Tuesday Night Open Mic for May 25, 2010

I apologize that there was not an article for everyone when they awoke yesterday morning. I wanted to write last night but simply ran out of time after taking care of all the other things that I had to get done. I appreciated the somewhat limited responses to the BP article. I understand the points some were making. I hope that eventually everyone will at least consider my point as well. Tonight for open mic we have a few interesting topics, but none that made me jump up and down with excitement. We have Congress banning dropside cribs, ensuring that those with bad backs will forever regret having children. We also have more nonsense from the left’s reigning gasbag, Alan Grayson. Add to that the federal government going on record showing us the very reason why Arizona felt that the only recourse they had was to take immigration enforcement into their own hands. Finally, we have the situation in Korea and the Secretary of State’s call for the international community to act against North Korea. As always, please feel free to add topics that you want to discuss!


  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Move Afoot in Congress to Ban Drop-Side Cribs

    The baby crib, usually a safe haven for little ones, became a death trap for 6-month-old Bobby Cirigliano.

    The side rail on his drop-side crib slid off the tracks and trapped his head and neck between the mattress and the malfunctioning side rail. His face pressed against the mattress, the boy suffocated.

    “I just don’t feel complete anymore,” says his mother, Susan Cirigliano of North Bellmore on New York’s Long Island.

    Bobby was one of at least 32 infants or toddlers since 2000 who suffocated or were strangled in a drop-side crib, which has a side that moves up and down to allow parents to lift children from the cribs more easily than cribs with fixed sides. Drop-sides are suspected in an additional 14 infant fatalities during that time.

    Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Inez Tenenbaum has pledged to ban the manufacture and sale of the cribs by the end of the year with a new standard that would make fixed-side cribs mandatory. It could be several months into 2011 before becoming effective.

    While the industry has already started phasing out drop-sides, there are plenty for sale on the Internet, and that’s part of the reason Congress is getting involved.

    “There’s a great urgency here. We have to make sure that no parent is unaware that drop-side cribs could kill their children,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said in an Associated Press interview.

    At a news conference in New York on Sunday, Gillibrand plans to outline legislation to outlaw the manufacture, sale and resale of all drop-side cribs and ban them from day-care centers and hotels. She hopes the legislation will accelerate efforts for a ban, either via Congress or the CPSC.

    The industry insists that babies are safe in drop-side cribs.

    “We believe firmly that when these products are assembled and used properly, they are the safest place to put your child,” said Mike Dwyer, executive director of the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association.

    Read the article at its original source here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/23/afoot-congress-ban-drop-cribs/?test=latestnews

    OK, so here is the eternal question…. Government protection or government meddling. I see it as government meddling. I understand that some children have died. I understand that they would like to say it is because of these types of cribs. I would like to understand why the manufacturer of the product would want to say they are safe if they are not safe.

    But suppose that it is because of the design of the cribs. Shouldn’t the effort be to simply warn consumers about the cribs. If demand drops off the charts because of the potential for their child’s death, I would imagine that the company would stop making the damn cribs.

    This may seem like a small thing. After all… err on the side of safety. Let the government ban them. But when we allow stuff like this to go unchallenged, the government always tends to believe they have the right to ban whatever they want to ban. Remember, one of the major claims for gun bans is child safety. I think that this particular issue is a waste of time for a Congress that has more important issues to deal with.

    Perhaps the reason our government is so screwed up is because they are so overreaching that they simply don’t have time to devote to the important issues. At a time when our economy is in the tank, the unemployment is horrifically high, and we have two wars going on, I have to think that this is an example of something that they should simply allow the market to take care of on its own. If the cribs are unsafe, the market will take care of it.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Cribs don’t kill babies. People do.

      (Place tongue in cheek)

      I think if we chalk up the drop-side crib deaths to just being accidents rather than trying to blame someone or ban them outright then we’ll be okay. While its obvious that 6 month old Bobby would not be capable of understanding there was a risk involved in sleeping in the crib, it is neither anyone’s concern if his mother did not have access to the same information as other folks and could have known ahead of time that it was a faulty product or it could be easily misused to endanger her child. Building from yesterday – we can call this the Tough Shit Clause to the universal Shit Happens Rule. Works this way – you, Ms. Cirigliano, weren’t aware that this crappy product you just bought off ebay is prone to accidents and has resulted in the deaths of dozens of children? Tough Shit. The crib didn’t kill your baby lady, You did.

      (Remove tongue from cheek)

      • Good morning Ray: Glad to see you are still with us. Still stuck on Shit Happens, I see.

        It’s tragic about the babies dying. I’m sure the manufacturer can come up with a way to make the product safer. What I disagree with is the gov’t involvement.

        People and products don’t kill babies, liberals do.

        • Wasabi

          So does that mean that Liberal are NOT people?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          No Wasabi – I am not stuck on anything. We erroneously assume everyone has access to the same information. We do not. In the interest of not being combative I’ll just state that – for anyone not in the know it’ll just have to suck to be them. Its their fault they are not informed. I enjoy washing my hands of it and not feeding the man behind the curtain.

          • “In the interest of not being combative” HE HE HE are you kidding Ray. Have you had your coffee this morning? 🙂

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Trying to force it down VH – tis hotter than you-know-what today so the coffee doesn’t quite feel the same.

              • Try a coke filled with the evil caffeine works just as well and is cold. 🙂

              • 95 in Lafayette LA. Ray I was just trying to fill in a coupleblanks in the info but there’s a lot I don’t know. If I came across combative I just considered it healthy debate. Sorry if you feel otherwise.

          • Ray-

            If the people didn’t over-rely on the government to protect them in situations like this, then there would be more of a demand for more/better information, and lo and behold, someone would provide it.

      • USWeapon says:


        I find it interesting that in a world that a mere twenty years ago had not a hundredth of the information sharing capabilities that we have today, you think we need the government to protect us. How on earth did the human race ever survive to this point without the government banning anything that has the slightest possibility to harm someone?

        You can take the sarcastic line if you want to, but the reality is that the world is a dangerous place. There are millions of ways to be hurt or killed. And under the auspices of government, we find many who now believe that we are supposed to be made safe. That is not realistic. We have a member of Congress here, one of the 535 jackasses that are supposed to be running the country, spending massive amounts of time pursuing legislation on drop side cribs. Meanwhile, the economy plummets, we have a child a day abducted in Arizona, two wars, and countless other REAL problems that Congress does nothing with.

        My friend, you are far too smart to fall into the category of “government is needed to do everything” that is required to back inane legislation such as this.


        • Ray Hawkins says:

          USW – easy cowboy – am poking at myself as much as you!

          Tort reform – plain and simple. We can and should easily fix the no brainer stuff and steer clear of Courts and ugly lawsuits and the like.

          What pisses me off is that unless I go register a purchase I am likely not to know there may be a defect that I myself was not able to detect. Not everything is common sense – sometimes bad designs make it to the store floor for you and I to buy. Not enough transparency to easily notify me the product is defective (which is wholly different than me putting it together wrong or intentionally mis-using the product).

    • Have any of you ever tried to lay a sleeping baby down in a crib without a drop-side? Not easy. A friend of mine jokingly said this law was going to result in more shaken baby syndrome from all the mothers who now have to hurl their babies over the edge of the crib to put them to sleep.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I have a regular crib I used for my son – at almost a year old he is 25lbs – I would consider myself to be in good shape and extremely strong – it is still awkward to set him in his crib due to the reach involved.

        • If I had not had a drop down crib when mine were babies-I would not have been able to get them out without a step ladder. I can see many dangers to the safety of the babies without this feature. So whats the problem with these cribs-is it all models-just specific models that are at fault-is it people putting them together wrong-Maybe we need to figure out what the problem is and determine how to take care of the problem. Just banning them will just create new hazards. Then what are we gonna do-not have cribs at all. To the governmental involvement-situations like this one brings me to the conclusion that we need some kind of safety organization overlooking this stuff. I don’t suppose it would have to be governmental but without enforcement capabilities not sure how well it would work.

          • When people stop buying their products maybe the market will take care of it.

        • Latch the sides in and get some of those plastic tie-wraps. Keep them and some cutters handy. It can’t fall unless someone cuts the tie-wrap and opens the side by hand.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      First of all, lets go with the assumption that an additional 14 babies (the “suspected”) were also “killed by dropside cribs” since the year 2000. That would make for a total of 46.

      Of those 46 deaths, how many were due to the parent not making sure that the drop-side of the crib was in its fully upright and locked position? How many were from the parent not assembling the crib properly? (They come in about 28 pieces that you have to PROPERLY put together in order for the crib to function properly). Finally, how many were from the properly put together and properly upright and locked cribs actually being UNSAFE?

      Without knowing the answer to this, there is no way to tell how many kids died “from dropside cribs” in the last 10 years. Any that died from the cribs not being put together properly and any that died from the drop-side not being in the locked position properly DID NOT DIE because the cribs are unsafe.

      Further, how many kids slept in dropside cribs over the past decade? Probably upwards of FIVE MILLION, to be conservative in my estimate. Ok, so lets assume that all 46 kids died because these cribs are unsafe, and lets assume that 5 million kids slept in dropside cribs for at least 2 years during the past 10 years. Doing simple math, that means that your chance your child dieing in a dropside crib is about 1:100,000.

      There are PLENTLY of products in the world (most if not all) where a 1:100,000 failure rate is considered PHENOMENALLY SAFE!

      If you WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO BAN ALL PRODUCTS with a 1:100,000 failure rate, then there are not going to be ANY products for you to buy!!!

      Now, if we assume that the vast majority of infant deaths in these cribs is either from (A) improper or shoddy assembly, or (B) not carefully locking the drop-side after putting the infant into the crib, the ACTUAL failure rate of the product goes down to probably 1:250,000.

      Sure, it is a tragedy (for someone) when a child dies. If you WANT A GOVERNMENT TO STRIVE TO PREVENT ALL CHILD DEATHS then you are going to get ever-worsening tyrrany… oh wait, that is what we have now!

      As BF would probably point out, the US Government has probably killed WAY MORE THAN 46 innocent children in the time it took you to read this post!!! Should we BAN THE GOVERNMENT because it kills WAY MORE CHILDREN THAN DROP-SIDE CRIBS DO??

      • Thank you for your sanity Peter!

      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        I am 63, I believe that for the first two years of my life, I was kept caged in a drop side crib. My four children, the eldest born in ’76 all were in drop side cribs. Perhaps the difference is,I read the instructions when I assembled it. One of my sons, soon to be a father, is in the process of building, you guessed it, a drop side crib!

    • It’s always a ploy

      “Look at government taking care of the CHILDREN!”

    • Similarly, all strollers must now be banned:

      Runaway Stroller Hit by Train, Baby Survives


      Shit happens.

    • Bottom Line says:

      This is absurd.

      Nanny-state run amuck.

      What’s next?

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona

    A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

    John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.

    “I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,” Morton told the newspaper.

    The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.

    The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not “good government,” Morton said.

    Read the rest of the Article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/official-says-feds-process-illegals-referred-arizona/

    File this under “and they wonder why Arizona has taken the law into their own hands.” Federal officials and lefties everywhere are up in arms screaming that Arizona is violating the law by treading in an area where it is the federal government’s area. How dare Arizona enforce federal law by passing an identical state law.

    Yet while they bitch and whine about Arizona, they come right out and admit that they are not going to enforce the law themselves! Well then what exactly would you like Arizona to do? If I have a gun and a guy is attempting to rape my wife, and the cop standing there says I am not going to do something about this, I am going to pull out my gun and shoot the rapist. And if the cop tries to stop me I would shoot him too. These tools basically tell Arizona they are on their own, and then complain when Arizona does something about their immigration problem. And now the Department of Justice, led by Eric “It is a stupid bill that I didn’t read” Holder, is saying that the federal government is going to challenge the law.

    I had to laugh at a federal official saying that a law which makes someone who breaks the law a criminal and has law enforcement checking to see if a law is broken is “not good government.” Well then what exactly is good government? Oh, I forgot. Good government is refusing to pay your taxes and being appointed to a cabinet position. My bad….

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      USW – in other words – “thanks Arizona for stepping up to help us do our jobs – but we’re not really interested. We’d like to take a few more years to concoct a more bullshit laden plan that helps us avoid actually having to do anything and allows many of us to skate into retirement. Now quit interrupting my Solitaire.”

    • USW

      We ALREADY have “comprehensive” Federal immigration laws.

      I have noticed a slight uptick in main media coverage of the violence and crimes along the border recently. Maybe the MSM is waking up. Or maybe they are just waiting for the next sex scandal in D.C..

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Notice that the “proposed solution” is ALWAYS MORE FEDERAL LAW!

      The powers of the Federal Government were meant to be few, limited, and finite; whereas the POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE were meant to be protected and nearly unlimited!!! (Paraphrase of Federalist Paper 73, as well as parts of the Constitution and several amendments).

      Obviously the Federal Government now believes that the powers reserved to the States and the People should be SEVERELY LIMITED (preferably the States and the People should have no power whatsoever), and the Federal Government should have INFINITE POWER! That, my friends, is the dictionary definition of tyrrany. We are living it!

      • WOW! You folks have got the pulse of the fed right on! This entire line on Arizona is unconscionable. To my way of thinking you are so right about a state enforcing and assisting in a federal law. Which all things being equal is of course section 287g of the existing code.

        I feel that the fed has not found a way to either tax the action or receive funds from special interests to continue this act — or as Peter B would allude to….tyranny! Cheers and thank you!


    • Day late and a dollar short! Obama now says that he might send up to 1200 National Guard troops to the border to do paperwork and desk jobs while he orders the DOJ to declare the AZ SB1070 unconstitutional and maybe illegal!?!

      I see the ruse here. By declaring the AZ law unconstitutional, since all it actually does is allow local police to enforce the FEDERAL immigration laws already on the books, then that would conceivably make ALL immigration laws unconstitutional and open up our borders to anyone who wants to waltz across.

      Welcome to the late great United States . . . 😦

      • He’s a real sham, isn’t he?

      • G.A.

        I disagree with your conclusion regarding the intent of this combined action.

        The goal is to maintain the FEDERAL govt’s sole authority and power over the States. I think what happens with migration or immigration is irrelevant to the AZ issue.

        The troops are an offering to get some R’s to vote for the next amnesty bill but also to make folks think the AZ law is not really necessary. Which leads back to the “we must maintain control” objective.

        • JAC…you are on target. Fire for effect. Bracket three rounds smoke…go for it.

          • Hate to disagree with the both of you, but I must.

            The latest hidden agenda is the Messiah sucking up to the U.N. “Global Governance” ideas . . . . . And look out for the other U.N. “treaty” that will negate our second amendment that Billary wants us to sign on to.

            This will end up with B.F. and Kent’s pipedreams of no borders anywhere.

            I know that I sound like a conspiracy theory nutcase, but I am just doing what I have been doing all my working life – following the evidence. Believe me when I say that I pray to God that it is wrong, but it sure doesn’t look that way.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

      1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      Arizona can actively address the illegal immigration issue if they want to.

  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    Clinton says world has a duty to respond to sinking of South Korean warship

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday the world must respond to sinking of a South Korean warship that has been blamed on North Korea.

    “This was an unacceptable provocation by North Korea and the international community has a responsibility and a duty to respond,” Clinton told reporters after talks with South Korean leaders.

    The ship sinking “requires a strong but measured response,” she said, although she did not elaborate.

    Clinton said the United States would be consulting with South Korea and members of the U.N. Security Council on what the appropriate action would be, but she declined to offer a timeline for action.

    “We’re very confident in the South Korean leadership, and their decision about how and when to move forward is one that we respect and will support,” she said.

    Read the rest of the Article here: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/25/clinton-seoul-crisis-talks-north-korea-amid-tension-sinking-warship/

    OK, let me say up front that I absolutely believe that North Korea was responsible for the sinking of the South Korean ship. It is based on that belief that I offer the following thoughts on the situation.

    I have no reason to hide my dislike for North Korea. I despise the government in that country, especially the impotent little dictator who runs it. The government and military have been given everything possible while the people have been left to rot and starve to death. It is a truly sad situation to see. It is what happens when a people become absolutely dependent on the government (kind of like what the government would like to have happen here, and yes I believe we would suffer the same fate over time)

    I lived in Korea for a little over a year. I like South Korea. Many soldiers detest being stationed there. I did not. I found the culture interesting, the shopping fantastic, and the people friendly and value driven. That being said, I have to question whether we the world really does have a responsibility to respond to the actions from the North. Why do we? Because South Korea is an ally?

    The realistic situation is that South Korea should handle this herself. It was South Korea that was attacked. It was South Korea that lost 46 sailors and a ship. If I were them, I would advocate a military strike against the North. Send a couple of planes over there and wreck some military sites. Lord knows the North cannot afford to repair them once that happens.

    But the international community has a “responsibility” to do nothing.

    Just my two cents.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      The world does not have a responsibility to respond. Period.

      • Mathius says:

        Sure they do. They should respond with vague and weak statements disapproval of military acts of aggression.

        They do not have an obligation to back it up in any way though.

        Adding, I’m all for pulling our troops out of Korea – unless Korea wants to foot the bill, I think we have to draw the line somewhere. But that’s just me.

      • I’ll Second the motion by Mr. Hawkins.

        • Ok…exit Korea….what about the obligation to Japan? Or do we leave that alone as well? Obligation to Taiwan…or leave that alone also?
          Interesting now that the “International” community has determined that the South Korean ship was indeed sunk in international waters by the NOrth Koreans….Japan has reconsidered the American Base in Okinawa.

          Do all of you recommend just getting out of the East altogether and just let the chips fall where they may?

          I would think long and hard about this. I am being proven right in Iran. I am being proven right in Africa. I am being proven right in Georgia. I am being proven right in India.

          I am also being proven right in the attitude to the United States by Europe, Russia, Iran, and Syria.

          Forget the military side…..think economics.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I will have some fun and agree with Ray, Mathius, and JAC.

      However, I will offer ONE CAVEAT. If the South Koreans REQUEST a US Military presence there, and we see sufficient reason to provide a military presence there, we are not creating an imposition, we are merely honoring the request of a foreign nation.

      So, the KEY is, are we forcing our military presence on South Korea, or are they asking us to be there and are we agreeing to their request?

      To me, there is a difference between the two.

      • I get the fact that we stick our noses into peoples business too much but there has to be something to standing with your friend and neighbor in a time of need. We may have a time of need at some point too.

        • Mathius says:

          How long have we been sitting on their border? The war ended in 1953. That’s 57 years ago! I understand standing with your friends, but honestly – that’s more than half a century that we’ve been footing the bill for their defense. They get the benefits of safety without the hassle of paying for it. Man, that must be nice.

          We’ll stand with us when you need us, but at some point, you need to defend yourself of start paying for it. Korea is like the 30 year old man-child who refuses to move out of his parent’s basement.

          And before you ask, I feel much the same way about Israel.

          • Okay, I don’t really disagree with your reasoning. But we are the ones who allowed them to stay our step children and taught them to depend on us. Can we now just totally walk away and leave them defenseless? If we are going to start being smart and making them grow up-we need to do it the right way.

            • Mathius says:

              OK, I agree with you. We’ve been bad parents. But now mommy and daddy would like some alone time and they’re going to have to move out.

              Let’s start by sending them a bill. It can be for 5% of the total estimated cost of operations for 2011.

              Every year, it increases by 5%. So they pay 10% of 2012, 15% in 2013 and so on.

              Once they are paying 100% in 20 years, it keeps increasing up to 110% to pay back for the last 50 years with moderate interest.

              Once that’s paid back, we leave it at 100% for as long as they want us there.

              How’s that work for you?

              • It will take a smarter and more informed mind than mine to figure out what is the right way-but I do know this involves more than just money-our soldiers lives for one.

                • Mathius says:

                  Our soldiers are volunteers. If they don’t want to be there they won’t be there. They’ll speak with their feet and they won’t sign up. The government would get the message and have to draw down. I’ve never been to the DMZ, but I don’t think it’s too bad of a place to be deployed – no one is shooting at you at least.

                  • USWeapon says:

                    Your belief is firmly rooted in not ever being there. The DMZ is a very tense place, and they will shoot at you.

                    • Mathius says:


                      The North Korean army will fire at Americans?

                      I know they’re a little nuts over there but have they considered what would happen if they actually managed to hit one?

                    • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                      Actually the North Koreans have killed a few and not by shooting but by hacking with axes.

                  • Mathius,

                    The DMZ is a war zone.

                    The war is not over – it is merely in a 50 year “time out” while the participants maneuver by using time as their weapon.

                    Who does time favor? N.Korea or S.Korea?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            I agree that 57 years is a long time. The point I was making is that if they are REQUESTING our presence, and we are agreeing to provide it, that is a totally different scenario vs. us providing our presence whether they like it or not.

            In an ideal world we (America) would go with Jefferson’s ideal of commerce with all and alliances with none. It would be nice to at least start moving in that direction, wouldn’t it?

            • Mathius says:

              I agree that there’s a huge difference between the two.

              But we have friends and we should stand by them.

              However, we should not allow them to take advantage of us. (Israel, S. Korea)

              And we should not be there if they don’t want us there (Iraq, Afghanistan).

              That isn’t to say we should pull out entirely, but I’m not interested in propping up failed governments, keeping 70k troops on the border, or bankrolling your entire military while you take the money you would have spent and invest it in infrastructure.

              We can still help out, or conduct such military activities as may be in our vital national interest. But we need, NEED, to scale it back. The military is funded by US tax payers and it’s huge and expensive and it’s doing far more than it should.

              Let’s halve the military budget and spend that money on US infrastructure. That sounds like a plan to me. Better yet, let’s pay down the debt.

              Crazy talk.

              • Mathius

                So what makes you so sure they are taking advantage of us?

                You see you are now back to those arbitrary value judgments that come into play when you start letting the Federal govt get involved in things it should not be involved in.

                Unless of course, we are there because we view it as a better self-defense position than sitting on our own shores.

                Lets half the military budget and use the savings to reduce the federal deficit. It would not be enough to pay down any debt, but we could slow the debt growth.

                • If we have been there all these years because our government believes it is to our advantage, is it a mutual benefit in your mind or is our presence causing the problems to continue. Either way I do not see where we can just leave.

                  • Mathius says:

                    Not saying we should just leave.

                    Maybe it is in out interest, maybe not – I can’t say.

                    But I can say that it’s expensive defending another country. And at some point, you need to pass the baton.

              • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                I guess the best way to do it would be to go back to paying privates $ 89.00 per month, as they did me in 1969.

          • A lot like Saudi Arabia. They are perfectly willing to allow US Servicemen to shed their blood. In 1991 at the beginning of Desert Storm the high-ranking saudi military people went on VACATION in europe. I had a buddy who drove a tank. They were told not to fire on the first wave of people, because they were Saudis.

            Why we shed our blood for anyone else is a mystery to me. Only a small handful of allies would do this for us.

            • Wasabi,

              Canadians, with their two ships,14 soldiers, and 180 RCMP are willing to shed blood for Americans (pun).

              Maybe the Brits.

              Who else?

              • Mathius says:

                The French.

                They would stand with us against any threat. Far more than even Brittan, the French have always been amongst our staunchest allies, no matter how much they seem to dislike us.

                And then they will promptly surrender at the first opportunity.

                Added bonus: the French are very adept at bleeding.

                • Mathius,

                  People always mistaken the French past bravery.

                  They did not “up and surrender”.

                  Troops in the Maginot continued resistance past the Fall of France.

                  Rommel had to take personal command of the crossing at the Meuse in the face of determined resistance of a small French force that almost – single handedly – ended the war in favor of the French.

                  Rommel had bullet holes in his boots, trousers and cap – but was not wounded and his personal leadership tipped the tide in favor of the Germans. He wrote in his diary how close a handful of amazingly brave French and Algerian troops almost foiled the entire offensive.

                  The French lost 360,000 dead or wounded in June 1940 resisting valiantly -and essentially alone- the massive German and Italian assault. They lost about the same number of troops in one month then the total of American causalities for the whole war. The Polish suffered -in comparison – 200,000 in their defense.

                  France was bled white a generation before with 1.4 million dead in WW1.

                  True, the French may suffer abysmal generalship – but the troops are brave and determined.

              • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                Seems to me a whole bunch of Canadians are dead in Afghanistan including a few that we managed to commit fratricide on. Don’t think you could ask for better allies.

                There is a stat I once came across, that more Canadian citizens served in the US military during Viet Nam than US citizens headed North to escape serving. Would be interesting to look it up again.

          • First of all MAtt…..the Korean war has NOT ended. It is in a truce…nothing more.

      • Peter,

        S.Korea does want US forces there.

        And why not?

        Who would you rather pay for your defense? You, or “rich” Uncle Sam?

        S.K. gets a nuclear defense for the cost of small regular army.

        N.K. spends 15.8% of GDP on military.

        S.K. … 2.6%

        USA … 4%.

        Who is really going to fight the future Korean war?

    • via the FOIA, more revelations to the Korean War is coming out


      -South Korea’s attacks of North Korea for over a year before the N-Korean invasion;

      -US forces mass slaughter of Korean refuges

      S.Korea is as insane an entity as any other – it is a State, and therefore, must provoke threat and risk upon its own People to justify its existence to them.

      S.Korea has been internationally noted for its regular incursions into N.Korean waters (and vice versa)

      Having N.Korea rampaging increases the power of S.Korean government.

      Having a threatened and provoked S.Korea increases the power of Kim – who many pundits suggest did this to solidify the succession of his youngest son into the “Dear Leader” position.

      …A knife fight between multiple insane characters…

      • I find your comments not only disgusting, but utterly distasteful.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          All he is stating is that it is in the best interests of the governments of BOTH of these nations to have constant tension, if not actual violence and war, between the two of them.

          Do you see anything false in his statement?

          Quite often the truth is disgusting and distasteful.

          • I think the problem comes in with the constant condemnation while refusing to offer any here and now solutions.

            • V.H.

              I am amazed how difficult it seems for people to find a solution to slaughtering human beings.

              How about JUST STOP

              KILLING THEM!

              • Life just isn’t that simple BF-we are in the middle of people killing each other-the past has happened-problems have been created-just saying let’s stop killing people-is a rant but it is not a solution.

                • V.H.

                  Life IS THAT SIMPLE.


                  I am always amazed at how difficult it is for people to understand that.

                  • Your repeating it don’t make it so. 🙂

                    • V.H.

                      Ok, for some reason, stopping the killing of innocent people seems a complex thing for you.

                      So, here is the complex answer that you want.

                      When you are holding a gun to someone’s head, start first by lifting your finger off the trigger.

                      Then point the barrel up and away from the head and body of that person.

                      While the gun is pointing in a safe direction, lock the safety to “ON”.

                      Then, remove the clip.

                      Then, recycle the chamber to remove the round in the weapon.

                      Put weapon on the ground.

                      Go home.

                    • If you are the only one holding the gun-I would agree-but alas a lot of people are holding guns. Now if you agree to protect my head, and you decide to put down that gun, how about you give be a heads up before you do, because I’m not at all gonna appreciate your principals when my head is shot off.

                    • V.H.

                      If you are the only one holding the gun-I would agree-but alas a lot of people are holding guns.

                      Hear this to your soul:

                      You are THE ONLY ONE holding the gun

                      What others do you cannot control.

                      You control YOU!

                      Your willingness to threaten innocent life is why you feel your life under threat.

                      When YOU STOP threatening innocent life, the threat on you will decrease.

                      And, if it does not – it DOES NOT MATTER.

                      You have a choice:
                      Act Civilized or Act Barbarian.

                      If you are WILLING to destroy INNOCENT life to save your own, you are a BARBARIAN.

                      You cannot live a Civilized life while using tactics of Barbarians.

                      YOU MUST CHOOSE.

                    • LMAO V

                    • Somewhere in all this principaled behavior is the principal of protecting innocent life, for taking responsibility for what you had a hand in causing-the world and even morals are just not that black and white. If the means in how we do something is important, than the means by which we undo something is also important. If my putting down the gun and walking away isn’t gonna stop the slaughter or worse yet, may cause it-I am not gonna feel too good up on my high horse.

                    • VH….quit arguing. BF’s solution will not work but he likes to think that if we stop killing then the world will stop killing and make peace with us…..that will never happen….ever.

                    • D13,

                      My solution is the only one that has a chance of working.

                      The other way – killing innocent people – will ensure innocent people killed.

                  • I must agree BF

              • Sorry BF, I must also stop other people from killing innocent people, or at least try to. This means that I will remain armed. I will also stop people from killing me. This also means I will remain armed. It is not difficult to avoid killing innocent people. It IS difficult to find a way to defend those who cannot defend themselves. I have no interest in killing or controlling the innocent. I am very interested in exterminating the violent. Is that so hard to understand? It is not that complicated either.

                • Jon,

                  All fine and good and agreed.

                  The means is core.

                  The point: if one creates a situation that threatens the other man’s family, you will expect a similar stance from him.

                  The situation is most likely resolved when one stops threatening his family.

                  It doesn’t guarantee it – true.

                  But I guarantee that it will not resolve if you do not stop.

        • G.A.Rowe,

          I hope you find them disgusting because these matters have been kept “hidden” for a half-century.


          South Korean troops attacked the North a year before the Korean war broke out, researchers have claimed in the latest disturbing revelation about the conflict which almost led to global war.

          More than 250 guerrillas from the South are said to have launched an attack on North Korean villages along the east coast in June 1949. Some reached the town of Wonsan, although all but 50 were killed in two weeks. The incident has been confirmed by a South Korean army official.

          US veterans interviewed by AP said they machine-gunned hundreds of helpless civilians under a railway bridge at No Gun Ri on July 26, 1950.

          A week later, a US general ordered the destruction of two strategic bridges across the Naktong River killing hundreds of civilians.

          “It was a tough decision,” wrote Hobart Gay, the 1st Cavalry Division commander, in a now-declassified document, “because up in the air with the bridge went hundreds of refugees.”

          ..other incidents in 1950-51 when US jets repeatedly attacked groups of Koreans in civilian clothes on the suspicion that they harboured enemy infiltrators.

          In one strike, US firebombs are said to have killed 300 civilians trapped in a cave.

          The defence ministry in Seoul is reported to have heard of nearly 40 similar cases of alleged civilian killings by US forces.

          Korean commentators say that the incidents have long been known.

          But while South Korea was under military dictatorship the victims and their family members had to keep silent, fearing punishment if they spoke out.
          The situation only changed when an AP reporter, Charles Hanley began to investigate the No Gun Ri story in 1997.

          • I find your comments disgusting because you always take up against those who wish to live in freedom. I think that you have never heard of a dictator that you didn’t like.

            You need to wake up out of your MENSA induced stupor and see the reality of the Human condition.

      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        How about the T-34’s from Stalin and the Russian Mig pilots? Seems a whole bunch of planning went into that. I am also fairly sure that Mao did not send in those 400,000 troops overnight.

        • SK,

          Most certainly it was Stalin’s plan to overrun S.Korea and turn it to a Soviet client – again, for its ports –

          Mao was a wild card.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Korea isn’t US sovereign territory and is therefore not our problem/responsibility.

      But since we’re already there, We should give S. Korea lots of weapons and withdraw our troops ASAP.

      When/if N. Korea ever attacks the US, we should annihilate them.

  4. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #4

    The War Is Making You Poor Act
    by Alan Grayson

    Next week, there is going to be a “debate” in Congress on yet another war funding bill. The bill is supposed to pass without debate, so no one will notice.

    What George Orwell wrote about in 1984 has come true. What Eisenhower warned us about concerning the “military-industrial complex” has come true. War is a permanent feature of our societal landscape, so much so that no one notices it anymore.

    But we’re going to change this. Today, we’re introducing a bill called ‘The War Is Making You Poor Act’. The purpose of this bill is to connect the dots, and to show people in a real and concrete way the cost of these endless wars.

    Next year’s budget allocates $159,000,000,000 to perpetuate the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s enough money to eliminate federal income taxes for the first $35,000 of every American’s income. Beyond that, leaves over $15 billion to cut the deficit.

    And that’s what this bill does. It eliminates separate funding for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and eliminates federal income taxes for everyone’s first $35,000 of income ($70,000 for couples). Plus it pays down the national debt.

    The costs of the war have been rendered invisible. There’s no draft. Instead, we take the most vulnerable elements of our population, and give them a choice between unemployment and missile fodder. Government deficits conceal the need to pay in cash for the war.

    We put the cost of both guns and butter on our Chinese credit card. In fact, we don’t even put these wars on budget; they are still passed using ’emergency supplemental’. A nine-year ’emergency’.

    Let’s show Congress the cost of these wars is too much for us.

    Tell Congress that you like ‘The War Is Making You Poor Act’. No, tell Congress you love it. Act now.


    All we are saying is “give peace a chance.” We will end these wars.


    Read the rest of the Article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/the-war-is-making-you-poo_b_585343.html

    The first thing that I want to say is that Grayson is an absolute jackass. I have quickly grown weary of what seems to be a fairly unintelligent guy running off at the mouth regularly. He is simply too stupid to be given a public forum to speak. And that he is a representative in the United States Congress is even worse. And for a member of Congress to be calling the two wars “occupations” is both reckless and irresponsible. His own President is running the show, and has a timeline for withdrawal. Calling them occupations is ignorant rhetoric meant to mischaracterize the campaigns.

    Where I agree is that we have become a society where war is the norm for us. And that is a sad state of affairs in my opinion. Sometimes war is a necessary thing. But that should be rare and only when given no alternative. I would support a bill that simply makes the costs of the wars transparent. But that is not where this bill stops. It goes on to equal a further tax cut for the poor. And that will have to be made up for by…. you guessed it, the wealthy. You cannot cut taxes and increase social programs.

    Grayson is a jackass… and we should be working to get assclowns like him removed from office. Tell Congress that you don’t like assclowns in office. No, tell them you despise them. Act now.

    All we are saying is give intelligence a chance. We will remove these assclowns.


    • Mathius says:

      Well, Mr. Weapon, I agree with you almost entirely (for a change).

      The one point I’m going to have to disagree is this: Grayson is not an idiot. He knows exactly what he is doing. Exactly.

      He wants to end the wars, so calling them occupations (which, by the way, may in fact be a fairly accurate description in some ways) makes them less popular. Adding the tax incentives makes this bill more attractive to the lower class.

      It’s not an accident that he didn’t split this into two bills: one to defund the war and on to give tax exemptions. And it’s be cause he is decidedly not an idiot.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I thought that at the point at which the CIC declares ‘mission accomplished’ or ‘we’re done here’ than we are no longer @ war? To me its pretty clear that we are an occupying force in Iraq since as a sovereign nation they have already held elections. Afghan seems far less certain.

      • USWeapon says:

        I would agree that there must be a point where the “war” is concluded. I think that is the case here. But I do not find us to be an occupying force wince the official elected government wants us there. When you use the term occupying force, it implies we are there against the will of their government. That is not the case. If their elected officials told us to get out, you don’t think Obama would jump at the chance to doso?

        • USWep,

          Not a chance.

          Japanese people protest, riot, etc. to kick the US out.

          The US fights like hell to stay – even threatening (behind closed doors) to overthrow the Japanese PM – and he grudging relents.

          The Empire NEVER retracts its extent or reach voluntarily. It will fight to its near death before it releases its grip.

          Obama is fully engaged in Empire Building – remember this?

          Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday U.S. combat forces should be out of Iraq by spring 2008 to end “a foreign policy disaster,” but he stopped short of endorsing a cutoff in funds.

          The Illinois senator introduced a bill to force the redeployment under law

          The troops will come home in the similar manner they did out of Vietnam – desperately clinging to the last helicopter “outta there” with bullets and RPG’s whistling past their ears….

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Grayson has a point, but his math is awfully fuzzy. The COMPLETE NONSENSE about tax cuts for the poor and/or middle class is STUPID.

      A family of 4 making $45k per year ALREADY PAYS NO FEDERAL TAXES! So the claim that these wars are somehow costing anyone in that category any money is patently nonsensical. A family of four making $70k per year probably does pay SOME taxes, but if you reduced the amount they were paying by $3500 per year, THEY WOULDN’T BE PAYING ANY FEDERAL TAXES EITHER.

      Clearly the goal of this rube is to make it so that the vast majority of Americans are paying no tax, and yet the government is still providing tons and tons of “services”. Of COURSE people paying NOTHING and receiving the benefit of lots of services are going to want EVER MORE SERVICES provided at no cost to them (DUH!).

      This “plan” would just bring us even farther down the road to complete financial unsustainability.

      Take ALL of the 159 Billion saved by not spending it on war, and DON’T SPEND IT AT ALL. Now THERE’S AN IDEA!!!

      • Mathius says:

        What’s the first thing any financial planner will tell you to do with any extra money you might have laying around? PAY OFF YOUR DEBTS!

        We need to – GASP! – raise taxes, cut services, pay off our debt. Then we can figure out where we should go from there. But more tax cuts while we’re already is debt is insanity.

        Has no one in the federal government ever run a household budget?

        • Mathius

          We don’t need to raise “tax rates” but we do need to raise the “tax income”. They are not the same.

          Tax revenue should be increased through economic growth and NOT higher rates. The tax code needs to be revised so that “marginal” and “effective” tax rates are the same.

          I think the effective and marginal rates need to be below 20% of gross income to prevent an anchor effect on the economy. Less than 10% would be better but we need to use about that much to pay down debt.

        • Mathius,

          Has no one in the federal government ever run a household budget?

          Probably not.

          most of these people have never had a “real” job.

          Everything they have has been the result of seizing it from some one else.

          They have no concept of “earning”.

          Further, because government takes what it wants, the concept of “budgeting” within your means actually has no meaning!.

          Government does not earn – it takes, and if it doesn’t have enough, it simply takes more.

          We need to – GASP! – raise taxes,

          And strangle your economy….

          No, you need to CUT TAXES, massively.

          cut services,


          But “Public Choice” theory says this is impossible.

          pay off our debt.

          Not really required.

          What is spent is spent.

          What needs to happen is to stopping growing the debt.

          Then we can figure out where we should go from there. But more tax cuts while we’re already is debt is insanity.

          It is, actually, the key is to cut taxes.

          Government spend money very badly.

          Giving badly spent money back to those that spend money better will make the economy, country and (sadly) eventually the government better.

        • Matt: That’s a great idea. The first step to be taken is to CUT SPENDING. Unfortunately the 2nd step is to try to increase income which means taxes (by whatever name they’re called).

      • Peter

        You ignored the COST to all of us due to the inflation from printed money used to pay for the wars.

        Or the higher interest rates and thus reduced economic activity due to borrowed money used to pay for the wars.

        Of course, the dip stick politician didn’t mention this either.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          It is always dificult to quantitate cost when “money” isn’t real….

          What happens when we run low on money? The Fed prints up a bunch out of thin air! Then they LOAN it to us and charge interest!

          If the Treasury still retained the right to print and issue money, paper money with no backing would still be imaginary (and yet real at the same time paradoxically), but at least we would not have a “central bank” charging us interest for the fact that they created it out of thin air.

          Anyway, that was mostly an aside 🙂 I do get your point. However, during the time of the current wars, interest rates have been at record lows, so that associated cost is actually somewhat minimal. It does still need to be factored in however.

  5. TexasChem says:

    Had to post this one USW.What’s your take on this item?

    Any of you guys ever research Soros when I mentioned him backing Obama and the democrats “shadow govt.” back when Obama announced his run for office?If you throw enough money at an agenda it is bound to gain momentum.Soros throws his money into every socialist program out there.Including our Potus of whom he was a major monetary backer and still is with his financial backing of Moveon and the Unions.Now he is pushing for a govt. biased media!

    “Soros-Funded Group Urges Media Run by Gov’t.”


    • TexasChem says:

      A lil’ bit o’ info bout’ Georgie…


    • TexasChem says:

      “The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.”-Ayn Rand

      Does no one else see a govt. run media as an attempt to suppress the first amendment rights?It is basically here already with the networks coverage of the news.This push will squelch all dissentive news!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        I think your posts have fallen into the category of “most of us basically agree but have nothing much to add”. Happens to my comments once in a while too 🙂

      • USWeapon says:


        I simply haven’t had time to review your article that you posted. I will do so as soon as possible.


  6. Maybe, just maybe this can help.


    This site was developed by House Republicans as part of an official effort to increase the dialogue between Americans and their Congress. Here, Americans are provided a new platform to share their priorities and ideas for a national policy agenda. As Republicans, we are committed to our principles of limited, more accountable government; economic freedom; lower taxes; fiscal responsibility; protecting life, American values, and the Constitution; and providing for strong national security. This is an open forum, however, where all Americans are welcome to respectfully offer their opinions, regardless of party affiliation and whether we endorse them or not. It is our hope the active engagement of the American people will produce a robust debate that will aid in the construction of a new American agenda.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Cool idea – nice find!

    • Bottom Line says:

      They just want to know what lies you want to hear.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        That is true, but if there is ANY hope that the people can once again begin to have a say in the direction of the government which is supposedly the government of the people, it is a least a good baby-step.

        Sometimes an infinitesimal hint of progress is at least better than nothing.

        Of course, the discussions on that site may have no impact at all, but I suspect politicians are starting to fear for their cushy jobs and realizing that perhaps listening to their constitients and actually acting on at least some of their concerns might be a good idea.

        It also looks (to me anyway) like SOMEONE on Capitol Hill got the idea for that site by looking at THIS SITE, so USW might be having even more impact than he is aware of 🙂

        • Bottom Line says:

          Peter – “That is true, but if there is ANY hope that the people can once again begin to have a say in the direction of the government which is supposedly the government of the people, it is a least a good baby-step.

          Sometimes an infinitesimal hint of progress is at least better than nothing.”

          BL – At face value, I don’t disagree that it is a good thing. I can’t help but to be a bit cynical though. There isn’t much legitemacy left in the two parties or our government at this point. Call me Pavlov’s dog…because I have been conditioned to believe that when a politician opens their mouth, it is a lie to be popular.

          Peter – “Of course, the discussions on that site may have no impact at all, but I suspect politicians are starting to fear for their cushy jobs and realizing that perhaps listening to their constitients and actually acting on at least some of their concerns might be a good idea.”

          BL – Damn right they’re starting to fear for their cushy jobs. That’s what annoys me. It’s never about doing the right thing. It’s about telling just enough truth to be elected/re-elected. It’s about playing the game rather than playing it straight. If they gave a damn about their constituants, they would have given a damn about their constituants all along. Actions speak louder than words. They aren’t to be trusted. I say too late, the bridge is already burned. The boy has cried wolf WAY too many times.

          Peter – “It also looks (to me anyway) like SOMEONE on Capitol Hill got the idea for that site by looking at THIS SITE, so USW might be having even more impact than he is aware of ”

          BL – I thought the same thing. I agree that it ‘appears’ to be modeled after SUFA.

          USW has mentioned that staffers from congress read SUFA. I assume that there are probably some representatives reading too.

          I took a look at Weapon’s tweeter page a couple of months ago and noticed that FOX news and Sarah Palin subscribe.

          And what about those that are instrumental in the Tea Party movement? They’re here too and probably in greater numbers than what is obvious.

          I’ve heard FOX News and FOX Radio personalities mention things word for word as they were mentioned here at SUFA, and on many occations. I have no doubt they’re reading too.

          …Having an impact for sure. That’s part of why I like it here.

          I think it’s pretty cool that a uneducated redneck nobody like myself can, on occation, make a good point about something, then 24-36 hours later hear someone on FOX say the same thing almost word for word to a national/global audience. Not only do I like the validation, but even more so, I like that I am provoking thought elswhere/everywhere.

          And what about how many of those 5000 daily SUFA readers are influential in other realms besides politics?

          There’s no tellin’ who’s actually reading this.

  7. So this whole Sestak job offer thing is heating up. Ray, anything local from PA that you can fill us in on?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Hi Kathy – couple of things –

      It is getting some play – Michael Smerconish was to cover it in a segment yesterday but I missed it.

      The Philly Inquirer ran an article yesterday on it regarding Durbin’s call for Sestak to be forthright about what happened, the actors and what was said and when. Sestak, coward that he is, is clamming up and trying to paint this as “bad politics” – even as registered Democrat (for now), I think Sestak needs to man up and clear the air on this. Also, it has been reported that DOJ has declined to investigate this. Make no mistake – bribery is a crime – and Sestak has admitted that a bribe attempt was made.

      Other than that there is really not much coverage on this side of the State – remember – Philly = Democrat. So you’re not going to get much anyway. Maybe Naten has heard different on the Western side of PA.

      There was a Media Matters segment saying this has been kinda/sorta done before under Reagan (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656) but that storyline is pretty weak. Sestak, piece of garbage he is, won fair and square I believe. I would like to know who the slimeball was in the White House.

      • I agree…if there was something offered, he should come clean. He is aspiring to be our/your employee…employers need to know.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Who is the slimeball in the White House? Take your pick. Any name that you pull out of your… err… hat, will be appropriate 🙂

        The actual question is WHICH slimeball in the Whitehouse 🙂

      • Michelle Malkin wrote her thoughts on it today.


        • Bottom Line says:

          Michelle Malkin and the MSM = She/they said

          “…Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak’s consistent CLAIMS that…” = He said

          “…White House spokesman Robert Gibbs glibly ASSERTED that “lawyers…” = He said the lawyers said

          BL says – I want to see some video so we can start firing people and/or start composing the articles of impeachment. Otherwise, this whole ordeal is unsubstantial and a waste of time.

      • naten53 says:

        i didn’t hear anything about it until today.

  8. V.H.

    “not see where we can just leave”

    Who is this “we” you reference?

    It is NOT in yours, or your children’s benefit to be in Korea. Never has and never will.

    The best you will ever personally achieve out of a war is getting out alive.

    But that is what you already have before a war.

    If you are trapped in some mental psychosis that twists your brain to thinking that what benefits the US government benefits you!

    War benefits all governments. Their power increases, their control over the economy increases, their control over the people increases.


    • It doesn’t matter-we are there, we have been there for years, if we created the problem or they created the problem-it doesn’t matter. The problem exists and we have a responsibility to make whatever changes need to be made in a sensible way. We cannot just walk away and shrug our shoulders and say OH well, what happens, happens.

      • V.H.

        You DO NOT solve a problem by making it worse.

        You DO solve the problem by walking away.

        The moment the USA says “We’re outta here!”, what do you believe S.Korea will do?

        What do you believe N. Korea will do? What do you believe China will do? What do you believe Japan will do? What do you believe Russia will do? Here’s a hint: They all live there and the USA does not!

        • That’s the solution part BF-what will they do? Should we walk away? What steps do we take if we decide to walk away? Something besides “Don’t kill people” How about let’s not let people who have been our allies be killed. Especially if we are partially to blame for the situation.

          • V.H.

            You tell me what they would do. Work it out.

            Do you believe it is in the best interest of S. Korea to have a semi-nuclear war?

            Do you believe it is in the best interest of N. Korea to have a semi-nuclear war?

            Do you believe it is in the best interest of China to have a semi-nuclear war?

            Do you believe it is in the best interest of Japan to have a semi-nuclear war?

            Do you believe it is in the best interest of Russia to have a semi-nuclear war?

            • I don’t know what they would do. All I know is that if we determine walking away is the right course-we don’t just pack our bags and leave. To use Matt’s analogy, I may throw my kid out of the basement but I’m damn well gonna prepare him for the dangers that he is gonna face and I’m not gonna throw him out during a tornado.

              • V.H.

                We most certainly pack up and leave.

                Until we do, nothing changes for the better.

                There is “no tornado”. The “weather” hasn’t changed for 50 years.

                As far as your child, you cannot protect him from life. He will leave one day and will live his life.

                You paying for his life for the rest of yours insures he will never leave.

            • BF

              This is where it all goes astray my friend.

              “Do you believe it is in the best interest of N. Korea to have a semi-nuclear war?”

              You see what is actually in N. Korea’s interest is not necessarily relevant. What matters is what that piss ant thinks is in “his Korea’s” interest.

              If he thinks he can win and become the “Exalted Leader” then he will try it. That is the psychosis of the deranged who control the power of govt. History is full of these nuts. No reason to think they are going to start behaving rationally now.

              • JAC

                What matters is what that piss ant thinks is in “his Korea’s” interest.

                He is N.Korea, in the words of Louis XIV “I am the State”.

                Let’s go over his life.

                – He has 25 Rolls Royces.
                – The world’s largest privately held wine cellar.
                – The pick of any Korean woman for a bed partner

                Why would he POSSIBLY risk this and his posterity?

                ..only if this was AT RISK and was his posterity!!

                He will not go to war and get wiped out.

                He may go to war to prevent loss of his life style.

                Now, the key is the military. They live like Barons in the feudalism of N.Korea.

                If their King threatens the life style of the barons, the barons will kill the King.

                No reason to think they are going to start behaving rationally now.

                But he is acting rationally

                Do not confuse evil with irrational.

                He is not the leader of a ruthless State because he is irrational. He is a brilliant, violent, evil political actor who calculates moves so far in advance beyond our mere mundane life.

                • BF

                  Forgot the punch line.

                  EVIL IS NOT RATIONAL

                • BF

                  Hitler had all this and more. His people were no longer starving. Yet he gambled it all away for something irrational.

                  As for Kim, maybe he doesn’t like N. Korean women anymore. I think he wants to be Emperor of Korea and he would take the chance if he thought he could win that.

                  Here is the real truth.

                  WE DON’T KNOW what makes this guy tick or not tick.

              • JAC,

                This has got me a bit intrigued.

                Who do you believe in recent history was “nuts”?


                None of these actors were “nuts”.

                Hitler did everything under the belief he was doing it in the best interests of Germany.

                Mao did everything under the belief he was doing it in his best interest, as did Stalin.

                Lenin was much like Hitler.

                Kim is much like Mao.

                But none of these fellows are insane.

                They are brutally calculating, immoral, evil sociopaths – but not insane

                • Evil but Brillliant

                • BF

                  Actually, there is enough evidence from eye witness accounts of Hitler’s behavior to determine the guy was not sane.

                  Doesn’t mean he wasn’t also sharp and a great manipulator.

                  As for the rest of them, I submit that any man who subscribes to a philosophy of killing millions of other humans for nothing more than power is Freakin NUTS.

                  • JAC,

                    Those accounts come from people who were the victims of his policies.

                    Under no uncertain terms, Hitler was no more insane than you.

                    He was a man totally convinced of his idea that he justified great terror and violence to achieve it.

                    His was not a “power” grab. He seized power for its ability to create his vision of a Greater Germany.

                    The man was a multi-millionaire, probably in the hundreds of millions of (2010) dollar equivilents – his book was a best seller in the lines of JR Rowlings.

                    Yet, he lived a relative sparse life. He had few intimate relations – and held one with one woman for 10 years.

                    He didn’t drink or smoke.

                    Because few who knew him survived his fall, we know quite little of his personal life – we do see his public life in great detail however.

                    No, he was not insane. What he did, was done in the firm belief it was the only way to accomplish his dream.

                    He is not dissimilar to the vast majority of people in this country who believe the best answer to human problems is to beat them into submission.

        • Ok, I’ll bite. I love what if global geopolitical games.

          IF we just pulled out, that is we left without first allowing S. Korea to expand and strengthen its military.

          1. N. Korea invades and takes S. Korea.

          2. China does nothing in response to N. Korea’s attack.

          3. Japan goes ape shit and starts spending to build its military immediately.

          4. China invades and takes Taiwan.

          5. Japan increases its military even further and starts stationing troops and material on various islands to help protect against Chinese invasion.

          6. The new unified Korea’s pecker head President decides to start harassing Japanese shipping.

          7. Japan views this as an act of aggression and strikes back by sinking N. Korea ships in Korean waters.

          8. Green Peace, seeing a chance to end Japanese whaling signs a mutual defense treaty with Korea. Green peace arms its ships with anti-ship missiles and Korean advisers.

          9. The whales, seeing a chance to end the killing of their specie launch a covert operation to steal a Japanese flag from the docks in Tokyo harbor.

          10. Green Peace reports that a Japanese submarine has sunk one of their ships. When asked how they know, it is reported that the “submarine” was covered with a large Japanese flag.

          11. Korea and Green Peace declare war on Japan in retaliation for the sinking of the Green Peace ship.

          12. In fear of a war spreading to other regions, the President of the USA declares that he will no longer tolerate Pirates running loose in the world and causing problems. A week later the U.S. Army invades Pittsburgh.

          • naten53 says:

            the pittsburgh pirates haven’t caused anyone trouble since 1992.

            • Naten

              It was a “pre-emptive” strike by the U.S. President.

              The GM for the Pirates had indicated in the off season that he wanted to acquire some new young pitchers from the Mariners. Seattle, used to its role as a farm team of major talent, had indicated a willingness to trade three potential Cy Young winners for a new grounds keeper.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Oh, now that’s funny.

  9. Cyndi P says:

    posting for comments

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    I am confused above.

    In one of your posts regarding Korea, you say that a great solution would be to STOP KILLING PEOPLE, but in a later post you say, “STOP KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE”.

    Which is it?

    If someone on one side can prove that someone on the other side is not “innocent”, then is killing at least potentially justified?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Another point is that the people of North Korea have been taught for generations that the people of South Korea are a clear and present danger to them. Also for generations, the people of South Korea have been taught that the people of North Korea are a clear and present danger to them. Both sides have ABUNDANT evidence to support this, based on all of the military exercises, sinking of ships, and thousands upon thousands of people pointing guns at each other on both sides of the 38th parallel.

      Under this scenario the idea of, “hey, STOP KILLING EACH OTHER!” might make PERFECT SENSE, but given that the enmity has been ingrained by their respective governments for the past 3 generations (at least), it is highly unlikely that they are going to respond to, “hey, STOP KILLING EACH OTHER!”.

      The solution is indeed for them to stop killing each other, but getting there is nowhere near that simple.

    • Peter,

      Stop killing people would be good.

      But if we start with stop killing innocent people, we’d go a huge long way down that path.

      As a Buddhist once said:

      Do not worry, there will be Peace in the World.

      It would be nice, too, if humans were there to enjoy it

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        What complicates the matter, as we all know, is that even if many people stop killing innocent people, there will still be those that are evil who will continue to kill innocent people and exhort their followers to do the same.

        Defending ourselves against such evil is logical and even moral.

        However, I agree that our soldiers being on foreign soil guarantees that they will likely kill as many innocent people as they “save”, and since it is a foreign country it should really be none of our business what happens there.

        Unfortuantely we currently have a great propensity to try to make it our business, regardless of where it happens.

  11. V.H.

    Somewhere in all this principaled behavior is the principal of protecting innocent life, for taking responsibility for what you had a hand in causing-the world and even morals are just not that black and white. If the means in how we do something is important, than the means by which we undo something is also important. If my putting down the gun and walking away isn’t gonna stop the slaughter or worse yet, may cause it-I am not gonna feel too good up on my high horse.

    So I analyze your statement, and forgive my simplified paraphrasing:

    “When I stop killing innocent people, innocent people still get killed.
    Therefore, me stopping my killing of innocent people is futile.
    Thus, me killing of innocent people is ok, because I won’t feel good if they die by other people’s hand”

    • You seem to assume that our being there is causing the taking of innocent life-it may be limiting the loss of innocent life. Do you use that possibility in your calculations? I understand your point, you do not purposely kill one innocent to save a 1000 but you do fight evil in order to protect the innocent and unfortunately that fight can always lead to bad consequences. I guess we’ll just have to hope that the good wins more often then the evil.

      • V.H.

        You seem to assume that our being there is causing the taking of innocent life


        Being there guarantees the taking of innocent life by Americans.

        -it may be limiting the loss of innocent life.

        Thus, to you, killing innocent people to save innocent people makes sense?

        Do you use that possibility in your calculations?

        I’m sure you’ve said or posted:
        “Life is priceless”.

        Yet…in contradiction…

        …you calculate the price of innocent life “somehow” so that killing “those innocents” to save “these innocents” makes some sort of mathematical sense to you.

        There is no calculation that solves the cost of killing innocent life.

        That above concept is an understanding of Civilization. As Churchill said, it is futile to debate civilization with barbarians.

        you do not purposely kill one innocent to save a 1000 but you do fight evil in order to protect the innocent

        No – there is no “accidental” purposeful killing of an innocent person.

        If in my defense of self I kill an innocent, I am guilty of murder, no matter how huge the threat to my life or my family may have occurred.

        and unfortunately that fight can always lead to bad consequences. I guess we’ll just have to hope that the good wins more often then the evil.

        Good will never win if it uses Evil as its means.

        • You don’t kill one innocent to save 10,000 but you also don’t allow the 10,000 to kill the one innocent. Life is complicated.

          • V.H.


            But you do not stop 10,000 by threatening their children either.

            When men understand that other men are very much the same as themselves, then – perhaps – men can start acting in peace.

            • Agreed-but there are steps that have to be made along the way in order to get there without committing or allowing worse atrocities along the way.

              • V.H.

                The first step is to leave.

                • No-the first step is to prepare the ones we have been protecting. Leaving ones we have been protecting, unprepared to protect themselves, is as evil as anything I can think of.

                  • V.H.


                    US = #1

                    Now, the regional powers around the Korean Peninsula….

                    China = #2 (North Korea will not act without Chinese approval – nuke armed)
                    Russia = #3 (Has no gain in a Korean conflict – nuke armed)
                    Japan = #9 (Has no gain in a Korean conflict – capable of nuke armed in 30 days)

                    S.Korea = #12 (Has little gain in a Korean conflict other than desire unification under their system – capable of nuke armed in 90 days)
                    Defense budget: $25 billion

                    Taiwan = #16 (Has no gain in a Korean conflict – capable of nuke armed in 90 days)

                    And, finally North Korea = #20 – maybe nuke armed, not very darn likely though.
                    Defense budget, $5.5 billion

                    S. Korea outspends, in military, N. Korea 5 times over. S. Korea has regional interests in Taiwan, China, Russia and Japan who are all very annoyed at N. Korea and will engage her in if she goes hostile.

                    It is long past time to end American occupation of Korea.

                    • This is where you will be wrong…. China and Russia will do nothing to North Korea and will allow the invasion of the South…. which will probably happen. But, time will tell.

                    • D13,

                      China is N.Korea only supply source.

                      China would cut of fuel and food.

                      N.Korea would grind to a halt in 5 days.

        • Bottom Line says:

          BF – “If in my defense of self I kill an innocent, I am guilty of murder, no matter how huge the threat to my life or my family may have occurred.”

          So what if the defense of your family meant you had NO CHOICE but to kill an innocent?

          Are you still a murderer?

          • BL,

            No Choice

            All human action is individual. You have a choice.

            Would you throw a child out of a life raft so that you and your family would survive?

            The answer is the difference between a civilized man and a barbarian.

            Chose wisely.

            • Bottom Line says:

              So is that a yes or a no?

              No, I most certainly would not throw a child out of a raft so that my family and I would survive. That would be a waste of fresh meat and/or fish bait. 🙂

              If you will, Sir, entertain this one for me instead…

              The “Flag” family is cruising safely through the rocky mountains in your Magnum. (…on your way to your log cabin mountain getaway vacation spot or whatever.) Just as you clear the summit of a mountain pass and begin to travel downhill, you have total brake failure. You apply the emergency brake to no avail. You’re accelerating to dangerous speeds traveling down a divided highway on a one-way narrow road. At the bottom of the hill is a tunnel cut directly into a rock face. As you approach the tunnel there is a man riding a small moped/scooter entering and cannot avoid you as the tunnel is very narrow.

              What do you do? Do you:

              A – Veer off the road and slam your car/family/self into a rock face and/or tumble down a mountain side?


              B – Run over/through the man on the motorcycle?

              Are you a murderer for killing an innocent man on a motorcycle, or a murderer for slamming your family into a rock face at 90 MPH?

              Are you a murderer at all?

              • BL

                Yes or no?


                What do you do? Do you:

                A – Veer off the road and slam your car/family/self into a rock face and/or tumble down a mountain side?


                B – Run over/through the man on the motorcycle?

                Neither, I chose “C” and/or “D”.

                Are you a murderer for killing an innocent man on a motorcycle, or a murderer for slamming your family into a rock face at 90 MPH?

                Accidents are not murder.

                • Bottom Line says:

                  Okay, lemme get this straight…

                  Violence initiated against the non-violent is murder, even if it is part of a defensive action…

                  …because you always have a choice as all human action is individual.


                  If it is an accident is isn’t murder because there is no choice/willfull intent…


                  You always have a choice. Even if there is no choice.

                  So, an accident isn’t murder because you have no choice. And you always have a choice so an accident is murder?

          • Now your argument is that they can protect themselves-I believe that I said to begin with that we needed to question and decide what was best- not just arbitrarily leave based on a principal of not killing the innocent when our just leaving could cause the killing of innocents. This seems like a different conversation.

            • This is obviously in the wrong place-but I think you’ll find it 🙂
              I have to leave the office for awhile -will be back later 🙂

            • V.H.

              No, my argument hasn’t changed. The causality of innocents is still immutable.

              The point you raised was you didn’t want to abandon ‘the cause’ unless you felt ‘they’ could defend themselves.

              Obviously, they can – and more.

              It is in the interest of those that believe they are threatened to act on their own defense.

              …and obviously, they have.

              The point:
              Those that feel threatened need no motivation from “me” to defend themselves – they will do what is necessary all by themselves.

              IF (and a huge massive “if”) for some reason they feel they are inadequate to defend themselves against such a threat, they will most probably find “neighbors” whose best interests (particularity economic) to avoid conflicts will come to their aid or at least mediate the conflict.

              And, no need for “us” to get involved there either. We don’t live there.

              No matter how you turn the circle, the answer is the same.

              The US presence in the region is the destabilize force – from Day One. (Yes, Russia shares some of the blame – but it is in their backyard ….. )

              It will solve itself -and quickly- once the US leaves.

              Vietnam is the lesson here.

              • TexasChem says:

                BF Stated:”It will solve itself -and quickly- once the US leaves.

                Vietnam is the lesson here.”

                TC:OH I see now BF!You are all for any type of government except capitalist republics!So you are ok with Commie and Islamic nutfascist states?

                I get it now!
                That must be why you justify their actions in your posts all the time!

                You want the average American dociled down believing they can’t committ violence unless attacked themselves.

                Piss on the future economics of the world ehh?Let’s just let the statist nutcases run everything!


                Are you really George Soros in disguise?BF/Soros clone type supah-evil villain are these your true thoughts?

                :Hrmm let me make a few intelligent posts about economics and philosophy to establish intelligence.I will then preach American pacification.Tossing in the virtues of being unpatriotic and not to vote at all so that the leftist liberal nuts will gain more control.I’ll endorse immigration and amnesty as well to promote the cultural violence bound to erupt.Perhaps my dream of destroying the American dream will come true!
                🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

                • TexasChem

                  TC:OH I see now BF!You are all for any type of government except capitalist republics!So you are ok with Commie and Islamic nutfascist states?

                  No and No,

                  …and No, S.Korea is NOT a capitalist “republic”. It is mercantilist oligarchy.

                  Are you really George Soros in disguise?BF/Soros clone type supah-evil villain are these your true thoughts?

                  Soros owns no army, tanks, air craft carriers nor nuclear weapons.

                  And you think he is super-evil????

              • I only have one question-If they in your opinion couldn’t protect themselves would you still recommend that we leave ?

                • Oh yea, no neighbors who can help them, just based on your principal.

                  • V.H.

                    Why wouldn’t their neighbor’s help them???

                    Why do you believe people who are free to act will never act???

                  • I’m constantly amazed at people who think that a person who has his rights to say “No” as equally as he can say “Yes” – will always and only say “No” unless he is forced to say “Yes” at the point of a gun.

                  • The we is the United States of America and the question only takes a yes or not answer.

                    • yes or no to answeryes or not makes no sense . Let’s try yes or no to answer 🙂

                    • V.H.

                      You need to clarify this:

                      Why wouldn’t their neighbor’s help them???

                      Why do you believe people who are free to act will never act???

                    • V.H.

                      “We” = “USA” is meaningless.

                      I am not the “United States of America” nor are you.

                      If you, as in V.H. wants to go and “help” S. Korea – good for you.

                      But the “WE”, nope.

                      “WE” don’t live there, we don’t speak their language, we do not understand their culture, we have no historical connection.

                      It’s not our place in the world for “WE” to do anything.

                      But YOU …. go for it…

                    • I again messed up by answering the question in a place where I can see what I am typing with the intention of moving it before I push the button but my answer is a little ways down. As far as your objection of the We , I understand your objection but when it comes to our soldiers being stationed in other countries -it is the only word that fits.

                    • V.H.

                      Why do “WE” have soldiers occupying foreign countries that are (1) supposed to be allies (2) are more than ample to defend themselves and (3) in a country that is NOT the USA???

                • V.H.

                  if they couldn’t defend themselves….would you say we leave…

                  Who the heck is this “WE” you keep referring too???

                • No I don’t-we have been discussing this issue on principal, now you are throwing in qualifiers. Are you right solely based on the principal of not killing innocents-Do the circumstances make a difference or not. Are you basing our actions as evil based on this principal or because you believe 1. they can protect themselves 2. their neighbors will protect them. Which is it? I may or may not agree with you on our leaving based on the above two-I may not-I would need a lot more information before I could even begin to know the answer. But on principal I disagree with you.

                  • V.H.

                    No, ma’am, YOU are throwing in the qualifiers such as “neigbhor’s not helping…”

                    The constant mind-block that trips many is the desire to demand certainty and predictability of free action of men before you believe in freedom FOR men.

                    You would rather have the certainty of tyranny and slavery before you trust the uncertainty of freedom.

                    • No I just want a straight answer. Do you have enough faith in your principals to give one based on reality of today.

                    • V.H.

                      I trust free men to act in their best interests.

                    • BF

                      V.H. is correct in my view. You are changing the argument to avoid the direct question.

                      YOU stated that WE, as in the USA, should pull out because:

                      1) S.Korea can defend itself, and;
                      2) It’s neighbors would come to her aid.

                      Now rather than debate whether either of these facts you proposed are true, V.H. asked a simple question.

                      Lets assume #1 is NOT true.

                      Would you still have the USA immediately pull out all military presence from S. Korea?

                      Lets assume #1 is true but #2 is NOT true.

                      Would you still have the USA immediately pull out all military presence from S. Korea?

                      Lets assume #1 and #2 are NOT true.

                      Would you still have the USA immediately pull out all military presence from S. Korea?

                      It’s time to man up and answer the questions directly my pirate friend. Feel free to add any explanation you wish.

                      Suggest you drop to the very bottom for reply as I expect it might generate further discussion.

                    • Can’t disagree with that statement.

                    • That last staement was addressing BF’s statement.

  12. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    Congrats! You owe $55.7 trillion today (or $180,000 for every man/woman/child in America!)

    • Mathius says:

      Can I pay it now in one lump sum and absolve myself of all future liabilities?

      • Mathius,

        Sorry, no.

        Your government owns you, so even if you paid your part, it will simply assign a part of everyone else’s immediately after that.

        • Mathius says:

          But surely if I pay that as well, they’ll leave me alone, right?

          • Mathius,

            I can hear the Dread Pirate in your basement howling in laughter at you.

            • Mathius says:

              He’s not down there.. I checked on him when I got home last night and we was gone.

              There were bits of dead raptor near all of my automated defenses (one of which bears a strange D-shaped brand marking) and a gaping hole in my wall.

              And it looks like he cleaned me out of grog before he vanished.

              It appears he was traveling light. The only things I could find that were missing (other than the grog) were my gold coin, a sextant, a compass, and a page torn from an atlas that I believe shows the Gulf of Mexico near the US border.

    • Between the first post and now,

      $1 billion has been added to your debt via government.

  13. Anyone else see the large raptor like creature about to chew Ben Nelson’s head off?


    D13 Is that one of yours camouflaged on a map. Devious little suckers aren’t they.

    • Mathius says:

      I wouldn’t put it past him to send raptors after Ben Nelson..

      But he’s been awfully quiet today.. I have a sneaking suspicion that I know why too…

      • Yes, I say your post. Perhaps he is busy building a dock to handle a certain pirate ship?

        • Mathius says:

          He’ll be very busy then. I don’t know if you’re aware, but Thor’s Hammer is slightly larger than an aircraft carrier and has a deep draft. It was last sighted in the Los Angeles harbor taking on stockpiles of In ‘n’ Out burgers, so he probably has some time before it arrives.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Why must you mention In ‘n’ Out burgers?

            Those things might as well be heroin.

            I am quite a distance from the closest “In ‘n’ Out”.

            Damn you, Matt.

            • Mathius says:

              Sadly I am too. 😦

              Born and raised in LA, I now live in New York: 3,000 miles away.

      • Mathius

        By the way, where oh where has my favorite lefty lawyer gone?

        • Mathius says:

          Not sure.. I know business has been picking up and he’s been pretty busy.. I’m sure he’s reading along. Watching. Waiting.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I’m always reading…watching…and waiting.

            Now if I can just find time to participate. Stupid work getting in the way of my SUFA time!

            Have a great Memorial Day weekend everyone – hopefully by next week things will have slowed down some over here…

    • Crap…..I thought I was being stealthy.

      Laguna Madre will handle deep draft with no problem. The barrier island is very defensible. All harbors guarded by laser bearing raptosharks.

      Actually the last week I have been neglecting my business and flying non stop to finish my ratings and check rides. All will be done by this next Wednesday. I have done so many engine failure simulations, stalls, lost engine on takeoff procedures…while under the “hood”….my equilibrium is wacko.

      Sorry about the hole in your wall….you have tough defenses. I lost several raptors…however, the Ben Nelson raptor survived and is ………….stalking.

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:


        Thanks for the helping hand. By my count, ye lost near 30 good raptors in combat operations during my rescue. Their sacrifice shall not be forgotten.

        I am on my way to the West coast to meet up with my ship. Once there, we will have to make sale for the location you gave me. With a fair wind, I should be there in a few weeks.

        We’ll share In ‘n’ Out burgers and grog while discussing our mutual distaste for big government.

        Sent from my iPad from a non-disclosed location


  14. Judy Sabatini says:

    So, they want to remove our 2nd amendment, owning a gun is illegal in Chicago, the owner of the house killed the intruder, could possibly face charges should they decide to file them against the owner of the house. My question is this. If this man didn’t have a gun, just how would he have protected himself and his wife? Hit the intruder on the head with his cane, and told him to get out, or run and hide under the bed. If he called police first, chances are, they would have been killed instead. I say, charges should not be filed against this man for protecting him self and his wife.

    80-Year-Old Chicago Man Kills Armed Home Invader


    An 80-year-old Chicago man shot and killed an armed assailant who broke into his two-story house in a predawn home invasion Wednesday on the city’s West Side.

    An 80-year-old Chicago man shot and killed an armed man who broke into his two-story house in a pre-dawn home invasion Wednesday on the city’s West Side.

    At about 5:20 a.m., the homeowner and his wife, also in her 80s, discovered the intruder entering their home through a back door. The homeowner, who had a gun, confronted and killed the burglar on the doorstep, police said. Cops said the intruder also fired his gun during the struggle.

    “It’s a good thing they had a gun, or they might be dead,” said Curtis Thompson, who lives next door to the couple, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

    Neighbors described the elderly couple, who both walk with canes, as pillars of the community in Garfield Park, where home invasions have been all too frequent.

    Their neighbor, Shaquite Johnson, told MyFoxChicago that the two are “heroes” for fighting off the attacker — and that the shooting means there is “one less criminal” walking the streets.
    “They don’t bother no one, so why would anyone do that to them?” she said.

    Relatives of the couple told the Sun Times that the man is an Army veteran, his wife a former nurse. Police said neither the man nor the woman was injured in the attack.

    The assailant, who was described by police as being in his 30s, was found slumped on the back doorstep of the couple’s house, removed four hours after the shooting, the Sun Times reported.

    No charges have been filed against the homeowner, but Chicago currently has a statute outlawing the possession of handguns. Its legality is currently being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    A high-profile Chicago attorney has already stepped forward offering to represent the man pro bono if he faces charges for possessing a weapon.

    “Self-defense isn’t just a right, it’s a duty,” said attorney Joel Brodsky. “If this man is prosecuted for saving his own life it’s not just a travesty, it’s justice turned inside out.”

    • Arg!

      “Self-defense isn’t just a right, it’s a duty,” said attorney Joel Brodsky.

      …isn’t just a duty, it’s a RIGHT!”

      Joel got the onus a bit out of line – and its important…the “Right” is highest order and not subject to duty at all.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        How would you have handled it if it happened to you Flag? What would you have done?

        • Judy,

          Shut up.

          If someone else called the “Only Ones”, I’d shrug my shoulders and say “Didn’t see or hear a darn thing – musta been a loud movie on TV….”

          • Mathius says:

            Ten Mathius Points to Mr. Flag for a first class answer and for managing to keep to only 32 words.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Made me kind of chuckle from your answer. Thanks for answering, was just curious to know what you would do. I always heard though, that if you shoot someone on your property, that you had better get them in you house, other wise you can brought up on charges.

          • shoot…. wood chipper…fertilizer.

          • Bottom Line says:


            Feed the pigs

            Shut up

            Snatch – Brick Top warns about Pig Farmers

          • Mathius says:


            Shoot again.

            Shoot once more.

            Approach cautiously.


            Shut up.

  15. Here we go again : Wisconsin couple must remove American flag after Memorial Day


    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi Anita

      I just got through reading that, and it just amazes me to think that just because of a diversified group of people living there, having the American Flag up inside their apartment no less, just might offend someone.

      I thought this was America, and we can fly our flags, apartment or not, and inside or not. See, all it takes is for one person to bitch about it, and now these people have to remove it.

      O also posted that article on my face book page.

      • Yes, it’s ridiculous. There should be no rule against flying the American Flag ANYWHERE in America.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Agreed 100%

          How you doing Anita? Hope all is going well with you.

          • Doing fine Judy. Feels like July in Michigan today. 88 this afternoon. Can’t wait for the school year to end. 88 is so much cooler at the lake 🙂

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          An apartment or apartment complex is a piece of private property wholly owned by the landlord or holding company.

          Even though “this is America” they are free to set the rules of what you can and cannot do inside of “your” apartment. You do not own the apartment, you merely rent/lease it from the landlord or the holding company.

          If you don’t like the rules, move somewhere else that has rules that you like.

          I agree that it is a STUPID rule, but private property owners are free to make “stupid rules”. If the rules are sufficiently stupid, they will have trouble leasing their apartments at the rate which they hope to get for them, and they will either fail to be profitable or have to change their rules to suit more potential tenants.

          The concept of “this is America” means that we have private property rights, and that an owner of private property has the right to set the rules on that property, even if the rules are completely stupid.

          • Peter

            I know, I know..You are right as usual. I can’t argue. But… i can still whine, can’t I? 🙂

          • Bottom Line says:

            That’s what I was hinting at when I said…

            “Stupid rules like that don’t exist in rural America.

            Condos suk.”


    • Bottom Line says:

      It is rediculous that anyone would be offended by our flag and ask someone to take it down…ESPECIALLY a war veteran’s flag. Have these people no respect?

      Stupid rules like that don’t exist in rural America.

      Condos suk.

      • I believe this couple is from Madison; the bastion of liberalism and craziness of the midwest.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Sounds just like when that lady said that my flags bothered her when she drove by my house when I had them up.

        Since when does America offend people? If they don’t like the flag, or if it offends them, then maybe thy should pack their bags and leave this country. I’m getting so fed up with people who find offensiveness anymore with anything anybody does when it comes to anything American, I can just scream. I say, enough already, this is America, and if I want to fly 20 flags, then dammit, I will, and if anybody says anything then F$$$ them.

        • Bottom Line says:

          I second that.

          You tell ’em Judy!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            I’ll do just that BL. BTW, how you doing?

            • Bottom Line says:

              Okay I guess,

              And you?

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Just okay, huh. Guess that makes 2 of us then. Just tired of all the crappy weather we’re having, cold, rain/snow, wind. No spring, just a few teaser days.

                Still trying to find a part time job, not much luck in that department either. But, I do have some good days as well.

                Taking care of my mom and doing things around here and then some, kind of gets to ya, you know. I need some me time.

                • Bottom Line says:

                  Living through the bad days is worth having good days.

                  They do come.

                  You hang in there Judy.

  16. Judy Sabatini says:

    Absent-in-Chief: Obama MIA for Memorial Day, Vacationing as Spill Worsens
    Wednesday, 26 May 2010 12:58 PM
    Article Font Size

    Already under increasing fire for his handling of an oil spill that many experts now say will be the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, President Barack Obama is riling conservatives and veterans with his decision to skip the traditional Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery.

    Instead, he will vacation in Chicago.

    The decision not only has angered conservative pundits such as Glenn Beck but also has riled military families and others who expect the president to follow tradition on the day reserved for honoring the sacrifice of America’s soldiers.

    On Jacksonville.com, run by the Florida Times-Union newspaper, a blogger who identified himself as a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy blasted Obama for being missing in action.

    “He is not only MIA for Memorial Day,” wrote Luke Memminger, identified as a professional pilot. “The economy is faltering. The stock market is ready to enter a worldwide dive. North Korea is precipitating a war with South Korea that will involve us. Iran will destabilize the Mideast by developing a Nuclear weapon soon.

    “The coastline of Louisiana is being contaminated through inaction and inept leadership from the government,” he continued. “A mosque will be dedicated at Ground Zero on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 massacre. We still have military deployed and fighting in two war zones.

    “Where is Obama? Chicago,” Memminger wrote. “Where are those brave men and women who gave the ultimate sacrifice for Freedom and Liberty? Arlington Cemetary.”

    Traditionally on Memorial Day, the president lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery, in Virginia, across the Potomac River from Washington. But Obama plans to speak at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Chicago instead.

    Vice President Joe Biden intends to take the president’s place at the Arlington Cemetery.

    Obama will convene a press conference on Thursday at which he is expected to announce stringent new offshore oil regulations, as political pressure mounts amid the gulf disaster.

    Obama will take questions from reporters in the East Room of the White House, an official said. The media appearance will take place a day before the president’s next visit to the Gulf of Mexico on Friday, The Associated Press reported.

    The White House has insisted it has done all it can to mitigate the spread of the massive oil slick, which is beginning to clog the southern U.S. coast.

    Officials will watch closely on Wednesday as BP makes a fresh attempt to plug the gushing oil well, more than a month after an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon Rig that set off an environmental catastrophe.

    At KSLA News 12, which covers a region including parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, Web posters also were angry at Obama’s decision to skip Arlington.

    “I am a black woman, and I feel this is so wrong for the president to do,” one commented. “There is no excuse not to do this. This country already doesn’t do enough to help or take care of people who serve in the military and this is just an additional slap in the face. The United States is more than capable of taking better care of those who serve and who have served.

    “It’s not all President Obama’s fault about not taking care of veterans, this has been going on for years in this country,” the poster continued. “Yet you still have men and women who continue to serve, bless them all.”

    Beck blasted Obama over skipping the wreath laying, saying he is “sick and tired of people believing the lie” that Obama “has respect for the soldiers.”

    “Obama is skipping out on a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington Cemetery because he’ll be in Chicago on vacation, I’m sorry, I don’t ever, ever question the president’s vacation,” Beck said Tuesday on his nationally syndicated radio show. “I didn’t under Bush, I didn’t under Clinton, I don’t under Obama . . .

    “I have no problem with the man taking a vacation. But I am sick and tired — sick and tired — of people believing the lie that this administration has respect for the police or has respect for the soldiers of our country. I’m tired of it.”

    “Obama skipping the Tomb of the Unknowns this weekend for Chicago is offensive,” added Erick Erickson, a conservative commentator for the RedState blog and CNN. In a Twitter post he wrote, “Obama skipping the Tomb of the Unknowns this weekend for Chicago is offensive. Chicago can wait. The Commander-in-Chief has a job to do.”

    Erickson did acknowledge that a president’s missing a wreath laying is not unprecedented. But in the most recent examples in modern times, President Ronald Reagan was involved in a contentious economic summit in 1983, and George H.W. Bush was on the campaign trail in 1992. He instead spoke at an American Legion event.

    “Barack Obama wants to go on vacation — the second vacation he has had since oil began spilling out of the gulf,” Erickson noted. “That’s okay though because the oil spilling is George W. Bush’s fault, just like all the new dead soldiers are George Bush’s fault, too. Why should he care?

    “The problem for Barack Obama is simple,” Erickson continued. “The troops don’t like him no matter how much the White House propaganda machine tries to gin up staged pictures of Obama voting soldiers fawning all over him. But see the tepid response from cadets at West Point or talk privately with lots of soldiers and sailors and you get something else — they fundamentally do not respect their commander in chief.

    “There was no question they respected and loved Ronald Reagan. Same with George H.W. Bush, the last veteran of World War II to serve as president.”

  17. They are such arrogant asses.

    Sen. John Kerry (D-Horse Face): Voters Angry With Dems in Congress are Hypocrites…


    • Judy Sabatini says:

      He doesn’t think Washington’s to blame, is he kidding? Things weren’t this bad until he took the oath of office. Unemployment is still quite high here in Nevada, especially in Reno. I’ve been looking for another job since I got laid off. Hell, I can’t even find a part time one.

      Housing is up a little, but it still stinks here on that. From what I read in the paper, the value of homes won’t go back to the way they were until 2018, what does that say. Layoff are still happening here, in schools, police departments, fire stations, even the city itself made cut backs. And he’s got the gall to say that. And as for hypocrites, they better look in the mirror before making that comment.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Someone once told me that if you apply for a job and appear deperate, they will shy away from hiring you. But if you walk in all relaxed and smiling as if you did not have a care in the world, then you would get hired. Good Luck.

  18. Judy Sabatini says:

    Well, I am going for the night, Kathy, and Anita, been fun. let’s do it again soon.

    Take Care and good night.


  19. Cyndi P says:

    I thought this might make an interesting discussion.


  20. A Puritan Descendant says:

    From a Bruce Poliquin Republican for Governor Flyer >

    “Maine spends over $200 million per year on economic development, and yet we consistently fail to attract new job-creating businesses. We don’t need a Governor who will just ‘sell Maine’. We need to fix the fundamental problems of over-regulation, and too much spending and taxing.”

    Bruce’s Plan to Fix Maine’s Economy

    1. New positive attitude toward business development and jobs. Businesses are not the enemy. They employ our citizens.

    2. Reduce out-of-control state government spending. Spend only what we take in.

    3.Lower taxes to help Maine families, and to attract business investment and jobs.

    4. Simplify business regulations to make it easier to operate in Maine and create jobs.

    Now my comment: A simple message that should win in most places. In Maine I have doubts because he is not promising cookies for everyone who does not want to work. In Maine, many people with any ‘get up and go’ ‘got up and left’ long ago.

  21. A Puritan Descendant says:

    And this weeks winner is >


  22. D13:

    ….Japan has reconsidered the American Base in Okinawa.

    Please explain this one to me. My son-in law, a marine, is headed there this October. What’s the lowdown?

  23. I posted this at the end of the BP article as well.

    Now that reports are surfacing about how BP and others in the industry were writing their own reports and bribing regulators (or were those just “gifts”), perhaps there will be a better understanding about the demonization issue; we all know it happens and the gov’t and the regulating committees (like the SEC, those in charge of oil regulation were too busy watching porn) are corrupt, but that doesn’t lessen BP and their ilk’s responsibility in a) the bribing and b) the shortcuts that are killing an entire ecosystem.

    One day I feel the way BF does (because the gov’t can’t seem to do anything right) and the next day private industry proves themselves too irresponsible (I call it greedy) to leave unchecked.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      As we keep trying to tell you, BIG GOVERNMENT AND BIG BUSINESS ARE SYMBIOTIC. One cannot exist without the other.

      They suck blood out of each other (and out of each and every one of us) constantly, and you get no one left watching the henhouse.

      Big Government is wholly irresponsible and would rather take a bribe than do a legitimate inspection. Big business is perfectly happy to go along with that.

      Get rid of big government, and big business goes away too.

      What you are (hopefully) left with is small (or ideally no) centralized federal government, and businesses that are a manageable size and behave like good corporate citizens on their own because they know it is good for business and good for the bottom line.

      What happens when a big business and big government exist?

      Industry gets huge subsidies, behaves irresponsibly, does not care about their consumer image, and doesn’t really care about ACTUAL profitability or customer service. Big government doesn’t really care about the industry ACTUALLY FOLLOWING regulations, as long as they get their money from the industry.

      This leads to TREMEMDOUS economic distortion in which safety and quality are not even major concerns, regardless of how many government regulations are put in place. ANY regulation can be skirted if you pump enough money to the officials of the appropriate government agencies. If the business REALLY screws up, yeah they are gonna have to pay, but in that case the big government will likely bail them out anyway.

      The ANSWER is smaller government, which will lead to a much more free market, in which smaller businesses will HAVE to be reasonably good “corporate citizens” in order to be profitable, and if they are not profitable and do not have a good reputation, THEY WILL FAIL.

      More government and more regulation will NEVER succeed, because that just ensures bigger businesses with more money to bribe the government with, and bigger government subsidies and bailouts to ensure that there is no real competition in the marketplace. No matter how many “regulations” are in place, the system of big government/big business ensures that the regulations do not need to actually be followed!

      Eisenhower was essentially right about everything from science, to big business, to the military. It is all one big government-controlled entity now.

      • Okay, i get the paradigm you’re proposing, but how do you get there? I can see big Government eventually being tossed aside (although that wouldn’t be easy), but how does big business get drawn and quartered? I don’t think it is a possibility any longer (as utopian as either a communist or BF no gov’t model).

        I don’t know, brother. I get pissed off 6 different ways to sunday every day lately …

        Just a Cit … trust me, there were bribes.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          No matter which system of government or anarchy we choose, each will have problems if people fail to apply moral common sense.

          • Puritan

            Perhaps this is true… However….

            …at least without government, the lack of moral sense will NOT be enforced by the point of a gun on everyone.

        • Charlie,

          “Big” business requires government force to maintain itself.

          By using government, Big Business actively increases the costs and builds barriers and out-right prohibitions for any competition to itself.

          Thus, Big Business creates an immunity to the more nibble and innovative small business.

          Take government out of the picture – and Big Business will be the slow elephant eaten alive by millions of small ants.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            BF, I often disagree with you, but I wish you were a US Senator. You have a lot to offer!

            • Puritan,

              I remind you of what Gandalf the Grey in “Lord of the Rings” said when offered the Ring of Power….

              Don’t… tempt me!
              I dare not take it.
              Not even to keep it safe.

              Understand, I would use it from a desire to do good…

              But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                “But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.”

                This is why I did not say President.


                • Puritan,

                  If I seized the legitimized power of violence upon men, I would not be President…

                  …believe me, I would be King…. a great and terrible King…

                  Which is why, a long time ago, I gave it all up to be a Pirate…. and probably saved millions of lives doing so.

                  I often have posted “..you do NOT want me to rule over you…” and I was, and am quite serious about that…

              • Bottom Line says:

                “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”

                – John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton

            • As Milton Friedman said, …when asked what he would do if he ever got elected…

              “I would resign immediately”

        • Charlie

          I did not say there were no bribes.

          I said we do not know if said bribes actually caused anything bad to happen.

          We assume that somehow this all “caused” the blowout.

          WE DO NOT have the evidence needed yet to make that claim.

    • Charlie

      Let me help you out a little.

      First, the media and anti-industry (capitalist) folks want to add to the stigma and hatred of anything INC.
      The bribes, gifts and other BS are the inevitable result of regulation. We need to understand that relationship if we are to build a better future. When you hit people they will find a way to hit back.

      So perhaps the answer lies NOT in more and more regulation, boot on the neck, but on more effective and efficient regulation.

      BF is usually arguing from “first principles”. When folks argue with him on this they are arguing from “todays paradigm” while his is the “idyllic future”.

      We do not know if the bribes, bad reports or short cuts ACTUALLY caused the blowout or prevented the safety equipment from working. WE are so TRAINED to react with ANGER that we subconsciously assume there is a cause/effect relationship. There may not be one, or there may be one. WE DON’T KNOW just yet.

      Now imagine a system where not only BP the company but all of those who were involved in decisions to take short cuts that led to the disaster are held financially liable. Do you think other oil executives would continue playing games with safety measures?

  24. You all probably thought my geopolitical scenario a little goofy yesterday.

    Itssssssss Startingggggggggggggg

    Tokyo, Japan (CNN) — Wearing a dark, Japanese style business suit, New Zealand environmental activist Peter Bethune sat in-between two uniformed court officers as his trial began on Thursday in downtown Tokyo.
    The officers stared ahead, unflinching, as 44-year-old Bethune scanned the courtroom.
    The head judge ran through each of the charges in Japanese. When the court interpreter began translating into English, Bethune turned to listen.
    The charges are serious, announced the court: trespassing, damage to property, assault, forcible obstruction of official business and possession of an illegal knife.
    If convicted on all counts, Bethune faces a maximum of 15 years behind bars.
    Bethune was captain of Sea Shepherd’s futuristic boat, the Ady Gil.
    The batmobile-esque, $3 million boat collided with a Japanese whaling ship, the Shonan Maru 2, and sank in January.
    Weeks later, Bethune jumped aboard the Shonan Maru 2 and attempted to make a citizen’s arrest of the captain. He was arrested and brought back to Japan to face criminal charges.
    In court Thursday, Bethune admitted to all the charges, except for assault.
    “I admit that I boarded the Shonan Maru, but I believe that I have good reason to do so,” he said. “I admit that I fired the butyric acid, but there were additional circumstances that we will discuss in court.”
    Prosecutors say the butyric acid burned two crew members of the Japanese whaling fleet, but Sea Shepherd calls it a harmless, albeit rancid, liquid. Butyric acid is found in rancid butter and vomit.
    Bethune’s Japanese attorneys have mounted a defense on the assault charge, which will be fought out until the trial ends on Monday.
    Bethune’s case is the first time a Sea Shepherd activist has been tried in a Japanese criminal court in the group’s long-running battle with Japan’s whalers in the icy waters of the Antarctic.
    Japan annually hunts whales in the Antarctic, despite a worldwide moratorium on whaling, under the loophole that a country may legally do so if its purpose is scientific research.
    Sea Shepherd, who notes the whale meat then gets sold in Japanese markets and served in restaurants, calls the science argument a sham.
    Sea Shepherd’s Seattle-based attorney, Dan Harris, is in Tokyo for Bethune’s trial, though he is not Bethune’s official Japanese counsel.
    “This whole trial has been brought about for political reasons, far more than criminal reasons. If you look at what Peter Bethune did, he didn’t do anything,” Harris said. “He climbed aboard a Japanese ship. Nobody was in any danger. No one was under any threat. No one was afraid. For Japan to act like it’s enforcing a criminal law is a little disingenuous, when you look at what Pete Bethune did.”
    Japan maintains that when its laws are broken, it will prosecute.
    “We all recognize the right of protest, right of demonstration, right to express their views. That does not mean you can attack people with force, attack our vessels and crews with their vessels,” said Joji Morishita, from Japan’s Fisheries Agency.
    Bethune testifies on Monday. A verdict is expected on June 10.

    (from cnn)


  25. I repeat often in my responses about “Public Choice” theory stating that NO politician will stop increasing expenditures (let alone cutting expenditures).

    Because of this theory, I have provided the end-game scenarios of economic collapse. I have further stated the certainty of such collapse.

    Many have tried to argue differently.

    But, as always, I win the argument.

    Despite Soaring National Debt, Congress Goes on Spending Spree

    ….the Democratic-led U.S. Congress is trying to find a way to pass about $300 billion more in unfunded spending before Memorial Day — a spending spree that rivals anything drunken sailors have been accused of.

    The debt-fueled spending would only add to the $13 trillion national debt, which breaks down to $42,000 for the average American.

    The spending spree comes three months after President Obama lifted the cap on the amount of money the U.S. can borrow from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion to keep the nation from going into default.

    But another intervention may be needed since the administration has projected a $1.56 trillion deficit for the budget year ending Sept. 30 — a figure likely to grow in the wake of the current spending spree.

    • Who wants to bet on who wins …. the “Cut the Programs” Governor or the “Pay the Welfare Mom’s” Representative?

      Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday called for eliminating California’s welfare-to-work program, one of the deep cuts he proposed to close a $19 billion budget deficit in the coming fiscal year. Slashing the welfare program would affect 1.4 million people, two-thirds of them children. [BF- see the tears run down the faces of the Liberal-left…’boohoo’, the CHILDREN!!]

      In releasing his revised budget plan, the Republican governor laid out the most severe cuts to health and welfare programs since the state tumbled into recession nearly three years ago. He said cuts to government services over the past few years have done away with the “low-hanging fruit.”

      “We now have to use the ax to eliminate some of those programs,” he said.

      The Republican governor announced his revised budget plan for the fiscal year that begins in July, as the state’s 12.6 percent unemployment rate ranks among the highest in the nation and tax revenue remains low. In April, personal income tax was $3 billion less than projected, which wiped away earlier revenue gains.

      The state’s general fund spending will be $83.4 billion for the new fiscal year, the lowest level in six years. The deficit accounts for more than 20 percent of all projected spending.

      Among the options Schwarzenegger presented is eliminating CalWORKS, the state’s welfare-to-work program. The program provides a maximum $694 monthly cash assistance for families and helps single mothers with child care and job training.

      Gina Jackson, a single mother who lives in Fremont in the San Francisco Bay area, said she would not be able finish her college degree in political and social science [BF – learning how to steal while living off of stolen loot PERFECT~!] without the state’s assistance. She currently receives about $1,000 a month to cover after-school care for two of her four children.

      “I certainly can’t take my kids to school with me every single day,” said Jackson, 45, who was laid off from her job as an administrative assistant two years ago.

      The governor and Republican lawmakers have vowed not to raise taxes, as the Legislature did last year, ensuring that spending cuts will be the main solution. That could leave single mothers, foster youth, children from low-income families, the disabled and seniors who rely on state services feeling most of the pain from the recession’s continued effects on California government.

      Schwarzenegger acknowledged the cuts will be painful, but said he has no other options because the state’s tax revenue has plummeted.

      “We are left with nothing but tough choices, as you can see,” said Schwarzenegger, who appeared somber and at times frustrated in presenting his updated budget plan.

      Schwarzenegger and lawmakers have made cuts, borrowing and adjustments of about $60 billion over the past two years as tax revenue fell far behind annual spending obligations. Among the examples: Dental and vision care benefits were eliminated for those insured under Medi-Cal, the state’s version of the federal Medicaid program.

      The administration said Friday it would restore vision coverage as required under new federal law but the governor proposed limiting prescription drug benefits and doctor’s visits.

      Schwarzenegger also made good on his threat from earlier this year to eliminate the state’s welfare-to-work program unless the federal government gave California an additional $6.9 billion, which Schwarzenegger maintains is its fair share. So far, the state has received about $3 billion.

      He did not follow through on a similar threat to eliminate Healthy Families, which provides health care to nearly 700,000 children from low-income families, because of requirements under the new federal health care law.

      Instead, Schwarzenegger proposed cutting $15 million from the program and shifting more of the costs to recipients, including raising the co-payment for emergency room visits from $15 to $50.

      Democratic leaders responded forcefully to his latest budget proposal, saying they will not allow programs for the needy to be gutted.

      They pledged to find a way to maintain core health and social programs, such as in-home care for seniors and welfare assistance for single mothers. It’s not clear how those programs will be sustained at current levels without a tax increase, which Schwarzenegger opposes, or even more money from the federal government.

      Democrats want to close tax credits and loopholes, noting that the state allows $50 billion worth of tax deductions.

      “We will not pass a budget that eliminates CalWORKS. We will not be party to devastating families,” said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. “What kind of civilized society maintains business tax breaks and eliminates child care? That’s not the California I take pride in living in.”


      Before you answer, remember “Public Choice” theory.

      Notice that the article interviewed the RECIPIENT of the program – but NOT ONE TAXPAYER.

      Your answers will be graded in Pirate points.

      • Let’s see they don’t have enough tax receipts so they must cut something-so the dems. want to lower tax receipts further by driving more business’s out of the state. Have I got that right?

        • V.H.

          You have been paying attention! 🙂

          • Forgot your grade..

            0.0001 Pirate Point!

            • Okay now I have 1.0001, do the math, you now owe me many glasses of beer -To bad I don’t like beer. 🙂 oh well, I will be a capitalist and sell them.

              • Mathius says:

                I am willing to convert your 1.0001 Pirate Points (beer backed) to Mathius Points (gold backed).

                The conversation rate, if I’m getting this right is as follows:
                1 MP = 1 atom of gold.
                1 atom of gold weighs 196.9665AMU
                196.9665AMU = 1.154e-23 oz
                1.154e-23 oz @ $1212/oz

                Pirate grog is valued at $2.80 / glass.
                If one Pirate Point is worth 10,000 glasses of beer, then one PP = $28,000.

                Thus the exchange rate is:
                1 PP = 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000 MP

                • I have a headache, maybe I’ll drink one of those beers after all but I think I’m gonna sell the rest.

      • I am desperate for Pirate points but don’t you have to rephrase the question to be not who wins? but what happens IF the Governator wins or IF the representative wins?

        • Anita,

          Good answer! You also get 0.0001 points!

          But you lose 0.0001 point because…
          ….the Governor cannot win. So that part of the question is moot.

          • WHAT? BS Flag. I didn’t answer anything yet. I’m keeping my .0001 point. So there.

            If the funding gets cut the baby mama is going to have to rely on family or friends to help her through. It’s nobody’s problem but hers. She won’t be alone in her woes when she realizes that more and more things will have to get cut in order to get back on track. What is the Rep’s problem? He knows how things work and when you are out of money what is the answer? Quit spending. Keep the incentives up for job creation and keep going from there. Simple. Given time it will all work itself out.

            The Governor can come out smelling like a rose. Now I want additional aggravation points.

            • Anita,

              True, if it is cut, she would be just fine and graduate as a lettered-tax eater.

              But the cut will never happen. Arnie will be crucified if he actually tries to force it through.

  26. JAC and V.H.

    Lets assume #1 is NOT true.

    Sure, and while we are at it, allow me to assume Santa Claus exists, men can rise from the dead, there are vampires and tooth fairies — oh yeah, and sacred fire breathing dragons.

    Would you still have the USA immediately pull out all military presence from S. Korea?

    Answer, of course, by a question:
    “Should the USA have been there in the first place?”

    Would you still have the USA immediately pull out all military presence from S. Korea?

    Same answer as above.

    Lets assume #1 and #2 are NOT true.
    Would you still have the USA immediately pull out all military presence from S. Korea?

    Same answer as above.

    • Black Flag

      Sorry my friend but you have FAILED the test.

      You seem to be deliberately creating confusion over your own position.

      The questions posed are fair and logical given your original stated position.

      When you stated we should withdraw because they can defend themselves and their neighbors would help, it creates the need to address whether your action would remain the same if the conditions you posted changed.

      My answer to your question is this: If frogs had wings they wouldn’t drag their ass when they hopped.

      • JAC,

        I answered your questions and it was:
        “Should the USA have been there in the first place?”

        If the answer is “No” to this question, then they should not be there now. Period.

      • Flood of frogs shuts down major Greek highway

        JAC, you must be careful before you invoke the power of Frog.

        • Where’s the frog fence-we must use more of our stimulus money for a frog fence. We cannot discriminate-the frogs are in danger too.

        • Greek frogs and French frogs are of no concern to me.

          In my village an answer to a direct question takes the form of a statement, not another question.

          You should consider a run for elected office. Your getting real good at the two step.

          • JAC
            Re: run for office.

            I am brilliant at all steps of power.

            I am afraid of me.

            I chose never to test me with such power.

            • JAC:

              PS – my great fear.

              …that a cause or a person convinces me to intervene into government-power.

              …I know I hold no bounds to my expression with such power…

              I also know am I am man with foibles.. I can be tempted….

              Imagine an unrepentant alcoholic eying a keg of beer…

              …that is the test of a Pirate’s soul…and it tests me everyday.

          • JAC,

            The answer to your question is my question, and it is purposeful and not to be frustration.

            If you or others believe that the USA should have intervened into Korea and did all the actions and events pre and post – then your position must be to stay.

            I cannot argue with anyone’s belief of right or wrong – they got there by their own path and to defeat that logic is to unwind the entire path. As exampled specifically with V.H., it is hard and difficult. Thus, I do not expect success often.

            Therefore, the only tactic left is to attack the premise. “Did the US properly involve themselves in the first place?”

            If Yes, follow “A” choice.

            If No, follow “B” choice.

            • I’m still thinking about your answer but I have gone from my immediate response, which was that’s total BS 🙂 to seeing some truth in your stance. I do have to wonder if maybe you over worry ,not that one should dismiss the possibility that they could do more harm than good when they are talking about a persons belief system.

  27. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Continuing a discussion with Charlie from above:

    It is going to take time, because the big government/big business symbiosis is so ingrained at this point that the monster has obtained nearly limitless power. It is clearly a very large and very powerful 3-headed monster, much like a Hydra.

    Head #1 (the GOVERNMENT head):


    (note, big government is evil and greedy, and allowed and facillitated the formation of big business, because big government relies on big business as the primary source of money for big government. As such, one evil greedy power-hungry machination created another.)

    Head #2 (the Big Business head):

    Government is evil and over-bearing and saddles us with unnecessary regulations which sap our profits and reduce our ability to compete!

    (in reality, the unnecessary regulations are there to ensure that smaller, more agile businesses CANNOT AFFORD THE COST OF COMPLIANCE, so competition for the big business behemoths who can easily afford to comply with a bunch of trumped-up regulations and pass the cost on to the consumer – since there is no effective competition – are the big winners. Big business pays big government BIG MONEY to ensure that regulations are the most ridiculous, costly, and onerous regulations possible, thus guaranteeing that big business will be the only survivors. In return, big business also gets BIG SUBSIDIES AND BAILOUTS from big government.)

    Head #3 (the Big Military head)

    Big Government better not be TOO HARSH on Big Business because we have to get all of our GI JOE TOYS from Big Business through government contracts, and we don’t wanna have to pay more than $500 for a damn hammer!!! Not only are we protecting both Head #1 and Head #2, but we are protecting “all the little people” as well!

    (Head #3 tries to get head #1 and head #2 to play nice with each other, because head #3 being as large and “healthy” as possible is absolutely vital to the continuing existence of head #1 and head #2.)

    In reality, even though all 3 heads of the Hydra often seem to be at odds (which makes for a good public show), all 3 heads FULLY RECOGNIZE that if 1 head were to perish, the other 2 heads would soon follow.

    So, how do we get rid of the 3-headed monster??? Pick a head, and start to find ways to suffocate it. Concentrate on ONE, because splitting your efforts between the three would be much less effective.

    Which head to try to suffocate? Head #3 would be VERY DIFFICULT to suffocate. Requires armed revolution. Messy bloody stuff… not fun.

    Head #1 is pretty darn difficult to suffocate as well. Withdrawing your support of head #1 and making it obvious that head #1 is illegitimate is a good start. Simply voting for different people to run head #1 MIGHT be effective, but it would REQUIRE that the new people running head #1 be WILLIING TO SIGNIFICANTLY SHRINK THE HEAD! So far, this hasn’t worked out too well. The Tea Party Movement appears to be a movement dedicated to attempting to shrink head #1, and seems to at least potentially be willing to fire people who operate head #1 who are unwilling to shrink the head. Not sure if anything will come of it, but we can hope.

    The easiest head to attack might be head #2. If we can find a way to try our damndest to not do business with those who run head #2, we can destabilize head #2 enough that head #1 is going to have to pump nearly limitless money into head #2 in order to keep it alive. This has already started to happen with all of the bailouts. The pumping of nearly limitless money into head #2 is going to destabilize both head #1 and head #2 and go a long way to showing just how illegitimate both heads are. Of course, too much instability too fast and we risk really pissing off head #3, and that could make things VERY MESSY.

    It ain’t gonna be easy my friend, but we can get there!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ok you all are officially boring if you didn’t respond to this post 🙂

      • Peter,

        You have forgotten what you preached to Tex:

        Peter said: I think your posts have fallen into the category of “most of us basically agree but have nothing much to add”. Happens to my comments once in a while too

        Anita says: It’s rough when that sometimers sets in 🙂

      • Bottom Line says:

        I whole heartedly agree, Pete.

        In case you haven’t already noticed, I have been preaching civil disobedience/tax revolt and/or a corporate boycott shit-list for a while now.

        Of course, I like the way you put it a bit better.


      • Can’t respond. I have a head ache.

        Feels like its shrinking or is it expanding?

    • TexasChem says:

      If 1+2+3=1+2+3 then 1+1+1+1+1+1=1+2+3 and 2+2+2=1+2+3 and 3+3=1+2+3.

      In order to kill the hydra you must cauterize the wound once you hack off each individual head.You must then crush the last head, remove it and bury it with a large stone placed on top.My question is how you would go about this endeavor in a civilized non-violent manner!It’s impossible to do isn’t it?

      • TexasChem,

        Oh, my good friend and intellectual foil….

        Remember what Hercules did to solve the Hydra riddle….

        …all the cutting and burning…. was merely temporary.

        In the end, he buried the beast under a mountain as you suggested.

        The secret to any Hydra or Leviathan is to deny it energy.

        The more you attack it, the stronger it gets. Even if you “think you won” and chopped off its last head …. *poof* you didn’t win.

        The ONLY WAY to defeat evil is to NOT power it.

        Do Nothing FOR IT, nor against it

        …and then it will die.

        • TexasChem says:

          BF Stated:”…all the cutting and burning…. was merely temporary.”

          TC:Temporary but, necessary and with purpose.The hydras’ strength, energy and power was removed with each head!Each head lost weakened it.When it was weakened enough Heracles overcame it and buried it beneath the mountain!With all of its heads it was too powerful for him to finish the endgame!

    • lmao PeterB you just gave me visions of Amazonian headshrinkers dancing around the Capitol building.

  28. I can see TexasChem’s smile from here…

    US Navy base in Bahrain to double in size


  29. Judy Sabatini says:
  30. Judy Sabatini says:
  31. TexasChem says:

    BF Stated:”If I seized the legitimized power of violence upon men, I would not be President…
    …believe me, I would be King…. a great and terrible King…
    Which is why, a long time ago, I gave it all up to be a Pirate…. and probably saved millions of lives doing so.
    I often have posted “..you do NOT want me to rule over you…” and I was, and am quite serious about that…”

    TC:If I were given the governance of man through their own volition I too would be King!

    I would be an awe-inspiring, great and noble king!Committed to the demotic freedoms and liberties of all man.

    I do agree with you though BF, you would be an enfant terrible as King. *wink*

    • This is a moot conversation-if we ever reach a point where we choose a king-We will choose a woman-history has taught us a few things. 🙂 🙂

      • V.H.

        Under that polite, dainty, and beautiful demure and proper exterior, women hold a ruthless, uncompromising, intense, no-holds-barred, viciousness unmatched by any man in history.

        It was the intrigue of a woman that enticed Attila the Hun to invade Rome.

        It was the vengeance of a woman that caused Genghis Khan to seize the most of the land mass of EurAsia

        …a Mafia Don was killed and his wife took over.

        She was eventually betrayed to the government by her captains.

        One, in prison, explained why:

        “Sure we “wacked” guys who deserved it – but she! She’s a devil! She’d want us to wack him, his wife, his kids, his nephews and nieces, the uncles and aunts and grandparents and in-laws and friends and even the damn neighbors!

        She was just too damn serious!

        I mean, it wasn’t fun anymore!

    • TexasChem,

      I say in complete truth:
      I had a dream.

      I held the power to destroy all of mankind or save it.

      It all rested upon one -single- decision I had to make.

      The curse: I would never know what that one decision I would make that would determine mankind’s fate – destruction or salvation.

      I woke up in a cold sweat.

      I thought about that dream for weeks – months.

      Then, I realized the lesson.

      Only if I had the power to destroy mankind would such a decision rest upon me.

      If I did not have the power to destroy mankind, I could only save it – or be irrelevant – but the destruction – not possible.

      I decided because of that (and other, many, concurrent epiphanies at that time) never to seek such power.

  32. Birdman says:

    Interesting article — more doom and gloom.

    Hyperinflation Guaranteed
    May 24th, 2010 | By Egon von Greyerz | Category: Featured, Macro Economics

    Yes this is it! We have crossed the Rubicon and events in the world economy are now likely to unfold in a totally uncontrollable fashion. Clueless governments still don’t understand that it is their ruinous actions that have created a credit infested and bankrupt world. They will continue to prescribe the same remedy that caused the problem in the first place, namely more credit and more printed money. The consequences are clear; we will have hyperinflation, economic and human misery as well as social unrest.

    When will the world finally begin to understand that we have reached the point of no return and that “the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries” (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar)? Sadly, we are probably not very far from that point. It is already starting to happen in many countries.

    The latest EU and IMF package of $1 TRILLION (Euro 750 billion) is yet another futile attempt by governments to abolish poverty by printing paper. Let’s be absolutely clear, this money does not exist and the EU governments are hoping by declaring such a large amount that they can con the Wolfpack speculators. At this point the EU has just picked a large round figure out of the air. But when their bluff is called by the Wolfpack and the next attack happens, EU governments will after initial huffing and puffing start printing unlimited amounts of paper.

    So the world is now on its road to ruin and there is no action, no leader and no new amount of printed money that can save the world or prevent a hyperinflationary depression.

    Never in history has the world been in a situation when virtually all industrialised countries are bankrupt. Therefore there is no precedent for what will happen in the next few years. What we can be quite certain about is that events will happen in a seemingly random pattern and that it will be impossible to forecast where the next crises will start.

    But although we will not be able to predict in what order events will take place, we can expect much of what is outlined below to happen.

    Wolfpack Attacks

    Already back in 2007 we warned about the very high risk of the CDS (credit default swap) market. This is now one of the primary instruments used by the Wolfpack (expression coined by the Swedish Finance Minister Borg). The Wolfpack, speculators with enormous fire power such as hedge funds and investment banks, use the CDS market to attack any weak financial sector, be it a country, a bank or a company. The combination of the leverage of the CDSs and the massive capital available to the Wolfpack makes it possible for them to bring down or badly maul whatever they attack. It was not the Wolfpack that caused the problem in for example Greece but they can bring down a weak victim quickly and profit immensely and immorally from it.

    There are so many weak potential victims that the Wolfpack can attack and they will start with the most vulnerable ones like, Portugal, Spain and Ireland etc. But when the time is right they will also attack the US and the UK.

    So in the coming year we will see country after country coming under attack from the Wolfback which will lead to acceleration in money printing and higher interest rates.

    Iceland – Ireland – Greece – Who Is Next?

    The EU support package of $ 1 trillion is supposed to be sufficient to protect the rest of Europe from another Greek tragedy. The dilemma with such a massive EU commitment is that no government expects to have to pay the money out. If they did the voters in the respective EU countries would throw out their government. Why should the German people, who are also having hard times, pay for the Greeks, Portuguese or the Spaniards, especially since these loans will never be paid back?

    Greece is bankrupt but is still taking on additional EU loans of € 140 billion. In addition, their austerity measures are supposed to bring the deficit down from 12% of GDP today to 3% in a few years time. But who can be so stupid as to lend to a bankrupt nation which will sink into the Ionian and Aegean Seas in the next few years. With massive cuts in government expenditure, with major falls in output, with unemployment rising fast, with tax revenues collapsing how can Greece possibly be expected to improve the economy and pay a high interest rate on their exploding debt? In addition, as long as they have the Euro they will be totally uncompetitive. So if they couldn’t manage their economy in the so called good times, it is absolutely guaranteed that they have no chance of surviving in bad times. So Greece will default and so will Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, the UK, the US and many more. But before that there will be the most colossal worldwide money printing exercise which would have used up most of the trees in the world but for electronic fiat money.

    So, if virtually bankrupt nations don’t cut their deficits, they will definitively go under and if they try to cut, they will also go under due to collapsing output and tax revenues and colossal debts. Thus whatever actions governments take or don’t take, they are damned.

    The table below shows debt as a percentage of GDP for various OECD countries. The official debts (in red) are massive and unlikely to ever be repaid in real money. Total debts (grey bars) include unfunded liabilities such as pensions and health care. Spain has the lowest total debt to GDP of 250%. Germany and the UK have around 400%, the US over 500% and Greece over 800% debt to GDP. These figures are absolutely astronomical and prove that most governments in the world will be totally incapable of repaying their debts or funding the pensions or medical care which they have committed to. It doesn’t matter however much governments cut expenditure or raise taxes, all these countries are insolvent and nothing can save them.

    The World Must Permanently Readjust

    Most governments still believe that deficit spending and money printing is the solution to all their problems. Because the world economy’s expansion in the last 100 years and particularly in the last 40 years has been primarily based on credit and not real growth, governments live under the false impression that money printing will work this time too. But we have reached the point when investors will no longer buy worthless government debt that will never be repaid with real money. We will first go through a period when governments issue and buy their own debt thus monetising the debt or print money. This will be the hyperinflationary phase. Thereafter the world will realise that none of the government debt and very little of the bank debt will ever be repaid. Credit will then implode and so will also the assets financed by credit. Eventually there will be a new monetary and financial system and the world will start afresh. The adjustment period will be very long and will involve economic and human misery, leading to social unrest and major political change. It will be a horrible experience for the world during this extended period of adjustment. But it will be like a forest fire that clears out the deadwood and creates the conditions for strong new growth. Once the new era starts it will therefore be from a very much lower level and individuals will be rewarded for hard work with little or no social security safety net. Credit will only be granted for sound capital investment projects, not for consumption or speculation. Ethical and moral values will return and the golden calf will not be worshipped. But before that, the period of readjustment will be very long and extremely difficult for the whole world.

    Egon von Greyerz

    • Cyndi P says:

      Kinda’ depressing, isn’t it?


    • Bottom Line says:

      Egon von Greyerz – “Eventually there will be a new monetary and financial system and the world will start afresh. The adjustment period will be very long and will involve economic and human misery, leading to social unrest and major political change. It will be a horrible experience for the world during this extended period of adjustment. But it will be like a forest fire that clears out the deadwood and creates the conditions for strong new growth. Once the new era starts it will therefore be from a very much lower level and individuals will be rewarded for hard work with little or no social security safety net.”

      New World Order out of Chaos

    • BL,

      I do not agree with Egon.

      Hyperinflation would destroy the division of labor on which rests the entire survival of Western Civilization.

      It would completely wipe out the Elite. They will find themselves and their children hanging from light-less lampposts.

      The Elite will allow the government to default. They would rather take their chances with political upheaval (because they own the army and “Only Ones”) then risk the complete elimination of their class (ie: French Revolution and the Guillotine).

      But, no matter what number the dice roll shows, the Elite have lost massive power. There are huge gaps in the walls and free men have a “once in a 1,000 years” chance to sneak in and exploit those gaps – like rain water into the small cracks of granite.

      When it freezes, no power on earth can stop the shattering burst.

      • Cyndi P says:

        Can the elites stop hyperinflation at this point? How much of the world population will hold the elites responsible? Don’t most poeple think the concept of ‘elites’ falls into the shameful conspiracy theory world? I’m thinking the elites don’t have much to worry about…..who will be left standing when all this is over?

        • Cyndi,

          Yes, because they control the production of money via Central Banks.

          True, governments can nationalize the Central banks and then all bets are off.

          HOWEVER, the choice of the ‘lever’ of government is managed and controlled by the Elite.

          You do not become Senator/Congressmen/President without the “ok” from the Elite.

          So, yes it is possible for the government to fall out of control of the Elite (1917 – Russia, 1800-France, 1776-America) – BUT, as a Poker player, I’d bet on them retaining at least a modicum of control.

          The “Elite” are not a conspiracy per say. They are at each others throat as much as they are aligned.

          But they do agree on one uniting principle in time of crisis….”It’s better to be “us” then it is to be THEM”

          Britain/France and Russia slaughter hundreds of thousands of their subjects in wars against one another.

          But when Russia was overthrown by Lenin, France, Britain, USA, and every government on earth sent some contingent to fight FOR the Czar.

          The threat that the Elite could be tossed aside is too great to be popular.

          They will band together to resist such – and then when the threat subsides, pick up their inter-family feud with a vengeance.

        • Cyndi,

          Further thoughts…

          When man was just a smart animal, the power of A man was supreme.

          A man and his small tribe of family roamed unmolested except by nature. His greatest enemy then (and still now, but we are blind to it..) is nature.

          Then man, in his war against nature, discovered control of nature – agriculture.

          But this created a consequence – unintended – imposition by man.

          A man plants and another man takes.

          Government is merely the legitimization of the taking.

          In his war against nature, man institutionalized war against man.

          10,000 years later – man is freeing himself FROM nature and FROM other men.

          We now know it is a DUAL purpose – not one OR the other – but control of nature AND freedom from other men.

          10,000 to 5,000 years – rule of law becomes more than a concept but instituted – kings must obey the laws they determine.

          5,000 years to King John – the concept is codified into the Magna Carta – by FORCE of the freemen at the time – Barons.

          From King John to 1776 – the concept that ALL men have inherent rights from the God/Universe/Reason becomes manifest.

          Today – a man concievably can control the wealth and military power by himself equal to a nation.

          We have a few men wealthier then most countries on earth.

          We have a few men engage the greatest military power the Earth has ever known – and battle it to a draw.

          We are on the cusp of a manifestation of an evolution of 10,000 or more years.

          A man, no longer an animal, and FREE – at the same time.

    • TexasChem says:


      “All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”-Robert E. Lee

      “I love the Union and the Constitution but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”-Jefferson Davis

  33. Often
    …on SUFA many complain that without “government”, private violence would envelope society and become unbearable – like living under the Mobster

    Here is a true account of how the Mob deals with “civilians” when they do “their enforcement”.

    Please contrast this with the enforcement of the “Only Ones” gunning down a child or the Army obliterating a city block…

    Kevin Weeks was a career criminal employed as a Mob hitman, but even he possessed sufficient good judgment and self-restraint to avoid risking the life of a seven-year-old girl.

    In “Brutal”, his aptly titled memoir of the years he spent working for Boston Mob boss – and protected FBI asset – James “Whitey” Bulger, Weeks describes how he was given an order to assassinate Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr, who relentlessly tormented Bulger in print.

    Weeks set up a sniper nest near Carr’s home. He had the target set up for the kill, but didn’t pull the trigger because Carr’s daughter, “a little girl, like seven-years-old or so,” was walking hand-in-hand with her father.

    I couldn’t take a chance of the bullet fragmenting and ricocheting or hitting her or just killing her father in front of her,” recounts Weeks.

    This episode, admittedly, is retold from the self-serving perspective of a convicted murderer.

    Ironically, Carr himself, in his valuable book The Brothers Bulger, relates a somewhat similar story of a proposed contract hit that was vetoed by former Boston Mob boss Raymond Patriarca.

    Joe Barboza, a hitman employed by Patriarca, pointed out that the hoodlum targeted by the contract lived in a three-story house in Boston.

    Barboza suggested that he could “break into the basement and pour gasoline all around and torch the place, after which I either get him with the smoke inhalation or I pick him off when he’s climbing out the window.”

    “Barboza had worked out a plan for every contingency,” notes Carr. “He would bring three shooters with him, to watch each side of the house. They would cut the telephone lines to the houses, so that the victim couldn’t call the fire department. And just in case one of the neighbors called, before setting the house on fire Barboza planned to phone in false alarms across the city to tie up every fire company.”

    Patriarca, who had few compunctions about killing when it suited him, wasn’t keen on Barboza’s plan, in large measure because of the potential harm to non-combatants.

    “Patriarca asked Barboza if anyone else lived in [the targeted hoodlum’s] house, and Barboza mentioned the victim’s mother,” continues Carr.

    “You’re gonna kill his mother too?” asked Patriarca.

    “It ain’t my fault she lives there,” the hitman snorted by way of reply.
    [BF- Oh those echos of the Army….”It’s THEIR FAULT they brought their children into a war zone…”]

    “Patriarca canceled the contract,” Carr tersely summarizes.

    Barboza, not surprisingly, proved to be too ruthless and deranged for the Mob, and ended up – like Bulger – as another of the FBI’s protected assets.


    Free men do not fear the violence of a man.

    Free men fear the violence of the thousands of evil men – organized, trained to kill, and blessed with the forgiveness of the State to commit murder in its most “holy” name.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Weeks has a smidgeon of humanity in him, therefore all murderers are humane.

      Brilliant logic, Flag.

      • BL,

        No, that is not the lesson.

        The lesson is that Weeks – a man – has not been untrained as a human and retrained as a killing machine who is devoid of human.

        He is evil – no question.

        But unlike the Cops and the Army he holds a core understanding that innocent life is more precious then “the mission”,

        • Bottom Line says:

          Yeah I know.

          I’m just teasing you.

          What I got out of the story is that we all have at least a little bit of humanity in us.

          And as despicable as law enforcement may be, they’re human too and are subject to the same governence of human nature as anyone.

          Cops aren’t evil. They just think they’re doing good.

          • Bottom Line says:

            It’s past my bed time.

            I’m out…

            G’night Mr Flag….and anyone still up reading this

          • BL

            doing good

            I live with a good Cop.

            He broke the law to enforce the Right and the Peace.

            He lamented the days, at the end of his career, to witness the change.

            He hates COPS – bullies with a badge; blind enforcement of any law upon the Peace and the Right.

            I’m sure there a few like my Dad still left out there.

            But everyday, there are fewer of them and more of “Them”.

  34. TexasChem says:

  35. Bottom Line

    Okay, lemme get this straight…

    Like straightening a piece of solid – but bent – steel.

    Expect lots of heat and noise until it is straight.

    And, then, expect it to be still a bit unstable.

    Violence initiated against the non-violent is murder, even if it is part of a defensive action…


    …because you always have a choice as all human action is individual.

    Because if you kill an innocent you are a murderer.

    If it is an accident is isn’t murder because there is no choice/willfull intent…

    Accidents are a part of nature.

    In fact, nature does not define “accidents” at all. It is a 100% human definition. It is a consequence that is unintended by rightful action.

    And so, to help you clarify your confusion – the core is

    Rightful action.

    I can be in my right and still do harm. This is called “an accident”.

    I can be unrightful and do harm. This is called “a CRIME”.

    You always have a choice. Even if there is no choice.

    What “no choice” are you thinking exists????

  36. As just one man, I often feel that my peers see my understanding of “the World” is misaligned or faulty.

    I do not get much reinforcement of my ideas.

    And then, out of the blue, some “lettered” fellow says what I figured out a long time ago.

    But because “he said it”, it has meaning. Me, I am just relegated to a really bizarre guy in a cave.

    So, don’t believe me – believe him.

    Empires never end slowly – they end unexpectedly.


    Complexity and Collapse

    Empires on the Edge of Chaos

    ….empires behave like all complex adaptive systems.

    They function in apparent equilibrium for some unknowable period.

    And then, quite abruptly, they collapse.

    To return to the terminology of Thomas Cole, the painter of The Course of Empire, the shift from consummation to destruction and then to desolation is not cyclical.

    It is sudden.

    • TexasChem says:

      Yes BF this is why I buy cows and chickens instead of a shiny yellow metal.

      • TexasChem says:

        I’ll send you my GPS coordinates so that when the social unrest begins you can take shelter under my feudalist estate as an advisor.Perhaps even given the title of Duke!

  37. Cyndi P says:
%d bloggers like this: