out of women's hands, when that is NOT NOW, nor has it EVER BEEN the issue with the GOP.  It isn't a question of whether a woman can obtain birth control or abortions if she should choose... she can, in all fifty States.  It is a question of whether or not the Government is going to guaranty coverage for such proceedings through insurance providers.  He (or his speech writers, I should say... no way did he write that!) made sure that was NOT touched on, only the narrow, intolerant "Not gonna happen!" attitude that he wants to portray as the GOP platform.

He did something else in the speech that is very rare nowadays... He specifically addressed conservative claims and concerns about his positions.  He did it very well, too.

He admitted to wanting to raise taxes on those making more than $250k, but did so by saying:  "I want to reform the tax code so that it's simple, fair,and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000, the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president; the same rate we had when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and a whole lot of millionaires to boot."  Masterfully done!  He is not admitting to wanting to do anything that hasn't already worked in the past.  It worked in Clinton's second term, it will work here.

When conservatives call out Obama on expanding government, or that he is of the opinion that more government solves everything (something we've all said here, too), he says:  "We don't think the government can solve all our problems. But we don't think that the government is the source of all our problems, any more than are welfare recipients, or corporations, or unions, or immigrants, or gays, or any other group we're told to blame for our troubles. "  In other words, government isn't the problem, as Reagan said it was... anymore than the rest of the "bad things" the GOP keeps rambling on about.  He even included "corporations" in his list, which is NOT something I've ever heard a conservative call a "problem" in the past.

He went on to say:  "We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone. We don't want handouts for people who refuse to help themselves, and we certainly don't want bailouts for banks that break the rules."  I assume this is an attempt to put to rest the question of how to get people OFF of the dole, once they are on.  He has made himself seem rationally opposed to "lifetime welfare"... but gives no specifics at all as to how to avoid the trap.  This is borderline brilliant, in my opinion.

Finally, he said:  "We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense. As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. That's what we believe."  How many times have you heard Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, rant about "rights with no responsibilities" when discussing the Democrat's fascination with the "nanny state"?  He took Kennedy's famous line and twisted it perfectly to fit into the liberal agenda WITHOUT making it impossible for moderates... or even conservatives... to support the words, if not the sentiment they were given in.

He did this again in the speech when he quoted the very first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln.  And again, when he quoted Dwight Eisenhower.

This was a great speech for him.  He'll see real "bounce" off this, and you KNOW it will be quoted ad nauseum for the rest of the campaign.

Fear and Loathing in Charlotte

The President's speech ... no line from its' delivery should scare - and I mean literally cause fear, a shudder down the spines of Americans - than the following:

" And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one."

Forget any notion that I'm simply beating up on FDR. Been there. Done that. Won that (hehe). However, there is a school of thought out there that I lend some credence to, that it was not WWII, alone, that ended the era of depression, recessions, and unemployment collectively referred to as the Great Depression. It contends that more than high taxes or massive regulation, a free market can not abide one thing above all - unpredictability from its' government. Many of FDR's deals, taxes, tariffs, and various government excursions into the private sector had yearly sunsets attached. They were in constant need of renewal. In addition, he routinely rolled out new plans meant to either replace, remove or build upon old ones (both via rhetoric and signed law). Add to this that along the way one law after another was tossed out or confirmed by the SCOTUS (the many challenges a result of his routinely pushing the boundaries of Constitutionality). Businesses had no idea whether this years law would apply next year. And that uncertainty had one effect - it was paralyzing. FDR was quite literally "experimenting" from a socialist (and that's what the man was, his second bill of rights speech makes that abundantly clear to even the casual observer of history) rolodex of ideas, plans and programs born of an ideology that governments should be in the business of guaranteeing results.

This theory then goes on to conclude that the markets finally went into legitimate, sustainable recovery upon FDR's death. Truman did not continue the model of yearly experimentation, of routine, radical roll outs. I'm not saying he massively rolled back what was law. But he did end the cycle of year in and year out roll outs of new, untried, plans (or "deals"). In other words, had FDR lived, America's post war boom would have never occurred - his style of governance was simply too unpredictable for markets to catch their breath (as a side note to this theory I would contend that attempting his second bill of rights, no matter how slowly or deliberate, would have been a death knell to the post war American economy).

At any rate, fast forward, and here we are again. This president, not content with passing the largest unpredictable - in its many phases, multi year roll outs, and uncertain interpretations - new mandate in US history via Obamacare, he has now flatly promised to continue "experimenting" with solutions, solutions provided by, guided by, an eerily similar ideology to the man he seems to so admire (I mean FDR, not Lenin ... although...).

Just think about that line, that word: experiment. Experiment? An avowed "I think it works better when you spread the wealth around" ideologue has a plan. It's big. It's audacious. And here it is - he's going to EXPERIMENT with the US economy. Well I feel better already. You're going to experiment. Gotcha. No worries. I'm sure the market loves the idea of experimenting. I'm telling you friends, this line of reasoning (if you can call it that) goes hand in hand with "fundamentally transforming America." Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market, individualism over collectivism, private property rights, the basic tenets of the Constitution, all of this, in his view, leaves too much up to chance. It doesn't say "what the government must do on your behalf." These ideas, those notions aren't in the business of guaranteeing results, only process. And he finds that insufficient. Antiquated. Those are cute, quaint little ideas from "the era of black and white television" (as he described the RNC convention). And tonight he promised to experiment with alternative models until he finds one that "works."

So ask yourself, with this promise on the table, how many "bold experiments" could we expect to see rolled out in an Obama second term? To paraphrase a truly eloquent "Bill",  dear friends, pray you avoid this place.

Bill still has it, huh?

Man, can that guy get a crowd riled up.

Still, everyone knew he could talk, and he has only gotten better since that now infamous camera-spot... "I did not have sex with that woman."  (Side note:  Funny how a party so enamored with leftist/liberal groups like NOW and the LoWV can so easily forget that the man lied under oath and was subsequently disbarred from legal practice because of an extra-marital affair during his terms and more than five accusations of sexual misconduct/assault over the course of his political career...)

What I found amazing were two facets of his speech.  First, his ability to give a speech nominating and supporting Barack Obama as President, while managing to plug himself and his former administrations as often as humanly possible without nominating himself.  Out of a 49 minute speech, he must have patted himself on the back at least 18 times, repeatedly comparing the last four years to his eight in office.  I can't fault this, though.  Clinton's legacy is very positive, and connecting this administration's policies to those that Clinton/Gore managed is probably a good strategy.  After all, outside of Clinton, how many "popular" Democratic Presidents have there been in the last fifty years?  They really don't have much success to point to, do they?

Secondly, his zingers.  The guy ripped on the GOP and the Romney/Ryan camp repeatedly, using some pretty harsh words... but he did it with a smile, and never making himself seem like the "hateful" sort of politician that the GOP keeps promoting (his words).  These were world-class slams, mind you... measurable and specific without the need of "quotes" and readily understood to anyone listening... withotu ever managing to sound harsh, bitter or vindictive.  He slapped the GOP while Romney (I think) went out of his way to sound conciliatory to the Dems... which will now be weighed against the DNC speeches.

This was an important speech, and I think Bill did a good job for the Dems.

Michelle's speech...

They said she stole the show... and I believe it.  She gave a great speech.  I loved it.  And I am not being sarcastic.

Here's what I loved about Michelle Obama's speech:

She showed me the value of a hard day's work and an honest, fair wage.  She showed me the success that comes from working towards goals with dignity and determination.  She laid out the importance of a charitable heart in today's society.  She used herself and her husband as a prime example of the limitless nature that American values offer those that do more than simply give it lip-service, but instead live them each and every day.

She should have been giving the speech at the RNC... rather than the DNC.

This speech was great because it took almost EVERY aspect of the conservative agenda and applied it to why the President's plans and policies need another four years.  She detailed the manner and means by which her father put her through college when he didn't have the money himself by taking out and repaying student loans, always on-time.  She told of how he worked hard through a disabling disease to ensure a happy, healthy home for his children.  She explained his integrity and honesty through examples of his pride in and commitment to his children's education and success outside of the home.

She went on to detail how hard her husband worked to come from humble beginnings to the pinnacle of political power, and how he hasn't compromised his principles along the way.  The same man that drove the rusty car and wore shoes a half size too small is sitting right now in the Oval Office awaiting my vote to keep him doing the job that so desperately needs to be done.

How badly has the GOP lost the message, when the First Lady does a better job of selling the "conservative ideal" than the GOP candidates at the RNC?  Is anyone going to point out that both Barack's and her own success came to them even though Obama wasn't President yet?  They succeeded during (and because of, I feel) the policies and agendas put in place during the early 80's... and that means under the leadership of Reagan himself.  How many times have we here compared Michelle's own actions and agendas to those of Nancy Reagan?  Nancy said "Say NO to drugs!" while Michelle says "Say NO to fast food!"  Why the change?  Because Nancy's efforts are still working today, and drug use has been reduced in this country.  The same "choices" in women's health decisions that Michelle spoke of last night exist now, just as they did in the 1980s... nothing has changed, and those choices have grown exponentially, in fact.

She told us that without student loans, neither she nor her husband would have been able to go to college.  That is very possibly true, but it is no less of a factor now than it was then.  They GOT the loans through Federally guaranteed institutions then, and the same loans are available today to even more young adults.  The difference is that the cost of a university education has increased 125% faster than the cost of living has increased.  The knowledge hasn't gotten more expensive... but the people that teach it have, thanks in large part to the unions they belong to.  I feel this was dramatically demonstrated in my home State of Wisconsin just last year.  She, of course, failed to mention this... as I'm sure a large portion of her supporters are members of the NEA.

The long and short of it is simply that the Dems have decided to present their message in the most appealing and expedient manner they can... and they are gaining some real success in their efforts.  They seem to have realized that the public wants clear, measurable details of how things are going to work... and if the rest of the speakers at the DNC follow Michelle's lead, they will have even more success.  They are selling the American Dream as the DNC plan... whether it is true or not.

The GOP had better start doing that very, very soon.