Miranda? We don't need no stinking Miranda!

I am aghast at the joint statement released by Lindsey Graham and John McCain:

“Now that the suspect is in custody, the last thing we should want is for him to remain silent. It is absolutely vital the suspect be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes. We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now,” Graham and McCain said. “Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel. Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks.”

You see, they didn't Mirandize him. And technically, they have legal backing at the point of immediate arrest at least. There is what's called a "public safety exception." It's based on a 1980 case in which a police officer subdued a rapist, noticed an empty gun holster on the suspect, and asked him where the gun was prior to Mirandizing. The cop found it in the alley at the direction of the suspect. Lawyers tried to get the gun tossed as evidence, but the SCOTUS ultimately ruled that in the event of an immediate safety threat, the Miranda could be read after the threat was neutralized. In other words, they do eventually have to Miranda this guy, but they're claiming a "threat" still exists in that he may have knowledge of additional sleeper cells, plots, etc, so questioning him pre Miranda after he wakes up in the hospital is legal. They're gambling. They're gambling that enough physical evidence exists to convict even if every self incriminating word he utters is tossed out. They're weighing that against the value of any information he will potentially offer up.

Now, here's my concern. I get, honestly I do, the technical legal gamble they're taking. Essentially it's a basic risk/reward decision. But this guy is a U.S. citizen. He was naturalized on 9/11/12. Ya, on 9/11. My concern is less with this legal "gamble" as I describe it, and more with McCain & Graham's statement. What did I warn about in my last post? Certain linguini-spined GOP'ers on Capital Hill willing to hand the POTUS (and by definition all future presidents) powers that we will not get back. Reread the statement above, that is EXACTLY what they're doing. They want the POTUS to have the authority and political cover to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant, and thrown in GITMO. What's worse, if he is declared an enemy combatant then BY DEFINITION Graham and McCain have ceded that the U.S is a "battlefield", and battlefield rules apply, even to U.S. citizens. Thus the CIC's powers to operate domestically will match those in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is that alone not a "fundamental transformation" of our country? After all, if a U.S. citizen is an enemy combatant conducting operations on the battlefield of U.S. soil, than why would we deny the CIC the ability to conduct drone strikes in Boston, Chicago, L.A., or Austin? Why not military checkpoints? Why not courts martial assembled? Hell, why not turn the drum upside down, read the accusation, then hang em'? For the love of all that's holy, where is the Left on this? They should bare in mind, one day a Republican will reclaim the White House... do they really want the president's domestic powers to be limited only by battlefield rules?

Boston's Second Massacre

The story of the 8 year old boy is beyond heartbreaking. His sister lost a leg as well. Running to greet his father (a marathon runner) at the finish line and he's murdered... unbelievable. And another emotion has set in - FURY. I want the people responsible, dead.

I find the following troubling though... news has broken off and on today about a suspect being in custody. Finally, it was officially denied by the FBI. My concern is what I've been hearing from "conservative" circles. Jay Secculo is a former Bush DOJ lawyer and is now at the American Center for Law and Justice. He is the "go-to" guy for national security legalese on many of the top syndicated talk radio programs, as well as FOX. He, and in this case Hannitty, were today making the case that they fear - understand they are concerned this WILL happen - they fear that the Obama apparatus will insist on marandizing the culprit when they do locate him (or them). They went on to agree that "U.S. citizen or not, they deserve to be thrown into GITMO."

My question to the those on the Right whom would advocate such a thing is this - ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Let me get this straight. This is the guy, Obama, that you don't trust with a list of weapon owners, don't trust the implications of Obamacare, some of you don't even trust he was born here, but you trust THAT GUY with the power to arrest without Miranda, warrant, habeus corpus, or charge? And they kept saying, "In this instance they've made America a battlefield, so battlefield rules apply." WTF? So drone strikes on US soil, it turns out, ARE ok with you, right? I would argue that it is PRECISELY this type of incident when Miranda, etc are the most important, so as to restrain our baser desires. We don't devolve out of the Constitution when attacked. This is when we embrace and use the law to nail these people. It is this kind of troubling sentiment which leads to Japanese internment camps (take that and stick it in your craw left wingers, just incase you think I'm suddenly one of you, I am not). Understand that Holder's DOJ has issued "red flags" for profiling potential domestic terrorists in the past which includes descriptions (and I'm not paraphrasing) like, "Those who take the Bible literally." Or those whom are "Overly pro Constitutional." And the "Right Wing" media wants to give THAT justice department the power to arrest without Miranda nor charge?

Come on guys, Hannity, whoever you are, we are not the Left. We don't employ selective outrage, inconsistent arguments, nor emotional demagoguery to effect our argument. We're at the grown-ups table, they aren't, lets act like it. We don't selectively apply the Bill of Rights to citizens. I'm curious, what if an attack like this was found out to be a mob hit gone wrong? We all know there's no organized crime in Boston, right? Do mafioso get sent to GITMO? Mr. Hannity and Mr. Secculo, I sincerely hope that when they arrest these guys, they resist - if you know what I mean. However, I do not trust any government with the power to summarily detain or execute an American citizen. Especially not the current administration. Slow down, catch your breath, and think this through before you inspire certain linguini-spined GOP'ers on capital hill to hand the POTUS powers we will never get back.

Alright Crixus, don't lose your head...

I'm kidding, clearly I was the author of the more aggressive tone yesterday. Lets hope I fair better against "Titus."

Since we're clarifying, I have 4 items...

1.) Am I to understand that your recent point about New Deal's, I guess you'd call it "contribution", to WWII via the infrastructure in place to facilitate a swift rush to a war footing, is a "redeeming factoid", but not by any means a justification for calling New Deal a success? I'll let you have that so long as we agree that doesn't justify New Deal as a response to economic crisis. Also, I hasten to add, if that is indeed the case (infrastructure aiding the war effort is a "redeeming factoid") then certainly you give large credit to Hoover, for in his waining months (the last year in particular) he did an about face on government intervention, relief, public works, etc (it is the "Hoover Dam" after all). Politically it wouldn't have mattered if he handed out gold bricks, you simply don't get reelected after Black Friday, period. But in truth he became very protectionist and pro public works (I rate that a mistake, no question) near the end. So in fact to claim New Deal had any level of success (from beating the Imperial Japanese to beating the Great Depression) is to say that FDR and Hoover won those battles. Yes?

2.) I've heard you mention, as a justification of New Deal, the phrase "We haven't had a depression since." That is true. I'm curious though. Wasn't it something like 90% of New Deal that was either thrown out by the court or went away via sunset clauses? That's a number I heard Jambo toss out once and I think he's right. I've contended in the past that the single biggest offense FDR committed was causing rampant uncertainty in the market place because the majority of his legislation had 1 year expirations, thus had to be renewed annually. Not all were renewed, new 1 year laws were introduced, and businesses didn't know what the regulations and taxes governing their life were going to be year to year... THAT alone is a recipe for disaster. And as I've said, that was (in my opinion) a more disruptive approach (to recovery) than the policies themselves. So my "item" is this - what aspects of New Deal have contributed to there having not been a depression since? You certainly seem to believe there is a correlation. If the vast majority of New Deal either expired or was thrown out, what is that correlation which has protected us low these many years since New Deal expired? If you can not point to the specifics, even vagaries, of what that correlation is, shouldn't you cease using the "we haven't had a depression since" defense?

3.)You've read my posit on FDR's greatest offense - the way he governed via legislation was in 1 year increments, thus causing mass uncertainty. This is important to note if you agree that "uncertainty" is what most hinders private sector growth (via taxes, regulation, loan rates, etc, etc). You have also read FDR's "Second Bill of Rights." It is breathtakingly more radical a speech than anything Barack H. Obama would dare admit to. Holding both of these in consideration, let me ask you this as item #3: do you think that had FDR lived another 12 years lets say, or in other words remained president for a significant time post WWII, would America have had the 1950's boom? Before you answer I want you to think about what the implementation of that second bill of rights would have meant legislatively (every time I read it I still end with mouth gaping that an American president said this, especially in an address to the nation).

4.) In 1938 we had what was called the "Roosevelt Recession." The Republican congress insisted on cutting off the government breast milk of cheap, plentiful cash to the nation, and balance the budget. We almost immediately crashed. Now, I think we would both agree that an economy that is propped up by the government - rather than the other way around - is NOT a healthy one, and certainly not one which has "recovered." So wouldn't the natural conclusion be that propping up economies via massive government spending, works, etc, is at best a temporary morphine drip? In other words, it can provide immediate pain relief but is hardly the surgery required to fix the problem. And what's worse, if  for an extended period of time you only treat the symptom - pain - then you run the risk of addicting that patient to morphine, compounding the problem. This is such blisteringly clear logic to me that I MUST assume you agree. And if you do agree with this line of reasoning, weren't New Deal, or Obama's multi-stimulus bills, doomed to fail (at actually fixing the economy) from the start?

As an aside I think that a much stronger position for a "pro-New Deal" argument is to say, "No it didn't fix the economy, but it did provide direct relief. And if that direct relief means we recover in 10 years rather than 3, than I'd rather spend 10 years living with partial pain than 3 years living with dire pain." Essentially saying you are trading A for B. I would question the wisdom in such a trade, but at least that's a defensible position because you are knowingly making that swap. THEN we can have a legitimate debate about whether, as a nation, we would rather have a slow but less painful recovery, or a quick but extremely painful one (this of course assumes that you buy into the formula that low taxes and deregulation means economies can recover faster, but by definition requires a much lower level of direct relief for those suffering).

Know what never fails to make me smile?

It's the amazing fact that, no matter how much time passes between our New Deal posts... I'm just as pissed off and frustrated NOW as I was in 2008, and 2005, and 2003.

Ryan writes:

"But its a dangerous game for you to play given that, oh I don't know... INVENTING NUCLEAR BOMBS WAS NOT THE GOAL OF NEW DEAL. In other words New Deal failed in its' mandate, in its' promise, in its' intent - namely to mend the 20th century's greatest economic meltdown."

This is both the crux of our mutual disagreement and the basis of your argument.  Putting aside the latter (which we have both agreed cannot be proven true or false to either of our satisfaction), can we... just for a moment... look at the former?

It was never my (or Jambo's) intent to say that New Deal was a success because they helped invent the nuclear bomb.  I know you know this... yet you still imply it when you write things like this.  I have stated that New Deal succeeded in establishing a state-of-the-art infrastructure that allowed industrial, agricultural and scientific advances to push the US and Allied war effort to its ultimate goal.  Had TVA, Hoover Dam, the REA, the WPA, et al NOT accomplished what they did... the effort would still have been successful (at least I think so), but could have taken far longer than it did.

New Deal promised to fix the damage caused by the Crash of '29, and prevent its return in the future.  There has been no crash since, no depression since, and unemployment has never been that high again.  The national GDP, the inflation rate, the value of the dollar on the global market, indeed every economic indicator used, then and now, was back to pre-Crash levels by 1936... with the sole exception of unemployment which was still at more than 12% (and 8% higher than 1928).  Perhaps it would have risen back faster without New Deal... maybe ALL the indicators and indexes would have been back to normal and beyond by 1934, had Hoover gotten his win.  And perhaps there would still have been no depressions since.  I can't argue against that possibility.  And we CERTAINLY would have had a nuclear bomb... but not by 1945.  I am just as certain of that.  Nor would we have been out-producing the entire Axis war machine (BOTH theaters) in only 18 months after Pearl Harbor.

8 million jobs, a constantly growing economy from 1933 to 1941, and half a century of infrastructure that ensured American success in both peacetime and wartime.  Stability, security and support for the effort all say that the majority of Americans living through the era agree with me.

Please, bear in mind that I am NOT starting this again.  You misrepresented my position, and I wanted to clarify it.  Nothing more. I know New Deal was not started so we could develop a nuclear weapon.  Shockingly enough, that was never the goal of the War Department either... Oppie and Co. delivered a tool for them to use, but that tool was never the goal, any more than it was the goal of New Deal.

I'm about to make you feel REAL good about not having a college degree...

First, mostly out of guilt for taking a month to respond, I will attempt a succinct response to Titus' last.

You are overlooking, or simply forgot, a critical aspect of my New Deal argument. I contended - and this exact phrasing was always the crux of our pre-concession argument - that New Deal was "an overall failure." THAT phrase started the multi-decade argument. I'd go farther and claim it to be an unequivocal failure, but I thought (from the beginning) that "overall" was the best adjective I could win from you. And here's why I'm reminding you of that - Jambo once made the TVA etc argument, in relation to Oppenhiemer and the boys, and what I told him, you, and anybody that would listen is that New Deal was instituted, adopted, passed, renewed, (whether it was thrown out by the court eventually or not), all as a repair to the Great Depression. NOT as a wartime necessary evil. The entire premise of New Deal was to "relieve economic  suffering" and "fix" the economy. It was not a wartime apparatus instituted to win a war. By the way, I'm not susceptible to arguments claiming "success" in "relief." I contend short term relief was traded for prolonged suffering which isn't really relief at all. Back to the matter at hand - the fact that certain left over aspects of New Deal impacted positively our later war effort is completely and utterly irrelevant to the Titus and F. Ryan discussion. We were explicitly judging its success/failure rate based on how it affected the numerous economic ailments collectively referred to as the Great Depression Era. Wars between nation states is by definition a collective effort. Collective societal arrangements can not be justified during peace (or as a response to economic calamity) due to their effectiveness during a state of declared, active, war. Waging "economic wars" do not work on a collective level, see the war on poverty, or any war on X,Y and Z societal issue and you'll have ample proof. It's an absurd assertion. You don't think so? Then let me go at it from the opposite end. Given there were no incidents of mass Pacific Coast sabotage during the war we must then conclude that the internment of Japanese Americans - US CITIZENS - would work during peacetime in order to maintain our hard won security, right? We want the same low level of sabotage during peacetime that we do during war, do we not? Then clearly, given our only Pacific based attack in the history of our nation came from Japan, we must  continue to intern the Japanese in perpetuity to achieve the same level of security success.... right? In addition, to ensure our future prosperity...err... I mean "security" we should continue to inspect every single piece of mail sent in and out of the U.S. Why not? It "worked" during wartime did it not?

Look, if you want me to admit that the TVA supplied power to the Manhattan project, that I cannot deny. But its a dangerous game for you to play given that, oh I don't know... INVENTING NUCLEAR BOMBS WAS NOT THE GOAL OF NEW DEAL. In other words New Deal failed in its' mandate, in its' promise, in its' intent - namely to mend the 20th century's greatest economic meltdown. In fact I think it's arguable New Deal made it worse. To take one or two surviving programs, note the historical coincidence (and that's all it is, one of those quirks of fate America is ripe with) and say "but these two programs helped end the war in Japan 12 years later" is more than grasping at straws. It's grasping at the empty hand which formerly held them. If that's the level you're descending to in order to defend New Deal, then allow me the same... had we not, as a nation, been subjected to the utter ruin and overspending that New Deal caused, we would have recovered as such an economic powerhouse that Japan would have been too frightened of our potential wartime output to even attack! What's more, since we're cherry picking history to justify our argument, the economic recovery we could have had MINUS New Deal (such as our recovery from the previous depression which brought on the Roaring 20's by cutting government spending in half), may have brought about such an economic boom that investors or philanthropists may have brought about a Manhattan project by 1940. I'll go further. Without New Deal there may have been an economic boom. That boom could have caused a wealthy contributor to donate money to his Alma Mater. That school may have given a scientist a grant. That grant could have brought about nuclear innovation in 1939.  AGAIN, Japan would have never attacked had we lit off a few demonstrations right after the oil embargo. Do you see how insane of a game cherry-picking later developments in order to justify past initiatives is? Unintended future events hardly justify the existence of programs which fail at their primary, mandated task. In other words, we should always respond to economic crises with collectvist state run economic planning just incase one of those programs helps us win one front in a war a decade from now .... enter a great big, sweaty W-T-F?

Please, the horse is beyond dead. Yet you've managed to bring its' zombie corpse to my front door, forcing yet another double tap from the end of my shiny Sheriff Grimes-esque revolver. Any example of a successful wartime collectivist policy (the only time we are essentially acting as a collective) can not justify its' peacetime use, nor its implementation as a response to economic hardship, which was always the standard by which you and I judged New Deal. In every historical example when such policies were applied in peacetime, they failed. And New Deal is no exception. Nor can you say "but we might, maybe couldn't of developed or won this, that or another, a decade later without part II, paragraph C, sub-paragraph J of Program X" and claim that as a justification for rating Program X as a  "success." It's an insane standard. You can not prove, nor even reasonably demonstrate, that we don't win WWII (or develop nuclear technology) without the TVA, or especially New Deal as a whole. I could do the same "what if" game and we can "what if" ourselves into full on dementia, but it won't get us anywhere. New Deal was FDR's prescription to the Great Depression. The patient did not mend. Nor is there any foreign example in history where this prescription to that disease worked. New Deal failed... get over it brother.

Now... to my college woes.

I'm taking three classes (which is considered full time at the trimester based private university I'm attending). Let me start here...

There was a time in America, a time I  remember even, when if you woke up and said to yourself, "I wonder where Tom Petty was born", there was no way to find out, and you just didn't know. Sure, you'd ask a friend or two, but they wouldn't know. And you'd spend the rest of your life not knowing. Then, one day, while you were in line at McDonald's you'd look over and see a pretty girl eating a hamburger and wearing a Heartbreakers tee shirt. And you'd rush over and plead, please, please tell me, where was Tom Petty born? And she'd answer, "Florida." And that's how you met your wife. I'm going somewhere with this, just hang on.

So it's a few minutes after class yesterday and with a few other hangers-around still present I approach the 50-something professor (technically he has a masters and is working on his dissertation, but I've noticed he doesn't correct the address), and I ask him why, out of all of my "100's" listed on my online homework page does the most recent one read "50?" He tells me that my response was only two sentences (I'm quoting now), and "it must be at least three." I should pause to tell you that this class is entitled, "A Survey of the Old Testament." My two-sentence response was about one of Isaiah's warnings to Israel. I quickly told him that I listed copious facts and thoughts on the subject within those very long two sentences, and he informed me quote, "Run on sentences don't count as more than one." To which I respond "But I listed alot of information what are you crazy I fully answered?" KIDDING (that was a run on sentence). The "professor" continued, "That's how I remain objective about otherwise subjective material." While I was still contorting my face to that remark the Air Force officer whom sits next to me piped up. "So we can just write any three sentences, about anything, and get a 100?" There was a four second pause. Count em' out, 1 Mississippi, Two... you get the picture, at the end of which Stephen Hawking replies, "Yes, I guess so."

Look, this guy, the teacher, he's not a bad guy. He's affable, polite, and he actually teaches Old Testament history rather than preach Old Testament values, which I like. By the way, a quick aside, if the Old Testament were made into a movie, an authentic representation, it would be rated NC-17, AT BEST. But I digress... But that''s the problem. Here's a good guy, a descent teacher with a background in scholarly history, has no leftist agenda, loves his country and goes to church, and yet he is so deep into the "academic factory" as I call it, it took only a four second pause for him to arrive, out loud, at the conclusion that he was demanding quantity over quality, and in the most demoralizing way. I instantly realized that the other mouth breathers in the room, sucking up my good oxygen (by the way I can disprove Darwin any Tuesday night at your local college class), all, each of them, received 100's on that assignment while I was relegated to a 50/F because of my crafty invention of the never before seen SEMI-F*CKING-COLON!

Holy crap, is that disheartening. But it doesn't end there. My classes are not online classes, yet all homework and papers are submitted online. That's not all that bad, I guess. However, all quizzes are taken online. Oh and yes, all exams are taken online too, save one. I remind you, these are not online classes. The school counters any ethical issue by putting a 90 minute time limit on your test once you activate the tab. They also require you to install "Lockdown" software that disallows any other tabs being open, to Google answers presumably, during the test. Let me ask you something. Do you trust the integrity of a test, or academic program, where they account for the possibility of open tabs but not an open book? Perhaps I should alert them to the fact that this cat named Steve Jobs came up with this nifty device that allows me to access online data. A device not encoded with "Lockdown." Oy. Without studying if you can't look up, google, or guess your way into a passing grade on a 100 question A,B,C,D option test in 90 minutes then turn in your human card and report to the zoo in a monkey suit, because I can't communicate with you CoCo.

Ugggh. And I'm paying for this! Tom Petty? I'm getting to that. On the university website you have your own accounts page with your classes, assignments, grades, submission drop box, etc. In bold type, 18 font, on the first page, it gives a warning. It reminds the student that all papers submitted (research, essays etc) will be run through a program named "Turntin." It searches for plagiarism and if any paper exceeds the 40% plagiarism threshold, as judged by Turntin, you will receive a zero. I did my paper explaining the motivations behind the institution of the Apostle's Creed in about 2 hours, and I guarantee 45 minutes of that was trying to figure out how to activate the stupid in text citation program of Word. I received a 99/A, no plagiarism flags. However, it occurred to me that any anti-plagiarism system is only as good as its' database. And what do you want to bet that within the 100,089 entries Google returned to me within 0.49 seconds of Googling "Apostle's Creed", that Turntin didn't jump to page 89, entry 5,667? Not to mention, you're telling me I can directly plagiarize over a THIRD of my paper and still pass? See, in the "old days" the only information source available to the student was the university library. And all the professors had either read OR WRITTEN the only sources you might use. You actually had to read, think, and write down those thoughts in a coherent manner. I did not cut and paste a word of my paper, but undoubtedly every May thousands of adults are walking across a stage and receiving an officially labeled sheet of papyrus stating when they graduated and with what honor without that graduate being able to define "papyrus."

I'm not mad. I'm just disheartened is all. College is not about survival of the fittest. Everyone gets a participation trophy. But try getting employed in a field you're interested in without that trophy. No chance. Academia has engineered a compulsory service requirement that makes selected service registration look like a joy-filled excursion to purchase stamps. But hey, that Tom Petty story paid off... even if my student loans never are.

So... how are things with you?

A painful post to make...

I've been meaning to make this post for a while, but it is so difficult to find the manner in which I want to present it.  I am simply convinced that one of our own (cough...Ryan... cough) is going to take this the completely wrong way.

I have been watching a fascinating documentary series by the BBC called Wartime Farm and it has really made me spend some time and effort re-thinking my position on the Great Depression and New Deal eras of the 30's and 40's.

I heartily recommend the show, if for no other reason than it gives a remarkable look at a facet of the war in Britain that we (or I, at least) never really considered... the rural farmer of an island nation at war.  It's premise is simple:  in 1937, 2/3 of all food consumed in Great Britain was imported from abroad.  By 1939, those imports were all but cut off by the U-boat blockade of the north Atlantic routes.  By 1940, Great Britain had DOUBLED its domestic food production, and by 1942 was producing enough to feed itself AND fuel an overseas empire at war.  How, in God's Name, was this accomplished in so little time?

The amount of government control and planning that happened in Britain between '37 and '39 dwarfs even FDR's New Deal efforts.  These controls went so far as the allow the government to not only dictate how a farm was to operate, but (should the farm fail to meet goals and quotas) who would operate and ultimately OWN the farm.  This was central planning on a scale never seen before in the UK... in fact, never seen before in Europe outside of Stalin's communist "utopia" of the USSR.

The long and short of it?  It worked.  Food production doubled, people were fed and housed (no small accomplishment, when 400,000 were homeless due to the Blitz), and the war effort was marching forward from Sept of '39 to its ultimate conclusion in '45.  As demands increased, the farmers and countryside delivered, each and every year of the war.  In fact, Britain (and all the Western powers) did so well while Germany (and the USSR) did not... because the focus on domestic success was never there.  Both of those failing examples followed failing paradigms from the 30's that allowed no innovation and focused mainly on the military side of winning the war.  Even the USSR, which did produce vast amounts of food, used that food to ONLY feed the military machine, and watched passively as millions of people starved in the very fields they were tending.  Inefficiency was rampant... even expected and accepted... rather than eliminated.

My troubling point in all of this is that there is a LINE at which this sort of planning and control FAILED to work, and that line was crossed very soon after the war officially ended.  Great Britain suffered more than 11 years of "depression" after the war ended in '45... because the government tried to maintain the level of control it had during the war.

Ryan has always maintained that NO aspect of the New Deal did any good during the depression years, but the very same control, planning and austerity measures (to use a modern term) he hated in the 30's worked wonders to propel the country to victory in the 40's.  Had there been no TVA or REA (Rural Electrification Administration), there would have been no Manhattan Project.  Without the WPA, war-time industrial centers like Hampton Roads, Norfolk, Wichita, New London, San Diego, and Seattle would never have been able to meet their required quotas of wartime productions nearly as fast... possibly adding years to the overall war effort.

Is it possible that the "Greatest Generation" was as great as it was because it accepted the (almost) tyrannical level of control and worked through it to reach the goal of total victory over the Axis powers... or were those almost tyrannical levels of control necessary to success, and then doomed to fail in a peacetime setting?

Another "To-Do List" item crossed off...

Yesterday, I purchased and installed a pellet stove.

So far, I'm delighted with the product.  It is quiet, efficient, and heats the house amazingly well.  Better than I expected, to be frank.  All that is left to do is some cosmetic adjustments once the heating season is done, and getting it up on our homeowners insurance today.

Worse case scenario:  I use an entire ton of fuel every months of a heating season, and lets say that season lasts six months (Oct-Mar).  The very best pellets I can buy run about $265 a ton (50 x 40-lbs bags) and a bag of fuel lasts roughly 8-10 hours.   That just under $1,600 a season in fuel bills.

The same season with fuel OIL would cost me just under $400 a month, for a seasonal bill of $2,400... plus the inconvenience of oil delivery which demands minimum fill amounts and fees.  With fuel oil it is 150 gallons at a time, or nothing at all (and that equals roughly $575).

Since I don't expect to see a "worse case scenario"... I'm going to see this stove pay for itself in less than two years.  I'm saving AT LEAST $800 a year over fuel oil alone.

Drawbacks?

The blower and motor do make a little noise, but not much at all. In fact, less than the furnace did.  The air in the house is AMAZINGLY dry... enough so that we all felt it by bedtime last night.  A small kettle of water on the stove should help offset the dryness, but the purchase of a humidifier probably needs some consideration.  The pellets themselves are very dusty, and that dust gets everywhere when filling the stove.  Not sure how we are going to combat that, but it seems a small price right now.