I swear to God...
When I came up with a similar idea as a part of New Deal 2008 (April 2008) it sounded a lot better. One million car sales, $4500 per car to get your crap car in and a more fuel efficient car out.
How much of that will go towards AMERICAN made cars?
Well, let's see.
Any domestic made hybrids crashing the market at $13k or less? No? Do these flex fuel vehicles count? No? Are any of the big three rolling out the smaller hybrids on demand? No?
Well, there's 4,500,000,000 well spent.
Same concept, same kind of deal except instead of GIVING the money away the homeowner borrows it SBA style from the feds at 3.5% over ten years and my alternative energy idea is GOLD. Domestically produced wind generators and solar panels, at a million homes a year? THAT'S stimulus.
Man...
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
See, if you'd return my texts ...
... this wouldn't happen. I asked you if it was "Robert", asked if I had that right. And yes those mission papers were indeed what I meant. However I'm not sure how "Ray" or any special services member would feel about this movie, having just watched an extended clip online here. The title is: Ingloriuos Basterds (yes, that's how they spelled it). First, I didn't realize whose move it was - its' Tarantino's. And it is heavy on violence. And that's ok, 300 was as violent as it gets but there was some measure of honor rolled into it in a way I'm not sure a Quinton Terantino - gangster film maker - is capable of capturing. Perhaps I am wrong . . . I hope so, less Hollywood go after the final sacred object of their industry, WWII soldiers.
At any rate you can check it out, judge for yourself.
By the way - we've been in Afghanistan since 2002, Iraq 2003, with countless special forces, infantry, et al missions, anyone of which could be fertile ground for a serious war movie, but not 1, NOT 1 movie comes out of Hollywood about our men currently engaged. They support the troops but not the mission? Bullsh** . . . but all that is a well established fact here. The last war time president ( & war for that matter) they see as "worthy" of their "art" is FDR. And the last war time Republican that modern Hollywood finds worth imitation is Lincoln!
Well, at least they are doing GI JOE, coming out in June. It looks good. It would appear that to Paramount et al that the only modern soldiers worth honoring through film are fictional &/or in the future (Star Trek & the new Terminator).
{sigh}
At any rate you can check it out, judge for yourself.
By the way - we've been in Afghanistan since 2002, Iraq 2003, with countless special forces, infantry, et al missions, anyone of which could be fertile ground for a serious war movie, but not 1, NOT 1 movie comes out of Hollywood about our men currently engaged. They support the troops but not the mission? Bullsh** . . . but all that is a well established fact here. The last war time president ( & war for that matter) they see as "worthy" of their "art" is FDR. And the last war time Republican that modern Hollywood finds worth imitation is Lincoln!
Well, at least they are doing GI JOE, coming out in June. It looks good. It would appear that to Paramount et al that the only modern soldiers worth honoring through film are fictional &/or in the future (Star Trek & the new Terminator).
{sigh}
I'm not sure who "Robert" is...
But my Grandfather "Ray H." jumped into France with a Jedburgh team, and I believe those were the mission papers you were referring to. He knew William Donovan personally, in fact, and we have letters written to him by that first Director of OSS.
You cause me to ponder, though... because Jambo and I have had countless conversations where we discussed our perceived impressions of Ray's opinions of FDR and the New Deal. There is little doubt in either of our minds that Ray was, from 1929 to the day he died in 1994, a firm and dedicated opponent of "New Deal" politics. He was no fan of Roosevelt, that is sure.
He joined the Army in 1939 because he was all but broke, and into debt up to his eyeballs. I'm assuming that he felt the "Roosevelt Recession" particularly hard, and that he had been forced to borrow significant amounts of money from his parents. I know that nearly all the letters we still have of his to his parents included his military pay to clear up these debts, and that the extra money promised for the duty was why he signed up for the Airborne Infantry in the first place.
No doubt that Ray would not have been happy with the state of the nation since Obama has been in office... considering his opinions on such Democratic Presidents as Kennedy and Johnson, and every DFL Governor of Minnesota since 1922.
One thing I am sure of, though... Ray would have seen the parallels between what he didn't like in the FDR years to what he didn't like in the Obama years. Ray always had a real and measurable sense of historical perspective and loved to share that perspective (at every opportunity) during Happy Hour over his martini. If memory serves, and I can take his stated position and opinion concerning Carter's policies as any indicator, then I can safely say that Ray H. would not have had much to say in support of Obama.
You cause me to ponder, though... because Jambo and I have had countless conversations where we discussed our perceived impressions of Ray's opinions of FDR and the New Deal. There is little doubt in either of our minds that Ray was, from 1929 to the day he died in 1994, a firm and dedicated opponent of "New Deal" politics. He was no fan of Roosevelt, that is sure.
He joined the Army in 1939 because he was all but broke, and into debt up to his eyeballs. I'm assuming that he felt the "Roosevelt Recession" particularly hard, and that he had been forced to borrow significant amounts of money from his parents. I know that nearly all the letters we still have of his to his parents included his military pay to clear up these debts, and that the extra money promised for the duty was why he signed up for the Airborne Infantry in the first place.
No doubt that Ray would not have been happy with the state of the nation since Obama has been in office... considering his opinions on such Democratic Presidents as Kennedy and Johnson, and every DFL Governor of Minnesota since 1922.
One thing I am sure of, though... Ray would have seen the parallels between what he didn't like in the FDR years to what he didn't like in the Obama years. Ray always had a real and measurable sense of historical perspective and loved to share that perspective (at every opportunity) during Happy Hour over his martini. If memory serves, and I can take his stated position and opinion concerning Carter's policies as any indicator, then I can safely say that Ray H. would not have had much to say in support of Obama.
After all, those Czar loyalists DID wear white after labor day ...
... so maybe they just didn't get the Bolshevik''s fashion sense. Hmmm, I wonder.
China has announced that they "suggest" our spending "slow down." A fiscal restraint message from communists ... let that sink in. They are in essence cutting up our national credit card (with them). And a certain Representative, Kirk (R) IL, said tonight on Glenn Beck's show that he has visited our bureau on foreign debt - yes, such an office exists - and the number of foreign state "investors" in US debt has dropped from 45 . . . to 16.
No, that shouldn't harm us, not at all. I'm sure "Our Great Leader Obama" has a swell, nifty, 5 year plan to dig us out of this hole ... I mean after all, he IS looking out for the proletariat ... err, I mean "the people." Should he fail surely tears will fall in gulags from sea to shining sea, beating even Uncle Joey's record of servitude.
If you have any prayers memorized . . . now's the time.
China has announced that they "suggest" our spending "slow down." A fiscal restraint message from communists ... let that sink in. They are in essence cutting up our national credit card (with them). And a certain Representative, Kirk (R) IL, said tonight on Glenn Beck's show that he has visited our bureau on foreign debt - yes, such an office exists - and the number of foreign state "investors" in US debt has dropped from 45 . . . to 16.
No, that shouldn't harm us, not at all. I'm sure "Our Great Leader Obama" has a swell, nifty, 5 year plan to dig us out of this hole ... I mean after all, he IS looking out for the proletariat ... err, I mean "the people." Should he fail surely tears will fall in gulags from sea to shining sea, beating even Uncle Joey's record of servitude.
If you have any prayers memorized . . . now's the time.
Funny how life works . . .
. . . Ol' Brad Pitt has a movie coming out. I viewed a brief commercial as the family made an outing to see "Wolverine" tonight. It seems that Mr. Jolie is heading up an OSS outfit to drop into occupied France, bent on "harassing" the enemy . . . although he puts it a bit more visceral, or "Hollywood" then that. And the first name that echoed in my head was a certain "Robert", and reading on Titus's Ocean Springs front porch his dutiful exploits that would make even James Bond blush (& he didn't think much of the French I might add - that always made me laugh).
Then we get home & my youngest explains to me his favorite book in my personal library: "BATTLEFIELDS AND CAMPAIGNS", a review of the major battles in human history from Alexander to Napoleon to Barbarossa to Swartzkopff (sp?). And then ... just then, a thin green booklet falls from the inside cover of this mammoth book. Its' title: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage." And along with noticing the name of a striking young usher on the inside cover, I noticed the date ... May 31st 2008, 2pm. So, let me be the first to say to you & your better half Titus: Happy 1 Year Anniversary. And along with your marriage I'll note it's the week we all last shared a pint. I'll let you decide which has more significance ...
hehe .... tell her I'm KIDDING ...
... sort of.
Then we get home & my youngest explains to me his favorite book in my personal library: "BATTLEFIELDS AND CAMPAIGNS", a review of the major battles in human history from Alexander to Napoleon to Barbarossa to Swartzkopff (sp?). And then ... just then, a thin green booklet falls from the inside cover of this mammoth book. Its' title: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage." And along with noticing the name of a striking young usher on the inside cover, I noticed the date ... May 31st 2008, 2pm. So, let me be the first to say to you & your better half Titus: Happy 1 Year Anniversary. And along with your marriage I'll note it's the week we all last shared a pint. I'll let you decide which has more significance ...
hehe .... tell her I'm KIDDING ...
... sort of.
Monday, May 4, 2009
A new beginning...
I liked Ryan's post... maudlin as it was.
I will say this, though, in regards to my own irregular Bund habits: There is a price to be paid for straying from your established grounds. While I find that the visits I make to other boards are interesting, and allow me to keep in practice when things are slow here... the level of debate and discussion is far too erratic and juvenile for my tastes. To put it in terms that only Jambo and I would appreciate... I couldn't go back to the days of Wealthwood Park. I just don't have it in me anymore.
I am convinced that here, at the Bund, we share a common ideology and only differ in how we see establishing that ideology in practical terms and means. Ryan holds the "ideal" of Reagan as the example of his vision for America, and stands at one end of our own, very small, political spectrum, while I see myself as standing at the other end looking for the practical, implementable "actuality" of any Presidential example we could care to examine.
In the past, I have always fought the urge to label myself a conservative, but if terms like "liberal" or "progressive" mean an automatic association with the likes of Obama/Reid/Pelosi, then call me a "conservative" all day long... please. I've already stated my inability to vote with my established Party candidates, so I suppose that an eventual "card change" is inevitable, too.
I will say this, though, in regards to my own irregular Bund habits: There is a price to be paid for straying from your established grounds. While I find that the visits I make to other boards are interesting, and allow me to keep in practice when things are slow here... the level of debate and discussion is far too erratic and juvenile for my tastes. To put it in terms that only Jambo and I would appreciate... I couldn't go back to the days of Wealthwood Park. I just don't have it in me anymore.
I am convinced that here, at the Bund, we share a common ideology and only differ in how we see establishing that ideology in practical terms and means. Ryan holds the "ideal" of Reagan as the example of his vision for America, and stands at one end of our own, very small, political spectrum, while I see myself as standing at the other end looking for the practical, implementable "actuality" of any Presidential example we could care to examine.
In the past, I have always fought the urge to label myself a conservative, but if terms like "liberal" or "progressive" mean an automatic association with the likes of Obama/Reid/Pelosi, then call me a "conservative" all day long... please. I've already stated my inability to vote with my established Party candidates, so I suppose that an eventual "card change" is inevitable, too.
Sometimes the choir NEEDS to be preached to.
Hmmm . . .
I just spent the last several minutes catching up on every post since my last, which was in March - yes, I skipped an entire month. Now, I'm not one that's ever been "addicted" to any substance, never even tried drugs, not even once, though I will admit to consuming amounts of alcohol on occasion sufficient to make an alcoholic blush, let alone a penny. However, I must imagine that intellectually the "detox" of withdrawing from the Bund and having only coworkers et al with whom I discussed religion, politics, history and the world at large is similar to say, a crystal Meth addict being put into a sober tank - lots of sweating at first, followed by screaming. Some sleep deprivation leading into full on insomnia. Some hallucinations (or so I thought, it turns out Obama is indeed president & his policies are really being enacted), only ending in a realization 180 degrees from any recovered addict - I NEED THIS STUFF TO BE HEALTHY!
We all understand the obvious here - there is so little posting because there is so little disagreement on how unbelievably bereft of history, sound financial/military policy and just plain common sense this administration is. However, as my title eludes to from time to time, in a world where President Barak H. Obama enjoys a 60% approval rating by explaining that America got it wrong the first 233 years, I NEED to check in for confirmation that I'm not the only sane man in the room. It matters little to me whether we all agree on every subject and every issue from now until the 2nd Coming (at which time we can have our final argument and clear up this pesky "God's true Church on earth" issue), because the quality of insight, reassurance and original perspective on any given issue here is worth its weight in Obama era gold. Where else am I going to be pleasantly surprised about a damned fine parallel between Queen Elizabeth and Ronald Reagan (oh, sorry is that not what you meant? A political "savior" riding in on a white horse and restoring the traditional grandeur and pride of a great nation? That's what I got out of it ... hehe)?
So, my absence is an action I intend not to repeat. As for Titus, like a supple Siren temptress the other posting boards promised him a bounty of ripe conversation, and to tickle the fancy of his ever pleasure. Yet he found her, in the end, to be a home-wrecking Jezebel, heavy on the eye make-up, incapable of sustaining more thoughts then orgasms, and so he is back, rededicated to his one true intellectual love promising to never stray into ill advised adulteress arms again. And while Jambo's posts have been no more frequent then Titus, at least he returns my deluge of text messages . . ."ahem."
Now, for my contribution to our much needed sanctum of reason and perspective, our "Bund Batcave", I offer this:
What concerns me most about our president is how much he loves this country. Surprised to hear that are you? I thought so. But lets peel an inch or so deeper. My meaning is his love for what this country "should be." What it is "capable of being." It is my serious contention that when he speaks of "delivering on America's great promise", he means to tell us all that the original ideals of liberty laid down by the Founding Fathers were never realized, only discussed, espoused, pondered, but never delivered. When he talks in terms of "we tried it their way", most pundits, being the historically devoid, blow dried, hair dyed, milk toast, thought Jacobins they are, nod along assuming he means to say "we tried it Bush's way." I tend to take people at their word, what they do say, not what they "meant." "Their way" is to mean the previous 233 years of American exceptionalism that he finds somehow, unacceptable, insufficient. In that time span this one country of ours has been the engine that caused more ingenuity, prosperity and liberty then arguably the 5000 years prior to its existence. In that time man has gone from a primary mode of transportation of ox & cart to propelling himself onto the moon. The cause of advancement in medicine, science, war making and defense, financial prosperity, all spearheaded (not necessarily invented) within our shores. But most importantly, at the heart of it all, we have engaged in the greatest experiment in liberty the world has ever seen. And Mr. Obama seems to think those two events are mutually exclusive. As if the unprecedented prosperity in every field imaginable was somehow spurred on by accident or by happenstance rather then the greatest unleashing of human potential, via our Constitution, history has ever witnessed. I find this curious in the extreme. And in trying to correct what he sees as a failed experiment he has displayed monumental hubris to quite literally believe that one can "wipe out" ever instance of poverty ... indeed every instance of necessity of every kind. And frightening for any aware American is knowing that the dust heap of history is stacked high with nation states that believed that such a "guarantee" was the inherent entitlement of her peoples. The heirs of a nation whose unprecedented prosperity was built by embracing the sanctity of the rugged individual, private property rights, and the acknowledgement of God's role in our society, are wildly cheering on a man for rejecting these very principles and advertising collectivism as our future, and I am struck dumbfounded at that reality.
Any man with a child needs to take a walk with his children. But a very specific walk . . . one through a military graveyard. Walk along the headstones, read a name or two out loud to your offspring. Don't say much more then that as you stroll, let them absorb the magnitude of the sacrifice all around them. Then at the end tell them. Tell them that great nations can fall if good men do not stand up to defend them ... to lead them. Make sure they understand how unique a moment in time America is. That we can fade away. And whether it's in their daily life or on a grand scale they have a duty, not an entitlement, to America.
"Though, when a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes."
-George Washington, Letter to Lafayette, 1788
I just spent the last several minutes catching up on every post since my last, which was in March - yes, I skipped an entire month. Now, I'm not one that's ever been "addicted" to any substance, never even tried drugs, not even once, though I will admit to consuming amounts of alcohol on occasion sufficient to make an alcoholic blush, let alone a penny. However, I must imagine that intellectually the "detox" of withdrawing from the Bund and having only coworkers et al with whom I discussed religion, politics, history and the world at large is similar to say, a crystal Meth addict being put into a sober tank - lots of sweating at first, followed by screaming. Some sleep deprivation leading into full on insomnia. Some hallucinations (or so I thought, it turns out Obama is indeed president & his policies are really being enacted), only ending in a realization 180 degrees from any recovered addict - I NEED THIS STUFF TO BE HEALTHY!
We all understand the obvious here - there is so little posting because there is so little disagreement on how unbelievably bereft of history, sound financial/military policy and just plain common sense this administration is. However, as my title eludes to from time to time, in a world where President Barak H. Obama enjoys a 60% approval rating by explaining that America got it wrong the first 233 years, I NEED to check in for confirmation that I'm not the only sane man in the room. It matters little to me whether we all agree on every subject and every issue from now until the 2nd Coming (at which time we can have our final argument and clear up this pesky "God's true Church on earth" issue), because the quality of insight, reassurance and original perspective on any given issue here is worth its weight in Obama era gold. Where else am I going to be pleasantly surprised about a damned fine parallel between Queen Elizabeth and Ronald Reagan (oh, sorry is that not what you meant? A political "savior" riding in on a white horse and restoring the traditional grandeur and pride of a great nation? That's what I got out of it ... hehe)?
So, my absence is an action I intend not to repeat. As for Titus, like a supple Siren temptress the other posting boards promised him a bounty of ripe conversation, and to tickle the fancy of his ever pleasure. Yet he found her, in the end, to be a home-wrecking Jezebel, heavy on the eye make-up, incapable of sustaining more thoughts then orgasms, and so he is back, rededicated to his one true intellectual love promising to never stray into ill advised adulteress arms again. And while Jambo's posts have been no more frequent then Titus, at least he returns my deluge of text messages . . ."ahem."
Now, for my contribution to our much needed sanctum of reason and perspective, our "Bund Batcave", I offer this:
What concerns me most about our president is how much he loves this country. Surprised to hear that are you? I thought so. But lets peel an inch or so deeper. My meaning is his love for what this country "should be." What it is "capable of being." It is my serious contention that when he speaks of "delivering on America's great promise", he means to tell us all that the original ideals of liberty laid down by the Founding Fathers were never realized, only discussed, espoused, pondered, but never delivered. When he talks in terms of "we tried it their way", most pundits, being the historically devoid, blow dried, hair dyed, milk toast, thought Jacobins they are, nod along assuming he means to say "we tried it Bush's way." I tend to take people at their word, what they do say, not what they "meant." "Their way" is to mean the previous 233 years of American exceptionalism that he finds somehow, unacceptable, insufficient. In that time span this one country of ours has been the engine that caused more ingenuity, prosperity and liberty then arguably the 5000 years prior to its existence. In that time man has gone from a primary mode of transportation of ox & cart to propelling himself onto the moon. The cause of advancement in medicine, science, war making and defense, financial prosperity, all spearheaded (not necessarily invented) within our shores. But most importantly, at the heart of it all, we have engaged in the greatest experiment in liberty the world has ever seen. And Mr. Obama seems to think those two events are mutually exclusive. As if the unprecedented prosperity in every field imaginable was somehow spurred on by accident or by happenstance rather then the greatest unleashing of human potential, via our Constitution, history has ever witnessed. I find this curious in the extreme. And in trying to correct what he sees as a failed experiment he has displayed monumental hubris to quite literally believe that one can "wipe out" ever instance of poverty ... indeed every instance of necessity of every kind. And frightening for any aware American is knowing that the dust heap of history is stacked high with nation states that believed that such a "guarantee" was the inherent entitlement of her peoples. The heirs of a nation whose unprecedented prosperity was built by embracing the sanctity of the rugged individual, private property rights, and the acknowledgement of God's role in our society, are wildly cheering on a man for rejecting these very principles and advertising collectivism as our future, and I am struck dumbfounded at that reality.
Any man with a child needs to take a walk with his children. But a very specific walk . . . one through a military graveyard. Walk along the headstones, read a name or two out loud to your offspring. Don't say much more then that as you stroll, let them absorb the magnitude of the sacrifice all around them. Then at the end tell them. Tell them that great nations can fall if good men do not stand up to defend them ... to lead them. Make sure they understand how unique a moment in time America is. That we can fade away. And whether it's in their daily life or on a grand scale they have a duty, not an entitlement, to America.
"Though, when a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes."
-George Washington, Letter to Lafayette, 1788
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
