Driveway Bund

I don't think you went far enough...

2012-02-11T08:14:00.002-05:00

Your point is sound... I agree with you, but could you have missed something as well?

The issue isn't simply a matter of conscience on the part of Catholics and any other denomination that stands against liberal disregard for the culture of life. It is the misunderstanding that forms the core of the liberal agenda in this nation.

Using the Catholic Church as my example, I present the following:

Of all that the Church teaches its followers on topics such as social justice, welfare and life in this society, I am convinced that at least 90% of it matches exactly what the liberals of this country want most out of our society.

A society without the need of war, armed violence or capital punishment.

A society where no man, woman or child need ever go without food, shelter or medical assistance.

A society where every individual has the right to make his or her own choices in regards to what is best for them and their dependents, without coercion or force.

A society in which the strength of the individual is not based on his or her race, religion, gender, or physical ability, but on the actions and agendas he or she takes in life.

Most importantly, a society in which the sanctity of life is paramount in our understanding of where we fit into the greater scheme of the world. All life is a gift, and all people are unique and priceless beyond words... from the moment they are conceived to the last breath they take in life. That life, in its most vulnerable and fragile forms, is the responsibility of ALL people to protect and nurture... be it in the uterus, in the hospital bed, or sleeping in a cardboard box in an alley.

The Church does not teach that this MUST be the case, however. No one can be compelled to charity and love for their fellow Man, it must be freely given and freely accepted. We all have free will, and we all have the inherent ability to choose our own paths. We can choose to give a portion of our earnings and wealth to those that need it most... but to be compelled to do so by a government not only negates the charity of the act, but lessens the amount of support given in every way imaginable.

The Liberals in this country see religion as a sort of string attached to charity. No one who eats a free dinner at a soup kitchen in a Catholic church's "social hall" is ever required to attend Mass or convert from their heathen ways. The vast majority of the people that Mother Teresa of Calcutta ministered to were Hindus, not Christians, and she never asked even one of the hundreds of thousands that she tended to convert. Her charity to the poorest of the poor was freely given, without requirements or conditions.

Because the Catholic Church teaches "responsibility", it is seen as repressive and backwards. If people make choices, they must be ready to take on the responsibilities associated with those choices... good and bad. But it doesn't teach that the choices should be denied outright... even contraception, which is the main topic behind the most recent headlines. The Church teaches that contraception is contrary to God's Law in that it artificially prevents life to begin in an act that results in nothing else... conception. Its application in an individual's life is up to the individual, however... the Church has neither the right nor the means to deny the individual that choice.

To me, the crux of this whole issue isn't in the details of the agenda... it is in the agenda itself. This is a fine and telling example of why "Obamacare" is doomed to fail: government cannot remove the responsibility attached to choice from the individual and move it to someone else. It cannot dictate the means that any single person must take in making life's choices, nor can it force an individual to provide for someone else to do the same thing.

Ryan's examples were very good... but could they be too remote an example? If free access to contraception is a guaranteed right in this country under Obamacare, then will cosmetic surgery be next? Will I be forced to put up a portion of MY earnings to allow someone working for me to increase their breast size by a factor of ten? Should I be forced to pay for a portion of the cost associated with one of my employees who feels that his hair is getting too thin and wants to get it fixed surgically? Will liposuction become a covered procedure under the terms of the coverage I am forced by law to provide? Facelifts? Penis enlargements? Tattoos?

Obama's argument for this coverage under his healthcare reform plan was that preventing unwanted pregnancies saves the system money. My counter would be that no form of contraception is 100% effective, yet making all forms available will only promote the "act" that makes pregnancy possible in the first place, while adding the medically-proven fact that hormonal contraception is directly linked to breast cancer and that implant contraception causes scaring and loss of fertility to the mathematics of the process, too.

It is as simple as this: this sort of policy promotes the idea that we can live a life of free choice without cost or repercussion, and that this is somehow an inherent "right" promised to us by our government.

That is simply false, from start to finish.

All men of conscience are missing the point here...

2012-02-10T21:12:00.004-05:00

Yes, the Catholic Church and all those who stand with them are 100% correct to fight this "demand" of Il Duce-in-chief. However, we need to back up a step so that we don't allow the table to be set for another unconstitutional "compliance order."

Is the current issue a real violation (ahem, ACLU) of the seperation of Church and State? Yes. However, if I am a Catholic and I open up a deli, I should not be compelled to provide health insurance for my employees that cover contraceptives, abortion, or sex changes. I should be able to object on grounds that it violates my faith, my conscience, as a business owner. And a step back from that we should not lose sight of the fact that as an individual - much like the Amish can opt out of social Security - I should be able to opt out of being compelled (at the threat of fines and jail time as Obamacare provides for) to purchase health insurance, PERIOD. What next? Can you compel an individual owner of a Kosher Deli to do business on the Sabbath? Can they compel a Mormon restaurant owner to provide coffee on the grounds that their non-purchase affects the interstate commerce of coffee beans? Or make a young Mennonite man pick up an M-16 for his country? Or an athiest to buy a Christmas tree and presents on the grounds that his local vendors need the holiday sales boost?

I am all for the fight the Church is waging. Lets us just be sure though not to let the administration draw their line in the sand so deep into unconstitutional territory that in the resulting "compromise" we allow them to to be a just a "few feet" inside. Then we will have won the battle, but lost the war.

Man, my wife is PISSED!

2012-02-08T07:54:00.002-05:00

PA Governor Thomas Corbett (R) has proposed a budget this week that cuts higher education costs for the Commonwealth by more than 25%... and that means our bill for Katey's university education is going up again.

All of our gut reactions here are probably understandable... at $16k a year, Mansfield University is one of the more "affordable" State-schools we can send her to, and we want it to be as easy (meaning cheap) as possible for us. Knowing that we face the prospect of next year's bill being $20k makes all of us unhappy.

I can't blame her for having that initial reaction... blaming Republicans, I mean. I wasn't able to rationally defend the position that it isn't the Federal government's "job" to provide an affordable education to all its citizens. It is only their job to provide the opportunity for that education. So, I took a few minutes and found out some interesting information that I think all of the Commonwealth's universities will need to ponder in the coming years.

There is a small college in Ohio called Antioch College that was formed more than 160 years ago, and that recently saw its enrollment fall to less than 40 students. In an effort to correct that glaring issue, as well as increase its endowment and alumni base, it is offering any student that enrolls over the next three years FREE TUITION. That's right... no tuition costs at all (a savings of $106,000 by their current fee schedule) and all you pay for your degree is housing and board costs. By Antioch's estimates, they will have a full student compliment by this time next year, and for the next three years, and can then look to build on the endowment and make some much needed improvements to the college.

The Milwaukee School of Engineering is also struggling to get its enrollment up. It has seen a drop of more than 65% in new student enrollment over the last 10 years, and expects funding from the State of Wisconsin to fall by as much as 40% in the next two years. In order to increase the student body and grow their endowment, they are offering anyone that graduates with a BA/BS and maintains a strong GPA a zero-tuition Masters degree program. Basically, a buy-one-get-one free degree program that can save engineering students as much as $80,000 over the course of 6 years.

THIS is the solution to the tuition crisis in this country: the colleges and universities need to make the product they offer better and/or more affordable to attract students to their campuses. If more State-directed colleges followed their private counterpart's lead, I think this problem would sort itself out rather quickly. For example, University of Pennsylvania has an average tuition cost for PA residents of just over $50k per year, making a four year degree a $200k expense. To keep that big number from growing in the next 5 years, UPenn has opted to freeze all wages, salaries and pension contributions at 2011 levels for four years, insuring that tuition costs wouldn't go up because of staff expenses.

When will the rest of the Commonwealth come to the same point?

On Santorum...

2012-02-08T06:46:00.000-05:00

You know... I can't discount the possibility that the Catholic bishops in this nation, having that letter read in each and every parish over the better part of a month, are making one's denomination a factor in this years election.

Typically, the Church encourages the faithful to participate in the democratic process without pushing a particular candidate over another (I'm speaking of the Church as a whole, now... I'm sure there are individual exceptions)... but as Ryan said, a very clear line has been drawn by the Obama administration, and I think many Catholics that considered themselves "compassionate" conservatives are now looking to see who among the candidates is best going to "understand" their anger and frustration.

And Santorum is the only Catholic running.

Santorum Wins!

2012-02-08T02:57:00.002-05:00

How bout' my boy, huh?

How long have I been pushing him as the sensible alternative for Conservatives? Since Thanksgiving? At least since he was at 2% in Iowa, I know that.

I think there is a couple things going on here, but first - you're right Titus. While "Marxist" is a very specific standard that Obama definitionally doesn't meet, the label "socialist" undeniably describes both the man and his belief system.

Now on Santorum ... I do believe the Romney/Gingrich dust up has exposed both of their soft, big-government-tendency, underbellies. In comparison, Santorum has a consistent limited government record. And an unapologetic social conservative resume. And ironically, Obama attacking Catholicism in an election year could help give rise to a Roman Catholic challenger for his job.

By my count (per state delegate count not withstanding) Santorum has won 4 states; Romney 3; and Gingrich 1. Is it too early to start calling Rick the front runner?

Obama is a socialist...

2012-02-05T08:40:00.000-05:00

It is undeniable.

Everyone is focusing on the gospel quote that Obama made recently, wherein he took a passage from Luke and seemingly used it completely out of context. I do think he did just that, but it isn't the misuse of the passage that I am finding interesting... it is the insight that gives us into Obama's thought processes.

Obama's choice to quote Luke 12 at the National Prayer Breakfast this week might have been "out of context" (I'm convinced it was, myself)... but that doesn't make it wrong for him to have done. The beauty and wonder of the Gospels is that they give meaning and inspiration based on the individual reading them, every bit as much as they do to the collective whole of society and history.

I'm far more fascinated by the view into his agenda that the quote offers us.

He said, and I quote: "...but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that,'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required... "

I find it almost tragic that a man that professes to be Christian could equate the blessings "given" by God to each of us as individuals as little more than a resource to be drawn from by the Government. The gifts granted by God in each of our lives are NOT to be seen as part of a great pool that the Fed can dip into each and every time a need is perceived somewhere else in society. Christ taught that the value of the individual was far greater than the value of the society... didn't the shepherd leave the flock unattended while He went in search of the lost lamb? Whom did the Father kill the fatted calf for? Not his faithful sons, but for his prodigal son who had squandered his inheritances and didn't even have shoes on his feet.

Yes, Christ taught us the value and worth of self sacrifice... it is a cornerstone of His ministry... but it is the personal self sacrifice given freely and without coercion that has value. God sees no value in rendering on to Caesar that which is already Caesar's... He sees value in giving that which is outside of the required amount. If the Fed "requires" higher taxes, then it is not a valued effort on our part to give it. However, if the Fed takes only that which it absolutely needs to provide the barest necessities of government (as the Founders intended), then the efforts made by the individual citizens through charitable donations, private organizations, and church groups to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves is both less burdensome on the individual and far, FAR more productive than anything the Fed could do itself.

Obama's quote shows us that the "individual" in his eyes is nothing more than a small, small portion of the far greater resource pool that is the US of A. Successful individuals must pay to support less successful individuals, all to benefit society as a whole and NEVER to benefit either (or any) individual at all. The popular image so ingrained in modern times by campy movie themes is that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one" is so utterly and totally false in its very premise that it should be struck from the hearts of men at every stroke. Ironically, the movie that quote comes from even shows us this... it is the message underlying both THAT movie and its even campier sequel.

Just one more bit of evidence that this modern day we live in is based totally on a "catch-phrase" understanding of history and morality... and that even our President employs this understanding.

On Romney's taxes...

2012-02-03T07:29:00.002-05:00

I was surprised that so much news print today was still dedicated to Romney's tax returns... so I read some of the articles. I must admit, if nothing else, it has stirred some interesting ideas among the various pundits out there.

Romney gave $20.9 million as his adjusted gross income, with none of it coming from "the sweat of his own brow"... meaning none of it was earned income, it was all interest and return on investment capital. His tax bill for the whole $20.9 million was $3.226 million, or just 15.4%. I think I made a rather eloquent defense of Romney's tax rate in a previous post, so I won't do so again here. But I was surprised and intrigued by some of the comments made in today's articles.

Romney does not contribute to the Social Security fund... at all. Nor does he have Medicare deductions taken out of his checks. These are deducted only from earned income, not from investment income. Some of your SSI benefits are based on your level of contributions, but not all... and none of your Medicare benefit is based on that. Now, I'm not suggesting that Romney will EVER collect Social Security or Medicare... but he COULD, should he choose to.

Most of the top 10% of earners in this nation do not pay a SSI or Medicare tax, mainly because most do not earn standard earned income (like Romney). Should they? I, for one, would be curious to see what percentage of the total annual contributions to the general fund would be matched should the top 10% of this country actual contribute to SSI and Medicare. I am not able to "opt out" of SSI or Medicare, and that makes me wonder why someone like Romney is able to. Between SSI and Medicare, I lose nearly 2% of my gross income every year, and there is NO guarantee that I am EVER going to see a penny of that returned while I am alive. Why doesn't Romney?

If I were President, and had the means to make the changes we are describing here, I'd lower the gains tax, lower the income tax... but there is a real chance I'd make EVERYONE contribute to the "national safety net" that is SSI and Medicare, as long as they exist. Can anyone tell me I'm wrong?

One thing you have to give Paul...

2012-02-02T15:01:00.001-05:00

Of all the candidates, none sticks to his principles like Ron Paul.

He doesn't change his tune for any reason... ever. He has a rather unique view of foreign policy, and I still don't think I can ever get behind it, but if there is a reason for his continued... and even growing... popularity, it is because he simply won't bend.

Santorum would be next on that list, I think... but the big difference is that his message isn't THAT different than Romney, Gingrich or anyone else running within the GOP. He is probably closest to the "Reagan-ite" model so many seem to think is the yardstick to measure candidates by... but he won't measure up to what the expectations are. No one can, really... especially since Santorum seems so adept at simply avoiding tough questions by moving the topic away from what he doesn't want to address.

I really just don't understand why it can't be so much easier than this. Lower taxes by at least 25%. Cut spending by at least 30% (across the board, of course). Reduce capital gains by 50%. Reduce corporate taxes by 10%. End speculation pricing on crude oil (like Reagan did in 1982). Untie the hands of the States along the US-Mexican border, so that the pressure of illegal immigration isn't solely in the hands of Federal agents. Give States some incentive to take on more responsibility in the health care and insurance arena.

Whomever says THAT as their campaign promise gets my vote.

I'm still not a Romney fan...

2012-02-02T06:44:00.001-05:00

Not because he doesn't care about the poor, either.

I know he didn't mean it as it was taken... he was saying that there are plenty of in-place means for the Federal government to assist the poorest of the poor, and if it wasn't enough, he'd "fix it."

THAT is why I don't like him. He is far too much of the pander-to-the-fringe type of politician for my tastes. He will say what needs to be said, he will change his position to suit his listeners, and I think he will spend money like he did when he was Governor... which means "a lot".

We don't need another Bush Jr. or a GOP version of Obama-lite... that isn't going to fix anything.

It's very nice...

2012-01-31T21:29:00.000-05:00

... 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.

First they came for the Catholics...

2012-01-31T13:47:00.003-05:00

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.

Marx's Funky Bunch...

2012-01-31T08:28:00.001-05:00

{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...

On your Marx...get ready...set...go!

2012-01-30T12:19:00.016-05:00

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?

On Shatner...

2012-01-29T08:43:00.005-05:00

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.

Spartacus...

2012-01-29T08:23:00.000-05:00

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.

Vengence

2012-01-28T06:33:00.002-05:00

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.

Holy Shatner!

2012-01-27T08:34:00.005-05:00

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.

Man... why do they insist on that word?

2012-01-26T16:24:00.001-05:00

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?

What do you know?

2012-01-26T16:11:00.000-05:00

We haven't had this many posts in a month since May of last year...

Hard Core Marxist!

2012-01-26T15:07:00.003-05:00

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.

Just a word more...

2012-01-26T09:39:00.001-05:00

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.

On Romney...

2012-01-26T08:58:00.001-05:00

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?

Can't say this enough...

2012-01-25T19:02:00.000-05:00

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.

Amazing Grace

2012-01-25T18:42:00.001-05:00

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.

Defending the masses...

2012-01-25T15:32:00.001-05:00

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%".

Defending "the man" ...

2012-01-25T13:32:00.006-05:00

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.

Tangible results...

2012-01-25T08:05:00.001-05:00

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.

The very name makes me shudder...

2012-01-25T07:25:00.002-05:00

... 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.

Coulter is right (this time)...

2012-01-24T17:48:00.005-05:00

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 physically hurts...

2012-01-16T06:41:00.002-05:00

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.

Great minds ...

2012-01-15T15:22:00.008-05:00

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.

Primaries... thus far:

2012-01-15T08:13:00.000-05:00

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.

The only universal constant is change

2012-01-11T06:50:00.003-05:00

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.

Wish me luck...

2012-01-10T21:34:00.002-05:00

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!

Posting this right here so it doesn't get lost...

2012-01-10T04:48:00.003-05:00

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!

Fair enough...

2012-01-06T08:41:00.000-05:00

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?

20 paces and I'll stop along the way to pick up my second!

2012-01-06T03:11:00.015-05:00

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.

We should be ashamed of ourselves...

2012-01-05T17:09:00.001-05:00

We've already surpassed the number of posts for the month of December...

Anyone for another New Year resolution?

The Greatest Christmas Gift... Ever...

2012-01-05T16:13:00.003-05:00

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!

Iacta alea est...

2012-01-05T15:17:00.000-05:00

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.

A Bund Buddy News Flash!

2012-01-05T08:14:00.000-05:00

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!

Section 1021

2012-01-04T13:27:00.005-05:00

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.

My man Rick ...

2012-01-04T12:13:00.002-05:00

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 ...

Sports Agony

2012-01-03T03:55:00.002-05:00

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

Testing my mad phone skills

2012-01-02T06:20:00.002-05:00

New phone. So it turns out that I can poat to the Bund now by phone. Which is beyond kick ass.

Happy New Year!

Why this fascination with the term "genocide"?

2011-12-29T08:28:00.000-05:00

Since 2006, the US Congress has had a fascination with making sure that the tragedy of the Christian Armenians forced to leave the Anatolian plateau in 1915-16 is labeled a "genocide" and that this terms is applied by all that refer to the horrific event.

Why? What does US foreign policy gain, either in Turkey or Armenia, by applying this one-and-only term?

The event happened in the 20 months of 1915 and 1916, and the numbers of dead range from 300,000 (Turkey) to 1.5 million (Armenian). These deaths resulted from exposure, starvation, dehydration and disease as an entire population of Armenians were forced out of Turkey entirely and into the Syrian desert beyond the "Ottoman" frontier. No one, not even Turkey, denies that atrocities were committed. After WWI, Turkey held trials in which the governor of Anatolia and 14 other military and political leaders were found guilty of crimes ranging from murder to "barbarism" against the ethnic Armenians, and all hanged (or sentenced to hang, if they were tried in absentia).

Armenia still has issues with this problem, and does want the event recognized as genocide... and understandably so. They are a body of government made up of Armenians, representing Armenian interests, and defending Armenian rights, and as such can call for whatever terminology they wish to have attached to this dark chapter in their history.

I applaud President Obama for putting the brakes on this process. Congress passed a resolution in 2008 wherein all references to the event within the US Government would refer to the tragedy as "genocide", and the President has refused to sign it, or even endorse it. Whatever his intentions or reasoning, it is the right thing to do, because it flies in the face of the latest round of American "politically correct" obsession that seems to be floating around DC.

The shortest day of the year...

2011-12-22T07:16:00.001-05:00

Historically, the winter solstice signaled the dawn of a new season, when the days would grow longer until the winter ended and the growing season began.

Today, on the morning of the mystical solstice, we see news of waves of bombings in Iraq that have killed dozens and injured hundreds.

The root of these bombings seems to be unrest at the Iraqi Prime Minister's call for the arrest of the Iraqi Vice President, based mainly on his being Sunni rather than Shi'ite. I find it rather telling that the warrant for the arrest (which drove Mr. Hashimi into hiding in Kurdistan) was issued only after the last US troops were withdrawn from Iraq.

If there is going to be a new season in Iraq now that the US troops are gone, then the power-sharing structure of the Iraqi government will have to weather this test. Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd are going to have to find a way to share power, and they will have to do it without the presence of US troops in the cities and on the roads. Otherwise, this nation won't see the dawn of another solstice...

Not another Kim, please...

2011-12-19T07:41:00.003-05:00

Kim Jung Eun (or Kim Jung-un, depending on your dictionary) is the new "extreme leader" of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea now that his father, Kim Jung Il, is dead.

If ever there was an example of why Western states should be able to intervene in the affairs of foreign nations to end repressive, tyrannical regimes... North Korea is it.

Since its founding in 1948, the country (which had been a marginally-developing industrial nation prior to WWII) has fallen into a state of almost constant poverty and isolationism that hasn't been seen since Imperial Japan opened its trade to the West in the mid-1800s. Tens of millions have died of famine and disease... ten million as recently as 1997!... because of the backwards, non-functioning manner in which its leadership (Grandpa, Daddy and now Junior Kims all) has pushed the country in relentlessly. Their mutual paranoia towards Western and South Korean "military expansionism" has forced the US and ROK governments to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to maintain one of the strongest international borders in human history (the 38th Parallel, or the Korean DMZ), and thousands of Koreans and hundreds of Americans have died on that border since 1955.

North Korea has maintained an active WMD program since 1988, detonating as many as four low-yield nuclear devices underground since 1993. They could possibly maintain the largest stockpile of chemical weapons on the face of the earth right now (but no one knows for sure if that is the case or not).

Compared to other "despotic" regimes that the US and her allies have actively interfered with since the end of the Cold War... North Korea makes such places like Iraq and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan seem like schoolyard bullies. Tens of millions dead, hundreds of millions kept in abject poverty and ignorance, personal freedom and liberty nonexistent, forced child labor an industry standard... these are the hallmarks of the North Korean leaderships legacy since 1948, and for the vast majority of that time, we (the West) have been content to sit back and watch as it all happened.

The images of hundreds of people (grown and presumably rational adult human beings) weeping uncontrollably at the news of Kim Jung Il's death shows the level of dependence and ignorance that the country has been forced into over the last 50 years. Could this new generation of leadership bring about change? Could this man, Kim Jung Eun, educated in Switzerland and more exposed to Western thinking than either his father or grandfather, be the catalyst for growth and development that many seem to think? Yes, I suppose he could.

I'm not going to hold my breath though...

This day of infamy...

2011-12-07T07:52:00.002-05:00

Only 120 men and women still live as survivors of the attack on Pearl Harbor 70 years ago. God bless them all and keep them healthy and happy.

Something that is all over the airwaves now, and is front and center in MY life, is the cost of healthcare, and the 70th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack has kind of made me consider it closely.

The surviving generation of the war itself (the Greatest Generation) are now well into their 90's, and their children are well into their 60's, and constitute nearly 12% of our total population. The increased need of medical care for these people and the shrinking means of paying for it privately are driving the costs for the entire society through the roof.

Obviously, I know no one here needs this explanation... I'm doing it rhetorically. Stick with me.

I, as the provider for a family of five, now pay $165 per week (yes, per week!) for my healthcare insurance. That's just under $8,600 per year in expenses that I might or might not incur in healthcare or major medical costs... and there is (obviously) no refund on what I don't use or spend.

There was a time in this country when "insurance" covered only what you couldn't pay out-of-pocket. That would have been a major health issue... a trip to the emergency room, or extended hospitalization, major surgery, etc. ... that I didn't have the means to pay for myself. Now, even simply trips to the eye doctor cost a staggering $900 per child (and they are required for all kids attending school in my district), and our insurance only covers 90% of that bill.

Lately I have been looking at my pay stub and considering the amount of money I am throwing into healthcare right now. What could be done differently?

What if I only paid for a policy that covered medical bills in excess of $5k? All bills less than $5,000, I arrange to pay myself, either through a payment plan (i.e. credit) or through personal savings (i.e. cash). What if the policy I paid for only cost me a fraction of what I am paying now? Knowing that medical bills can reach staggering proportions very, very quickly... if it was structured like a term life policy around a contribution pool of say 100,000 people (the average amount of members in PPO-structured plans today in PA), then I could have $300,000 of major medical coverage for as little as $75 per month. That is damn near a 90% savings from what I am paying right now... which means I take home $600 MORE per month, knowing I might have to pay up to $5,000 more a year in major medical costs. Unless my math is WAY off, that means that in less than 10 months of savings, I can have an account in my own bank of my own money ready to lay out the $5k I'm obligated to cover myself, and for the rest of the time I don't have a major medical expense, I'm $600 better off every month than I was previously.

But what about the $900 vision tests I was just talking about?

It is my understanding and experience that arrangements can often be made with doctor's offices, wherein a cash payment earns you a MAJOR discount in cost of service. When I was unemployed and uninsured two years ago, I needed some dental work done. I talked to the dentist and he agreed to fix the tooth (cracked and abscessed) for a grand total of $243 over two visits. When I asked him what it would cost should he bill insurance, he told me it was a $1,000 procedure, and that the difference was in factoring in the cost of delayed payment and hours and hours of additional administrative work by his office employees.

I have since used this means of savings whenever we have hit the roadblock of a doctor or service NOT being covered by our insurance, and it has worked every time. One of the kids needs to see a specialist about a nasal condition (something that has happened twice) and that specialist isn't on our plan... make the cash arrangements and watch the job get done for about 20% of the insurance bill's cost.

Let's face it... running a dentist office or a general practice MD office is still just running a business: it isn't going to work if you can't make a profit. If the cost of making that profit via insurance companies drives prices higher, then smart doctors (no matter what their specialty is) will offer a "cash discount price" that is affordable to most clientele and they will avoid the hassle and delay associated with big insurance. More business, bills paid quicker, profit margins more accessible and costs reduced across the board.

How do I know this will work? Because it already exists and constitutes a $300 billion dollar per year industry in this country alone: veterinary medicine practice.

More than 50% of America has pets, and pets will always, at some point, need to see a vet. Less than 1% of America has any kind of insurance to cover that cost... so if that is true, and pet care gets expensive, who pays for the services? Pet owners do, and they do it in cash. I myself have run into some daunting vet bills over the years, and if I think one vet is charging too much, I take my business to someone else that offers the same or better services for a better price... like any smart shopper would. Our dog, Mick, needed a bad tooth extracted to fix a HUGE abscess on his face, and the local vet wanted $750 to do the job. I called another vet, only 6 miles further away, that would do the same job for less than $400 and Mick is happy and healthy with one less tooth in his head, while I am $350 better off for the ordeal.

If I have to continue to see 16.5% of every check I earn go towards insurance that still requires me to pay out-of-pocket and drives those out-of-pocket expenses higher and higher... where do I benefit? I'd rather see the 15% RAISE that such a reduction in cost as I am describing would constitute and pay for as much as I could myself... knowing that everyone else that does it that way would also benefit in the long run.

Why isn't THIS an option for me as a citizen of these United States? Who's advocating this plan?

And now for something completely different...

2011-12-02T07:39:00.001-05:00

THIS is why I love ESPN:

MVP Debate

This is classic "Driveway" debate... yes?

Nope, I don't think so...

2011-12-01T07:29:00.002-05:00

I agree, it isn't a perfect analogy at all... nothing ever is, since history never fully repeats itself... but the facet I wanted to compare between Coxey's Army and "Occupy" was the dissent itself, not the worst of the bunch.

Historically speaking, there have been many "occupy-type" protests... The Bonus Army of the early 30's, Cox's Army (another pro-public works march from PA led by a Catholic priest named Cox), the March from Selma to Montgomery... and all have had less-then-savory elements associated with them. However, I was trying to keep the protest intent separate from the protest in actuality.

Whenever America has been in a time of crisis, people have sought a reason along with a solution. Most here (and indeed, across the country) think the current fiscal crisis is due to unsustainable spending and over-blown credit extensions in both the public and private sectors... but not everyone is agreed on how to fix it. The more radical elements in the Occupy movement seem to think that corporate greed is the cause... and that violence and disdain are acceptable means of protest against this. This stems more from the ideology of their views than the validity of the protest itself, and certainly factors in to how people view the protesters and their causes.

Successful group action relies on a higher ethical and/or moral fiber... MLK's non-violence in the 60s, the Tea Party movement today... and while I agree 100% that the Occupy movement lacks that fiber, my main point was that it shouldn't be seen as "unprecedented" or a new facet to our society.

Bad, bad analogy brother ...

2011-11-30T15:46:00.010-05:00

I dont know what "mainstream" outlets you've been watching, but both MSNBC & FOX have dedicated hours of footage and coverage. And here's what I've gathered thus far ...

The "occupy" movement has spawned 12 accusations of rape; 74 accusations of sexual assault (these are official police filings mind you); 2 deaths; multiple drug possession charges; and over 1000 arrests. They have vandalized public and private property, including a trash can through a window of whole foods. Deficated in public, including #2 on top of a squad car. The average participant is college educated. Multiple, MULTIPLE interviews of "leaders" on MSNBC (they seem to like Al Sharpton's show) have in the clearest of terms stated this is not about "reforming" what we have (the republic and capitalism), but "burning it down" and starting over. "Revolution not reform!" is the common cry. The vast food, telecommunications, PR classes, and newspapers (yes, they have sophisticated levels of each) are funded primarily by unions & a few uber wealthy donors. They also have numerous celebrity endorsements, including Rosanne Barr who said those who disagree should be given the opportunity to attend a reeducation camp, but if need be, beheaded (this from a woman worth $50 million). And a common complaint (probably THE most common after "eat the rich") is their distress over their student loan debt. And that's before you get to the multiple speakers espousing the virtues of communism.

Does that sound like Coxey's Army? You tell these kids that they have to march, on foot, across Pennsylvania and they'll turn up their Ipods and go back to chanting "death to big corporations."

The true dividing line in this country isn't between the 99 and 1%. It's between the 53% of us that pay taxes, and the 47% that don't.

Coxey's Army

2011-11-30T08:49:00.002-05:00

A phrase that my grandparents used to throw around and that I have adopted over the course of my life is "... we've enough food here to feed Coxey's Army!" In short, it means that far too much food has been prepared for the people that will eat. It really reflects just how old my Dad's folks were... Coxey's last march on Washington occurred in 1914, but must have had a huge impact on society at large for the term to remain in common usage well into the 30s and 40s.

Jacob Coxey was a business man and politician from Ohio who, in 1894 (during the worst economic depression the country had ever seen outside of the Great Depression of 1929) and again in 1914, marched 500 unemployed men from central Ohio, through Pennsylvania and into Washington DC, gaining followers all along the way. The crux of their protest was that the Federal Government should enact a public works program to put unemployed people to work on a national road system, pumping much needed cash into the pockets of providers that had no unemployment insurance or Federal relief programs to assist them during a period of national unemployment that reached 19%.

The "Panic of 1893" was the second half of a longer era of general economic depression that began in 1873 and didn't actually end until the start of WWI. The depression was rooted in protectionist policies and Federal monetary actions that severely limited the Fed's ability to spend money without raising taxes and tariffs. As many as 22% of all banks in the country failed during this crisis, taking as much as 40% of all the savings within those banks with them. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were suddenly without jobs and without any sort of savings... mostly out west, but in the heartland, too. Bankruptcies and foreclosures reached heights that wouldn't be seen again until 1930, and had never been seen before. The price of gold on the global market (although the price was fixed here in the US) skyrocketed, and the price of silver (the monetary standard of international trade) plummeted.

Coxey and his bunch knew that increased taxes (payroll, sales or otherwise) would dampen the recovery, and they knew that there was no liquidity that could be pumped into the economy the way there is today because there was no central banking agency of the Federal government (today, we have the Federal Reserve). They were not asking for entitlements (per say) so much as asking for temporary public employment that could see them through the depression without undue hardship or even starvation. Both Presidents Cleveland and McKinley denied this logic and refused the efforts of Coxey.

Why do I bring this up?

The parallels are not perfect, but this is strikingly similar to the "Occupy" protests of today. Granted, the "Occupy" folks want less corporate influence and greater wealth equality through Government action... rather than public employment... but the efforts and reactions are surprisingly mirrored, I feel. Both protest efforts blame bad government policy and corrupt big business dealings on the economic crisis (both with some validity), and neither is getting a whole lot of consideration from the mainstream media. The general population seems a bit ambivalent toward the "Occupy" effort, as they did in '94 and '14 respectively.

Are there any conclusions that can be drawn from this?

I'm just curious ...

2011-11-29T15:22:00.002-05:00

At what point does the Tea Party, in each locale that "Occupy Wall Street" exists, start asking for a refund on all the permits they paid for?

The CNN National Security Debate

2011-11-23T08:22:00.002-05:00

This was a telling episode in the ongoing drama series that is the GOP Presidential race...

Huntsman did a fantastic job of asserting himself over Romney, and Cain did a fantastic job of making himself an even bigger non-factor in the race by forgetting Wolf Blitzer's name.

Santorum needs to learn that agreeing with everyone else in the debate is NOT a good way to make yourself a stand-out candidate for President. He agreed with Bachmann, Romney and Huntsman over and over again, never giving even a small indication of what he would do different than what they are advocating... with the possible exception of Ron Paul's extremist views, which he countered twice. Since none of the others agreed with Paul, either... this isn't a big win for him at all.

Ron Paul... the man is amazing. His pleading tone that he takes whenever he speaks of keeping America's nose out of foreign problems is SO unbelievably juvenile that I am amazed he got even the applause that he did (more than any other candidate on the panel). His insistence that we were never attacked, and that there is no threat outside of what we have brought on ourselves via foreign policy is almost obtuse. He epitomizes the pre-WWI isolationist views that cost America and the West so much after 1918... fight when attacked, intervene when Congress approves, keep business and money only within our own borders. In this day and age, can anyone seriously think that the US can prosper WITHOUT a strong international presence? Can anyone seriously think that that strong international presence won't need a strong foreign policy and a stronger US military to protect its interests abroad?

I'm so disappointed that the only really strong showing at this debate (in my opinion) was someone I can't stand... John Huntsman. He embarrassed Romney and Perry, stood his own very well against Gingrich, and showed a surprising (to me, anyway) grasp of how important it is to have ideas ready and waiting to present to the questioners at the debates.

Ahhh... Beck...

2011-11-22T22:03:00.002-05:00

I haven't heard his show in months. His punditry (is that a word?) is so far outside of what I think as realistic that I have taken to spending all my radio time with ESPN and the Catholic Channel.

However, your news that he has endorsed Bachmann is no surprise to me. He wants (so badly) to be able to support a Libertarian candidate... but he can't reconcile his own foreign policy understanding with the daydreams and delusions of people like Barr and Ron Paul.

Gingrich has made himself irrelevant, as has Cain. Romney is simply running as the "I'm not Obama" candidate... and the last time that strategy worked we ended up with Carter. I had relegated Bachmann to the same level of "what was"... but she might be the last hope of the majority of Tea Party supporters.

Ron Paul is simply too far out there to be taken even a little bit seriously... yet he is a poll leader in Iowa right now! Were that man to win Iowa, and then go on to be even top three in New Hampshire... then I'd start checking the temperature in Hell to make sure the water pipes weren't in danger.

I think Bachmann is simply too much of the GOP now. Sure, she talks about cutting deficits and eliminating waste... but she is talking about ending Obama's policies, which does not equal the same thing. She can talk about ending the Department of Education all she wants, but she won't do it any more than Reagan did in two terms, either. EPA, FEMA, Interior, Labor... they are as safe as can be in a Bachmann administration, I promise you. She'll roll taxes back to 2008 (which is a start), but nothing more. More importantly, she won't win Congress' help any better than Clinton did after '94 and Carter did through his whole term.

In short, she isn't giving me anything all the others are giving me, too: cut spending, reduce government, lower taxes, strengthen our military. The same mantra we've heard from every GOP candidate since 1972... and without a single original idea to back it up.

Top it off with the very real possibility that, even as unpopular as Obama is right now... she might not be able to beat him in a general election. The status quo is always preferable to the unknown, and I'm kind of afraid that much of her promises and visions fall into the wildly "unknown" catagory.

And the endorsement goes to...

2011-11-22T16:41:00.003-05:00

Well, I can take heart at least that this site will likely again jump to life once the presidential campaign begins in earnest... which is around the corner.

Today Beck decided he would forgoe what he, & all hosts of the top tier, usually do. Namely, abstaining from endorsements within the Primary. His choice - Representative Michelle Bachmann.

I have long said that Beck's overall media presence (radio, tv, & print - now owning his own publishing co), was greater than that of Rush, Hannity, et al. And certainly greater than the standard television & print media outlets (his online television network now has more paid subscribers than Oprah's channel has viewers). We shall soon see if Bachmann will benefit. Perry & Cain are imploding (Cain's getting baffled by where & what Lybia is surpassed his maddening abortion take), & while Gingrich is coming on strong I think overall Bachmann has an opening given conservative Republicans still regard Romney as the "if no one else shows up" choice. Lets see what she.can do with it.

My thoughts...

2011-11-15T08:01:00.003-05:00

Just a rambling rant to try and generate some activity here...

On PSU:

I heard Sandusky's interview with Costas... and that is one twisted individual. When asked if he was a pedophile, he said "No." When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys, he gave a long answer and had to be brought back on track by Costas to say No. The man might not think he is doing anything wrong... but he is. He needs real help.

Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, met with the President about a new "committee" that the USCCB organized called the Defense of Religious Liberty Committee. I'm delighted to see Archbishop Dolan making the effort of the Church to end abortion and curb the trend of States legitimizing same-sex marriages by making it a "defense of liberty". Too long have traditional Christian values been seen by the public and the media as infringements on liberty, rather than liberties in and of themselves. I must hear the "call to prayer" over public address systems in the Detroit suburbs... but I cannot look at a Nativity scene in a public park, or a statue of the Ten Commandments in a town square. My kids can wear Che t-shirts, but not t-shirts with Christ's face on them. Who's liberty's are being infringed?

And the Green Bay Packers?

Wow. That's it. Wow.

"Second Mile"

2011-11-14T13:01:00.010-05:00

That's how I had it figured... you don't need an explicit law to fire, turn in, or otherwise remove an accused pedophile, especially with first hand witnesses. If you combine the 1998 and 2002 incidents, those alone would be enough to (at the very least, assuming you're concerned with being sued if the accusations are proven false), put the assistant coach on paid administrative leave as an official investigation was conducted.

Given that fact, either Joe Pa knew and should be fired, or he didn't know (I agree, impossible) and should be fired as incompetent (an adjective which never before applied to Paterno). Being fired has a different threshold then being prosecuted. And while Paterno may have not met the latter, I think it's reasonable for the trustees to claim he did meet the former.

My subject title refers to Sandusky's charity organization. The very organization which apparently gave him access to young children. I just heard at top of the hour CBS Radio News that the president of that charity has resigned and a second charity, based out of New York, has come forth to announce an investigation. Apparently, in coordination with Second Mile, they sent children to bunk at Sandusky's home as they attended Second Mile events. You're right, this is going to get much, much worse.

As I was thinking more about this whole disgusting affair something occured to me, and it's the part that bothers me the most about behavior of the PSU staff involved: Sandusky is a predator, and his particular vulgar predilection is incurable. Pedophiles don't just "stop." Joe Pa, the President, the athletic coordinator, the campus security chief, and anyone else in the loop at PSU all knew why Sandusky was being made to quietly "retire" a few years back (and in fact were directly responsible for that chosen course of action). The inescapable conclusion is they were convinced - to the point of removing him - that he was committing sex acts with children. And since they allowed him to just walk away they are responsible for each and every criminal act Sandusky may have committed between his retirement and his indictment. I other words, they didn't have the authority to fire him from his charity, did they? Meaning he was still presumably affiliated with that charity, to one degree or another, and had access to kids. Right? My point being, if you have enough evidence to convince you that an employee must be fired over pedophilia, then you have enough evidence to go to the police. You don't just let him walk away, especially when he has a charity that affords him ready access to children! If you're a member of the board of trustees and you're looking at that, combined with the fact that Paterno was a primary shot caller (if not "the" primary), then Joe Pa has to go if for no other reason then he can no longer be trusted to make executive decisions.

By the way, and I say this not in jest but rather because it is news worthy... some years back Sandusky wrote a book based primarily on his "charity" work. The title of the book?

Touched.

One more thing...

2011-11-14T08:30:00.003-05:00

There is a factor in this PSU situation that I think some forget (not Ryan... just "some"):

The sacred trust that educators are held to.

Penn State University has a sacred trust. It's primary role is as an institution of higher learning, where young minds are molded and broadened into more capable men and women ready to lead the world in action, thoughts and words. This is true of any learning institution, from pre-school to the highest level of graduate study.

The staff and teachers of this University must lead by example, and they cannot be guided and directed solely by the "letter of the law" simply because no body of law is ever 100% complete. It is impossible. If they cannot be guided and directed by purely "legal" aspects of the society they function in, then a moral and ethical standard must also be maintained and followed, strictly and completely.

Perhaps Paterno was acting within the legal framework established by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (of which the University is an departmental organization)... but one cannot deny that if that legal framework fails to adequately protect and defend the most helpless among society (in this case, pre-teen children), then that society can expect those associated with the University to follow a greater, broader framework of responsibility based on general principles of moral and ethical standards.

If Paterno did suspect what Sandusky was, then he failed to make sure he was removed entirely from the football program, its staff and students, and the University in general. That might not be spelled out in the legal framework of his position at the University... but it should be understood in a moral and ethical sense by any right-thinking individual hold that position.

If Paterno did NOT suspect or know anything about Sandusky (patently impossible, according to the grand jury testimony)... then he damn well should have, given the level of control and authority he had over that program, and indeed, the entire PSU campus.

Perhaps this was Paterno's one and only "bad judgement call"... but it was "bad" enough to injure and put at risk at least 11 (and counting) children over the course of the last 16 years... and these are only the kids that are allegedly abused while ON PSU property by Sandusky.

I think the right call was made. Paterno had to go. Period.

So sad...

2011-11-14T08:02:00.002-05:00

And I'm not even a Penn State fan.

However, having become immersed in this nightmare that is the PSU child abuse scandal over the last two weeks, I think it was inevitable: Paterno had to go.

I think the "didn't do enough" factor became a primary issue when it came out that Paterno knew Sandusky was at practices, in the facilities, with children AFTER the 2002 incident with the 10-year-old in the shower. They knew Sandusky was at the practice with a child, and they knew Paterno was there, too... and this was as recently as 25 days ago. Perhaps nothing happened THAT time, but the possibility that it could happen again was enough.

With a coaching staff that is that entrenched... some have been there more than 30 years... it is difficult for me to believe that there was NO (read ZERO) knowledge of this sort of criminal behavior between the various coaches, and (at the very latest) it should have ended completely after the 2002 incident (it should have ended in 1998, but that wasn't a PSU call... that was a district prosecutor that chose not to indict). That means Sandusky was no longer allowed, in any way, shape or form, onto PSU property or at PSU games.

I feel bad for the school and the students. This is going to be a stain on a top-ranked school for decades to come, and the healing process is going to be slow. I also fear it is going to get worse before it gets better. Decisions were made, calls made... and those that chose to make the calls (or NOT to make the calls) are answering for them now. Paterno was a BIG decision maker at that school, and if the President had to go, then I think Paterno did too. Let's face it... Nittany Lion football WAS Joe Pa, and the problem seems to have been with what the coaches knew and did/didn't do. Tough not to hold the Head Coach responsible.

Can I ask our in-house PA resident a question?

2011-11-14T02:22:00.008-05:00

Understand, this is absent any and all sarcasm.

Why exactly did they fire Joe Paterno?

I'm serious. And I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the reasoning. I haven't read the 23 page Grand Jury report, but it occurs to me that Paterno isn't in any legal trouble. To the best of my limited knowledge of PA state law in these cases any school official, from kindergarten to graduate school, whom witnesses or suspects sexual abuse of a minor must report it through one of three official channels: the police, Child Services, or his superiors. From what I've gathered Paterno did just that, in the case of the latter.

So again, why did they fire him? I can't find a definitive answer in any of the coverage or reports. If I had to guess it would go something like the following - the offender was allowed to retire unscathed. He worked directly for Paterno. Paterno has more authority within that school and his program than any three deans combined (presumably). If you add those 3 factors together the trustees must have come to the conclusion that the only way Sandusky could have "walked away" without arrest is if Paterno signed off on the maneuver.

Clearly Sandusky should have been fed to wolves (the actual police). But according to the letter of the law Paterno fulfilled his legal requirement. Is it just an assumed fact among locals and the trsutees that in this case, with Paterno having so much influence, so much sway, that they can not fathom that such a thing could have been hushed up and made to "go away" without the knowledge and consent of Paterno? Because if that's the case, I get it. That seems a reasonable position for the trustees. However, doesn't that leave Paterno some legal room to claim his contract was unlawfully terminated? If he was inclined to preserve his reputation, on the face of it, it would seem he'd have a case.

And look, I don't want to have to do the thing where I qualify all this with stating how serious I take the charges, how vulgar and heart breaking it all is, and how many victims there were - we all here would serve that pedophile up to an electric chair, in a heart beat. I just want to be sure of the "he should have done more" standard. If you suspect sexual abuse of a minor, as a school official, and you don't approve of how your superiors are investigating the accusation you reported, are you to conduct an investigation yourself? If Paterno doesn't get a satisfactory action on the part of the school president after he reported the accusations, is he obliged to go directly to the authorities? Morally, I would unquestionably say yes, and loudly. I just get a little uncomfortable with the "fire everybody" mentality when those positing such a demand don't offer specifics on how Paterno should have done more.

Unquestionably the coward of the century award goes to that spineless twerp whom actually witnessed the sex act in the showers with the minor. In that instance I say yes, you personally interfere, right then (and I mean in the shower). And then go directly to the police. I'm simply saying that if a member of the coaching staff comes to Paterno and says he saw Joe's offensive coordinator committing this crime, and that coordinator happened to be a 20 year friend of Paterno, it might be understandable if Paterno turned around and reported it to the school president and the chief of campus security. But after that, if the two of them both decide they're not going to the police (lack of evidence, fear of hurting the school reputation, etc), is Paterno liable to the point of being fired for not going above the head of the President, to the police? And if so, OK. But why was the campus security chief and the athletic coordinator - both in the loop as much as Paterno, neither of whom went to the cops - not fired as well?

Again, I think anyone involved in sweeping this under the rug & letting that animal simply "retire", deserves to be fired. I guess what I'm asking is, if Paterno reported it to multiple school officials, and then they did nothing, is that cause enough to say Paterno participated in the "sweeping?"

Romney will be the nominee ...

2011-11-09T22:06:00.006-05:00

This is becoming clear to me. He is just devastatingly lethal in these debates. The man is a born and bred CEO. He just doesn't make mistakes.

I caught parts of the CNBC debate tonight, and immediately at its' conclusion I got a call for a push button poll (happening nightly around this time I might add), this one from Ron Paul.

Look, I prefer a more conservative candidate than Romney. This is a general complaint, I understand, but in my gut I'm just not sure behind closed doors I can trust him not to pull a George H. Bush. But at this point all Romney has to do is not lose, just survive. Cain is a contender, and he held his own in tonights's debate, but he's getting crushed as now the 4th woman is coming forward with sex allegations. Shockingly the Left of the 1990's suddenly cares about such behavior. More disconcerting to me is his bizarre take on abortion. He seems to be for it before he was against it, and it's a personal choice government should make illegal - ya, got it Cain, thanks, the Ramstein goes in the doohickey to help the thingamajig. I was sorely dissapointed with that issue after the promising start of 9-9-9. And the nearest challenger after Cain, Perry, effectively ended his primary campaign tonight. If you haven't heard I'm sure it will make the chattering class rounds tomorrow. He was in a dust up with Ron Paul over what government departments/agencies he would do away with. First off, don't try to out cut Ron Paul. He will always see your number and raise. He'll cut things you didn't know existed. It'll be him and two volunteer park rangers by the time he's done. At any rate, as I said, Perry was in a dust up with Ron Paul and he says, "There are three agencies of government that when I get there are gone, Commerce, Education, and ..." He just stood there, mouth gaping for what seemed like an eternity. Then he asked himself, out loud, "what was the third?" Again followed by a few moments of mouth gaping, body cringing uncomfortableness. Then Ron Paul says, "you can't name the third?" And in an attempt to make himself recall, Perry started over saying, "The three I'd cut are Commerce, Education, and ..." Again nothing, that engine just wouldn't turn over.

The incident couldn't of ended worse. Finally, and I don't know if it was murder or a mercy kill, but a voice pipes in and says, "EPA?" Perry responds, "Yes, thank you, EPA." Guess who the off camera voice was? If you guessed Romney, you win the prize ... which is more than Perry will win in Iowa.

The "needed" conversation...

2011-10-25T08:06:00.002-04:00

Good post... why can't we have more of that? More often?

You mentioned where the conversation needed to go... and I agree with you... but it isn't going there, is it?

Here, in the run-up to the 2012 general election, we have GOP candidates discussing issues and making and taking positions that I think are unrealistic at best... and damaging to the conservative effort as a whole, worst-case.

In order to appeal to Tea Party conservatives, we have Perry and others taking real, solid (and ultimately unmovable) positions on the US tax code. Specifically, whether or not a flat tax is something we should shoot for. Perry promises its simpler. Gingrich wants it to be an "option" for those that choose to take it. Cain seems to be focused on the "9-9-9" to the point nothing else is spoken of.

Please, people... it isn't going to happen. EVER.

It isn't simpler... and that is coming from someone that supports the flat tax idea! It just isn't.

Look, even with our progressive tax system... where does the complicated portion of the job lay? Not with figuring what percentage of taxes you owe... you take your income and match it to a percentage on a list, and find the corresponding tax amount owed. That's actually as simple as we are going to get, if you ask me.

The complications start when one is asked to determine what your "income" is. That is where one finds the deductions, credits, allowances, proportional expenses, and other such mitigating factors that effect what the specific "income" for one year has been.

Would that change in a flat tax system? I doubt it very much. One would still find loopholes, arguments and costs that they feel should "reduce" their income, and thus reduce what they owe in taxes, and thus complicate what is being promised as a "simpler" means of determining and collecting tax revenues.

Gingrich wants Americans to do their taxes TWICE, and pick the cheaper means of paying... how is THAT simpler? Cain wants to take the Laffer curve to the opposite extreme that most liberals do, and reduce the flat tax to factors of 9%... which would equal a huge tax cut to anyone making more than $26,000 a year, but increase more than 40% of the country's tax bill by 9%. THAT is not the sort of campaign promise that is going to get him elected in a general election cycle, I can tell you that. Fine print and details aside... that is a dangerous game to play when you are looking to beat the promises of an avowed progressive in a welfare-state society like ours.

Yes, reducing tax burdens increases tax revenue... this I know. So, reducing the tax burden of the top 45% of earners in this nation is a good thing, right? They are, after all, the nation's top EMPLOYERS, right? Not if you are going to correspondingly INCREASE the burden of the bottom 40%... who are the nation's largest group of CONSUMERS. In this case, at this time... the math doesn't work.

Why can't we simply take what has worked in the past and utilize it again? A reduced corporate tax rate, zero capital gains for ten years, a reduced income deduction table for the common 10-40 form, but an increased deduction form for itemized returns, and a lower (by, say... 7% to 9%?) general tax rate across the board. It worked in 1981, carried us through 1996... and it will work again NOW!

More money in the hands of consumers to free them from the needs and costs associated with bigger and bigger Government regulation and control. THAT was what brought us out of the Carter recession and ushered in the boom years of the 1990s. It is going to be tough going, no question... tough cuts will have to be made at a Federal level, but it is DOABLE, right now.

Why is this so hard?

"...to thunderous applause."

2011-10-24T13:14:00.009-04:00

Do you remember that scene from Star Wars in which the Sith Lord, as chancellor, makes his case for assuming undemocratic powers, and the assembly wildly applauds? Senator Padame then makes the comment, "So this is how a Republic dies. To the sound of thunderous applause." Then Jimmy Smits looks all worried, remember?

I ask this question rhetorically of course, for I know my audience, and I know you recognized the quote before your eyes even left the subject line. Allow me to follow up on Titus' "hubris" post ... all due respect buddy, you haven't even scratched the surface of what this President "assumes" he can do.

The President, MY president, is landing in Las Vegas today to push for his $447 Billion "Jobs Act." It has no chance of passing the House, or even the Senate. Reason? Bipartisan opposition. So why is he wasting our time and clogging up McCarren International Airport for a Bill he can't possibly get passed into law? Maybe he doesn't care about "passing" it.

"We can't wait on congress to act."

The PoTUS actually said that. He is landing in Las Vegas in about 2 hours to make that case. His jobs bill is "stymied", so he is going to attempt to enact it ... himself. I kid you not.

"With his jobs plan stymied in Congress by Republican opposition, President Obama on Monday will begin a series of executive-branch actions to confront housing, education and other economic problems over the coming months, heralded by a new mantra: “We can’t wait” for lawmakers to act.

According to an administration official, Mr. Obama will kick off his new offensive in Las Vegas, ground zero of the housing bust, by promoting new rules for federally guaranteed mortgages so that more homeowners, those with little or no equity in their homes, can refinance and avert foreclosure.

And Wednesday in Denver, the official said, Mr. Obama will announce policy changes to ease college graduates’ repayment of federal loans, seeking to alleviate the financial concerns of students considering college at a time when states are raising tuition."
(source: HERE)

Do you see why it matters when he federalizes student loans? Why it matters whether or not to call an executive leader out as a socialist, or Marxist, often and early? This is a man who went on the record in the year 2000 with Chicago NPR describing our Constitution as "inadequate." A man who described our nation in 2008 as needing a "fundamental transformation." Well, here it is - he dislikes this pesky "Republic" system, and he isn't going to abide by it anymore. How big of a "change" is that? Pretty damned "fundemental" if you ask me.

There's more (and this is all dated from 10/14 through today):

"Obama told his advisers on the White House Jobs and Competitiveness Council in Pittsburgh on Tuesday that he is “not going to wait for Congress” to act on jobs.

“I’ve shown repeatedly my willingness to work overtime to try to get them to do something to deal with this high unemployment rate. What we haven’t seen is a similar willingness on their part to try to get something done,” Obama said on Thursday. “

“So my instruction to all the advisers who are sitting around the table is, scour this report, identify all those areas in which we can act administratively without additional congressional authorization, and just get it done.”
(source: HERE)

John McCain, a supposed leader in the upper House of OUR congress, went on to say that the GOP would do everything they could to stop him, but quote: "He will probably get away with it."

How many times? How many times must the PoTUS act in a way that leaves us slack-jawed and stunned before we stop saying, "Oh, he'd never do that."???

From 9/27/11:
"Republicans rebuked North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue after she suggested Congress suspend elections for two years so lawmakers can get to work stimulating the economy unencumbered by anxiety about what voters think."
(source: HERE)

Say Beverly hun, be a dear and say that again, only this time do it in German, just for kicks and giggles. No, you wouldn't want to worry about what voters think. This is a sitting governor. She is taken seriously. You should hear the audio - this was no joke, no kidding around, no hyperbole.

Just this week:

"Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”
(source: HERE)

That constitutes "dysfunctional", not agreeing with the Chief Executive. Jackson Jr. went on to describe this plan. He wants "direct hire" by the federal government of all unemployed persons, at "prevailing union wages." What do you think the price tage for that would be?

Did you know the PoTUS approved the kill order of an American citizen?

"American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior U.S. government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to U.S. officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a U.S. citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process."
(source: HERE)

His role is "fuzzy?"

Sounds an awful lot like plausible deniability to me. Search the Web, as many as 20 names are suspected to be on this "list." 20 Americans, with assassination orders pending by their own government. And Nixon's list was a problem?

The three of us are in what, the upper 2, maybe 1% of information consumers? Did you even know this panel existed? I didn't. Follow those links if you wish. They wont take you to Beck, or Savage or Drudge. They're much more wildly right wing sources than that, such as the NY Times, Yahoo News, and the UK's Daily Caller.

Here is the problem with ALL of this ... thus far the discussion, be it on television, radio, or at the water cooler, has been centered around whether this jobs bill will work. Whether we should spend more tax payer dollars. How much Jackson Jr.'s plan would cost. The infeasibility of it all working. Whether al-Awalki deserved it, etc, etc, etc.

THAT IS NOT THE NEEDED CONVERSATION.

The needed conversation is where does our Executive Branch get the authority for ANY of this?

How can he conduct his administration in this way and not have articles of impeachment brought? Where is any real opposition to the president's insistence that he need not answer to congress ... or perhaps even to voters!?

That female writer whom so cleverly came up with the 10 ways Bush was definitonally a fascist dictator, where is she now?

I don't have to tell you, but it bares repeating - history is replete with states who's chief executive went about installing "ministers", "commissars", or as we have, "czars" that are allotted make believe "administrative authority" based on the musings of a single man, a single leader. And they go about the business of circumventing Politburos, Reichstags, Parliaments and Congress's all in the name of "Getting things done."

This guy, this president, is at the border of the Rhine, spitting, cursing at the name of Versailles while eyeing Paris. And the opposition is busy debating whether the Audubon can be completed in two years, or three.

Let me ask you something. If this President wins reelection, do you believe he is above declaring a state of emergency, suspending congress, and simply implementing his policies as law? Bare in mind, we are now at a place where sitting congressmen are comfortable publicly suggesting that he do just that.

Perhaps this is a better question: do you believe this President is above doing that if he loses?

This is disturbing...

2011-10-22T08:02:00.002-04:00

Vice President Joe Biden said that the manner in which the US "assisted" the Libyan rebels was the "new formula" in how America would respond to international crisis in the future... and the less than $1.1 billion price tag and "no lives lost" moniker would show the success of the formula.

This, to me, is the height of hubris.

Looking at the bigger picture, where will this sort of policy get the US in the long run? What historical examples to we have that can be viewed as a comparison to this "new formula"?

Well, the entire US foreign policy for the last three decades of the Cold War jump instantly to mind.

Vietnam. Laos. Honduras. Nicaragua. Iran. Iraq. All nations that we pumped support, money and material. Of these examples, only Vietnam developed into a long, drawn-out combat arena. The rest were quiet interventions that rarely made headlines as the US pumped millions and millions of dollars of material and funds to support foreign regimes and efforts. All failed utterly, in one way or another.

Of all the interventionist policies that we've adopted, the only one that I can say categorically worked was Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. Our support and aid directly assisted the Afghani fighters to beat back the Soviets over an eight year battle... but we failed to follow that support with further aid and assistance and we allowed the Taliban to take over.

NATO and US support of the Libyan rebels has removed and killed Qaddafi... and that is a good thing, but if we do not continue to support and aid the transitional government, we face having helped create a vacuum that any tyrannical extremist regime might fill.

This week we heard Obama say that all US troops would be out of Iraq by the New Year... and perhaps that is a good thing, too. But the position we are leaving Iraq in is far different than that which we find Libya in, and comparisons between the two by the liberal Left are unfair and grossly inaccurate. The difference between the two?

Boots on the ground... that is the only difference. What secures peace and builds stability is boots on the ground, ready to maintain the peace and security won in the first place.

Just curious...

2011-10-11T08:07:00.002-04:00

I have just looked through more than 11 pages of articles about the "Occupy Wall Street" effort going on across the country (but mainly in NY)... and I can't find ONE thing about what these people hope to gain from their efforts.

Does anyone know what the agenda is with this "protest"? Because, as far as I can see, this is a protest purely for the sake of protesting.

I see images of "hammer and sickle" flags, but I read and watch videos of speeches that declare communism "utterly dead and justly so"... so what do they want to replace the free market system with? If capitalism is so bad... what do we replace it with? I see people calling for dialogue and tolerance in debate... and calling defenders of the traditional American lifestyle as "tyrannical Christian zealots" and "fascist warmongers" and much, much worse.

This is the Left's counter to the Tea Party movement? A pointless, angry mob ranting for days in public about what they don't like, while offering no alternative ideas or opposing points of view?

Enjoy the weather, kids... looks like rain later in the week.

I'll be damned...

2011-10-07T20:53:00.002-04:00

The reigning Superbowl Champion Green Bay Packers are undefeated.

The University of Wisconsin Badgers are ranked #4 in the nation, and are also undefeated and are playing for a bid at the national championship.

And the Milwaukee Brewers are going to the NLCS after their win tonight.

I will be damned... Wisconsin sports is looking pretty tough right now.

I concede...

2011-10-07T06:50:00.002-04:00

I really hadn't known the penalties were that stiff... far too stiff, if you ask me.

However, the fair market value of bullion was offered and given. "Seizure" is simply too tough a word if we are going to discuss taking gold currency out of general circulation.

The topic has been discussed before. Managing the market price of gold through arbitrary and artificial means was a handicap on our markets, and when the actual value of of a $20 gold piece was closer to $60, why would a savvy citizen spend it at all? Gold is meant to be horded... used as a hedge against inflation and economic crisis... and the US couldn't afford to have 2% of its circulation value tied up in coins that weren't being spent.

I'm not convinced that taking gold out of circulation was not a good thing... but 9 years in the "big house" for having more than $100 worth is going too far.

No thoughts on whether or not Fort Knox is empty? I thought you'd slam me for that.

Executive Order 6102

2011-10-06T15:01:00.008-04:00

I'm sorry, I just couldn't let this slide.

"Beck and other pundits love talking about how FDR and the other "progressives" in the White House destroyed the American financial system by making it "illegal" for citizens to own gold bullion (constantly referencing the New Deal policy of removing gold coins from circulation). This was NOT a seizure of private assets as it is so often described by Congressman Ron Paul... it was a means of buying the coins back from private ownership by the Fed at an established rate and building a stockpile of bullion (at Fort Knox) to have on reserve for the US Government. Period. Were this NOT the case, Glenn Beck would not be making hourly claims to "owning" such a precious and protecting commodity as gold in his own portfolio, would he? "

I don't think Beck has ever claimed that FDR's gold seizures "destroyed" the American financial system (but yes, he has routinely referenced it as an example of progressive failings), but then again I can not claim to have bore witness to every word he's ever uttered. What you are absolutely wrong about is FDR did seize private assets. This was no simple "buy back" program. This was the equivalent to a hostile take over, an illegitimate financial eminent domain claim.

Executive Order 6102 was the Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933, by Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States". The order criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation over $100, in gold coins. Executive Order 6102 required U.S. citizens to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but that small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 per troy ounce. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 or up to ten years in prison, or both.

Order 6102 specifically exempted "customary use in industry, profession or art", a provision that covered artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers among others. The same paragraph also exempted "gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins." This protected gold coin collections from legal seizure and likely melting. The regulations prescribed within Executive Order 6102 were modified by Executive Order 6111 of April 20, 1933, both of which were ultimately revoked and superseded by Executive Orders 6260 and 6261 of August 28 and 29, 1933, which were even MORE restrictive.

The limitation on gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed after Gerald Ford signed a bill legalizing private ownership of all gold coins, bars, bullion and certificates in 1974 (post Nixon taking us off the standard, obviously).

FDR enforced the forced "buy back program" under the auspices of the Trading With The Enemy Act for goodness sake! You're right, that's not a seizure, it's totalitarianism (in my opinion). I don't care what you compensate the private owner with, to force his sale of his possessions - under penalty of imprisonment - IS A SEIZURE. And while we're at it, this post makes it perfectly plausable for Beck to simultaneously rail against FDR's executive gold seizure orders of the 1930's AND advertise the current ownership of gold within his portfolio.

On Gold...

2011-10-06T14:28:00.003-04:00

Gold itself is not a "problem," up or down. It is a barometer measuring the problem. The less confidence people have in the US Dollar, the higher the price for an ounce of gold climbs.

And that barometer is zooming more than you suspect. Gold 10 years ago was roughly $200 an ounce. 5 years ago it was $600 an ounce. 1 year ago it was at $1000 an ounce, and now it's floating between $1,900 and $2000. That is a HUGE spike in just the last year. And it portends bad things for the US currency. For the conspiracy nuts out there, there already exists a "global currency", it's the US Dollar. It is the Petro dollar of choice, meaning crude can only be purchased in US Dollars. It's why Germany, France, the UK, et al all hold billions of USD in reserve. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange has opened up 5 different avenues (in the last year) of crude purchasing power using currency other than the USD. If that becomes a wide spread trend, if we are no longer the reserve Petro Dollar, then why would these nations need to store billions of our currency? Why would our debt be worth holding? What gold's driving price does is send up a warning flare. If we continue to devalue our currency (read: print and spend) to the point that sovereign funds feel it no longer stable enough to use as the globe's Petro Dollar, then it's lights out for us. Gold isn't the problem, it's the screaming symptom of the problem, and thus is very important to monitor.

On what we DID agree upon ...

2011-10-06T14:11:00.003-04:00

"The question facing the American people right now ... is a question of whether or not we, as a people, WANT all our "problems" solved by the government rather than by ourselves. We (the Bund) may NOT want that, but it is undeniable that many in America right now do want that... because they see it is free and easy relief from the daily troubles that plague all of us."

I completely agree. That is the choice, the fight, before us.

This is what I mean when stating we must defeat the argument, the entire premise, not just the man. I gave a history lesson on the "man" simply to illustrate there is nothing about his ideology for us to compromise with.

I've thought a lot about this - the appeal of the president's message. Not just now, but the fact that this state based ideology rears its' ugly head every other generation or so. And on a philosophical level this is the conclusion I've drawn about what our mind set, our argument, must be: as thinking people we must all agree that man is imperfect. By definition then his society will be made imperfect. The president and his followers insist they can remedy this. Where we would insist that the only path to the optimal society is to ensure maximum liberty for the individual, he believes we can achieve paradise in this life by state mandated collectivism. What we must know with certainty is that man can not achieve paradise in this life. There is no collective salvation. Any more than there exists a collective Right. There is no Right that I do not possess as an individual that suddenly becomes available to me as part of a collective. To believe such is to immediately devalue the worth of the individual. There is no responsibility belonging to society that I am not called to personally. To do is to immediately devalue charity. And in turn there is no salvation available to me as part of the collective that I can substitute for personal salvation. To believe so is to immediately devalue the worth of the soul.

That is the defining issue of our time - can man best achieve "salvation" (or the optimal society)through self rule, or must he be shepherded into collective salvation bound and gagged within the arms of the state? Having chosen where we stand, we must demand that those seeking elected office, especially those claiming to be on "our side", do the same.

Can't see the connected dots for the forest...

2011-10-06T13:48:00.003-04:00

Of course the sins of the father do not taint the son, that's not the automatic conclusion I drew.

President Obama named his book not Dreams OF My Father, but Dreams From My Father ... as in passed on to the next generation, him. I submit were you to investigate that book , you would agree. President Obama also spent 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church listening to Black Liberation Theology, which at its' core (openly and proudly declared by Wright) is Marxism. He (Pres. Obama) admitted to acquiring audio recording of these sermons so that he could listen to them at night. And he went on a 1988 trip to Kenyan visiting Granny Sarah (where in the book he claimed to hear these stories first hand) prior to writing this book, which clearly enhanced (in my opinion) his anti-Western sentiments. He claims that in college he purposely sought out the Radical feminists, the Marxists, and so on. My point is that there is every reason to believe that he has willingly chosen to take on this "taint" as you described it. The "taint" is a man opposed to the traditional Western powers, opposed to the fundamentals of their culture (not race mind you, but individualist culture). And what ideology best represents the antithesis of that Western culture? What ideology best explains his policy decisions, speeches, legislation, and what ideology best fits with the familial past he was raised around and on?

Marxism.

The man is a Marxist.

I was simply providing background context which further illustrates why I believe this to be true. Background context that he didn't "inherit", but - as the evidence to date suggests - embraced and made a part of his mind set to this day.

So what does that mean for us now? It's simple (to me) - enough trying to compromise, water down, slow down, or stall this ideology (represented in this PoTUS). The entire premise must be defeated. In other words the GOP nominee need not be scared to talk about the unconstitutionality of Social Security (or at very least the inability for it to function); the nominee and the GOP in general must not be afraid to use the Constitution to declare the Dept of Ed unconstitutional; to reign in if not end the Federal Reserve; and on and on and on. As a Party the GOP must stop playing this game of , "We must live by the Constitution ... except here, here, here, and over here." And the only way that Party will have the backbone to do such a thing is if WE demand it.

And by the way, "Royal Colonist" described what I thought he was becoming, with his Czars answering only to "the reigning sovereign." It was meant to be a clever twist on the phrase. I wasn't implying, nor did I state, that Kenya was technically a "Royal Colony." You're right ... so little has changed.

Speaking of conspiracy theories...

2011-10-06T08:03:00.002-04:00

The one that seems to be popping up left and right today is the question of whether or not there is any gold still stored in the vaults at Fort Knox.

I've read the books and seen the shows... no public audits of the vaults since 1974, and absolutely no access to anyone (public or private) is allowed by the US Army onto the vault complex. National security is the official line, and perhaps there is some kernel of truth in the opinion that the public has a right to know whether that gold is there, and if it is... how much it is worth. I find it curious that, given the current value of gold and the nature of its value on the global commodities market at any given time over the last 40 years, the "value" of those hundreds of tons of bullion hasn't changed more than $0.45 an ounce since 1971. However...

I just don't see how it is pertinent to discussions about our current financial crisis.

The dollar hasn't been "backed" by gold since 1971, when Nixon removed the convertible nature of the US dollar into gold... so what is the problem? We have been a confidence currency ever since. The strength of our currency lies in the strength of our national economy, and when that economy slips, the value of the dollar slips accordingly.

Beck and other pundits love talking about how FDR and the other "progressives" in the White House destroyed the American financial system by making it "illegal" for citizens to own gold bullion (constantly referencing the New Deal policy of removing gold coins from circulation). This was NOT a seizure of private assets as it is so often described by Congressman Ron Paul... it was a means of buying the coins back from private ownership by the Fed at an established rate and building a stockpile of bullion (at Fort Knox) to have on reserve for the US Government. Period. Were this NOT the case, Glenn Beck would not be making hourly claims to "owning" such a precious and protecting commodity as gold in his own portfolio, would he?

Let us, for a moment, imagine that there is no gold in Fort Knox. Would the fact that the Fed has used, spent, traded or stored the gold somewhere else (roughly $300,000,000,000 worth of the stuff) really crash our financial system completely? Would banks fail? Would interest rates go through the roof? Would major companies go down the toilet?

How much does gold really effect the financial and industrial heart of America? How much does your daily life revolve around gold? What portion of your day is directly and measurably impacted by the fact that gold has now reached an all-time high in commodity pricing? Chances are, the answer to all these questions is very, very little.

But...

What if the price of a barrel of oil doubled tomorrow? Or tripled? Or increased by an order of magnitude over the course of a single decade? How different would your life be in ten years if THAT were to happen? How different would the national landscape be?

In 1971, the price for an ounce of gold was $40.62 (un-adjusted). In less than 40 years, that price has gone to over $2,000 an ounce... and most of THAT climb was in only the last 10 years. How different, and I mean fundamentally different, has our daily life been from before 1971 to beyond 2011? Different yes, but not fundamentally so.

The same timeline and increase in cost applied to the average barrel of light, sweet crude oil would mean an average price in 2011 of $890.00 per barrel. That would give us a price for gasoline (at the same tax rates as we have now) of just about $38 per gallon.

Which commodity do YOU think has the bigger impact on American and global financial matters?

A couple of questions...

2011-10-06T07:17:00.002-04:00

Does it matter that Kenya was never a "royal colony"? How does the definition provided for the term relate to the essay itself?

Are we suggesting that Obama hates "the white man"? Or is the historical relationship between Obama and the Mau Mau rebellion somehow responsible for his fascination with collectivism and anti-capitalism?

In regards to Obama's ancestors being the root of his "pinko-commie" ways, does that mean the sins of the father ALWAYS taint the son? Why, then, did Washington not carry the "taint" of his loyalist forefathers? Or Lincoln the "taint" of his slave-owning ancestors and in-laws?

This sort of rant smacks of far-right conspiracy like that spewed out by Beck and Savage on a daily basis... and it does nothing to solve the problems facing the nation. You can cry that we need to understand the root of the problem before we can fix it, but that simply is not true.

The question facing the American people right now is NOT whether or not Obama has radical elements in his family's past, or in his own associations. Rather, it is a question of whether or not we, as a people, WANT all our "problems" solved by the government rather than by ourselves. We (the Bund) may NOT want that, but it is undeniable that many in America right now do want that... because they see it is free and easy relief from the daily troubles that plague all of us.

Find yourself into a mortgage you can't afford? Why not vote for a leader that promises "fair and equitable" housing allowances? But you won't get a new house for free... you get your name on a waiting list for a tenement like those found in Obama's own Chicago-land, Cabrini-Green. Find yourself unemployed and unable to find work? No worries, the Fed will send you a UEC check for 99 weeks (or more) until you can find a job... but you shouldn't take a job that pays less than you were making, because that simply wouldn't make sense, would it?

We don't need to see Obama's birth certificate... or to study and understand his Mau-Mau ancestors (if any were) and their hatred of all things Caucasian... we need to know that government is not the solution to our problems. It is the cause of most of them, and a roadblock to solving even those that aren't caused by government.

Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-05T14:55:00.004-04:00

The CIA has warned that a domestic terrorist group named Anonymous, primarily computer hackers, have vowed to crash the NYSE on October 10th. To quote one intelligence source: "They don't make threats, they make promises." It is one of the creepiest pieces of audio I've ever heard. You can listen to the 2 minute, 4 second clip HERE. Particularly creepy in this cryptic message is the self identifying claim "we are legion." If you are at all familiar with the Bible you know (as does Anonymous) what that portends.

Now I mention this because Anonymous feels the Occupy Wall Street crowd is being thwarted, and they intend to take the "protests" to another level - declaring war on the NYSE.

And just a word on these protesters. They try and liken themselves to the Tea Party. They are not. These are thousands of wanna-be 60's radicals; socialists; communist; hard core wealth redistributionists; and revolutionaries. Why do I say that? Because of the Al Sharpton MSNBC interview (yes, he has a show now), and the countless other signs, statements and speeches in which the protesters and their chosen orators claim to be radicals, socialists, communists, wealth redistributionists, and revolutionaries. Said one man when asked by Sharpton what reforms he'd like to see, "We don't want reforms. We're not trying to fix this system, we're trying to end it."

And just to further demonstrate the difference between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street: over 3 years and some 301 gatherings the Tea Party produced a grand total of ZERO arrests. We've seen two weeks of OWS, and well over 700 arrests.

This is NOT the same movement. They want to, "burn the mutha down." And those in the Tea Party should not fall prey to seeing a kindred spirit in these people.

Decoding The Royal Colonist

2011-10-05T14:47:00.004-04:00

Royal Colony (noun) - a colony ruled or administered by officials appointed by and responsible to the reigning sovereign of the parent state.

It was an unusual move, to say the least. Having done my own research during the 2008 campaign I was very aware that the man about to assume the Oval Office was “hostile” to the traditional sense of Americanism: capitalism, the free market, even the Constitution itself which he described as “inadequate” in a 2000 interview with Chicago NPR; but even knowing all that I was caught off guard. I mean, send back a bust of Winston Churchill? And not send it back as in “take this gift from Tony Blair, given to George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11, and put it in the basement,” or the Smithsonian, or simply another White House room. But rather he sent it back, back… To England.

Those of us in the know, those of us whom make it their business to follow the events of our nation, should have asked why. Now you may believe we did, for there was much discussion about this on talk radio and online. However, the general consensus, in which I partook, was that this was yet another example of the President’s opposition towards all things George W. Bush in specific, and his hostility towards all things “traditional” in general. We didn’t ask “why” on a more intimate level, and we should have.

Have you ever heard of the Mau Mau Rebellion? And no, this is not the rebellion so nice they named it twice. Not ringing a bell? Nothing? I’m not surprised. Few historians can discuss it with any authority, let alone the average American. Yet it affects every American’s life to this to this day, and has since 2008.

The year is 1949. Rumblings of revolution fill the air and the distinct odor of weakness permeates the British Empire. Post WWII they are a shadow of their former selves. And the colonized throughout the Near East can sense the opportunity to throw off their rulers. In Kenya they begin to meet, to talk, to consider the unthinkable - defeating an empire. By 1951 information is filtering back to London about secret meetings being held in the forests outside Nairobi. A secret society called the Mau Mau, believed to have been started in the previous year, requires its members to take an oath to drive the white man from Kenya. The movement grows.

By August of 1952 the British ruled Kenyan government imposes a curfew in three districts on the outskirts of Nairobi where gangs of arsonists, believed to be members of the Mau Mau, have been setting fire to homes of Africans who refuse to take the Mau Mau oath.

In early October of the same year a senior chief named Waruhui is assassinated in Kenya. He is speared to death in public, on a main road outside of Nairobi. Recently he had spoken out against increasing Mau Mau aggression towards colonial rule. The rebels, intent on ejecting the colonists, are starting with the easiest targets - fellow Africans sympathetic to the UK.

Soon after the British government fears things are getting out of control, and they pledge to send British troops to Kenya in order to subdue the situation.

On October 21st, 1951, and with the immanent arrival of British troops, the Kenyan government declares a state of emergency. Nearly fifty people have been murdered in Nairobi within four weeks and the Mau Mau, officially declared terrorists, have acquired firearms. As part of the overall clamp down Jomo Kenyatta, president of the Kenya African Union (the British proxy government), is himself arrested for alleged Mau Mau involvement.

On October 30th British troops initiate a round-up of at least five-hundred suspected Mau Mau rebels.

By November 1952 The Mau Mau declare open rebellion against British rule in Kenya. British forces respond by arresting over two-thousand suspected of Mau Mau membership. Suspicion is everywhere. Neighbor informing on neighbor. White land owners become suspicious of their servants, and their servant’s children. The volatility of the country is on a razor’s edge, they are falling into open civil war.

Amidst the chaos of round ups and skirmishes was a cook. A black African named Onyango whom served dutifully in WWII on behalf of the British in the “Luo’ regiment. At the time of insurrection he happened to be the primary chef for a well-to-do British Army officer living in Nairobi. Onyango was outspoken, politically oriented, and soon gained the suspicions of his employer.

Mr. Onyango was eventually arrested, detained, and interrogated. As a servant for a British Officer it was feared that he was in prime position to relay Intel to the Mau Mau Rebels. I warn you, the following account, offered by Mr. Onyango’s third wife Sarah, is not for the faint of heart:

He said they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down… The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed.

“There was torture in Kenya during the Mau Mau emergency, institutional and systematic, and also casual and haphazard,” Professor Anderson writes in Histories of the Hanged: Britain’s Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire (2005). “Violence . . . was intrinsic to the system, and the use of force to compel obedience was sanctioned at the highest level.”

Mrs. Sarah Onyango went on.

This was like a death camp because some detainees died while being tortured… We were not allowed to see him, not even taking him food. [He] was told that he would be killed or maimed if he refused to reveal what he knew of the insurgency, and was beaten repeatedly until he promised never to rejoin any groupings opposed to the white man’s rule.

Even after he confessed, and renounced the insurgency, the physical abuse allegedly continued. An estimated 71,000 Kenyans were eventually held in prison camps on suspicions of Mau Mau affiliation. The vast majority were never convicted. Letters smuggled out of the camps complained of systematic brutality by warders and guards. And there were reports of sexual violence and mutilation, including the use of a device known as “castration pliers.”

Kenya would go through nearly another decade of on again off again war with the British Empire until finally gaining its’ independence in 1964. The total of Mau Mau activists killed is placed well above ten-thousand. During the same time period thirty-two Africans of European descent were reported murdered.

Mr. Onyango would eventually be released and returned to his family… The Obamas. Mr. Onyango’s full name was Hussein Onyango Obama. He is President Barak Obama’s paternal grandfather.

The woman, the third wife of Mr. Onyango Obama whom so vividly recalls the details of her husband’s ordeal, is referred to as “Granny Sarah” in President Obama’s book Dreams from My Father. In that book President Obama recalls another of Granny Sarah’s stories about his grandfather‘s return home:

When he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty. He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice. For some time he was too traumatized to speak about his experiences. From that day on, I saw that he was now an old man.

It should be noted here that the Prime Minister responsible for quelling the rebellion, initiating the original round ups, and the man responsible for sending the first waves of British troops to Kenya was none other than Sir Winston Churchill.

It should also be noted that another man was arrested and imprisoned for a short time during this ten years of war, for attending a meeting in Nairobi of the Kenya African National Union (Kanu), the organization spearheading the independence movement. That man’s name was Barak Obama Sr. - son of Mr. Onyango, father to our president. Barak Obama Sr. would later take advantage of a scholarship program initiated by JFK to enable Kenyan’s to self-govern their emerging country. That scholarship was taken at the University of Hawaii.

Let me ask you my fellow Americans, why is this story not widely known? Why has the media intentionally chosen to ignore, perhaps even cover up, information so vital to understanding what informs our Commander-in-Chief’s persona, his prejudices, to this day? Armed with this information is there any doubt as to why the bust of Churchill was returned? Is there any wonder why our President self imposes the role of “warrior” on behalf of those he sees as “colonized?”

This is a man weaned from birth on stories of the oppressive white man. Not theoretical dissertations, but personal family stories. He openly describes befriending Marxists, and purposely falling in with radicals while attending college. He insults our closest European ally on behalf of his family lineage. He routinely sides and sympathizes with the “colonized” Palestinian over the “colonizing” Israeli. His first call, literally his first phone call in his capacity as President of the United States, was to Abas, leader of the Palestinian Authority, whom is not even the head of a recognized state. In his first public appearance after the attack the President saluted the American Indian and their plight prior to addressing the mass murder of US soldiers on US soil by Major Nadal Hassan .

Now pause for a moment. Such a build up, as I have laid it out, may be stirring a resentment for the President within you, at this very moment - this is not my intent. My intent is to understand what informs his decision making process. Consider your own reaction. Your family, your people, your history. What if it were full of not general, not theoretical, but specific, real and measurable instances of intense brutality, of torture, or racism? Could the perpetrators, their descendants, their nation, ever find forgiveness in your heart?

So abandon the resentment and simply understand, it is our best strategy. Unlocking the president’s motives is the key to stopping the “change” he is attempting to bring this nation. This is a man dedicated - and this is vital to remember - a man dedicated to undoing the aggression of the traditional colonial powers, including America - their land, their status, their wealth, their power. In his mind it is all ill-gotten That is the “fundamental transformation” of America, “and the world” that he promised in 2008. He is orchestrating the bottom up reformation of our world as shaped by the 18th - 20th century powers, via their collapse.

Ironically if he is to be successful he must in the end become what he despises. He must “colonize” our traditions, our history, even our “inadequate” founding document. And replace it with “officials appointed by and responsible to the reigning sovereign.” Such push and nudge Czars are the only path to his collective salvation - the only way to cleanse us of our collective historic sins. In other words, he must become the governor of a royal colony in order to save us from our colonial past.

This family lineage has all along been made up of fighters. Senator Barack Obama is fighting using his brain, like his father, while his grandfather fought physically with the white man.
-Granny Sarah

*Sources:
Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya (2005); Histories of the Hanged: Britain’s Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire (2005); UK Times Online; African History/About.

Its good to see you back...

2011-09-30T07:19:00.002-04:00

... but so little has changed.

You are right, we are all familiar with the disdain and contempt that you continually show any concern anyone might have over any environmental or conservation issue. I am also familiar with the propensity you tend to show in assuming anything associated with "Earth" equals an environmental issue.

Regarding you last, I have to assume you are speaking of the Earth Charter that Gorby supports. The Earth Charter does contain conservation topics and agendas, but it is primarily an economic model designed to counter what Gorby (and many others) have determined to be the failed Washington Consensus... which is a model designed to show what guidelines and standards the US will support in developing countries.

Understand, I'm no fan of the Earth Charter. It smacks of centralized control of national and regional resource development and utilization... and that is a bad thing. In my opinion, it is utterly unsustainable, solely because of its grand scope. A country of a billion people (China or India) has less say about the use and development of resources than a country like Costa Rica, based only on the scale of consumption. I'm sure it fits nicely into what a former Communist would feel used to and comfortable with... but it can't ever work, for the same reasons communism can't ever work.

I'm also no fan of the Washington Consensus. Having a policy (stated or unstated) that says we support this sort of reform and organization, and then picking and choosing where and when such support will be applied is worse than meaningless... its a waste of time and money. The US will hold these standards and guidelines to the domestic agendas of states like Honduras, Mexico, Uganda, Liberia, and Ceylon... but will utterly ignore the violations of the same policies by nations like Pakistan, South Korea, South Africa and Brazil.

Supporters of the Earth Charter have no more right to dictate when, where or how a nation can use its own resources (fiscal, natural, environmental or otherwise... and that includes populations and demographics) than the US does to nations held to the yardstick of the Washington Consensus.

Both are meaningless and arbitrarily applied... so both are bad. However, the fact that it is a movement embraced by "green" supporters should be the LAST indicator of what is wrong with Earth Charter.

Comrade Greenie

2011-09-29T17:56:00.007-04:00

This is priceless...

Throughout the Ethos of Bund lore I have clearly, from the beginning, opposed the "green movement." In brief (very brief in fact), I'll recap the 3 primary reasons why: 1.) The science didn't add up to me on a very basic level. 7 or so ice ages, millions of years of volcanoes, continent fragmentation, bodies of water drying up & reforming, & I am to believe that in the sliver of time human beings have been residents on earth that Model T's are going to effect let alone upset such a ferociously powerful force as planet wide climate, especially when 97% of Co2 occurs as water evaporation? Please (& this was well before recent scandals involving faked data). 2.) It seemed a secular religion. Beat your wife, abandon your kids, & snort cocaine but as long as you recycle, well hell, Susan Surandon will show up on " earth day" & call you a saint. 3.) and most importantly, it appeared to me to be an all too convenient movement for those predisposed to opposing capitalism. Call it socialism, communism, statism,whatever you like, the bottom line is the tenants of the green movement are nearly indistinguishable from top down state controlled economic theory. And I have always suspected these "watermelons" - green on the outside, red on the inside - were merely packaging their preferred economic theories into a presentation more palatable to the American people - "we're saving the planet, and seals, baby seals in fact!"

Well ...

Forget .org or .com, .net or even .gov - there is a new web domain available for those wanting to prove their dedication to the environment. Presenting ".eco"!

Al Gore, who owns the "Green Channel", dedicated exclusively to his propaganda, has been fighting furiously to purchase & own this new domain. Alas, it was not to be. He ultimately dropped his bid for control. He lost to the man quickly becoming known as the "Al Gore of Europe."

Who won? You ready for this?

Mikael Gorbachev.

Ha! Ya greenies around the world, nothing says "we're environmentalists not socialists" like having the former premier of the UNION of SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS (and hard core commie I might add) as your helmsman.

You can't make this stuff up.

Who are you again?

2011-09-28T07:15:00.002-04:00

Just kidding...

Funny, this subject was on my mind recently too.

I'm sure we all recall the hubbub raised by Wright back in '08, and that hubbub focused a lot on his position as a pastor of a church that held a tax exempt status in IL. The unjust nature of the law in question is clear to me... but it was my understanding that a portion of the reasoning behind NOT doing away with it entirely was that it afforded the US, and specifically the Department of Homeland Security, its only foothold into investigating these sorts of pastors and religious leaders who advocate hate and/or violence against Americans.

Now, I don't know nor can I say just how much of the failure to follow up on this troublesome piece of legislation is because someone in executive authority feels it is better left alone than dealt with in the Supreme Court... but the prospect is interesting, is it not?

Radical Islamic leaders preaching hate and violence within American mosques... or rabid racists and ethnic supremacy-advocates lecturing on the evils of skin color and national origin, all are open to investigation via this law... which is a tax issue rather than a criminal investigation, and might make the process just a little easier to follow through.

My point? Is knowing that the purely "political" speech that is happening from the pulpit (be it about abortion, health care, welfare, et al) is utterly and completely ignored by the investigating agency (the IRS) time and time again enough to justify leaving it "on the books" to help combat the evils that stem from the more radical elements that also use the pulpit against American interests and policies?

For example:

You used the abolitionist movement as an example of pulpit politics, and it is an excellent one. I agree 100% with your thoughts on the important nature of keeping the abolitionist movement alive and kicking from 1776 all the way through 1865 via this venue. I just want to point out that there was a down-side to this, too... and one example of that down-side was John Brown.

John Brown was a failed and bankrupt preacher who, due to huge debt and massive amounts of mental instability, used the pulpit to advocate and justify rebellion and murder in the cause of ending slavery. Ultimately hanging for his crimes, he was found responsible for the murder of no fewer than seven men (one of whom was a freed slave) and the destruction of several pieces of private and government property in his radical efforts. Brown, too, used the pulpit... just as the more peaceful and non-violent anti-slavery elements did that we now know as the Underground Railroad.

You also made the example of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s... another excellent example (probably the best), but the advocates of segregation and racism that fought MLK and the rest used the churches they frequented on Sunday mornings just as often and just as efficiently as the integrationists. KKK recruiters often used churches as their primary means of finding new members and (more importantly) finding new money... and not only in the deep South.

I recognize and agree with your thoughts about the unjust nature of this law... seriously, I do. I think it should be struck from the books immediately. It is a clear violation of free speech, no question. I just want to make sure that you understand that there are those that defend it who hold a political view very similar to yours in regards to defending American from radicals who would cause her harm.

Pulpit Politics

2011-09-27T11:39:00.008-04:00

57 years ago a senator from Texas returned to Washington D.C. having narrowly escaped defeat. And he was hotter than hell ... see, two non-profit groups, and more specifically the men whom headed them, raised money, put out literature and campaigned relentlessly against this senator as being soft on communism. So the senator took action.

In 1954, with no debate, and on a US Senate voice-vote only he submitted an amendment to an IRS bill. Specifically Section 501(c) (3). It stated that entities who are exempt from federal income tax cannot, "Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of - or in opposition to - any candidate for public office."

The effect of Lyndon B. Johnson's personal vendetta, even if unintended, was to summarily shut down all political speech from the pulpit.

Now lets put this in context. The "Black Robe Regiment" was a series of pastors in the second half of the 18th Century whom preached the necessity of Revolution from the pulpit. This was no mere "suggestion", these were fiery, multi-hour sermons demanding the Christian responsibility to break with England. In fact Paul Revere's ride included the warning of at least 2 of these pastors along his route (it was rumored the British were to target these individuals responsible for inspiring rebellion). John Adams coined the phrase "Pulpit Thunder", and repeatedly noted it was these sermons which sounded the alarm necessitating Independence. In one such case the story goes that in 1776 a Lutheran Pastor, one Peter Mulhberg, concluded his fiery pro Independence sermon by ripping off his robe to reveal a Continental Army uniform underneath, enlisting 300 men for his German regiment on the spot. And we should note, there was no "political" issue more controversial at the time than Revolution.

Lets fast forward a bit. Throughout the 19th Century the midwife, birthplace and caregiver of the Abolitionist movement in America was the Christian Church, and specifically the pastors whom headed them. Without the churches to nurse the movement along it would have never got off the ground, let alone turn into the defining issue of the century. Again, we should all bare in mind that at this time there was no "political" topic hotter than slavery ... we did end up fighting a Civil War over it after all.

Fast forward again. Without the pulpit's urging, participation, and driving engine the Civil Rights movement would have been smothered in the crib. REVEREND Martin Luther King knew this. Even those whom would later become racial demagogues, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, wrapped themselves in the cloak of church garbs to push for political change. Even Malcolm X was a man of faith, pushing for reform from the pulpit. Each defying what became known as the "Johnson Amendment."

For decade after decade pastors would preach an annual "Election Sermon" in which they would, from the pulpit, evaluate and give a pastor's take on the candidates running for office both local and national. And undoubtedly there are countless other examples of the pulpit serving as a good and just rallying point throughout American history, I simply can not include them all in a single post. But what they all - left, right, or center - had in common throughout each of these periods in American history prior to 1954 was their unconditional tax exempt status. It was intact and guarded based on the separation of church and state because the power to tax, as our founders knew all too well, was the power to control. The Johnson Amendment quietly, and with little fanfare, ended this 57 years ago.

Ask yourself. Can you note when in modern American history there is a clear demarcation line of moral decline? At least one of the founders Bund believe it to be the 1960's, the Baby Boomers. Can the Johnson Amendment explain such a decline in its entirety? Maybe not. But I find it an interesting spatial parallel.

Fast forward to today. Have you ever considered why it is that the likes of Jeremiah Wright can spout off from the pulpit about exclusively political issues and never be challenged by the IRS? The answer is simple. Johnson was quietly warned at the time that his Amendment may not hold up in court under the auspices of the First Amendment. And in those 57 years the IRS has never pursued a single case in court. NOT ONE. They don't want it to go to court, they know they'll lose. So when a case is brought before the IRS they simply issue a warning and quietly "close the file."

In 2008 the Alliance Defense Fund, a group 2,500 Christian attorney's, hand sleeted a group of 33 pastors willing to engage in political discourse from the pulpit, video record it, and mail it in to the IRS. They wanted to purposely cause the courtroom confrontation and finally end the authority of the Johnson Amendment. I should note here that the intent of these pastors was to evaluate the candidates, the issues, and the parties and give their take on which was most in line with Christian teachings, as the individual pastor saw it. Their "opinion" was precisely the point of the exercise. They did just that, and dutifully mailed it in.

The IRS did nothing.

In 2009 the Alliance Defense Fund acted again and this time put together 84 pastors. These pastors did the same thing - recorded their sermons on politics and sent it in to the IRS.

The IRS did nothing.

Last year 100 pastors participated, all recording their sermons, all sending them in with the 2,500 attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund ready and willing, standing by to defend.

The IRS did nothing.

This year Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in La Mesa, CA allied with the ADF and has thus far signed up 500 pastors. They are looking to reach the 1000 mark by October 2nd. They have declared that Sunday in October to be "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." You can access his site and cause at pulpitfreedom.org. They hope to get the number of pastors large enough that the IRS is forced to engage, confident that such a showdown will see the Johnson Amendment struck down as an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech.

Now the point here isn't that I want pastors telling their congregation whom to vote for. The point is that if one truly believes in the separation of church and state, then you must conclude that the government has no business intruding into the pulpit, censoring speech based on the tax code. A pastor has every right to tell his congregates who to vote for and those congregates in turn have every right to listen, ignore, attend, or not attend that church. The tax exempt status that existed for 162 years prior to Johnson's efforts was specifically designed to keep the government out of religion - removing the power to tax. And the Johnson Amendment revoked that protection in one fell swoop.

And as a political matter, let's face it - pastors with a leftist bent aren't the ones scared into silent submission. They flaunt their rejection of the Johnson Amendment, routinely. We've all seen the footage of Wright, of priests in California screaming about illegal immigration. They are unafraid. And Left, Right or center, it is time that every preacher have his First Amendment Rights officially restored.

I trust the American people. Let's just see where issues like abortion end up after a generation of pastors, preachers, deacons and bishops are allowed to do what the rest of us take for granted - speak.

Hmmm...

2011-09-20T21:04:00.000-04:00

I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. Two posts for the whole month so far... nice.

I'm Spartacus

2011-09-12T08:21:00.002-04:00

Andy Whitfield died yesterday of cancer.

Any casual follower of this Bund knows we're all huge Spartacus fans... And this is sad no matter what Andy did. The kid (yes, KID) was 39.

Rest in Peace, Andy.

An indelible mark...

2011-09-10T20:43:00.002-04:00

That's what September 11 is... an indelible mark on our history.

There really aren't many, you know. July 4, 1776, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. November 19, 1863, and the delivery of the Gettysburg Address by then President Abraham Lincoln. December 7, 1941, and the attack on Pearl Harbor, HI. November 22, 1963 and the assassination of JFK.

September 11, 2001, is recent enough to still resound in many of our memories... but distant enough to no longer dominate our thoughts, worries and daily routines. We all recall where we were, and what we were thinking on that tragic morning, yet our lives go on much as they did prior to that day.

I know that if anything good has ever come from that terrible morning, it was the lesson to all of humanity that EVIL exists in this world... it is a real, tangible, measurable threat to us all. It should also have shown us... in the first hours of footage, in fact... that real GOOD exists as well.

The evil I speak of isn't Islam, it is the sort of evil that convinces anyone that murder, terror and destruction can ever produce good results. It is the sort of evil that convinced Nazis that the "final solution" was an acceptable national policy. It is the sort of evil that convinces honest, hardworking men and women that they are fundamentally "better" than another person based only on their skin color, creed or ethnicity. It makes faith-filled people firmly believe that God (by any name) is on their side ONLY... and that He hates everyone else.

In a world dominated by relativism, 9/11 showed us that evil is real... it isn't "relative" and you can't deal with it "objectively" because it is never, EVER objective.

The good I speak of is evident in the manner in which our society (as a vast whole) has responded to the attacks and the evil that inspired them. Solidarity, unity and common purpose were evident as soon as the first plane crashed, and have been recognized and applauded each and every day since. We recognize the real heroes of 9/11... the real "martyrs" of the day, and not one of them were fighting against America.

I'm a bit torn by the prospect of seeing it all again tomorrow just as we all saw it ten years ago. It was an upsetting thing to watch then... but it can only be harder now, ten years later or not. Still, I recognize the necessity of remembering the day and the evil that caused as well as the good that has helped see us through it.

I'll watch. Gladly.

Ahhh...

2011-08-31T07:39:00.002-04:00

Do you hear that? No?

Me either.

That, my friends, is the sound of an empty house.

Yep... first day of school here in NEPA. Nolan and Jake are off to learn their ABCs (and whatever other liberal crap that passes these days for education), Katey is at University, Liz is on her way to work... and I have the next two days off.

The morning went surprisingly well, actually. The whole house over-slept by about 20 minutes, but no one was crabby, fussy or belligerent and all got to where they needed to be on time, dressed and loaded with the necessities of the new school year.

Now, even more than bringing to mind the certainty of early afternoon naps on the couch and blissful quiet until 3 PM, this time of the year brings something else to my mind:

Football.

Jambo and our good friend John drafter the Cheesehead's roster this Monday past... and they did a hell of a job. I'm SO impressed, I thought I'd share the roster with all of you.

In no particular order (unless otherwise noted) here it is:

QB Aaron Rodgers, GB

QB Joe Flacco, BAL

RB Michael Turner, ATL

RB Ahmad Bradshaw, NYG

RB Michael Bush, OAK

RB Pierre Thomas, NO

WR Percy Harvin, MIN

WR Jeremy Maclin, PHI

WR Jordy Nelson, GB

WR Lee Evans, BAL

WR Mike Williams, TB

K Mason Crosby, GB

K David Akers, SF

Vikings DEF

Raiders DEF

Maclin and Harvin are studs, no matter who throws the ball, and Aaron Rodgers is the odds on favorite to lead his team to the next NFC Championship game. He's projected to have a 4k yard season, another 30 TDs and an average fantasy score (in our league, anyway) of more than 35 ppg. Thomas was a STEAL at where they picked him (9th round, I believe)... and YES, we know he'll share touches, but he is as good a receiver as he is a running back, and that is worth double points in our league.

In fact, Rodgers and Thomas square off in the season opener for both teams at Lambeau Field a week from Thursday. Potentially our two biggest scorers of the week playing on a Thursday night... we could start the season off with a BANG that game, huh? Brees and "da Saints" are looking to reassert themselves as Superbowl contenders (which I still feel they are) against the reigning champion Packers, and if the Packer defense is still tough as nails, Thomas will get his screen pass yardage all night long, with at least one TD before the game is over.

It was a good summer... but DAMN I love the fall.

Six years ago right now

2011-08-29T06:23:00.002-04:00

My storage shed landed in my neighbor's yard, after going through my back fence.

The power went out too... And didn't come back for over a week.

Just about every casino on the Coast ended up damaged somehow, most beyond repair. There wasn't anything bigger than a brick left of Tullis Manor after the Grand barge landed on it... Or the old Tivoli Hotel after the Lady Luck barge bounced off it.

It feels longer than six years, truth be told.

"F--KING IRENE!"

2011-08-27T08:09:00.003-04:00

I know... I'm not typically a fan of the profanity on the blog. I just keep associating this named storm with the "go signal" from the movie Blackhawk Down: Irene.

Rain total projections are now over 7 inches here in NEPA for Sunday, and that is going to make my old, leaky basement a very wet area, I can tell you. Liz and I just got all the essentials off the floor and as high as possible, placing the pump in the needed area and getting all ready for the inevitable rising water. We can handle about 150 gallons an hour... but more than that and we're fighting a losing battle. More than 20" of rainwater in the basement, and the furnace is flooded. It's not cold enough to need the furnace, but the added expense of having it cleaned and serviced is supremely inconvenient right now.

Couple this with the near certainty that we will lose power for at least a portion of the storm (meaning the pump won't run at all), and you see the problem shaping up before our eyes. Our power seems intimately tied with that of northern New Jersey (not sure if this is true, or why, if it is true), and they are expecting rolling outages of several hours of blackout, at least. We can weather the outages... we have water, oil, candles and food galore... but the pump needs juice to run.

I know... how can a Katrina survivor NOT have a generator? I just never seem to have the scratch to buy one.

Fun, fun... I move all this way to AVOID hurricanes, and here I am: prepping again for another storm.

{sigh}

My first earthquake...

2011-08-24T08:22:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I experienced my first earthquake. Hundreds of miles from the epicenter, and it was still strong enough to cause all the light fixtures in the casino to sway. It even knocked bricks off the building my wife works in. Other than that... kind of a non-event.

Hurricane Irene, on the other hand...

The "cone-o'-death" now spreads quite nicely over my house for Sat night/Sun morning. I expect no real winds... but I can plan on copious amounts of rain and frequent power outages. The rain is fine... but I'm no fan of the power outages, I can tell you that. Still, I have water, propane and lamp oil, so I should be ready.

Busy day today... Katey, our 18-year-old, leaves for college tomorrow, and she is NOT ready to go yet. Seems she spent last night emptying her closets and dressers of ALL their contents and spreading them (seemingly randomly) around her bedroom floor. She then took my soft-sided luggage rack for the top of the truck and put ALL her clothes into it. It is amazing how such a small girl can have so many clothes... and how much those clothes weigh. She used no luggage, mind you... just loose clothing in the carrier. {sigh}

I want her to be excited for the experience... but just a touch of common sense (from both her and her mother) would be nice. She's only going to be away for nine days before her first long break for Labor Day, so how many outfits will she really need? I paid for unfettered access to the laundry facilities... so surely she can't be expected to take ALL her clothes, right?

Well... I'm off to start the day. Jambo should be in MS already (or very nearly there). I wanted to call him last night, but the cell died in the car and things were simply too crazy in the house once I got home. If you read this... call me when you are functional.

Today was a big day...

2011-08-22T21:05:00.003-04:00

It really was: in one 24-hour period, we saw the end of the Fairness Doctrine here in the US AND the end of the Qaddafi regime in Libya.

Granted, neither is completely gone... yet. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't die (once and for all) until it's replacement policy is published and placed into action. That might take a few days. Qaddafi's regime doesn't officially die until he is found and the last vestige of his government is removed (once and for all). That, too, might take a few more days... but it is coming.

Both of these events are big... HUGE for the Obama Administration, and humanity in general. And, frankly, both surprise me.

I'm still trying to come to grips with what possessed the President to recommend this sort of "reform" from the FCC. We've discussed the Doctrine here often in the past, and Ryan and I (at least) have had some loud and rousing discussions about its merits and failings... but I think we both agreed that if it was going to go away forever... the last person we thought that would do it would be someone Obama appointed to the job.

Six months ago, Obama said that the US involvement in Libya's "revolution" would last only days, and only two years ago (June 4th, 2009, to be exact), in his Cairo Speech, he said "I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. " Despite criticism from both his party and much of the liberal world, Obama maintained the US support of the NATO actions against Qaddafi and his forces... and the rebel victory is clearly (but not solely) linked to this support.

Were Obama a smart man (or one that surrounded himself with smart people, which is the next best thing), he'd be explaining that US efforts in Libya are NOT interventionist in nature... but are supportive of freedom and liberty as expressed and detailed in our own founding documents. We are not "imposing" American democracy on Libya... freedom and liberty cannot be imposed, by the very nature of the words and ideas. We are supporting efforts that reflect our own fundamental principles, and any risks or costs associated with such support are well worth it.

We are going to look back on the Obama legacy (be it one term or not) for DECADES to come, and have no end of things to complain about... but I really don't think either of these are going to ever be among them. I could almost say I'm proud of the man right now...

Happy Birthday!

2011-08-19T08:13:00.002-04:00

On this day in 1970, my little brother was born...

He's been here in NEPA since Sunday, and I know it hasn't been all fun and excitement for either him or Leona... but I want them both to know I've had a blast. We've laughed at memories, talked about old friends, and complained about work (mine, theirs, anybodies)... and we've drank, ate and laughed some more.

I hope Jambo has a great day, and I will miss him (and Leona) when you guys leave.

An era of extremes...

2011-08-16T09:35:00.003-04:00

That's what this election cycle is shaping up to be.

On the one side you have the remnants of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid followers who are convinced that taxing the rich (which equals taxing most of the moderate and large business owners/employers) and deficit spending will fix all the world's troubles by growing government's ability to control and dictate the private sector as readily as it dictates the public sector.

On the other side, you have the "Tea Party" favorites, who are rapidly being seen as even worse than the LAST Congress because there is nothing getting done via compromise and debate. Every single GOP candidate to date has vowed that there would be "no new taxes", even if that new tax was coupled with a 10-to-1 reduction in spending... and the same promise is going to be rung out of most of our Senate and House hopefuls, too.

Once again, I'm frustrated that the GOP won't stick to their guns and deliver a PLAN with consistent goals and objectives that counters the obvious and measurable failings of the liberal agenda. Congressman Ryan's plan has all but faded into oblivion in the last 9 months... and no real replacement has been forthcoming.

Has the GOP forgotten that the "incumbent" always has the edge? Whether its the House, Senate or Oval Office... the incumbent has the advantage in an election cycle. For the next 15 months, Obama can simply point to GOP partisanship and say "It's their fault, not mine!" and the historical record tells us 54% of the voting population will believe him over the opposition candidates. The only exceptions to this edge are when the opposition can plainly show an alternative to the incumbent's policies... as Reagan did in 1980 to Carter's policies.

Say what you want about CNN...

2011-08-12T09:07:00.003-04:00

Last week's NH GOP primary debate was a damn good one. I watched it all just this morning, having only seen bits and pieces previously. Tough questions, no favoritism, and a functional format.

If you haven't seen it... watch it. It's good.

On British riots...

2011-08-11T09:19:00.002-04:00

Something you don't hear mentioned often here...

Seems the neighborhoods that these riots have occurred in are poor, ethnic and crime-ridden. Not surprising, but I read a statistic today that shocked me:

The borough that Tottenham is in has averaged more than 200 gun-related crimes a year for more than three years, and more than 50% of those are shootings (where the firearm is actually discharged in the act of the crime). Now, granted, 100 shootings is a tiny amount of the per capita percentage (less than .3%)... but other statistics are OUTRAGEOUSLY higher.

For example, the actual homicide rate in the UK is more than nine times greater than anywhere else in Europe, and only 7% of them are done via firearms. Compare that to Northern Ireland, where gun ownership is legal, and you see both firearm crimes AND homicide numbers are less than HALF of the rest of the UK. London is particularly dangerous... violent crimes such as rape, armed robbery (presumably with something other than a firearm), and violent assault (is there another kind?) at 12% higher in London than anywhere else in the United Kingdom (with the possible exception of Manchester... they have it bad too).

Where is the correlation between "gun control" and lower crime rates here?

An aside...

2011-08-10T10:20:00.002-04:00

Hehe... just a note to say that, here on my last two days off before Jambo and his better-half show up on our doorstep, I'm busy as hell trying to get everything cleaned, organized and set up so that Liz and the kids only have to "maintain" for the next four days, rather than "deep clean".

I'll be in and out of the computer... but I hope Jambo appreciates the level of monsieur domestique that I am acting here. If I hear any bitching once he's here, I'll padlock the cooler with the Stella Artois lagers and Smithwicks ales (I know he won't drink my porters and stouts) and cry "Be damned to ya!"

Off today...

2011-08-10T07:38:00.003-04:00

So I have a few more minutes to post than normal.

Your points in your last post are valid... but don't address my question. I understand the threat posed by jihad-minded Muslims, but does "terror" and its effects on the victims go beyond labels or denominations? More to the point, do labels compound the problem by creating more issues than they solve?

Using the Norwegian killer as an example again, I'd answer at least one of your questions with a YES: Did he intend to overthrow the existing democratic government and replace it with a Christian theocracy? His 1,500 page manifesto certainly seems to indicate that his intentions ran along those lines. But his intentions aren't where the problem lies... its in his actions and the effects of those actions on his fellow citizens.

Many people are unhappy with the existing government of this country, including many millions of Americans... yet no rational human being would condone what McVeigh did in 1996. That was terrorism, pure and simple. The Tokyo Subway attacks of '95 were the same, and resulted in 12 dead, more than 900 injured and 5,500 people hospitalized... "terror", pure and simple.

Were either of these "worse" than the '93 WTC bombing? Was the "intention" of that bombing anything other than "terror"? Even 9/11 was planned and executed to give the maximum amount of chaos and confusion, and not to overthrow the democratic government of the US. They wanted to hurt us... to cripple us and make us less of a "superpower" globally... but even those sick and twisted enough to plan and execute such efforts didn't imagine it would destroy the US entirely.

Now, where I am entirely in agreement with Ryan (and most of the established conservative movement in this country) is in the FACT that an act of terrorism committed against the US and her citizens is a legitimate casus belli, and should draw the full legal, economic, military and political reaction from the US onto those responsible for the terror, or those harboring the terrorists.

More and more, though, I am wondering if fighting a "war on terror"... where the primum hostium is terror itself, rather than a nation, state or organization utilizing terror as a means of war... is something we can hope to win. Its fine as stated policy, I guess... but as a committed, on-going combat objective, I don't see it as something we can sustain for any extended period of time beyond what we already have, and I see no measurable success in our efforts to date.

Now, I can see Ryan melting down as he reads this. Yes, we removed the Taliban from power, and reduced al Qaeda to a fraction of their former ability and influence across the globe and the region. Yes, we removed Hussein and helped establish a democratically elected Iraqi government were none had ever existed before. Both of these efforts were wildly successful (no matter what the Left says) and both were in specific response to threats and/or actions taken against the US directly. Neither can be shown to have reduced the likelihood of a terrorist attack anywhere in the world, however... on the contrary, a good case can be made that they have increased the likelihood of such attacks, at least locally and regionally.

So, I see wild success in responding to direct attacks and threats of attack from nations/organizations that utilize or support terrorism as a legitimate arm of war (arma bellica, to continue my meager Latin stretches...), but no measurable success in fighting and winning the broader and more general "War on Terror" that we still hear so much about.

And, FINALLY, to return to my original point and question... has the broad and general efforts to date contributed to such attacks as what we have seen so recently in Norway?

Quickly...

2011-08-08T20:28:00.007-04:00

As I am also pressed for time.

On Titus' point, their are 3 obvious answers to me. 1) "numbers." You got 14 guys with shaved heads & old school Nikes sipping Hemloch in a basement, you have a cult. You have 140 million doing so & you have a "religion." And that's my way of pointing out that the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" becomes apt when amongst this wide array of terrorist networks, nations, nationalities & skin color their professed religion is the single unifying factor. Lone nuts do not get the identifier of a wider community when they are, well, alone. 2) and more important is the "goal." Was the Norway shooter killing with the aim of supplanting the democratic form of government in his nation with a Christian theocracy? Because the end game of Islamic terrorism is to install Sharia law from one end of the planet to the other. They want an all Islamic government. I understand the Norway shooter wanted multiculturalism stopped and saw it as the end of his country as he knew it, but did he want an unelected Christian rule of law to replace the Labor Party or a return to what he saw as "the good old days?" Because those are 2 very different things. 3) A wider acceptance within the killers professed religious community. What are Bin Laden's poll numbers in Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Syria? Do any "Christian States" fund Christian terror groups as Iran does Hezbollah,or members of the Saudi Royal family do Al Qaeda? Is their a single priest, Catholic, Protestant or Mormon, that has come out in support of the Norway shooter as Imams both West & East defend HAMAS?

I would argue that Al Qaeda, HAMAS, in each of my 3 categories earn their religious identifier where as the sick, demented mass murderer in Norway did not.

Now, as to what I signed in to post on...

How many times have you heard, from President Obama apologists on TV and in your own life, "Well he inherited a ..." and they go on to fill in the X, Y, & Z horrible mess Bush left Barak. The economy, unemployment, bail outs, Obama's inability to mend any of these national problems is at naseaum blamed on what he inherited from Bush. Here's the comeback: "Well, he inherited a triple A credit rating too."

On the language of debate...

2011-08-08T08:07:00.002-04:00

I don't want to start a fight. I'm not detailing a huge shift in my personal perception of the world and our society, I'm simply asking for opinion and input.

We've all spent weeks watching and reading about the terror attacks in Norway, and how these attacks are being understood in the light of European multiculturalism. Many more traditional and conservative pundits have said that this is the clearest evidence that multiculturalism does not work. Many more liberal pundits have said this is evidence that conservative values contribute to and encourage intolerance and hatred.

All language is imperfect, and thus all language is prone to allowing narrow, constrained terms and phrases when trying to detail and categorize events like the Norway attacks. For example, terms that are frequently used in describing Breivik (the alleged and admitted perpetrator) are many and varied, but most are very similar to "right-wing Christian extremist". His views certainly seem ultra-conservative (meaning from the far right of the political spectrum), and no one can deny his extremist views and actions. I can't really speak to his Christianity, since neither his expressed views nor his actions reflect Christian values as I understand them today... but it is how he describes himself, so the label sticks.

My question is: Does associating someone like Breivik, an avowed right-wing extremist, with his traditional Christian background contribute to the problem, or does it help identify it?

No one in the past (that I am aware of) ever referred to the terrorism employed in Northern Ireland by both the IRA and the Protestant groups fighting them as "Christian terrorists", even though they were fighting, bombing and killing in the name of two very distinct Christian denominations. McVeigh was not labelled a "Christian terrorist" even though he was Christian and had a serious issue with the secular society of today's America.

Terms and phrases such as "radical Islam" and "Muslim extremists" might be perfectly accurate terms for people and organizations like bin Laden and Hamas... but do they also contribute to the marginalization of a large (and growing) segment of most Western societies? When such terms become so common and so general, do they actually carry or convey any meaning or substance?

I'm late for work, so I can't continue now... but I'd love to see this thought discussed further.

AA

2011-08-06T05:15:00.005-04:00

For the first time in US history our credit rating has been reduced from the gold plated AAA to AA+. Standard and Poors cited the recent deficit curbing deal as insufficient to bring our debt under control & initimated they could drop it further if no action to correct course is taken. This puts us behind the UK, France and Germany. Soon after, Chinese State TV launched an absolutely blistering attack on our financial "mess", chastising the US government like a father scolding a teenage daughter with her own credit card. This was no cryptic diplomatic talk, it was a flat out verbal assault.

So let me get this straight - Standard & Poors and the Peoples Republic of China claim those NOT in the Tea Party are the extremists.

How's that hope and change working for you? Ya, lets reelect this guy & keep the Boehnors & McCains ... they've got 2 more A's to go through before we're in real trouble ... God help us.

A heads-up for you parents...

2011-08-04T07:32:00.002-04:00

We got the final bill for the 18-year-old's first year of college yesterday... and we paid it.

She earned, begged and borrowed $3,900 for her share, and the balance of $4,478 was on us... so we did what any normal American family would do: we borrowed the money. That's just the first semester, too... ouch. Still, it's nice to know that the bill for this term is paid. If nothing else, she'll have this term under her belt before we have to do this all over again.

The average state-school tuition in this state is just over $21k, and our's is a little less than $17k. We feel like this is a bargain... but it still hurts to think that each and every year we are adding the equivalent to another car payment to our debt load. Since the House went with the GOP majority, funding for student aid has been cut by the Fed, and the Commonwealth of PA hasn't picked up the slack (they are as broke as the Fed, it seems)... all while tuition rates have jumped an average of 15% in just two years.

Prior to the storm... I had no children. After the storm, I end up with three and I find (now) that I am utterly unprepared to pay for any of their college educations, let alone all of them. If I had words of wisdom for my Bund Brothers, it would be to find some way to SAVE SAVE SAVE for college, starting tomorrow.

Sure, I know that the sinfully-prideful souls of both Jambo and F Ryan are saying that the superior genes of their respective progeny mean that the children are shoe-ins for scholarships and grants galore... and that might be true... but nothing can prepare those that are unaware of what schools today are putting on an itemized list of costs associated with education for the AMOUNT that needs to be fronted, and just how narrow the scholarship and grant applications are in their coverage.

For example... on-campus living expenses. I lived on-campus (admittedly, more than 23 years ago) and don't EVER recall seeing someone "cleaning" the dorms. Yet, part of Katey's itemized costs is a bill for $278/semester for "dormitory cleaning". I know there are common rooms, bathrooms and shower facilities that need to be cleaned... but in all the time I spent in the dorms, I never saw it being done, and I promise you no one ever (EVER) cleaned my rooms. She has another bill of $140/semester for use of a fitness facility. I certainly hope she takes advantage of this perk, and works out to her heart's (and body's) delight... because I can't NOT pay for this perk, so I don't want to see it wasted.

Anyway... its a staggering amount of money. You can't start planning for this expense too early, let me tell you.

Too true...

2011-08-03T08:24:00.003-04:00

Welcome to my nightmare... watching your party self-destruct before your very eyes. The only difference is that I've been watching mine for longer than you have (by about 9 years).

This will get fixed ONLY when the proponents of fiscal responsibility find a way to communicate their ideas and plans in a manner that can be measurably seen against the plans and policies of the Dems and GOP running things now. I'm not convinced that Bachmann and the rest have ALL the answers, but much of what they say makes sense and warrants at least a try and some real consideration... but it won't get any of it.

As I've said before... this economy has NOT seen the worst that is to come, and this Congress and this Administration are going to be the ones to bring that "worst" to light.