Dust in the Wind


I close my eyes

only for a moment

and the moment’s gone

I remember School House Rock explaining what a bill was on Saturday mornings.  Their example was that school buses should be required to stop at all railroad crossings.  I do see the need for some laws, but the problem has always been where to draw the line.  Many of the new laws are in the form of regulations issued by government agencies.  No new laws are needed because the agencies have already been granted the authority to act in their areas.  For example, the EPA is required to ensure our air quality.  They are now looking at new standards for dust, such as produced by farming.  Some people are concerned where it will lead and how much it may cost.

All my dreams, pass before my eyes, a curiosity

A recent study commissioned by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) found that the suggested changes could double or triple the number of air pollution monitors that violate the standards. Most of those areas are in Great Plains and Southwestern states.

“If EPA moves forward with this overreaching regulation, ranchers could be fined for everyday activities like driving down the road, moving cattle or tilling a field,” NCBA President Bill Donald said in a statement after the passage of the Noem amendment. “It is encouraging that some elected officials understand the detrimental impacts this regulation could have on production agriculture. I just hope EPA is listening.”(1)

Arizona has been hit with some monster dust storms (Haboob) recently.  Picture Lisa Jackson writing mother nature a ticket or having Homeland Security locking her up.  I know, it’s not that bad.  They just want reasonable rules to be sure we citizens are kept safe.  But is it reasonable?  I’ve read somewhere the earth is four to five billion years old.

Earth=dirt=dust?

So it’s taken our government five billion years to start protecting us from dust.  I wish they would get on the ball, last night I mowed my lawn and sure enough kicked up some dust that then blew over me.  Won’t it be great when the government “fixes” the dust problem for me?  Or more likely, they will hire  a million or so “air quality” experts to write tickets in every town and farm.  Fixes the unemployment problem and it would be self-funded, no new taxes.  So look for that person who hasn’t been able to get a job for two years to now have authority over you when you mow, drive down a dirt road, or slide into home plate.

Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind

Personal experience, I was fined $75 a few years ago by Game & Fish officers at a lake they oversee.  My crime was creating a “wake” in a no wake zone.  Two friends and I had seen the officers and were being careful, knowing they were cracking down on jetski’s which we were riding.  When taught boating etiquette, five MPH was the rule in no wake zones, and we stayed well below that limit.  Didn’t matter, all three of us were ticketed with one officer switching a belt recorder on and off frequently.  No reasonable argument considered, but we were welcome to come to court and discuss it with the judge in a month, or mail in the payment.  Reality, ducks produce a wake.  So do bugs when they swim.  I think they are safe only because the government hasn’t figured out how to extract revenue from them yet.  And yes, we paid the fines, were told by locals the judge would add court cost if we came and protested.

Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea

Another story caught my attention, Fish and Wildlife Service served Gibson Guitar with search warrants, again!

Federal agents swooped in on Gibson Guitar Wednesday, raiding factories and offices in Memphis and Nashville, seizing several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. The Feds are keeping mum, but in a statement yesterday Gibson’s chairman and CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, defended his company’s manufacturing policies, accusing the Justice Department of bullying the company. “The wood the government seized Wednesday is from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier,” he said, suggesting the Feds are using the aggressive enforcement of overly broad laws to make the company cry uncle.

It isn’t the first time that agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service have come knocking at the storied maker of such iconic instruments as the Les Paul electric guitar, the J-160E acoustic-electric John Lennon played, and essential jazz-boxes such as Charlie Christian’s ES-150. In 2009 the Feds seized several guitars and pallets of wood from a Gibson factory, and both sides have been wrangling over the goods in a case with the delightful name “United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms.”

All we do, crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

Also in the story, Madagascar ebony is protected.  Gibson claims their wood comes from India.  But with the new raid, the government seems to be questioning whether some wood sourced from India met every regulatory jot and tittle.

Own an old wood instrument?  Think twice before you travel.  Unless you can prove every nit picking piece of wood is legal, you could lose it and be fined as well.

Consider the recent experience of Pascal Vieillard, whose Atlanta-area company, A-440 Pianos, imported several antique Bösendorfers. Mr. Vieillard asked officials at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species how to fill out the correct paperwork—which simply encouraged them to alert U.S. Customs to give his shipment added scrutiny.

There was never any question that the instruments were old enough to have grandfathered ivory keys. But Mr. Vieillard didn’t have his paperwork straight when two-dozen federal agents came calling.

Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years, Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation.(2)

Dust in the wind, All we are is dust in the wind

Last week the Department of Justice raided the iconic Gibson Guitar Corporation, confiscating materials and records. The reason?   Gibson was allegedly violating the laws of the sovereign nation of India regarding certain imported hardwoods it uses on its acoustic guitars. The Indian government wants these woods to be processed by Indian labor while Gibson prefers to use its own craftsman.

Don’t hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky

If enforcing a foreign law to the determent of an American manufacturing business isn’t enough, we now learn that Gibson’s CEO is a Republican donor and that Feds seem to have given a pass to a rival operation following the same practice that is owned by a Democrat donor

One of Gibson’s leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Company. The C.E.O., Chris Martin IV, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the DNC over the past couple of election cycles. According to C.F. Martin’s catalog, several of their guitars contain “East Indian Rosewood.” In case you were wondering, that is the exact same wood in at least ten of Gibson’s guitars.(3)

It slips away, all your money won’t another minute buy

According to my source inside Gibson, 20 armed agents raided the factory and seized pallets of wood, guitars and company computers (no word yet on the embargoed wood content of the computers). Gibson Chairman Henry Juszkiewicz was livid at this latest bullying of Gibson by the US Justice Department. In 2009, they had staged a similar raid and, while no charges have been filed, the DOJ refuses to return the confiscated property.

Juszkiewicz points out that the wood comes from one source in Africa and one in India. The wood is purchased from the same suppliers as other US guitar manufacturers, Fender, Taylor and C.F. Martin. This is the second raid on Gibson while all other manufacturers have been left alone to do exactly what Gibson is doing with no interference from the Federal government.(4)

while no charges have been filed, the DOJ refuses to return the confiscated property.

Dust in the wind, All we are is dust in the wind

New Team Obama regulations for goat herders’ workplaces

I thought Obama was focused on job creation?  Oh, that’s right, they will hire more people to monitor the goat herders.  I’m sure the goat herders will be grateful for the government stepping in to make sure the Coleman Lantern in their tent meets federal guidelines.(5)

Now we’ve been here

ten thousand years

brightshining as the sun

Or forty thousand years if you are into that evolution thingy.  The gov. doesn’t like dust, wants to ensure goat herders have proper living conditions, and feels the need to police our milk.  How long have we been drinking milk?  For all of written history at least.  Ug the caveman may have milked a wooly mammoth for all I know.  For sure, milk has been good for us for a long time.  So how do you explain swat teams descending on stores and farms for the offense of selling or producing raw milk, also known as real milk to indicate it hasn’t been boiled as required by law.  Funny thing, most of Europe doesn’t pasteurize their milk.

Peggy Armstrong, a spokeswoman for the International Dairy Foods Association, cited a letter to Congress from her organization and the National Milk Producers Association saying that “while consumer choice is an important value, it should not pre-empt public health and well-being.”

Throughout Europe, uncooked milk is the norm, dispensed in vending machines in Switzerland, Austria, France, Italy, Slovenia and the Netherlands. It is healthy, adherents say, because it contains fat that is not broken down by homogenization and is free of antibiotics and hormones, because cows are raised in small herds on pastures.

Nutritionist Sylvia Onusic, a raw milk devotee, said heating milk diminishes its taste.

“Raw milk is a potential hazardous food, but only in the United States, and I guess Canada, too,” she said. (Raw milk is also banned in Australia and Scotland.) “It’s a totally different food world here. Everything is sterilized and beaten into submission.”(6)

When the 20 agents arrived bearing a search warrant at her Ventura County farmhouse door at 7 a.m. on a Wednesday a couple of weeks back, Sharon Palmer didn’t know what to say. This was the third time she was being raided in 18 months, and she had thought she was on her way to resolving the problem over labeling of her goat cheese that prompted the other two raids. (In addition to producing goat’s milk, she raises cattle, pigs, and chickens, and makes the meat available via a CSA.)

But her 12-year-old daughter, Jasmine, wasn’t the least bit tongue-tied. “She started back-talking to them,” recalls Palmer. “She said, ‘If you take my computer again, I can’t do my homework.’ This would be the third computer we will have lost. I still haven’t gotten the computers back that they took in the previous two raids.”

As part of a five-hour-plus search of her barn and home, the agents — from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, Los Angeles County Sheriff, Ventura County Sheriff, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture — took the replacement computer, along with milk she feeds her chickens and pigs.

While no one will say officially what the purpose of this latest raid was, aside from being part of an investigation in progress, what is very clear is that government raids of producers, distributors, and even consumers of nutritionally dense foods appear to be happening ever more frequently. Sometimes they are meant to counter raw dairy production, other times to challenge private food organizations over whether they should be licensed as food retailers.

The same day Sharon Palmer’s farm was raided, there was a raid on Rawesome Foods, a Venice, Calif., private food club run by nutritionist and raw-food advocate Aajonus Vonderplanitz. For a membership fee of $25, consumers can purchase unpasteurized dairy products, eggs that are not only organic but unwashed, and a wide assortment of fermented vegetables and other products.

The main difference in the two raids seems to be that Palmer’s raiding party was actually much smaller, about half the size of the Venice contingent: Vonderplanitz was also visited by the FBI and the FDA.

In the Rawesome raid, agents made off with several thousand dollars worth of raw honey and raw dairy products. They also shut Rawesome for failure to have a public health permit, though the size and scope of the raid suggests the government officials might have more in mind. Regardless, within hours the outlet reopened in defiance of the shutdown order.(7)http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/25/massachusetts-state-police-shutdown-twelve-year-olds-green-tea-stand/

The Inexplicable War on Lemonade Stands

It’s gotten so bad, there is now a day of protest for the government shutting down kids lemonade stands. (8)(9) I’ve taken chemistry, so I do understand the complexity of safely mixing these ingredients.  Water, lemon juice and sugar, if improperly mixed could result in, in,…..a bad taste in your mouth.  Almost like you get when you hear about an American tradition being deemed illegal for ridiculous reasons.  This is for our safety?  How many people have died from lemonade poising over the hundreds of years it’s been made? http://www.cartoonbrew.com/brewtv/deathbuylemonade.html

Milk?  Thousands of years it’s been a human staple.  Dust?  It’s been blowing longer than we’ve been here.  And now they are waging war on Gibson Guitars.  I think it was on Stossel, someone thinks rock music was what broke the USSR.  Maybe someone in our government watched that too?

I think it’s clear our government is out of control.  Think that through, it is out of our ability to control, even on the most mundane things like lemonade or buying organic food products.  Consider,  while no charges have been filed, the DOJ refuses to return the confiscated property.  And ‘If you take my computer again, I can’t do my homework.’ This would be the third computer we will have lost. I still haven’t gotten the computers back that they took in the previous two raids.”

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  

So much for the fourth Amendment, or does it seem reasonable to seize property at whim but not file charges?  And this is not the end, you could be fined or arrested for failing to control mosquitoes.(10)  It won’t surprise me if/when they make it illegal for a cat to eat a bird.(11)  John Boehner is also outraged about all the new regulations coming from the Obama Administration.(12)  John, John, what don’t you understand?  The only way government can create jobs is by creating government positions, which requires regulations for the new government workers to enforce.

Sorry if this is a little long, once I started, I kept finding more things that would fit.  Could do a weekly series on so stupid it must be from the government.

.

.

.

.

.

(1)http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/25/25greenwire-pre-emptive-attacks-on-dust-rules-draw-rebuke-66421.html
(2)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576530520471223268.html
(3)http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/fretful_practices.html
(4)http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/nashville_or_nuremburg.html
(5)http://lindawriter.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/new-team-obama-regulations-for-goat-herders%E2%80%99-workplaces/
(6)http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/25/because-govt-doesnt-have-enoug
(7)http://www.grist.org/article/food-five-tips-for-surviving-a-raid-on-your-farm-or-food-club

(8)http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/

(9)http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/25/massachusetts-state-police-shutdown-twelve-year-olds-green-tea-stand/

(10)http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/08/26/warren-cracks-down-on-those-who-harbor-mosquitoes/

(11) http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/08/29/wapo-hypes-concern-over-birds-killed-windmills-yet-housecats-kill-200x#ixzz1WRKoOUAd

(12)http://74.84.198.233/archives/2011/08/26/boehner-blasts-obama-over-increase-in-regulations/

Dust In The Wind Kansas

I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment’s gone
All my dreams, pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind
Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind, All we are is dust in the wind

Don’t hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, all your money won’t another minute buy

Dust in the wind, All we are is dust in the wind

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning 🙂

    It seems that what some of us have been saying for a long time is actually happening. This country is quickly becoming a police state of which no one can comprehend. Soon, everyone will be told when they can travel, what to eat and what clothes are legal to wear. What will it take to end all of this?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Answer: Revolution II

      • Bottom Line says:

        You say you want a revolution, …well, …you know…

        When “govern-god” shows it’s ass, it draws attention to itself, and makes people like yourself sit back and consider to yourself….

        ” hmmmmmmm….this is a problem that only continue to get worse – if it is not stopped, at some point, the people will HAVE TO overthrow these MF’ers.”

        Revolution II would/will be hell.

        But if it ends in a freer state of being, perhaps it is worth it.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          That point is coming closer each day. They have become to big and to powerful. They need replaced.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          It is apparently a requirement in an organized society that it devolve into a less and less free state. Eventually the ones who want to be in control (for all the right and good reasons of course) will convince the majority that this is the way to go, (for all the right reasons of course).

          I do not think that this is even debatable anymore. Think if you will of the Atomic Bombing of Japan. At the time I doubt there was nary a word of opposition in the country. Today, if you took a poll, you would probably have some 70 to 80 percent of Americans saying it was morally wrong. Of course there is nothing like having yourself, your son. your brother, your father, your husband facing the invasion of the home islands to put it into perspective. Today folks can’t relate to grandpa or great grandpa’s day.

          • SK,

            Of course there is nothing like having yourself, your son. your brother, your father, your husband facing the invasion of the home islands to put it into perspective.

            Yep, that is the difference between a civilized man and a barbarian.

            Barbarians worry about their own skin, and willing slaughter innocent women and children and the helpless to save themselves – they have no problem tossing a kid off a life boat to save themselves.

            Civilized man does not slaughter innocent people – period – even in war, even if his life is endangered.

            • sk trynosky sr says:

              God is perfect, man is not perfect. Imperfect man, the semi-civilized ones, are willing to take lives of all kinds in order to end the taking of lives. Not quite as bad as Peter Arnett’s alleged quote of the Marine Major from Vietnam who said “Too bad we had to destroy the village in order to save it”.

              There once were laws of war which protected the innocent (poorly mind you but did offer some protection). The pure, raw barbarity of the Nazi’s and Japanese who made a joke of those laws brought about the savagery you condemn. Perhaps it was tit for tat and perhaps you can condemn that. I can’t.

              Hypothetically, female suicide bomber is in a crowd of women and children holding a child in front of her. Is the soldier or cop justified in shooting her, through the baby to prevent her from detonating the bomb? Just to make it more interesting the soldier/cop is a female too and will be killed by the explosion as well.

              I see a difference in boat baby tossing and bombing Japan into submission. Taking your boat, baby tossing analogy a bit further, the boat is overloaded with children, there is one adult on board who knows how to navigate, he decides that several children go over the side to save the boat. Is he the barbarian or the logical man knowing that some must die to save the rest. Without him, they all perish.

              I believe Heinlein wrote something once to the effect that it is not noble for the mother cat to sacrifice herself to save her kittens just stupid.

  2. Sadly, whenever this topic is broached, many on the left retort, “so you want people to breathe dirty air and eat unsafe food.” While I generally agree with your opinion. I think it would be best to make it clear that we don’t want to remove ALL government regulation (well, some of us don’t). I think some government regulation is reasonable. The power of many companies to make a profit by playing fast and loose is too much to tempt (Deepwater Horizon, eg). I simply believe it should be severely limited.

    Then again, the adage “give them an inch, they’ll take a yard” keeps popping into my head…

    Please don’t take this to be a refutation of your point. I just want things to actually move forward for once (or am I just a dreamer).

    • Bottom Line says:

      “(or am I just a dreamer).”

      You’re not the only one. Imagine there’s no countries

      • For you two Dream Weavers..I’m one too….

        • Bottom Line says:

          Right on, Anita.

          Hitting notes like that can make a man comparable to a turtle retracting it’s head.

          In spite of his chords being slightly worn, he manages to pull off a great live performance.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Nice! …It was, live, as well.

            So was this…

          • LOI I love this stuff. Saw the Blue Angels here last month.Talk about thunder over Michigan! They flew so close over my head I could have thrown a softball and hit them. Amazing!

            • Careful what you say, you are a conservative threatening to throw softballs ate the Blue Angels. Thankfully Obama is protecting us from you right wing haters. Cool spell here, 58 our high today. Did a lot of shooting this weekend. I am ready to kill something. Ooops, hate speech. I meant hunting, legally approved killing.

              How’s things there?

              • Ataaaaack Waaaaaatch! 🙂

                Cool here also, currently 48. My kinda weather. Looking forward to a kid free weekend at the lake with a huge bonfire and some steaks and ribs on the grill. Glad I got the dock out last weekend. Don’t need any of my helpers being compared to a turtle retracting its head 🙂

              • “Did a lot of shooting this weekend.”

                I did too. Bought a new Savage model 10 in .223 caliber with a free floating bull barrel, fine tuned some hand loaded Barnes TTSX 55grain bullets and got 3 to overlap at 100 yards. It shoots sweet. Also got a Remington 700 in .308 caliber with a free floating bull barrel that I will work on next. Shot 3 125 grain hand loaded Nosler Ballistic tipped general purpose rounds out of it and it shot them less than 1 MOA right out of the box. Bambi better look out because it will soon be time to hunt.

            • Anita:
              Years ago the Blue Angels wintered at the NAS in Pensacola Florida and spent the winter practicing for their shows over the Gulf of Mexico and a isolated stretch of beach in Alabama where we did a lot of work. Anyway it got to where they would “play” with us while we worked. They would buzz us very low and fast waving the whole time. We could feel the heat and thrust off the engines they would get so close. We loved our “private” air show.

              • Cool Bama. While I was in Hawaii at the Marine Corp Base the pilots trained all day also. the helicopter pilots saw me watching and waving. During one flyby they actually hovered near me and gave me a thumbs up! Oh man..flashback!!!

    • I thought it would have been people on the left that want the ‘raw’ food

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Those on the left would prefer government approved food. See, they need someone to tell them whats good for them 🙂

  3. Bottom Line says:

    One primary means Tuberculosis is transmitted is through unpasteurized milk.

    Another is through coughing up tiny droplets of infected fluid from your lungs. Tuberculosis is an air-born pathogen. This means it is relatively easy to spread to others, especially in more confined spaces such as in homes or trains, buses, in airports and airplanes, hospitals, etc…

    Another problem with it is that by the time you realize you have it, you’ve likely spread it to others.

    If a strain gets loose, there is a potentially significant consequence for many.

    So what happens if 50 gallons of infected unpasteurized milk gets distributed to families all over a particular region?

    How many people would get infected before a problem is realized?

    Would there be enough time to contain and arrest it’s spreading?

    What are the consequences of 50 gallons of infected milk?

    Is there a better way of coping with such a potential danger without using coercion and/or violence, raiding people’s homes and stealing their stuff?

    Education? A system of testing the milk, perhaps?

    • They have been testing cows for TB since before I was born. I was born with a stomach problem for which the doctor asked my Dad if the cows had been tested. The answer was yes so the prescription was a tablespoon of raw whole cows milk every 2 hours around the clock. I drank raw milk until we moved off the farm when I was eight. I can remember skimming the cream off the milk to make butter. I hated that churn but then we got buttermilk pancakes afterwards.

      • Bottom Line says:

        I figured there was already some sort of popular testing procedures in place.

        From what I understand, Tuberculosis in the US ultimately originates from foreign milk that’s not tested, nor pasteurized.

        Foreigners drink infected milk, spread it to others through trains and prisons, etc…then immigrate to the US.

        Note that most modern cases of TB in the US are concentrated around coastal regions where immigrants often land.

    • “So what happens if 50 gallons of infected unpasteurized milk gets distributed to families all over a particular region?”

      We have been told Europe has better healthcare and we need to become more like them. They see no reason to pasteurize, so are we not supposed to do as they do on milk? It’s not about health, it’s control.

  4. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    I do see the need for some laws, but the problem has always been where to draw the line.

    And if you get to be the one to decide for others where the line should be drawn, you open the door up for them to decide where the line should be drawn for you..

    • Cool. Following that logic. DPM cancels out Mathius. Continue til the last ones standing get to make the rules.

    • “I do see the need for some laws,” I wonder why the laws we have are ignored?

      ‘If you take my computer again, I can’t do my homework.’ This would be the third computer we will have lost. I still haven’t gotten the computers back that they took in the previous two raids.”

      The fourth amendment is supposed to be the law of the land. How many times can the government take your property from you without filing any charges? Unreasonable search and seizure! And isn’t there a right to a fair and SPEEDY trial? It’s gotten to the point that the law does not apply to the government.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        It’s gotten to the point that the law does not apply to the government.

        This is the point where Revolution must be considered. If they get to much control it will be more difficult.

  5. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    The other day when I was in church I picked up the parish bulletin. In the Social concerns corner there was a piece on the environment. It, in my opinion, did not advocate “good stewardship” but rather was more towards the “earth mother” side. Odd that no one in a Catholic Church seemed to pick this up except me. Anyways I was, as usual, incensed. At the end of the Mass I saw an acquaintance, who is in his early ’70’s, a deacon in the church and a retired environmental engineering professor. I brought up the article and pointed out its ridiculousness. He in turn asked “how so?”,

    I then pointed out the fact that he and I grew up in a very different New York City in the 1950’s when the air was foul and the rivers worse. I pointed out the great success over the past 40 years in cleaning up the City and we should be getting to a point where we acknowledge that there is not much more that we can do that makes any economic sense.

    He actually jumped all over me and accused me of wanting to go back, “to the bad old days”. Absolute perfection was his goal, no if’s, and’s or but’s. Listening to him was like listening to my 12 year old boy scouts who have no knowledge of the past, of history or of the fact the world, in any form, existed before they did. I pitied his former students.

    These people are totally irrational. There can be no discussion with them. It is their way, always their way, 100% their way and no room for compromise. Until we realize that we cannot properly deal with them. All the questions raised within the scientific community about man made global warming has not made the slightest difference to any of them. Any aberration in a weather pattern, any strong storm, any hurricane, any snow storm or drought is to them proof positive they are right. They have indeed replaced God with the environment. A few years back I remember hearing that the environmental movement was the logical place for ex commies to go after that particular “god” failed. It allowed them to be green on the outside but still red on the inside. A weak joke maybe but also more than a little truth.

    • Maybe this will make you feel a little bit better 🙂

      Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

      Published September 14, 2011

      The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

      Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”

      The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

      Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

      “I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.

      Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.”

      “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

      “The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period,” his email message said.

      A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

      The use of the word “incontrovertible” had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

      “The word ‘incontrovertible’ … is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century.”

      Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signer of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

      Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

      The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was “not at all likely.”

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y2D0fnCr

      • I often hear a friend say, “there’s no way that there is such a vast conspiracy in science to propitiate AGW.” I simply point out that scientists are people and so subject to certain flaws like everyone else. One of them being desire for achievement and praise.

        Let me explain an example from a different field (my field), High Energy Physics (like the LHC – black hole machine…). There is always the danger of tainting scientific results with “previous knowledge.” One group saw a signal in some of their data. This being a pretty big deal, another group checked their own data. “Yep, we see it,” they say. But the first group rescinded their results. Now the second group is exposed as manipulating their data to “see” something that isn’t really there! This really happened!

        Another example. A group of theorists got access to some data. They saw a signal in a certain region. They proceeded to publish a theoretical “prediction” of what would be seen by the experimentalists. Really… Now that group prohibits theorists from seeing their data until a result is published on the experimental end.

        This is a real danger in physics! When a new detector takes a larger data set, peaks are set in greater relief. If I’m doing an analysis with a smaller data set, if I know from the larger data set that there is a peak somewhere, can I really say that I see the peak in the smaller data set? I’ve tainted my results because I’m biased toward an affirmative result!

        I don’t necessarily distrust these scientists. I simply believe we should expect the same scrutiny to data manipulation in climate science as in other areas. Why would I believe in AGW if the data is not available for independent analysis and the data manipulation are not fully explained?

        This truly is bad science. AGW may be true for all I know, but that doesn’t change this fact.

      • sk trynosky sr says:

        So there is some honor left out there after all. It’s hard to admit you were wrong, maybe the hardest thing to do period but honor requires it.

        Apparently this prof never bought into the science of MMGW. I’m sure he’s going to miss a lot of cocktail parties.

  6. I can relate to the goat story (who knew). My father has been tending and milking goats for the past 30 years and knows NOT to sell goat milk. How he knows this I do not know but he does not even give away goat milk unless it is family. He has made one exception to the no give away rule because about 18 months ago a baby was born that was allergic to baby formula and cows milk. The doctors recommended the mother try goat’s milk and dad was the only source around so he gives her milk for the baby and the baby thrives on it. For the record goat milk is good but goat milk ice cream is incredible.

  7. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Once federal agencies (which are a part of the EXECUTIVE branch) found out that they could pass “regulations” which have the force of law, and they can even fine, arrest, and imprison people for not following their “regulations” it didn’t take the executive branch long to figure out that there needed to be a federal agency for EVERYTHING.

    I thought the legislative branch was the only branch with the power to make law? How silly of me!

    You want to see just how many Federal Regulations there are? Try reading the Federal Register some time! (Also known as the CFR or Code of Federal Regulations). They update it every month, ALWAYS adding new regulations, and rarely (if ever) deleting any.

  8. Long but curious about everyone’s opinions-BF will have a fit 🙂

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277244/rule-law-paul-ryan?page=2

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Realize that first off, Paul Ryan is a member of the House of Representatives. Secondly, he is chairman of the Budget Committee. Paul Ryan is NOT going to come out and say “ALL LAW IS VIOLENCE”. That would lose him his job pretty darn quick.

      He is; however, saying that arbitrary and capricious regulation by Federal Agencies is outside of the rule of law (which is pretty much what I said in my post above), so I have to at least give him brownie points for that.

      The main place where I differ from Ryan, is that he probably feels that it is necessary for the government to MAKE laws regarding things like contract enforcement. All that results in is that it allows government to impose a fine (take it’s own cut) when a contractual transaction does not proceed as specified.

      This is ludicrous. Breach of contract is between the parties involved in the contract, and the party that has been harmed has the right to demand recompense from the party who did not perform to contractual specifications. Unless the government can demonstrate that IT has been harmed, how can it demand recompense in the form of a fine?

      As far as BF “having a fit”… hmm… not sure he would “have a fit”. There is plenty of stuff in Ryan’s commentary that BF would strongly object to, but also remember that anarchy doesn’t mean “no rules”, it means “no rulers”. That extra r in there makes a big difference.

      I know many of you still scratch your heads and say, “yeah, but… how can you have rules without a ruler?” To those of you who persist in asking that question, I would say “Please give up your tendency to wish to be herded like a sheep, and try thinking instead.”

      For example, I recall a post by BF where he stated that in a free society, contract disputes could still be settled by a court or through arbitration. I don’t remember the exact wording, but that was the concept. Again… I hear some (many?) of you saying, “yeah, but how do you have a COURT without a GOVERNMENT??? Doesn’t any court de facto become the judiciary branch of a government, so are you not CREATING a government by allowing a court to exist?”

      Not necessarily… give it some thought. Come up with a system, and remember the BF definition:

      Government is the entity with the self-proclaimed right to initiate (“legal”) violence upon the non-violent.

      If you come up with a system which creates a court, but that court CANNOT in any way initiate violence upon the non-violent, then by the BF definition, such a court is not a “government” or any part of a “government”.

      Too many of you STILL persist in the belief that BF espouses “no rules and no societal institutions to settle disputes”. He NEVER said that.

      • The Dread Pirate Peter swings a brilliant sword!

        Nice job!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          The sword is mightier than the pen… because in this case the sword is a keyboard 8)

      • The comment about BF was a semi-joke based on the fact that I know he disagrees with the rule of law-so I knew he was going to have a problem with this speech 🙂 . You are correct when you use the word “rule” when discussing BF-per BF-All law is force. He has -at one time said there was only one Law(at least I think he said law, not rule)-Do not impose. So, No, I am not saying that BF is against any rules.

    • V.H.

      Without the rule of law to safeguard the ownership of property and the enforcement of contracts,

      The former, “good”.
      The latter, “bad”.

      As soon as someone begins to justify using violence on non-violent people, the whole mess starts up again.

      Using violence to enforce voluntary agreements is perverse and even if such a pseudo-government entity was created to do just that, in a century or two, it will have morphed into a tyranny.

      I mean, look at the US constitution, where one small irrelevant clause – the Commerce clause – is used to undermine the entire nation and subject everyone to centralized tyranny.

      Do you believe the nefarious forces of violence would not be smart enough to rewrite “contracts” in such a manner to accomplish their evil ends of violent control over the masses?

      You cannot contain evil by chaining it to paperwork and only fools believe such a strategy would work. Evil is studious and unrelenting, and will dutifully fill in all the forms necessary and then enslave you.

      The ONLY way you stop evil is by STOPPING THE USE OF EVIL.

      …but we love evil too much to do that….

      • Look at it this way-at this moment in time-they are using the rule of law-not to protect property ownership and to interfere in contracts-so at least -he is pointing out that the Constitution as written-says the exact opposite of what is happening.

        • V.H.

          As Buck will chime in …. it’s all how you “interpret” the Constitution.

          That’s my point – you can dance with words on how to use evil to achieve your ends – and evil will dance right along with you right to your enslavement.

          • Yea, I know BF-it saddens me-because I see the pitfalls of governmental control but I also see the need. It’s a damned if you do-and damned if you don’t.

            It’s like when people say “Can’t we all just get along” I want to scream-No obviously we can’t, which is our blessing and our downfall.

            • V.H.

              I see the pitfalls of governmental control but I also see the need

              As I said, people love evil too much to let it go. They believe using evil to solve evil makes good.

              Government control never works – using centralized evil in the belief that evil is necessary to solve the use of evil by individuals ensures evil grows until is absorbs most of society. Then society collapses.

              So to solve what really is a minor problem of evil in society – less than 1% – people institute a massive evil that takes over 100% of society.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            “…it’s all how you ‘interpret’ the Constitution.”

            Well, it is. But only to a point — as I’ve always said there are many many examples where the language is clear on its face. That language governs. Pure and simple. But when the language is not clear and unambiguous (e.g., ‘cruel and unsual punishment’)…

            • Buck,

              Your example is telling – the belief the State has a right to “punish”….

              However, you have advocated profusely regarding clauses where the language is clear and unambiguous – buy by changing definitions of words and their meanings argue that the clause more represents your desires.

              People redefining their words to mean the opposite is nothing new, nor will ever go away.

              Removing the tool to enforce their irrational action can go away.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Example where I have made this argument where the language is ‘clear and ambiguous’?? Thank you.

              • Buck,

                It would be probably a lot easier if you pointed to areas where -to you- it is completely “clear and unambiguous”.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’ve provided examples in the past — one such example, eligibility requirements for elected offices.

                Returning to my earlier example of something that is not clear and unambiguous — ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. Or do you disagree and find this to be clear and devoid of any need for interpretation?

              • Buck,

                That’s it???? The eligibility requirements??? Whew! That’s important for the freedom of the nation!

                No interpretation necessary – by definition all punishment is cruel, or it is not punishment.

                (PS: You do remember I am NOT a advocate of Constitutions – do not hold any belief I am defending the use of a Constitution)

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Oh, I’m well aware of that BF. And the eligibility requirement was one example – probably the most readily available example. I’m not going to parse through every sentence of the document to point out every instance where the language is clear and unambiguous.

              • Buck

                There are only 4400 words in the Constitution, yet you find it difficult to find an example of something that is clear to you– that doesn’t make me laugh.

                My point exactly. There are nefarious individuals that will twist into Gordian knots the English language -no matter how clear and concise – so to justify their evil.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                ::sigh::

                not difficult in the least — you asked me to provide an example. I did. I still wait for you to provide the converse example of something I have argued that is, on its face, clear and unambiguous.

              • Buck,

                You are asking me if a contradiction makes the statement clear and unambiguous. I think the answer is completely self-evident.

                But please remember – it was YOU who raised the comment that you felt the Constitution had areas that were immune to interpretation, not me. Showing something that refutes your own statement does not make my statement wrong.

                Indeed, even the clause which you felt demonstrates such clarity – the qualifications of office – have been shown to be as vague as anything else by those whose purposes depend on the vagueness and twists of English language.

                There are ample areas of the Constitution that are crystal clear – except to your political kin whose necessity of action requires fog, uncertainty, discourse, dispute, and ambiguous understanding.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Interesting – not quite sure how an age limit (35) for president is open for interpretation, but if you say so!

              • Buck,

                Sometime you make me laugh.
                Surely you aren’t mind-numbed enough to forget the debate about “natural born”?

  9. Small hijack…

    I like this comment:

    Economics may be an “engine of analysis,” as Alfred Marshall said, or an “apparatus of the mind,” as Keynes put it.

    But economists no more set the world to producing and consuming than baseball statisticians hit home runs.

    Then, too, you’ll never see Bill James, the dean of the baseball sabermetricians, trip up a base runner the way the government thwarts an entrepreneur. The intervention-minded economists are the ones who give the government its big ideas.

    • from John Lott,

      Market value of Federal Debt doubles in a very short time
      These data reveal that the market value of gross Federal debt (including Fed and SS Trust fund holdings) doubled between 9/2003 and 9/2010 (going from $7,303.2 to $14,497.4), and the market value of privately held Federal debt doubled since 9/2005 (going from $3,982.9 to $7,979.3). Sooner or later, the income tax will have to be raised in order to pay off this runup in debt. At the same time, the carrying cost of that debt is barely 2% of GDP, almost half of which is paid to foreigners.

  10. Obamas Left Nut says:

    And its “right” in front of you the whole time!

    Eliminate all these silly nannystate laws of which LOI (“Long on Ignorance”?) writes

    Implement the Tort reform you’ve been whining about for years – now – you cannot sue anyone

    Continue to stand behind the big businesses that cram the pockets of politicians you so love (because loving them is like loving a single person right?), happily patronize them

    When they pollute your water, your land and your air – and give you cancer – then you can smile with glee – because you my friends are FREE!

    • OLN,
      Your comment went into automatic moderation. I have approved it.

      So you think we need to be protected from kids selling lemonade?
      When the wind blows in the country, it’s dusty. How is the government going to “protect” us?

      Is name calling your only argument? I may be Long on Ignorance, but how about you educating me on where I fall short.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        He cannot educate you on where you fall short because name-calling is his only argument.

        If he thinks tort-reform means “now you cannot sue anyone” then obviously he lacks the wherewithall to educate you on where you fall short 🙂

        • Obamas Left Nut says:

          Don’t be so simple-minded PeterB – its long been an objective of the right to limit what redress the People can truly have when fighting against large corporations. Their goal is to prevent the lawsuits from ever coming to trial. So much for assessing ALL the effects of a free market eh? Its the new Southern Strategy.

      • Long on Ignorance… BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      • Obamas Left Nut says:

        Let me help educate you sir. Go back and read about your lemonade controversy. Go ahead. Re-read the story, follow the hyperlinks – read the other sites….

        I’m sure you ran across the fancy google maps for this – and I’m sure you read each of the 26 or so cases they cited.

        And I’m sure you quickly realized that not every case was about a simple lemonade stand.

        And I’m sure you realized that some cases were quickly turned around when officials or whomever realized how dumb they were acting.

        And I’m sure you then realized this was really much to do about absolutely nothing.

        You created a false controversy to try and support a flawed argument.

        Feel educated yet? Can I now call you NALOI? Not as long on ignorance?

        • OLN,

          I assume there’s a Obama’s Right Nut. Made me wonder what you two talked about?

          I read the story at the links I posted, that’s where they came from because I read them and thought they helped make my point. You missed my point or rather want to twist it into a left vs right agenda. Limiting the EPA will not result in “When they pollute your water, your land and your air – and give you cancer – then you can smile with glee – because you my friends are FREE!” You follow the link where FARMERS are concerned the new EPA regulations would result in hardship for them. (hint, when they plow a field and the wind blows, dust does usually occur)

          “Feel educated yet?” Not very, why has Europe sold unpasteurized milk for thousands of years but in America, the land of the free, it’s a crime? I understand the argument (not agreement) that drugs are bad and must be illegal to protect us, but 20 armed fed, state and county LEO’s raiding farms for selling milk, or Gibson for improperly documented wood? Please educate me on why you think those farmers should be treated like drug dealers? A 12 yr old girls tells them if you take my computer again, I won’t be able to do my homework! Educate me on how they can seize their computer three times and never file charges!

          And yes, it’s gotten so bad that there is a national day of protest over kids being allowed to sell lemonade.

          http://www.lemonadefreedom.com/

        • A great book.

          One Nation Under Arrest

          Brian Walsh

          April 21, 2010 at 4:00 pm

          One nation, under arrest

          If you did not know that you were supposed to affix a federally mandated sticker to your otherwise lawful UPS package, should you be arrested face down on the pavement by FBI agents training automatic weapons at you? Our hunch is that most reasonable Americans would respond with an emphatic ‘No!’ Today we are launching a series of posts based on case studies adapted from our new book, One Nation Under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty. The book includes stories of average Americans who have been arrested, prosecuted, convicted – and even imprisoned – despite the fact that they were doing their best to be respectable, law-abiding citizens. The UPS-sticker example is just one real world example we will be highlighting.

          Heritage fellow Jack Park kicks off the series today. He relates how George Norris, a 67-year-old husband and grandfather, ended up spending almost two years in federal prison. Some of Norris’s paperwork for his home-based orchid business did not meet all of the technical requirements of an international treaty. None of his orchids were illegal to import, possess, or sell, but that did not stop the government from prosecuting and imprisoning him.

          One Nation Under Arrest analyzes the causes of overcriminalization and offers solid proposals for reforming the law. To be solved, the problems of overcriminalization must be fully recognized and understood. Overcriminalization includes applying criminal penalties to activities that are socially and economically beneficial. Consider, for example, the obscure environmental laws that dictate what you can and cannot do in your own home even when they may not provide any clear environmental benefit.

          Overcriminalization also includes creating offenses that are so vague and broad that they grant federal prosecutors a license to deem broad swaths of conduct “criminal.” The federal “honest services” fraud statute, for example, is so vague and far-reaching that even conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written that prosecutors could use it to convict and imprison Americans who call in “sick” to attend a ballgame.

          Increasingly over the past few decades, the U.S. Congress has been callously disregarding the limits the Constitution places on the federal government’s authority to criminalize otherwise innocent conduct and engaging in similarly improper criminalization. This has partially succeeded in warping Americans’ collective understanding of what should – and what should not – be the subject of federal criminal punishment.

          But most Americans still have not surrendered their sound judgment that criminal punishment should be carefully limited. If you buy or sell personal shares of stock and are unaware that you are technically violating some obscure trading rule on corporate mergers and acquisitions that are conducted via tender offer (whatever that is), should you have to face the possibility of paying for your lack of knowledge by spending time in federal prison with murderers, child rapists, and drug traffickers? Anyone who has traded stock yet is not intimately familiar with the hundreds or thousands of relevant statutes, rules, and regulations would again probably say ‘No!’

          Congress and state legislatures increasingly view the criminal law as the tool of choice to “solve” every problem, punish every mistake (instead of making appropriate use of civil penalties), and coerce Americans into conforming their behavior to satisfy social engineering objectives. Criminal law should be used to redress only that conduct which Americans rightly and reasonably determine is deserving of society’s greatest punishment and moral sanction. As had been the rule for centuries, no one should be punished as a criminal unless he committed a wrongful act knowing that it was illegal or wrongful – that is, unless he acted with criminal intent.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @LOI – you could have left “him” in Obama’s nutsack (moderation)

        Sorry.

        Couldn’t resist.

        🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “Continue to stand behind the big businesses that cram the pockets of politicians you so love (because loving them is like loving a single person right?), happily patronize them”

      Hey OLN,

      If you aren’t just a drive-by troll, answer this question:

      In the election cycle of 2008, Obama and the democrats received more contributions from big banks (Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc), insurance companies, and other mega-corporations than McCain and the Republicans did. Obama gladly accepted these donations.

      Explain how that makes him any better than what you call “the right”?

      Obviously Obama crammed his pockets pretty good from “big business”, so he must love them too, no?

    • Yes, government going after lemonade stands is an example of corporate control? I dont think so, that is government overstepping and out of control, pure and simple. It shows that the government wants to control people and take away freedom for its own desires of power, regardless of corporate control or involvement. What corporate interest in being helped? How about Gibson, a big company in terms of guitar making, but not a big company overall. Government helping some bigger guitar making company out with these raids? No. They are just playing power games.

      To be honest, this stuff is why we anti-government types have a problem with government, EVEN IF BOG CORPORATIONS WERE NOT INVOVLED. It would still just be a power hungry bunch of beurocrats beating up on the little guy. Big corporations are not the only villains seeking power. Government leaders do the same thing. So to get rid of both you eliminate the government and the government-spawned entitly known as the corporation. Regulation and controlling will always grow into something not desireable. ALWAYS.

  11. “The NLRB is not deciding disputes between labor and business, they’re trying to veto business decisions and take a political agenda and run with it,” Graham said at a Wednesday press conference at the Capitol. “They’re trying to impose on us work rules, changing the way you vote on a union because they can’t get it through the Congress and that’s why I’m mad as hell. You know, I respect the law but this is the law run amok.”

    The Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, sponsored by South Carolina Republican Rep. Tim Scott in the House, would prevent the NLRB from “ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/14/gop-senator-%e2%80%98mad-as-hell%e2%80%99-at-nlrb-rallies-colleagues-to-demand-action/#ixzz1Y2kygrbh

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/boeing-labor-bill-set-to-pass-house-but-serves-political-divide-more-than/

    “President Barack Obama has not taken a formal position on the case, saying he is reluctant to interfere with an independent government agency. Obama has said companies need to have the freedom to relocate but must follow the law when doing so.”

    So… President Obama is reluctant to interfere with an “independent” government agency

    (WAIT, what’s that again? Government agencies are members of the EXECUTIVE branch, which is SUPPOSEDLY headed by… the PRESIDENT! How in the hell can Obama claim that a federal agency is supposed to be independent… either he is an outright fool or he believes anyone who reads what he said is an outright fool!)

    Ok, back to the original diatrible… Obama doesn’t want to interfere with an “independent” government agency, but he seems to have no problem with an “independent” government agency interfering with a private business.

    I think that sums it up nicely, don’t you?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      A bit of fthe mark — the issue here is whether Boeing violated federal law in its decision to relocate.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Buck,

        If a company has union employees and “offshores” their operations completely because labor costs are too high here, would that company not also be in violation of the same federal laws?

        Is a federal law even legitimate if it tells a private enterprise it is not allowed to relocate to another state because that state has lower labor costs and less onerous regulations, simply because union workers would lose their jobs?

        However, the most important piece that is missed here is that the NEW Boeing plant in South Carolina was designed specifically for the production of the 787. I do not know if Boeing originally planned to produce 787’s in Washington State or not, but that isn’t relevant anyway.

        What is relevant is that there was no mass production of 787’s in Washington to begin with, so building a new plant in South Carolina specifically to build 787’s there would only be costing union members their jobs if the union contract specifically stated that 787s were to be produced in Washington State by union employees.

        As far as I know, the Boeing plant in Washington still produces all of the models of Boeing planes that it always has, it simply doesn’t produce the 787.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I don’t know nearly enough about the ins and outs of this issue to make a real argument here. The point though is that it isn’t a simple matter of the government interfering with a private business decision, but a matter of investigating whether the private business made a decision in violation of a federal law.

          Whether or not this is the case, I don’t know (as I said, I know just enough about the issues presented here to be dangerous, so I’m not going to make an argument either way).

          VH — in answer to your question: If you aren’t allowed to retaliate against the union for striking, couldn’t it be that the decision to relocate was done purely to retaliate against that union? I’m not saying this is what happened, but do you agree that this is a possibility given those basic facts?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Buck,

            I don’t know everything about the situation either, but from what I do know it looks like Boeing said, “we are going to produce the 787 in South Carolina at a new plant, because it is cheaper to do so, but you boys in Washington can keep making all of our other planes, because it would be too expensive to move the whole operation”

            Keep in mind that the 787 series are going to be some VERY expensive planes, and Boeing has to compete with AirBus, so if Boeing can save on labor costs, that is going to make the 787 more competitive.

            I do believe that Boeing’s original plan may have been to produce 787s in Washington State, but due to cost overruns and delays in even getting the 787 designed and a prototype produced they decided to build the new South Carolina plant and build the 787s there.

            If there is actual contract language with the union employees saying “you guys are gonna build the 787 series here in Washington” then I can see where building the SC plant and producing it there would be a breach of contract. If the contract said nothing about specific plane models to be built in Washington vs. anywhere else in the world, then I don’t really see how this can be a problem personally.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              If it can be demonstrated that the intent was to build the 787s in Washington and then, following a union strike, the company attempted to move the 787 operations to South Carolina, this can be evidence of a retaliation against the union. Proof? No, but evidence.

              From my understanding, this is what is going on here – an investigation into whether or not this business decision was made, at least in part, due to a motive to retaliate against the striking union.

          • I haven’t read that actual law-but as we discussed it-yea-if the law is written this broadly one could try to make the case-is it possible-well, you answer a question for me-would the company have relocated if it was to their detriment? I seriously doubt it. It was a sound business decision-and if they wouldn’t have done so-if it was a bad business decision-I find it hard to believe one could classify it as retaliation or Revenge against the Unions.

            I

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Sorry VH, not quite sure what you’re trying to get at here.

              Even if this turned out to be a sound business decision, it could still have been made to retaliate against a striking union. Am I missing something?

              • Buck,

                Just to be a Devil’s Advocate a bit.

                Could not strikes against a company be considered and argued to be retaliation against the business for refusing to agree to some economic aspect demanded by the union?

                If so, should not the NRLB prevent strikes?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I see where you are going with this, but that completely ignores the history of the labor movement and the purpose of the NLRB.

              • I’m not really going anywhere with it – just a question. The history of the union movement and purpose of the NRLB doesn’t play into the question really – it’s a question of interpretation, just like when the history of the Constitution is ignored while the question at hand is interpreted for example.

              • Yes you are missing something. If a business has to adjust profit decisions based on perception of retaliation, then one could argue that any change in operations, even going out of business, could be considered “retaliation”. If the company moves operations for profit reasons, it has nothing to do with retaliation. If they move specifically and formally to take a jab at unions or to “teach them a lesson” then that could be a problem (tho even that I have no real issue with, personally). Intent, however, it hard to determine, and it should not be left open to interpretation of courts. If the stated purpose is for profit or business advantages, and no financial evidence shows otherwise, then it is a legitimate action by a business. Businesses, afterall, exist to make a profit, not to provide jobs, especially jobs to specific groups such as union members.

      • Okay-what law did they break-you aren’t allowed to retaliate against the union for striking-you really think whether they did or didn’t is really the main issue. Would you have ever interpreted these simple, little, reasonable sounding words to be interpreted as a company-can’t move or expand their business into another state. Do you consider the huge blow this is to freedom if this stands?

      • How do you violate a Federal Law in a decision to move a company. The most inept and biased agency other than the EPA is the NLRB. It pretends to protect “workers” when it’s intent is to destroy labor/management relationships.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          D13,

          As I said above, they aren’t even “moving the company” as far as I know. I don’t think they are closing their Washington State operations, I think they merely built a brand new plant in South Carolina IN ADDITION to the existing operations in Washington, and the South Carolina plant was built with the specific purpose of building the 787 line of planes. So technically, I don’t see how you can even call it a “relocation”.

  13. 😐

  14. Life of Illusion

    Great article. Add to your list the EPA’s efforts to take control of ALL water ways, including farmer’s ponds.

    Why hasn’t anyone asked why the US Fish and Wildlife Service is enforcing “trade embargoes” on WOOD from other nations? Who gave them this authority????

    • I think we’re all questioning all these so-called independent organizations-their ability to write law is a problem. Were they created with unlimited power? How did they become the anti-thesis of our political system.

      • Obama: ‘I’d like to work my way around Congress’
        byByron York Chief Political Correspondent
        Follow on Twitter:@byronyork
        President Barack Obama speaks at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 34th Annual Awards Gala at the Washington Convention Center, Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2011 in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

        Facing growing opposition to his economic proposals and dimming prospects that Congress will pass other parts of his agenda, President Obama told a Hispanic group in Washington Wednesday that when it comes to the issue of immigration, “I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

        “As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own,” Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

        As he continued, Obama conceded that “we’ve got laws on the books that have to be upheld.” But he quickly added there are different ways to uphold the laws on the books. “You know as well as anyone that…how we enforce those laws is also important,” Obama said. Last month, the administration made a major, unilateral change in immigration law enforcement when it announced that the government will not initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants unless they have committed serious crimes. To critics, Obama had indeed worked his way around Congress. To the Hispanic Caucus, Obama said his new policy will “prioritize criminals who endanger our communities, not students trying to achieve the American dream.”

        The bigger problem, Obama said, is that sort of unilateral enforcement (or non-enforcement) only goes so far. “We live in a democracy, and at the end of the day, I can’t do this all by myself under our democratic system,” he said. “If we’re going to do big things — whether it’s passing this jobs bill, or the DREAM Act, or comprehensive immigration reform — we’re going to have to get Congress to act.”

        This is the second time in recent months that Obama has publicly mused about going around Congress to enact immigration reform. In that speech to La Raza in July, he said that “some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own” — a prospect Obama said he found “very tempting.” But the president quickly added, “that’s not how our system works.”

        http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-id-work-my-way-around-congress

        Now I have to ask, everyone-no matter where you are in the political debate-Do you really want a president who talks like this-that believes like this-he obviously has no respect for our system of government-he obviously has no respect for democracy-he obviously believes HE has the right to go around the duly elected voices of the people-is this what you want?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I think that the original theory was that there were certain fields in which Congress as a whole felt that it lacked the necessary expertise to craft laws. For example, “the environment”. As such, the executive branch created agencies of “experts” to monitor and REGULATE these fields where Congress did not have the needed expertise.

        When these agencies began to promulgate “rules” which had the force of law, up to and including fines and imprisonment, Congress didn’t bat an eye-lash, because Congress probably thought, “These guys are the experts, they know what they are doing”.

        Now, compare the books needed to contain all of US LAW, to the books needed to contain all Federal Regulations… if the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) does not already EXCEED the number of pages it takes to write out the whole of Federal Law, I would be shocked.

        Now, we (shockingly!) find out that the intentions of the so-called experts do not always mesh with the intentions of a Constitutional Republic with supposed separation of powers and checks and balances…

        If the executive branch can, through its agencies, essentially write law with no Congressional or Judiciary input, review, or recourse against, then why bother having anything but an executive branch?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      JAC,

      They gave themselves that authority, plain and simple. The problem is, now that they claim to HAVE that authority, try taking it away from them!

    • JAC,

      Thanks! I agree the waterways could have an impact we cannot really imagine. Very likely it would start small, but over time it might grow into puddle police issuing citations every time it rains. The wood was apparently not worked in India, so they are punishing an American company for not providing jobs in India. Sounds like a job for Fish & Wildlife.

      from Drudge Report,

      For the second time in four months the Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that they will again delay the release of their much anticipated global warming regulations.

      An EPA spokeswoman told National Journal Thursday that the EPA will not issue caps on greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act by their latest September 30th deadline. The EPA had originally promised the environmental activist groups suing the federal government that they would issue global warming regulations by July 26th.

      The EPA’s latest retreat on climate change regulation comes almost two weeks after President Obama ordered EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to rescind her ozone rules. According to the EPA’s own esitmates, the ozone rule would have infliced $90 billion in costs on the U.S. economy every year. Analysts expect the EPA’s global warming regulations to cost more than $100 billion annually.

    • JAC…..we did it..as I previously posted. The EPA came to our ranch and wanted to monitor all streams that moved faster than 2 cubic feet per minute. We refused. They got a Federal Court Order. We even refused that. We stood at our gate and told the EPA to enforce the order. No one would. The County Sheriff refused, the local police refused. the FBI refused. To this date, they have not been back. We were prepared for anything and no army came, as people thought they would, and there was NO law enforcement agency with the guts to come in and say that the Federal Government had a right to private property when refused and when there was no violation of anything.

  15. Come on, gang, no comments on the Palin-Rice connection?

    Great song on some radio station in our area: She drank coffee before she drank tea …

    She go girl!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      If I cared about the Palin-Rice connection I might comment on it. Oh, but I don’t care about it.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Charlie – I’ve seen some of the “leaks” of the new book – I think it just raises more and more suspicion on the whole Palin narrative – the projection she puts out there now seems less sincere when her past actions come to light – assuming they are all true. The question for a supporter or voter is do we expect flawless character – or do we at least expect them not to create such an elaborate ruse?

  16. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    As I have said previously, which points out the whole folly of government “regulations”:

    The EPA gives grant money (quite a lot of it) to the American Lung Association.

    The American Lung Association then SUES the EPA because “EPA air pollution regulations are not stringent enough”.

    The EPA then capitulates by writing stronger air pollution regulations.

    Then the EPA gives grant money (quite a lot of it) to the American Lung Association

    The ALA then SUES the EPA because “EPA air pollution regulations are not stringent enough”.

    and so on, and so on….

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      In my opinion, the EPA should just eliminate the middle-man and sue itself because its own regulations are not stringent enough, but of course that would be too transparent. They need an INDEPENDENT (haha) ADVERSARY (haha) of EXPERTS (haha) that is respected like the American Lung Association to convince the public that they are suing the EPA in the interests of “public health” in order for the scam to work.

      By feeding the ALA money, the EPA ensures that the ALA has the money to sue the EPA, thereby ensuring that the EPA can write more regulations, and make existing regulations tougher, and amass more power.

      Because the ALA gets this grant money from the EPA in the first place, the whole scheme is pulled off on the taxpayers dime.

      Pretty slick, eh?

  17. SK,

    God is perfect, man is not perfect. Imperfect man, the semi-civilized ones, are willing to take lives of all kinds in order to end the taking of lives.

    So let’s get clarity in your argument:

    (1) “Evil” men are men who kill innocent people.
    (2) You believe to stop these evil men, you are willing to kill innocent people.
    (3) You do not believe you fall into the group of evil men as defined by (1)

    The pure, raw barbarity of the Nazi’s and Japanese who made a joke of those laws brought about the savagery you condemn. Perhaps it was tit for tat and perhaps you can condemn that. I can’t.

    To stop the savage, you become the savage – you see no hypocrisy in this, however, because you believe your savagery has some sort of moral high-ground that raises your savagery above the savage….

    (whew)

    Is the soldier or cop justified in shooting her, through the baby to prevent her from detonating the bomb?

    The barbarian kills innocent people, but you do not believe you are a barbarian when you kill innocent people to kill the barbarian.

    Just to make it more interesting the soldier/cop is a female too and will be killed by the explosion as well.

    Is he the barbarian or the logical man knowing that some must die to save the rest. Without him, they all perish.

    He is a barbarian because you fail to understand your own failure in the hypothetical.

    You create a fantasy argument – that there exists NO OTHER ANSWER to the problem.

    But your fantasy is just that – a fantasy – it does not exist … there is ALWAYS another answer to a problem that does not include the killing of innocent people.

    Your fantasy exists because you need a “quick and easy” solution – and killing innocent people usually is a lot easier and quick then actually working out an answer that avoids the killing.

    But people need to justify their easy slaughter of others by fantasizing … “Gee, there was no other alternative”. The truth: they didn’t bother with trying or figuring out any other alternative and need to sooth their conscience of the evil they undertook.

    • SK,

      So let’s point to a reality example, Japan.

      To you, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a massive savagery of slaughter is “ok” because American lives were saved by the surrender of Japan.

      But of course accepting the Japanese surrender with terms simply was not “good enough”.

      Thus, the savage justifies his slaughter.

  18. sk trynosky sr says:

    More died in Hamburg and Dresden. For every person who now says the Japanese were ready to surrender there is another who says they were not. I daresay, modern “evidence” is questionable on the issue for the same reason I initially laid out. The further away we get from the event, the less people, not directly affected by it can relate to it. Those I knew who were alive and getting ready to invade were unaware of any surrender plans of the Japanese Government.

    The civilian deaths at Okinawa and Saipan put the lie to your “to save the lives of Americans”. To quote Heinlein again, “people are NOT the same all over”. The Japanese government through their emperor worship and out and out racism had planted the seed of mass suicide rather than surrender deeply in both the civil and military populations. The only thing you have on your side of the argument is we will never know the number since it never happened. Perhaps you are the one with the “fantasy” argument.

    I call on no less than “the Colonel” here to back me up who probably studied the issue a lot better than I.

    Fantasy argument? I doubt it. There are numerous 1st person accounts of killing women and children from Berlin to Dak-to to Ramadi to save lives. Hard decisions had to be made. Some of them probably were wrong, most weren’t.

    I don’t particularly feel like a savage but if that is a title I must bear in your estimation, so be it. In life, in the real world, we are faced with hard decisions.

  19. SK,

    More died in Hamburg and Dresden.

    …and that justifies killing innocent Japanese?

    For every person who now says the Japanese were ready to surrender there is another who says they were not.

    The evidence is incontrovertible that the Japanese were willing to surrender since 1943 – they were not stupid and knew the war was over given US economic power.

    Those I knew who were alive and getting ready to invade were unaware of any surrender plans of the Japanese Government.

    That would be true, since the Allies ignored any and all surrender negotiations, so they wouldn’t advertise this at all to anyone during that time.

    The civilian deaths at Okinawa and Saipan put the lie to your “to save the lives of Americans”.

    HuH???

    To quote Heinlein again, “people are NOT the same all over”.

    To quote me:
    “They are still human beings”

    The Japanese government through their emperor worship and out and out racism had planted the seed of mass suicide rather than surrender deeply in both the civil and military populations.

    So now your excuse to slaughter innocent women and children is that they would have committed sucicide anyway…. *blink*

    The only thing you have on your side of the argument is we will never know the number since it never happened. Perhaps you are the one with the “fantasy” argument.

    No, it is not a fantasy argument – it is a position – the position that killing innocent people is utterly barbaric.

    Fantasy argument? I doubt it. There are numerous 1st person accounts of killing women and children from Berlin to Dak-to to Ramadi to save lives. Hard decisions had to be made. Some of them probably were wrong, most weren’t.

    It is a fantasy argument – your argument is you would KILL innocent people, under YOUR terms, and YOUR demand.

    There are lots of stories where people could not save everyone – which is totally a different thing. I can only carry one person out of a fire, not 20, so 19 may die.

    This DIFFERENT from throwing a person into a fire.

    I don’t particularly feel like a savage but if that is a title I must bear in your estimation, so be it. In life, in the real world, we are faced with hard decisions.

    The hardest one is not to kill when killing is easy. Few do this hard thing.

  20. The use of an atomic bomb on the Japanese was an acceptable option, due in part to the attitudes of that time. While it can be argued that it was wrong or unnecessary, we base that judgment using the standards of today. The nation had been at war for over three and a half years. Based upon the goals set by the leadership of the nation (unconditional surrender) the war would continue. Plans had been developed for the invasion of the Japanese homelands, with estimates of the number of further casualties that would occur as a result of the invasion and subduing of the Japanese nation.

    But, the atomic bomb provided the government with an alternative. One large “benefit” of using the weapons would be that huge reduction in the projected casualties to US soldiers, sailors, and marines. Only the crews of the attacking aircraft were at danger of being lost. That aspect alone would make the use of the atomic bomb very acceptable to the military and the government. It would also be acceptable to the nation’s citizens.
    There was wide hatred for the Japanese by Americans. I doubt any could deny this truth. While there was racism on the part of the Japanese, there was also racism by Americans towards the Japanese (those “Japs”, “Nips”, “Yellow _______”). Not only was this racism expressed against native Japanese, but also against American citizens of Japanese descent, creating support for a government that dispossessed them of their liberty, property, and the protections of the US Constitution.

    It is the same kind of societal attitudes of the times that have repeatedly allowed, approved, and/or condoned national behaviors that we judge today as wrong. One just has to look over the history of the nation. Slavery, immigration racism, and denying voting rights are examples of the actions that attitudes of their time found to be acceptable standards.

    While we can argue whether it was right or wrong, we must acknowledge that we do so based upon the standards of belief now, versus the standards of the time period then.

    That’s why the action could be judged to be “right” to the people then, and “wrong” to the people today.

    • sk trynosky sr says:

      Gentlemen, I merely try to point out that it has been estimated that while there might have been a million US casualties during the invasion of Japan, there would probably have been six times as many Japanese casualties. I do not think that there can be any doubt of this. That is my reference to Saipan and Okinawa and the civilian suicides. In Japan proper, we would have been faced with armed resistance by the civilian population in addition to the civilian suicides. .

      The “racism” directed against the Japanese can be explained in two ways. Firstly the long standing nativism in the established American population Secondly the horrors perpetrated by the Japanese Imperial Army against the people of China. You may both remember that the Chinese people and government were portrayed in this country as being helpless victims of Japanese aggression long before 7 December 1941. There were after all these “Flying Tiger people and a slew of movies . You would do well to remember that. In and of itself it is proof positive that our American “racism” was peculiarly directed against orientals or rather Asians (to be politically correct) of one limited background. Somehow it never seemed to extend to Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Thais, Vietnamese or Indonesians, only Japanese. Wonder why?

      Another interesting tidbit of American History is that people of Japanese descent not living on the West coast of the US were not sent to detention camps. Merely an oddity indicating that as wrong as it was, it was not based on racism, stupidity yes, racism, no.

      While men like Yamamoto may have privately admitted the war lost, it does not explain the killing that went on after 1943. So, if they were so eager to surrender, why not a pull back to the home islands, why not leave China? Why Iwo, Okinawa, Saipan, Tinian and the rest? Why not the surrender?

      Mr. Flag sir, it was you who brought up the Japan analogy as one where it was done to save American lives. I point out it saved Japanese lives too. I point out Hamburg and Dresden as examples of the same thing. perhaps the strategic bombing survey was right and all this carpet bombing of cities had no effect on anything, However, if it was a mistake,then it was a mistake that all believed in at the time. The lead actors were the Germans and the Japanese soon to be outshone by their understudies, the US and the Brits. As Bomber Harris so aptly put it, “They have sowed the wind, now they shall reap the whirlwind”. Harris was, as you know, head of RAF’s bomber command. Unlike his counterpart in fighter command, he was never knighted because after the war the administrations, both Labor and Conservative shied away from the man who did what they had asked him to do.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Having done extensive research on the subject — I basically turned this topic into a 4-yr college career — it is safe to say that the primary reason the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima was to send a message to the USSR. The sole reason for dropping the 2d bomb on Nagasaki was to show the USSR we had more than one.

      • sk trynosky sr says:

        While I have no doubt that harry Truman had come to the conclusion after Yalta that the USSR was going to be a huge post war problem, The primary reason was to end the damned war. I’m one of those “interested” people. If my Dad had been trans shipped from the ETO to the Pacific, well, I would not be here today based on my birthday. It was also necessary to show the Japanese that we had more than one and give them the impression we could and would drop them on a weekly basis. I believe the next one would have taken another six months to build if I remember my 1965 AFROTC class correctly. I had and have no reason to doubt what Captain Murphy said, a WW 2 and Korea Vet.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I understand your sentiment on this, I really do, but that just doesn’t change the facts — the bombs were completely unnecessary from a military standpoint.

          • sk trynosky sr says:

            The Japanese surrendered, In a quick hurry. We didn’t invade and you tell me this was coincidence?

            I have read many of the source documents about the Japanese surrendering. Most I think are speculation based on “feelers”.put out by certain parties in the Japanese government.

            Based on their atrocity record alone, with nothing else to back it up except their desire to preserve “face” at all costs and the code of Bushido, I sincerely doubt the surrender would have come short of an invasion. It just does not fit their MO.

            Flag’s position that they were aware the jig was up in ’43 and would have surrendered does not account for their willingness to sacrifice the flower of their youth on every Pacific sand spit we had to take away from them. Anyone could see where the island hopping was headed. Once the B-29’s started hitting their main islands, after the first of LeMay’s firebomb raids destroying 80% of Tokyo, only madmen would keep it up. Admittedly the Nazi’s were almost as nuts and it really took Hitler’s suicide for them to throw in the towel but the Emperor, now that SOB had absolutely no intention of committing Seppuku.

            For the record, I think Mac was wrong, he should have hung too however, that’s is where your USSR link is absolutely correct. We needed the bastard.

            • Being a son of a Pearl Harbor survivor and 4 year veteran of service in the Pacific, believe me when I say the GI’s were most happy when it was over. Dad was back state side and married with a child on the way but was preparing transport planes for a return to the Pacific and the invasion when the war ended. Dad was in Detroit visiting a fellow PH survivor on VJ day. His friend’s dad pulled out a gun to fire in the air in celebration when Dad told him, “We’ve heard enough of that!”

              The Japanese citizens had been told that the GI’s would pillage and rape all the women. They were prepared to fight to the death including killing their women and suicide. Only the plea from the Emporer stopped that. They were quite surprised when the occupation forces proved to be different from what they expected.

              Truman did the right thing to drop the bomb. Why didn’t the Japanese do the right thing and surrender after the first one?

  21. Somehow it never seemed to extend to Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Thais, Vietnamese or Indonesians, only Japanese

    Except when the US was involved in fighting some of them in Korea or Vietnam for instance (“gooks”, “slant-eyes”, were two terms I can recall hearing the Vietnamese being called for instance).

    Merely an oddity indicating that as wrong as it was, it was not based on racism, stupidity yes, racism, no.

    They may have not have been relocated but from my studies of the war years they certainly were also victims of racism for being Japanese.

    The point of my post was to offer some reasoning for the way in which today some call it wrong, while then it was not. Nothing more, nothing less.

    • sk trynosky sr says:

      In context, always in context. Once we go to war with someone, be they the lobsterbacks, all the way through to the rag heads, We ramp up the rhetoric. Is it really racism? When the war is over, then we feel sorry for them, rebuild their country, marry their women and adopt their orphans. As Yacov Smirnoff would say, “What a Country!”

      You and I are in total agreement so long as you don’t think that we are any different than we were in 1941-45. Faced with the same circumstances we would do the same thing all over again. If the Al Queda guys had the bomb and were ensconced in Mecca and taking out a city a month with suitcase bombs, I can see several nuke warheads on their way East.

      • Always in context – I agree where war is concerned. I’m not sure how we could apply a context standard to the racism that occurs, or has occurred, in society throughout the history of the US. That, I believe, would be a whole different discussion.

  22. Plainly,

    While it can be argued that it was wrong or unnecessary, we base that judgment using the standards of today.

    Good or evil does not change with the times or the ages.

    What was evil 1,000 years ago will be evil 1,000 years from now.

    Killing innocent people has been and always will be an act of evil.

    What does change is lies that attempt to justify such acts – as time goes by, they become deeper and more sophisticated – but are lies nonetheless.

    While you may argue that humans in the past were barbaric – perhaps true – but blessing their barbarism is equally destructive.

    The nation had been at war for over three and a half years. Based upon the goals set by the leadership of the nation (unconditional surrender) the war would continue. Plans had been developed for the invasion of the Japanese homelands, with estimates of the number of further casualties that would occur as a result of the invasion and subduing of the Japanese nation.

    Utter Bull and Nonsense.

    Once and for all:

    The Allied General Staff knew full well it would be a military cakewalk – the Japanese were starving due to LeMay’s Operation Starvation (attacking Japanese merchant and fishing fleets) – out of fuel, out of planes -most of their troops land-trapped in Asia facing Allied, Chinese and Soviet assaults.

    Let’s look at some facts:
    Battle of Manilla
    35,000 US troops – 1,000 kia 5,000 wia
    16,000 Japanese – 14,000+ kia

    Battle for Luzon
    125,000 US Troops – 8,000 kia 25,000 wia
    250,000 Japanese – 205,000 kia 9,000 pow

    Battle of Corregidor
    7,000 US trooop – 250 kia 680 wia
    6,700 Japanese – 6,500 kia 50 wia

    Battle of North Borneo
    30,000 Allied – 114 kia 200 wia
    8,800 Japanese – 1200+ kia, 130 pow

    Even Battle of Okinawa
    183,000 US Troops – 12,000 kia 38,000 wia
    117,000 Japanese – 100,000+ kia

    With no question, the war was over well before the nukes.

    One large “benefit” of using the weapons would be that huge reduction in the projected casualties to US soldiers, sailors, and marines.

    This is a long repeated lie, started long after the nukes as a reason dreamed up for using the horror weapons.

    During the actual debates – now recently released – not one, I repeat, not one general made such a case.

    This is what Truman said his reason was:
    Truman wrote:

    “Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true.”

    In other words, mere revenge.

    “Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered.

    The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.”

    The author of the above quote: J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    “Bomber” LeMay
    “LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

    “The Press: Had they not surrendered because of the atomic bomb?

    “LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

    Gen. Douglas MacArthur:

    “[H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”

    Eisenhower:
    “When [Secretary of War] Stimson said the United States proposed to use the bomb against Japan, Eisenhower voiced ‘… grave misgivings….’ Three days later, on July 20, Eisenhower flew to Berlin, where he met with Truman and his principal advisors. Again Eisenhower recommended against using the bomb, and again was ignored.

    July 1946, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey’s book, “Japan’s Struggle to End the War”, was published. It concluded that Japan would have surrendered without the bomb, without the Soviet declaration of war, and without even a U.S. invasion

    The lie that the Japanese weren’t trying to surrender:
    April 7, 1945, acting Foreign Minister Shigemitsu Mamoru asked Swedish Ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo “to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind.” Shigemitsu emphasized that “the Emperor must not be touched.” (BF: This was the only condition the Japanese had on terms of surrender since 1943) Bagge passed the message on to the U.S. government, but Secretary of State Edward Stettinius told the U.S. ambassador in Sweden to “show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of this matter.”

    They tried again on May 7, 1945 thru Portugal and were rebuffed.

    They tried again on May 10, 1945, Gen. Onodera, Japan’s military representative in Sweden, tried to get a member of Sweden’s royal family to approach the Allies for a settlement.

    They tried again on July 12, with almost four weeks to go before the horrible blast, Kojiro Kitamura, a representative of the Yokohama Specie Bank in Switzerland, told Per Jacobson, a Swedish adviser to the Bank for International Settlements, that he wanted to contact U.S. representatives and that the only condition Japan insisted on was that it keep its emperor. “

    The bitter irony, of course, is that Truman ultimately allowed Japan to keep its emperor, because -even after the bombs – the Japanese would not surrender otherwise.

    The lie – the one about saving American lives – was first published in Harper’s Magazine in 1947 by the son of In the minds of Harvey Bundy, (who was one of the main overseers of the Manhattan Project) named McGeorge Bundy under the prodding Harvard University’s president James B. Conant who was one of the leading advocates of the bomb’s use.

    It was this article that first pronouned these lies:

    (1) That if the bomb hadn’t been used, “thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of American soldiers might be [sic] killed or permanently injured.”
    (2) That “nobody in authority in Potsdam was satisfied that the Japanese would surrender on terms acceptable to the Allies without further bitter fighting.”

    So, let’s end this 75 year lie here at SUFA once and for all.

    Both Supreme Commanders of each Theater did not want the bomb dropped. Everyone knew the Japanese were beat.
    Everyone knew they wanted to surrender.
    No one – until 1947 – made any issue about “American lives”

    It was dropped for revenge – by Truman’s own words to that effect.

    And its time you and the rest of the Americans woke up to this fact…. or else it will happen again.

    While we can argue whether it was right or wrong, we must acknowledge that we do so based upon the standards of belief now, versus the standards of the time period then.

    Standards of evil do not change between “now” and “then” – only the perverse extend of justifying the evil changes.

    • BF,

      I don’t argue that evil changes – it has nothing to do with my comment since i wasn’t giving my opinion on the use of the atomic bombs in the first place.

      I was describing a reasoning based upon a period of time. Reasoning that was not utter bull since there were plans in existence for an invasion and any military planning would evaluate estimated losses (among many other things). The reasoning would be quite valid depending on who you were swaying with the reasoning.

      My arguments on the military necessity of the need for using the weapons are a different discussion from what I commented on.

      • Plainly,

        I was describing a reasoning based upon a period of time. Reasoning that was not utter bull since there were plans in existence for an invasion and any military planning would evaluate estimated losses (among many other things). The reasoning would be quite valid depending on who you were swaying with the reasoning.

        This is a lie – but you can continue to ignore the evidence and documentation that demonstrates that such a consideration was NOT UNDERTAKE WHATSOEVER to measure the use of the bomb

        • BF,

          I understand your comments, unfortunately you do not understand mine. For a person as intelligent as you seem (to me) to be, there are times when you are – no offense intended sir – very obtuse.

      • Plainly,

        I was describing a reasoning based upon a period of time.

        You repeat made up stories and lies – it is not “reasoning”.

        The bomb were dropped for revenge – and nothing but cold evil revenge.

        Now, of course, you can continue to pretend that is not the case.

        • BF,

          Do not continue to believe you know what I believe or don’t since you can’t possibly know unless I give my beliefs about a subject.

          You’d just be making a fool of yourself when you were wrong.

          • Plainly,

            It is obvious you have gotten lost in your own argument.

            • Not at all BF. You just choose to impose what you think I believe upon the comments I made in order for you to argue how stupid I am.

              But hey, it’s a part of your style and I understand that.

              It’s why I seldom choose to get involved in one of your discussions.

              • Plainly,

                You are lost.

                Did you or did you not state this:
                we base that judgment using the standards of today.

                You are claiming that standards of judgement of good and evil are different then in 1945, and today we hold “different standards”….

                …such as what?

                Killing innocent people in 1945 was evil.
                People in 1945 knew it was evil.

                Are you saying they didn’t know this????

                No, what you are DOING is justifying their act of evil

                (1)The nation had been at war for over three and a half years.

                So what? So if the nation was at war for -oh- a year, the use of the nuke wouldn’t be justified??

                Or if the nation was at war of -oh- ten years, the use of a 1,000 nukes would be justified??? (So nuking Afghanistan – by your measure here, would be “ok”?)

                (2) Based upon the goals set by the leadership of the nation (unconditional surrender) the war would continue.

                So, here, you believe that if someone sets irrational terms, the means by which to force others to accept those terms is justified?

                (3)But, the atomic bomb provided the government with an alternative. One large “benefit” of using the weapons would be that huge reduction in the projected casualties to US soldiers, sailors, and marines.

                Then you said ” i wasn’t giving my opinion on the use of the atomic bombs in the first place.”

                But this is you giving your opinion – since your claim here is not based on fact, which I have pointed out repeatedly.

                Then you said:
                It is the same kind of societal attitudes of the times that have repeatedly allowed, approved, and/or condoned national behaviors that we judge today as wrong.

                Who is judging this “wrong”? You aren’t – you are justifying it.

                SK doesn’t think it was wrong, nor T-ray.
                You would be hard pressed to find a handful here on SUFA to think it was wrong.

                Then you said:
                While we can argue whether it was right or wrong, we must acknowledge that we do so based upon the standards of belief now, versus the standards of the time period then.

                Again, repeating that the standards of evil depends on the time period.

                Then you said:
                I don’t argue that evil changes

                But you just did! You said the standards that measure it changes so we can’t judge evil of yesterday. You then say that it doesn’t change….

                Can you stop flip flopping, and make up your mind?

          • Plainly

            You said this:
            The reasoning would be quite valid depending on who you were swaying with the reasoning.

            I said “Bull Shit”

            You are suggesting that somebody in Truman’s team stood up and said “we will save X American lives by dropping the bomb” – and that is utter bullshit.

            Not one – I repeat – not one document of any of the discussions ever made such a case

            NOT
            ONE
            DOCUMENT.

            For you to hold your argument up as valid is plainly idiotic.

            • Show me where I said anyone did in the decision process to use the bomb? I am not going to argue with you over your interpretations of what I was discussing. I made not one argument that inside the government/military decision process that was a stated reasoning.

              I said it depends on whom was trying to be swayed in arguing the validity of using the bombs, whether it was at the time – or later.

              So, to help you satisfy your ego – you are 100% right and I am nothing better than the village idiot.

              (/sarcasm on) Thank you for your wonderfully positive input. (/sarcasm off)

  23. As Raico wrote:

    The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur. The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff, was typical:

    …..the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

    Major General J.F.C. Fuller, one of the century’s great military historians, wrote in connection with the atomic bombings:

    Though to save life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and of saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified….

    Leo Szilard was the world-renowned physicist who drafted the original letter to Roosevelt that Einstein signed, instigating the Manhattan Project. In 1960, shortly before his death, Szilard stated another obvious truth:

    If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them.

  24. SK,

    Gentlemen, I merely try to point out that it has been estimated that while there might have been a million US casualties during the invasion of Japan, there would probably have been six times as many Japanese casualties

    Oh, and a PS to you personally, SK

    Jimmy Byrnes, the aforementioned secretary of state and one of the strongest advocates of using the bomb,years after the event, claimed in his memoirs only the following: “Certainly, by bringing the war to an end, the atomic bomb saved the lives of thousands of American boys.”

    But t was the great historian, President George H.W. Bush, in 1991 who claimed that the decision to use the bomb “spared millions of American lives.”

    My, how time makes the lies grow!

    … so as Charlie would say

    O vey!

  25. Plainly,

    I think it is you who is confused by your own statements.

    You said this:
    we base that judgment using the standards of today

    I said “Bull shit”
    Evil is evil, and the standards do not change. Evil does not change, nor does the standard to measure it change.

    What changes – as you have definitely demonstrated– is the obtuse justifications for it – yours justification …”Those times were different”

    You then adjusted your position from “standards” to “different reasoning” by this statement:
    I was describing a reasoning based upon a period of time

    I say “Bull Shit” again – reasoning does not change depending on “time” – again, the JUSTIFICATION and the BLESSINGS of such justifications do!

    Your is “Oh, those poor stupid people long ago – times were hard and rough – so I forgive them for slaughter a few hundred thousands innocent people”…. that is MY point… the extent of the perversity of JUSTIFYING the slaughter changes over time.

    It was revenge, that worked for a few years, but began to fade.
    SO then it changed to “saving lives”, first “thousands’, then that faded, so the ante was up to “tens of thousands”, then that faded, and now “millions”…

  26. Movies … Sarah Porno … la desk … rights and lefts … Bills-Raiders & Carmen …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/09/movies-sarah-porno-la-desk-rights-and.html

  27. Sk and BF…….sorry I missed this yesterday and will not be able to do very much today with it.

    @ SK………..Please, remember that BF’s stance will always be this way. It took me awhile to understand his reasoning because he is a true believer in “Natural Law”…..study this very close as it is the basis of his postings. I have made a distinct and precise effort to study his positions and it all falls back to, what he considers to be the basic premise of Natural Law. He is also an anarchist. You must study that to understand him. Took me awhile. You have to understand that his philosophy and definition of evil will never be the same as yours. Never. In his mind there is only one definition and everything falls under it. In addition, his stance on violence is just as easily understood once you get his drift. Violence upon the innocent is easily justified as….”anything that I do not agree with falls under the definition of violence”…why? Because I do not agree with it.

    You cannot use Japan as an example of anything. I can argue the other side with him quite effectively…especially his cherry picking of quotes…and his belief that the US forced Japan into the war and, therefore, nothing was justified and we, the US, is evil. In the argument that Japan was ready to surrender in 1943 IF and only IF the sanctity of the Emperor was preserved is somewhat true…..but only partially. It was not not the SOLE reason. There are some that believe this but most that do not. But I can point to dozens of quotes from both MacArthur and Eisenhower that also say the opposite when taken in full context. I can point to dozens of books that offer the other and I can point to countless documents in the Federal Archives that reason the opposite. To BF, all wars in the world are started by America and/or mercantilism or hegemony. It is bullshit but that is what he believes. If anything, he is consistent and I admire his consistency. I do not agree with him all the time and think he is wrong on some things and on others he is quite reasoned, especially in economics. In economics, he is a realist and Natural Law does not apply.

    BUT….study very closely his application of Natural Law and remember, above all, he is an anarchist. Also, remember, (and read his postings carefully)….he refuses to adopt reality as a legitimate reason if it violates his application of Natural Law. Understand this and you understand the man.

    • sk trynosky sr says:

      Yes sir, I think that after more than a year I do get it. I just cannot understand logic where evil should be allowed to triumph because well, we shouldn’t use any means necessary to defeat evil.

      I reference that Supreme Court justice’s comment about not being able to define pornography but knowing it when you see it. That in conjunction with that old Davy Crockett quote, “Be sure you are right and then go ahead” is sort of the way I make calls on things. I acknowledge that they are subjective, that some might disagree with me but, I like to think that decisions and positions I make and take are based on doing the least harm.

      In the ideal world, Hitler would have been stopped by violence in the ’30’s by Britain and France. He was not, Then he then inflicted violence on Europe on a scale never seen before in human history, Because of the failure to confront reality with limited violence, a greater violence was perpetrated and to resolve that a much greater violence was then perpetrated by the allies. That was of course partially a “revenge” but also lessons had been learned from the failure to defeat and occupy Germany after the 1st World war. In effect, there was merely a time out.

      I am signing off now for a few days. On my way to DC to help get grandchild # 2’s room ready. Would love to resume this later on.

  28. For you Olive Garden patrons……..better get your bread sticks now….Michelle Obama has declared war against the Olive Garden bread sticks and how they should be “removed” from the menu.

    (One of the main reasons I go to Olive Garden is……..Toscana Soup and bread sticks).

    @ Charlie…..careful, my friend, Canoli is next.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @D13 – no, no, no – she “endorsed” the changes that Darden is making after challenging that industry to offer healthier menu options. I’m sure any fat-ass can still saddle up to an Olive Garden table and consume 5-10 thousand calories if they so desire.

      Let’s not stir an empty pot.

      And remember – food service is typically the land of Herman Cain-ites…..

      • Ahhh…..but let us go one little itty bitty step more…..in an interview with Darden this morning ( I think a re-broadcast) it was more than a challenge. The bread stick issue was NOT his according to him but a suggestion and recommendation from a “committee” that was formed by the LOTWH (lady of the white house)…..at least that is what I heard this morning, as the interview was on the radio. I have read nothing on it, however.

      • Never had a God Father Pizza….they any good?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          not real pizza. not even close.

          by the way, thought you may find this interesting from our discussion the other day in re death penalty and Texas:

          http://www.slate.com/id/2303922

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Nice article Buck. There are multiple cases ranging in strength where there are very compelling reasons to suggest Texas may have executed an innocent person. I think we can conclude that under his watch – we have at least one innocent person that was executed by the State. Rick Perry has been prolific in putting people to death in Texas – there is no doubt to that.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              And the people cheer….go figure.

              Lithwick raises a great point though — it seems that the gov’t cannot do anything right…except for the death penalty.

          • Buck the pot stirrer.

            “another so-called “expert witness,” Dr. Walter Quijano, testified that Buck’s “future dangerousness” was heightened because he was black.”

            They and you could at least tell the whole story. Dr. Walter Quijano was the Defense’s expert witness who said his research suggested that black men were more likely than other races to be repeat offenders after their release from prison. It was the defense attorney that brought this up not the prosecutor. Another side note was the jury had multiple African Americans on it and he was still convicted and sentenced to death.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              not to be confused with this Buck, of course!

              Regardless of all the facts and circumstances in how this was brought into play, it is an impermissible use of race that tainted the sentencing trial. 5 out of 6 cases where this testimony was used were retried. Why not for this case as well? From my understanding no one is arguing his innocence – only the sentencing process.

              • Buck I would agree with you except the DEFENSE put this “expert” on the stand, not the prosecution.

              • That is correct….only the sentencing….so give him a new sentencing hearing. I have no problem with that although the statement to me is inconsequential….it was fact…..however….give him a new sentencing. The result will likely be the same.

                Then we will hear how Texas still “kills” prisoners. It will make no difference.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                No, it would make a difference. Give him a fair sentencing trial. Texas likes the death penalty, so its an option on the table that the jury can opt for. But at least it will be a fair trial. Why the rush to execute in the absence of a retrial here??

          • Interesting but somewhat flawed….However, in its defense and those of us that “cheer”…yes, I am one of them but I also do not want innocents put to death either. I am not an advocate at all of life in prison. Save the money.

            But, in our system of justice that we currently have, we have a jury, we have experts, and we have judges. If I were a governor, and a person went to a jury and the jury convicted based on whatever evidence there is at the time, and the experts all testified that the convicted was indeed guilty, and the judge sees no violation of the person’s rights, and there is a guilty verdict, why would a governor choose to over ride the system we all agree upon? Don’t want the death penalty? Change the damn law. In the Texas system, the death penalty is an automatic appeal…it takes years. If new evidence surfaces, it is not a governors place to order a new trial….it is a judges place…a man of jurisprudence…in short, a lawyer. Order a new trial and let the new evidence in…..and then let the new jury decide.

            In the example of the first person that was used in the article, there was a jury, experts, defense lawyers and a judge. If the testimony is flawed, where is the judge? If there is new evidence that a new trial is warranted? Why was there not a new trial?

            The article also mentioned the Mexican National that was denied his rights to the consulate. This is a distortion of the truth. He was made aware of his rights for years….so was his lawyer. He declined repeatedly. It was not until the very last minute when the executioner was knocking on his door…but his statute of limitations had run. Wonder why that was not mentioned in the article?

            And this latest one mentioned in the article….get real. You have a psychiatrist that quoted facts in his trial….the man has pleaded guilty. This is not a case of guilt…it is a case of re-sentencing. So….do it. The result will be the same.

            Even in the event of all of this, where is it the responsibility of the governor other than clemency to over ride our jurisprudence system…designed by lawyers? We have a governor that sees no reason for clemency and the people of Texas like it.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Take a closer look at the facts and Perry’s involvement in that first case. It is pretty clear that he is, in fact, innocent. It was proven that the original expert testimony was deeply flawed. When a commission was about to render that finding, Perry replaced those on the commission — why? He doesn’t lose sleep at night over this case? He should.

              As far as that last one, I agree – it is a matter of granting a new trial for sentencing purposes only. It is not a case of guilt. All other cases involving this testimony were retried. Why not this one?

              • But, Buck, the Commission is not the final say. ANY judge, to my knowledge, can exercise his authority to order a new trial. If Perry was wrong (and, let me add, I do not like the changing of the guard on the Commission…it just plain looks wrong) why did not a Federal Judge or any judge not order a stay and a new trial. Where is it the governors responsibility to “stay” anything. It is his right, of course…I assume any governor can do this…don’t know……but that is not the primary function of the governor. If it is just his comment that he does not lose sleep over the death penalty….ok..you did not like it…too glib. I can see where you would say that…I can see both sides….but I do not understand where anyone….especially msm to rail on a governor because he presides over a state that had the death penalty long before he became governor as if a governor can do away with it….if he hated it….he still cannot do anything about it….it is a legislative responsibility as well as the voters……..and we voted for it….and, even though you do not understand it…..I have no problem whatsoever with it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You want to absolve Perry in this case and pin it on the judiciary instead, fine, be my guest. That changes absolutely nothing.

                It has been pretty conclusively demonstrated that he was innocent. Yet he was put to death. Given this case, you just can’t ignore the fact that there are flaws in the system – it is not perfect, mistakes happen. You want to argue that the system largely works, there are enough safeguards, and decide that the (perhaps unlikely) possibility of an innocent man being executed is ok, you’re entitled to that opinion. But the mere possibility of an innocent man being executed should at least give you..and Perry…and everyone else, some pause, some reflection and yes, some lost sleep.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Never had any Godfather Pizza places nearby – ate at one waaay back in the mid-80s in D.C. It was good.

    • Dear Colonel:

      As you should well know by now … no self-respecting eye-talian would ever be caught dead in an Olive Garden (unless they were there to shake the joint down) … that is not eye-talian food they serve. That is, excuse the eye-talian, gotz (pronounced gotsssss) …

      Same goes for Godfather pizza, Ray … although I’m starting to understand the thought process breakdowns here now … it’s the crap you guys are putting into your systems … Come to NY/NJ and I’ll cook you a genuine eye-talian meal … then you’ll wake up and see the benefits of socialism.

      And on that note … my temp assignment was extended to the end of the year. Why? Probably because I’m a very good worker and … they don’t have to pay benefits (which I don’t need due to the spouse’s job) … and because I’m so underpaid ($24K per year less than I was making in NY–I’m working closer to home in Jersey these days) … capitalism at its best … exploit the workers because God forbid the “investors/partners” share all the money they “earn” (while everyone else does the work).

      Third world here we come …

  29. A Puritan Descendant says:

    While I understand BF’s ‘moral’ arguments against dropping the big ones on Japan, I differ.

    Myself, as someone who gives my own nation priority over the rest of mankind, would not hesitate to do what we did if it meant saving even one American life, in the context of that war. No time to screw around, no namby pamby, get er done!

    The same I would extend to my own families defense. If I come face to face with a burglar in my home, I will not wait to learn his intentions.

    No disrespect to BF, he comes from a moral posistion as he usually does, which is always hard to differ with. But remember, lines on a map mean nothing to him. Good for him, but it ain’t for me.

    • And, thus, you understand what makes him tick…although he is likely to claim we do not. But I am like you…..trespass on my property, I am not going to ask you why. I do not need to know why. You crossed my fence, you are on my front porch, you are not invited. How I deal with it…is my business.

      I like BF because he is fun to argue with but, as you stated, if it ain’t for you….it ain’t for you.

  30. Just saw an interesting piece on TV…..CNN actually reported on this…(registering shock).

    Just saw the pictures of our astronaut and the cosmonauts being pulled from their space capsule after it returned to earth. It took four men to carry each one of them to wheel chairs. This is a typical landing in Russia.

    Now, a question. Why would the United States, specifically the Obama administration, who says we must have jobs, reduce the jobs and outsource NASA to Russia? Why would we relegate our astronauts to this type of space program where they have to be carried to wheel chairs after being extricated from a capsule under normal conditions, instead of landing our shuttles and walking off under our own power and not losing communications in the process?

    Why is this administration out sourcing our space program and jobs?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @D13 – doesn’t outsourcing typically imply that I am expecting a similar or same benefit, at a reduced cost/risk, by having someone else do the work rather than do it myself? “Elements” of a space program may be facilitated by the Russians, but I think “outsourcing” is a strong and misleading term.

      And by the way……we cannot afford it!

      • @Ray….gooooooooood mooooooooooooorning…..from Texas. I would agree with you because you used the term “typically”. And, in a true hard core business definition, at a reduced cost. I would not include safety in this because plenty of out sourcing is being done for the reduced cost but at greater risk for safety.

        As to the term outsourcing……..just repeating what Obama has publicly said.

        Affordability….well….we all know we can afford what we want. I would suggest keeping the space program and dropping the health care program. The health care program is going to cost a lot more and we certainly cannot afford that….HOWEVER…….if it is truly a program that we do not need, then can it. All of it. Why even pay to have it done?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning Colonel 🙂

      In an attempt to answer your question, our government has been destroying our economy for years, Obama and the gang have just sped up the destruction. When it all comes crashing down, chaos will be widespread, the people will beg the govt to help. Classic Cloward-Piven stragedy, and it’s working. It is just a matter of time. If you recall, I have made some predictions about our next presidential election, and this is why I don’t think it will occur.

    • D13, they are having to be carried out like that because the length of their time in space.

      As for NASA, with their funding being cut for decades their projects got more and more bloated. The shuttle was hideously expensive and you could argue that the ISS was built just to give it something to do. You can thank Bush for cancelling the shuttle because he saved you a lot of money.
      As for the Constellation program, it was seriously over budget and had numerous delays. You saved a lot of money by going with the tried and tested (and yes, very much cheaper) Soyuz.

      You can try and point your finger at the Obama administration but you need to go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back to the end of the Apollo program when NASA started to get strangled to ask the “Why is this administration out sourcing our space program and jobs?” question.

      • Oh, just a reminder, the US spends more on air conditioning for troops in Afghanistan than it spends on the entire NASA budget.

  31. “The use of an atomic bomb on the Japanese was an acceptable option, due in part to the attitudes of that time. While it can be argued that it was wrong or unnecessary, we base that judgment using the standards of today.”

    What I have read of this time, we illegally imprisoned thousands of US citizens and allowed their property to be seized. There were thousands of African Americans serving in the military, but they were only allowed to serve as cooks and cleaners. The nave would not allow them any combat role. All of this was acceptable by their standards.

    Sorry Flagster, but I think Plainly Spoken has a valid point. You may be right to say it was/is evil, but society then could not view their actions in that light. And that could be said about today, are the three wars we are fighting today moral? After 9/11, are we guilty of a greater evil? To me the point is about learning from the mistakes of the past and trying to avoid making them again. And I think a little girl not being free to sell lemonade is as important as any war, because ask yourself, why do we say we fight these wars?

  32. September 15, 2011
    Guilty until proven innocent?
    Don Parker, American Thinker

    Wait a second! I thought you were considered innocent until proven guilty! What the heck! Are we now expected to prove we are innocent if wrongly convicted. Is this judge saying that if someone is convicted of murder, then subsequently the prosecution’s case falls apart but because he can’t prove he didn’t do it, you’re still guilty? This judge, William T Moore, was appointed by President Clinton.

    Check this reasoning out.

    “But the judge overseeing the hearing, William T. Moore Jr., decided that in order to overturn the original jury verdict, Davis needed not only to cast doubt on the evidence against him, but to provide “clear and compelling” proof of his innocence. In an August 2010 ruling dismissing Davis’ appeal, he declared that while the state’s case “may not be ironclad,” Davis failed to make a showing of “actual innocence” and thus should not be granted a new trial. The evidentiary hearing was the first such legal proceeding in more than 50 years. ”

    To not grant a new trial is ridiculous. It’s a capital case for goodness sake.

  33. Sk,

    I just cannot understand logic where evil should be allowed to triumph because well, we shouldn’t use any means necessary to defeat evil.

    Evil wins when you use evil, SK.

    It is utterly irrational to believe that you defeat evil by using evil.

    All you do is move the evil from your enemy and embrace it yourself.

    To you, as long as you do not see evil in others, it is ok for you to be evil yourself because you do not use a mirror to see yourself – you blind yourself purposefully and thus, justify evil and forgive yourself for using it.

    Then you wonder why evil is all around you.

    “We have met the enemy and it is us”

  34. LOI,

    What I have read of this time, we illegally imprisoned thousands of US citizens and allowed their property to be seized.

    True.

    There were thousands of African Americans serving in the military,

    True
    <blockquote) but they were only allowed to serve as cooks and cleaners.
    Not true

    The nave would not allow them any combat role.

    Not true

    “A gun crew of six Negroes who were given the Navy Cross for standing by their gun when their ship was damaged by enemy attack in the Philippine area.”

    All of this was acceptable by their standards.

    However, your case is flawed by demonstration of fact.

    Sorry Flagster, but I think Plainly Spoken has a valid point.

    Sorry, I do not know Plainly’s point –
    As far as I understand his point is “evil changes depending on the era” and “evil does not change depending on the era” – so I am not sure which side of his flip flop you believe is valid.

    You may be right to say it was/is evil, but society then could not view their actions in that light.

    Are you saying people in 1942 did not believe killing innocent people was evil?

    And that could be said about today, are the three wars we are fighting today moral?

    Nope.

    After 9/11, are we guilty of a greater evil?

    Yep

    . And I think a little girl not being free to sell lemonade is as important as any war, because ask yourself, why do we say we fight these wars?

    The last war fought for freedom by US soldiers was the Civil War, and freedom lost.

    Not one war since then has been about “freedom” – though that is the excuse set for the masses.

  35. D13

    And, thus, you understand what makes him tick…although he is likely to claim we do not.

    I am very simple man and easy to figure out.

    But I am like you…..trespass on my property, I am not going to ask you why. I do not need to know why. You crossed my fence, you are on my front porch, you are not invited. How I deal with it…is my business.

    Yep – sort of.

    I like BF

    I like D13

  36. Puritan

    While I understand BF’s ‘moral’ arguments against dropping the big ones on Japan, I differ.

    No surprise.
    Few see, let alone understand, the evil they do. Rarely do we gaze our own eyes upon our own selves – we judge others harshly, but grace ourselves with mercy on a whim.

    Then, when the rest turn against us -we are so surprised!

    “Didn’t we forgive ourselves for all that evil?
    Wasn’t all that evil “worth it” for a better world?
    Why do they attack us then?”

    Myself, as someone who gives my own nation priority over the rest of mankind, would not hesitate to do what we did if it meant saving even one American life, in the context of that war. No time to screw around, no namby pamby, get er done!

    As you deliver upon others, so shall they deliver upon you.

    If I were you, I’d be utterly terrified.

  37. D13,

    he is a true believer in “Natural Law”…..study this very close as it is the basis of his postings.

    Correct.

    You have to understand that his philosophy and definition of evil will never be the same as yours.

    The problem is not my definition at all.

    The problem is that you and SK have no rational definition of it.

    Evil appears to be defined by you and SK as “what others to do me that I do not like”, which by corollary, removes any action undertaken by you as “not evil”, since the definition is never applied to yourselves.

    Kent has brilliantly talked about this in very easy and understandable essays on blog.

    Here’s one:
    http://kentmcmanigal.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/why-is-it-wrong-to-harm-the-innocent/

    From Kent’s blog:
    Evil- The Definition

    When I use the word “evil” I am referring to any act which intentionally harms an innocent person. By “innocent” I mean someone who does not deserve to be harmed at this moment. No one is “innocent” all the time, nor is anyone never “innocent”. All you can do is judge their innocence or guilt at this moment.

    In his mind there is only one definition and everything falls under it.

    Not true.
    There is only one definition that works, because no one else has presented any other coherent alternative.

    You and SK operate on an unstated concept of evil – which means “whimsical”. Many people do not dare define “evil” because their definition would apply to them and their actions and condemn themselves. People don’t like that so they apply “evil” upon others, and never themselves – thus remain immune to condemnations and therefore “remain good in all action!”

    Of course, when Natural Law of the Golden Rule falls on their head, they are all surprised and shocked.

    MacArthur and Eisenhower that also say the opposite when taken in full context.

    You state some mysterious “context”, yet never supply.
    I supply direct and acknowledged quotes, but you don’t accept them.

    That is the extent of your argument.

    I can point to countless documents in the Federal Archives that reason the opposite.

    Point, then.

    To BF, all wars in the world are started by America and/or mercantilism or hegemony.

    Not true.
    You were doing so good, but then you blundered here.

    In economics, he is a realist and Natural Law does not apply.

    False.
    Economics is the study of Natural Law in human action.

  38. D13,
    On Economics:

    The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

    F.A. Hayek

  39. BF

    How can you emphatically argue anything is evil when you claim that morality is purely subjective and determined by the individual?

    Yet despite your own standard you declare the actions of those in the past and present as evil on some absolute standard.

    To compound this you assign “understanding” of personal motivations to others not based only on their own words but on your interpretation of their words, according to your own bias.

    The Truman quote you provided is a good example. There are other ways to interpret Truman’s words that are not a mere act of “revenge” as you claim it to be. In fact, he does not mention nor describe “revenge” as a motive. But as you often do, you assign meaning to those words based on your interpretation alone and then declare it as some kind of indisputable fact.

    I suggest that statements made after the fact by men who may or may not be suffering from internal conflict and guilt are not evidence of “reasons” given/discussed/used in making a decision at the time the decision was made. Only a recording of the discussion at that point in time would be “historically accurate”. And even then we can’t be assured there is not posturing by some.

  40. JAC

    How can you emphatically argue anything is evil when you claim that morality is purely subjective and determined by the individual?

    I have no idea where you pulled this ditty from.

    The definition of evil that I use is specific and objective:
    Violence upon the non-violent

    What you think is “subjective” about that, I have no idea.

    Yet despite your own standard you declare the actions of those in the past and present as evil on some absolute standard.

    Yep. Look above at the definition and apply it.

    The definition is:
    -Universal
    -Timeless
    -Ageless
    -Independent of race, religion, culture, education, status, income, age, sex… etc.

    I’m not sure how much more “objective” you need.

    To compound this you assign “understanding” of personal motivations to others not based only on their own words but on your interpretation of their words, according to your own bias.

    I don’t give a flying _uck about your “motives”.

    I see your ACTION, and judge that.

    In fact, he does not mention nor describe “revenge” as a motive.

    He did not use the word, and I didn’t say different.

    I said “In other words, his motive was revenge”

    He said “Because they are savages they only understand savagery and therefore they did “this to us” so I will do “that to them”.

    That is the essence of revenge, JAC.
    It wasn’t to “save lives”
    It wasn’t to “end the war”

    He did not say anything whatsoever about those things – he said “tit for tat” – REVENGE.

    Thus, it is YOU who is adding YOUR emotional subjective needs where there is absolutely zero plausibility to do so.

    • BF

      Re your definition of evil. How can you claim it is timeless and ageless and universal and independent of race, religion etc, given the thousands of years of human history where violence against the non-violent was practiced and accepted?

      Please provide an objective defense of your definition. Assigning criteria to measure it is not an objective defense of the definition itself.

      • JAC,

        It doesn’t matter if what BF defines as evil was accepted at one point or another. This may just be because those who accepted these acts defined evil in a different way, or as BF describes below, were accepting of evil in certain circumstances. BF’s definition is timeless, etc. because it does not take time, race, religion, etc. into account.

        For example, if I were to say that killing a person is evil, UNLESS that person is (insert descriptive term here), then my definition would depend on (descriptive term). If I were to say killing is evil (period), then my definition does not depend on anything. This is why he can say it is timeless.

        • JB

          I understand that you could use the term both ways. But it doesn’t change the nature of my question or challenge.

          If you say killing is evil except for killing left blue eyed people. The definition of blue eyes is pretty firm and timeless as well.

          • It looks below like your primary challenge is that evil as commonly defined by humans is not timeless, independent of race, etc. I agree with this. My point was that BF’s definition is timeless, independent of race, etc. by construction. There is a big difference in these two points.

            “The definition of blue eyes is pretty firm and timeless as well.”

            I used the word timeless as a truncation of “timeless and ageless and universal and independent of race, religion etc.” Killing left blue eyed people is not all of those things (it is subjective depending on the person being killed).

            Glad I have brown eyes…

        • JB,

          Yep, that’s a pretty good summation.

  41. JAC

    e your definition of evil. How can you claim it is timeless and ageless and universal and independent of race, religion etc, given the thousands of years of human history where violence against the non-violent was practiced and accepted?

    Your argument is disassociated.

    You are holding a belief that because something is evil, it is NOT done.
    But no such definition or requirement exists.

    You are also holding a belief that because something is evil, it is NOT accepted.
    But no such definition or requirement exists here either.

    There is much evil that is accepted by many people. Their acceptance does not turn the evil into a “good”. It merely means the People are willing to accept evil and its consequences.

    But violence upon the non-violent has remained the standard of evil

    Code of Ur-Nammu, the oldest written code of law – over 4,000 years old – articulates and penalizes violence on non-violent people – murder, assault, theft.

    So to hold some sort of idea that violence on non-violent people is a “norm” or was unrecognized as “evil” or “wrong” is bizarre.

    If 4,000 years of proof cannot satisfy you, nothing will.

    Please provide an objective defense of your definition. Assigning criteria to measure it is not an objective defense of the definition itself.

    Done and posted already ad nauesum – even pointed the abundance of essays of Kent.

    “If violence on the non-violent cannot be called evil, evil has no meaning.”

  42. Ray Hawkins says:
  43. BF

    You are the one who has argued here at SUFA that morals, the subject of morality, are “subjective”. Good and evil is the essence of the study of morality.

    You claim that this concept of evil is timeless and widely accepted by humans. Yet human nature seems to contradict your view. Thus my argument is not disassociated but quite relevant. If humans have viewed violence against the innocent as “evil” then we should see a great opposition to such violence in human history, not the support of such violence.

    How ironic that you would cite the Code of Ur-Nammu since it is in fact “Govt law” imposed by a ruler. An attempt to stop violence and create order in the kingdom. If this law reflects an understanding that violence against the non-violent is evil, then why would it impose violence upon non-violent people? Why would it allow slavery to exist? Here is a list of the “code”. Note how many of the first seven require death for non-violent offenses.

    * 1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
    * 2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
    * 3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
    * 4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
    * 5. If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
    * 6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
    * 7. If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free. (§4 in some translations)
    * 8. If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin slavewoman of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver. (5)
    * 9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver. (6)
    * 10. If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her half a mina of silver. (7)
    * 11. If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver. (8)
    * 13. If a man is accused of sorcery he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels. (10)
    * 14. If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver. (11)
    * 15. If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought. (12)
    * 17. If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him. (14)
    * 18. If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver. (15)
    * 19. If a man has cut off another man’s foot, he is to pay ten shekels. (16)
    * 20. If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver. (17)
    * 21. If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver. (18)
    * 22. If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver. (19)
    * 24. […] If he does not have a slave, he is to pay 10 shekels of silver. If he does not have silver, he is to give another thing that belongs to him. (21)
    * 25. If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt. (22)
    * 28. If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver. (25)
    * 29. If a man appears as a witness, but withdraws his oath, he must make payment, to the extent of the value in litigation of the case. (26)
    * 30. If a man stealthily cultivates the field of another man and he raises a complaint, this is however to be rejected, and this man will lose his expenses. (27)
    * 31. If a man flooded the field of a man with water, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field. (28)
    * 32. If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field. (29)

    All such early codes or laws are not applied equally to “others” or the “outsiders” of the kingdom covered by the code. So how can you claim that this understanding or definition of “evil” is widely accepted or timeless.

    Quite frankly, it seems to me that it is only in recent human history that the notion has become anything close to “universal”.

  44. Bottom Line says:

    Wikipedia defines “Evil” as ” …the violation of, or intent to violate, some moral code. Evil is usually seen as the dualistic opposite of good. The philosophical question of whether morality is absolute or relative leads to questions about the nature of evil, with views falling into one of four opposed camps: moral absolutism, amoralism, moral relativism, and moral universalism.”

    I would think that deliberate coercion and/or violence against the nonviolent qualifies as ” intent to violate”

    ” dualistic opposite of good.”? …hmmm….let’s check out “Good”…

    When you Google “Good”, and click on Wikipedia, you get a choice of ” Good and evil – The distinction between positive and negative entities”

    …and it says…

    ” In religion, ethics, and philosophy, the phrase, good and evil refers to the location on a two-way spectrum of objects, desires, or behaviors, the good direction being morally positive, and the evil direction morally negative. Good is a broad concept but it typically deals with an association with life, charity, continuity, happiness, love, and prosperity. Evil is more simply defined: the opposite of good. The good and evil of a context represents a personal judgment, a societal norm, or either’s claim to an absolute value related to the human nature or transcendent religious standard for that context.

    The nature of goodness has been given many treatments; one is that the good is based on the natural love, bonding, and affection that begins at the earliest stages of personal development; another is that goodness is a product of knowing truth. Differing views also exist as to why evil might arise. Many religious and philosophical traditions claim that evil behavior is an aberration that results from the imperfect human condition (e.g. “The Fall of Man”). Sometimes, evil is attributed to the existence of free will and human agency. Some argue that evil itself is ultimately based in an ignorance of truth (i.e., human value, sanctity, divinity). A variety of Enlightenment thinkers have alleged the opposite, by suggesting that evil is learned as a consequence of tyrannical social structures.

    ”Theories of moral goodness inquire into what sorts of things are good, and what the word “good” really means in the abstract. As a philosophical concept, goodness might represent a hope that natural love be continuous, expansive, and all-inclusive. In a monotheistic religious context, it is by this hope that an important concept of God is derived —as an infinite projection of love, manifest as goodness in the lives of people. In other contexts, the good is viewed to be whatever produces the best consequences upon the lives of people, especially with regard to their states of well being. ”

    Dictionary.com defines “Good” as…

    ” [good] adjective, bet·ter, best, noun, interjection, adverb
    adjective
    1.
    morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
    2.
    satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
    3.
    of high quality; excellent.
    4.
    right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.
    5.
    well-behaved: a good child.

    noun
    42.
    profit or advantage; worth; benefit: What good will that do? We shall work for the common good.
    43.
    excellence or merit; kindness: to do good.
    44.
    moral righteousness; virtue: to be a power for good.
    45.
    (especially in the grading of U.S. beef) an official grade below that of “choice.”
    46.
    goods,
    a.
    possessions, especially movable effects or personal property.
    b.
    articles of trade; wares; merchandise: canned goods.
    c.
    Informal . what has been promised or is expected: to deliver the goods.
    d.
    Informal . the genuine article.
    e.
    Informal . evidence of guilt, as stolen articles: to catch someone with the goods.
    f.
    cloth or textile material: top-quality linen goods.
    g.
    Chiefly British . merchandise sent by land, rather than by water or air.

    I wouldn’t describe deliberate coercion and/or violence against the nonviolent as morally excellent, virtuous, righteous, right, proper, well-behaved, charity, continuity, happiness, love, prosperity, hopeful, producing the best consequences upon the lives of people, or understanding human value.

    I’m not sure violence against the non-violent DEFINES “evil”(taking into account the abstract,subjective/objective nature of defining evil), …but it sure as hell qualifies as evil.

  45. This week in review:

    Solyndra/Solyndra Financial/Solyndra Solar II/Argonaut/George Kaiser

    LightSquared/Gen. Shelton/Philip Falcone

    Operation Twist

    Geithner offering advice to Europe???

    Daley Getting Throw Under the Obama Bus???

    NY-9: “A Good Day…” per Pelosi “A very difficult district for Dem’s”.. per D W-S

    AttackWatch

    Passthisbillpassthisbillpassthisbillifyoulovemepassthisbillpassthisbill!

    What a crazy week!

    Off to high school football – have a great weekend everyone!

    PS – Have started “Waffle Street” – great read so far.

  46. JAC

    You are the one who has argued here at SUFA that morals, the subject of morality, are “subjective”. Good and evil is the essence of the study of morality.

    True.

    But evil – by my definition – is not a moral judgement.

    If a definition is supplied which is wholly objective, it cannot be subjective, and is not a moral.

    Evil cannot be judged as “moral or immoral”, it does not have “two or more sides”. It is evil – one side; this is “cannot be good”.

    In a serious study of evil as described throughout history – even within moral subjective context – all violence on non-violent people is EVIL – there are no exceptions.

    Yes, other things not violent have also been called “evil” but that does not invalidate my point above.

    Like placer gold and black sand – where you find the gold, there is always black sand, but where there is black sand does not mean there is gold.

    You claim that this concept of evil is timeless and widely accepted by humans.

    No, I define evil as “violence on the non-violent”
    Through fact of documentation, “violence on the non-violent” has been condemned as “evil” by mankind for at least the last 4,100plus years.

    All Human history condemns -> Violence on non-violent=evil, thus:

    Yet human nature seems to contradict your view.

    Based on what fact?
    Social order cannot exist where violence on the non-violent (evil) is paramount.
    Society exists.
    Therefore violence on the non-violent is a universal human condemnation and evil.

    It is human nature to justify action that are contradictory to one’s principles (or aggregated, societies principles) – this does not invert the principle – that is, what was evil now is declared a “good”.

    The justification is used as a way to appeal to mercy (when consequences of acts of evil come due), or relief of conscience. (I killed him because I had to!!)

    But the evil remains evil.

    . If humans have viewed violence against the innocent as “evil” then we should see a great opposition to such violence in human history, not the support of such violence.

    I guess 4,100 years of articulated law in opposition to violence is not enough for you.. (shrug)…

    How ironic that you would cite the Code of Ur-Nammu since it is in fact “Govt law” imposed by a ruler.

    Not true.
    The first law were merely the codification of standards of that society at the time.

    Ur-Nammu did not wake up one morning and pound out some clay tablets based on some vision from God.

    It was merely writing down what was already common practice – not a sudden revelation on how to maintain social order.

    In fact, it was merely to establish standard punishments and compensations for these actions

    Why would it allow slavery to exist?

    Ah!
    It is a justification of using evil – not a disassociation of knowing what evil is!

    “It is ‘evil’ to use violence on another man, but a slave is not a man (not human/sub-human/property, etc)” …. this is a justification.

    * 1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.

    ….
    … are not a creation of a law against these actions, but an articulation and standardization of punishment for such actions.

    True, as human action becomes more complex, the awareness that the justifications of violence used in the past have become weaker.

    It used to be enough to say “God says I am Ruler”, but that is insufficient and weak in a more complex society, so the justifications become more sophisticated … “social contract”… but the sophistication of excuses does not dismiss the evil except to those whose minds require the mercy or the relief of using evil.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Social order cannot exist where violence on the non-violent (evil) is paramount.

      Yet we all live in a society with a government committing violence upon the non-violent daily! Amazing how that’s the case and yet there still exists social order.

  47. Buck

    Social order cannot exist where violence on the non-violent (evil) is paramount.

    Yet we all live in a society with a government committing violence upon the non-violent daily! Amazing how that’s the case and yet there still exists social order.

    It is because government action remains a significant minority of the interactions between individuals of society – and, further, government violence is -for the most part- predictable.

    Government action is dwarfed by the extent of individual action by magnitudes upon magnitude of order.

    However, it does demonstrate the destructive force of violence in its ability to disrupt social order as demonstrated when government action grows within society. Economies slow and collapse; social order turns to violent overthrow and revolution; mass slaughter and destruction over entire nations and continents are the consequence.

    This latter effect of government is commonly seen as a “benefit” to many people – a tradeoff of massive, centralized, distributed over a broad base (society) and constant violence instead of the alternative of small, diffuse, individual, rare, and highly unpredictable violence of the criminal.

    Because of this illusionary benefit, most people compensate for the destruction wrought by government instead of stopping its destruction – for they fear stopping government destruction would eliminate its predictable violence (and subduing the criminal violence) and find the small, unpredictable violence of criminals left remaining or expanding.

  48. @ Buck…..I am not absolving Perry sir….Take Perry out and put the name of any governor. And, yes, I will blame the judiciary…(1) they put them there, (2) they can also solve the problem.

    Why is it any governors fault? It is not. A governor does not put them in jail nor convict them, nor, nor sentence them….Perry included.

    You still did not answer the question. So I will ask again.

    Where were the lawyers and the judges to stay an execution and even file for new trials? Where were they? Why is it a governor’s, any governor, responsibility to do anything other than follow the law? And why is following the law a reason to lose sleep? It is the law, whether good or bad. Still the law and you, as an officer of the court, knows this.

    So, ask this question…..if he was innocent and there was more than ample evidence to prove it…where was the law? Where was the judge…..why is it Perry’s or any governors fault?

  49. Documents obtained by Fox News suggest that for decades Pakistan spread nuclear weapon technology around the globe in exchange for cash, political influence and help with its own atomic bomb program. Among those on the other side of the deals: China, Iran, North Korea and Libya.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/16/exclusive-new-aq-khan-documents-suggest-pakistan-spread-nuclear-weapon/#ixzz1Y9n0enc3

  50. Fourth-Trimester Abortion
    September 13, 2011 10:43 A.M.
    By Mark Steyn

    From the Court of Queen’s Bench (the appellate court) in Alberta:

    The Wetaskiwin, Alta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given
    a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge.

    Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard…

    Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

    Indeed. As Judge Joanne Veit puts it:

    “While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” she writes… “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

    Gotcha. So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six months in? The terrible twos?

    Speaking of “onerous demands,” suppose you’re a “mother without support” who’s also got an elderly relative around with an “onerous” chronic condition also making inroads into your time?

    And in what sense was Miss Effert a “mother without support”? She lived at home with her parents, who provided her with food and shelter. How smoothly the slick euphemisms — “accept and sympathize . . . onerous demands” — lubricate the slippery slope.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277027/fourth-trimester-abortion-mark-steyn

    Please note-the reasoning used-not the woman was suffering from some type of mental or physical problem which made her not responsible for her acts-but based on abortion rhetoric to justify killing after birth. What the population thinks of abortion-shouldn’t come into a case about killing a child after they are born-should it? But it does because you cannot lesson the value of life and not expect it -to lesson the value of life!

    • but but but…..

      The pro abortion crowd says this stuff would NEVER happen!

      • It is truly horrifying that this judge through her words, has just put it on legal record that pregnancy and motherhood is so onerous that this fact alone is all it takes to justify killing a baby.

  51. All work and no play make Mathius a dull boy..

  52. This sounds interesting, not as a political tool to win the next election but as a way to better represent the peoples voices-what do you guys think?

    Change proposed for state’s electoral vote process
    Tuesday, September 13, 2011
    By Laura Olson, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

    HARRISBURG — A new proposal is pushing the often-forgotten Electoral College into the spotlight as Pennsylvania officials ponder the state’s role in next year’s presidential race.

    Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state’s “winner-takes-all” approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he’s suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.

    So far, the idea has received support from colleagues of the Delaware County Republican in the state House and from Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. But Democrats, who have carried the state in presidential contests since 1992, said the shift would erode Pennsylvania’s clout.

    Only two states — Nebraska and Maine — divide their electoral votes instead of giving the whole bloc to the candidate that wins the state’s popular vote. Even for those two states, the piecemeal approach has been a rarity, with Nebraska historically dividing its five votes in the 2008 election, when one went to President Barack Obama.

    An analysis by the online news service Capitolwire noted that had the proposed distribution process been in place in Pennsylvania in 2008 before the state lost one congressional district due to a population decline in the 2010 census, Mr. Obama would have won only 11 of the state’s 21 votes.

    Blasting the idea as “a disturbing effort to put their self interests and party interests ahead of the people,” Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, said the plan would dangerously link the presidential vote to redistricting. In a written statement, Mr. Costa asked: “Will we now be looking at state gerrymandering that serves a larger, national agenda?”

    Mr. Pileggi and others disagreed, saying congressional districts that are more competitive would receive more attention and would not be overshadowed when the state leans one way or another politically.

    “It would not only change the type of attention that Pennsylvania would receive in a presidential election, but it would also choose where in Pennsylvania that attention occurs,” he said.

    Franklin & Marshall College political scientist G. Terry Madonna echoed that sentiment, noting that the influx of presidential funds and manpower to vulnerable congressional districts could impact local races as well.

    “While I don’t think it’s likely to influence the outcome of the presidential election, it may spur turnout in some congressional districts with perhaps some unpredictable results,” Mr. Madonna said.

    Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11256/1174283-454.stm#ixzz1YE7ULb36

    • California recently passed a law that all the CA’s electoral votes will go to the national popular vote winner. This does not go into effect until 3/4 of all states also agree to this method.

  53. On the surface-this doesn’t sound that bad-so why does it scare the crap out of me-“monitoring monthly progress” 😯 So your price can go down-What goes down -can go up-sounds like an easy way to price someone who has gotten sick -out of the policy.

    Shape Up or Pay Up: Emanuel

    |
    Email

    Mayor Rahm Emanuel is giving city workers an important health choice: enroll in a new wellness plan, expected to be unveiled Friday, or pay a higher premium.

    The price if they don’t enroll: $50 a month.

    The program includes an initial screening that focuses on preventative care for asthma, heart disease and diabetes. City employees would then receive wellness training to achieve long-term health goals, including weight loss.

    Smokers wouldn’t be penalized, but they would be encouraged to quit. Advisers overseeing the program will monitor progress on a bimonthly basis, and those who reach their goals could see their health care premiums reduced.

    “We will help you be a good steward for your health,” Emanuel said Friday, “but if you choose not to, you’ll pay that price and that is the price you’ll have to pay.”

    The mayor believes the program will help cut the annual $500 million bill for health care for city employees.

    “We are going to implement a citywide wellness plan for city employees,” Emanuel confirmed at a recent press conference, “because health care costs for the city are being driven by 10 percent a year, and we’re not seeing revenue grow that way.”

    Most city unions have signed on to the agreement, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, except the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents more than 10,000 city employees.

    The FOP says its members have different health concerns and it doesn’t want members to pay higher premiums if they decide not to enroll in the program.

    But Emanuel says the program is a necessary step to getting healthcare costs under control.

    “You can’t ask the taxpayers to pay for a healthcare problem that you can manage and do a good job,” Emanuel said. “You can do that with cholesterol, you can do that through diabetes, you can do that through smoking, through heart, blood pressure. Every one of those is manageable.”
    BY Lauren Jiggetts // Friday, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:51 CDT | Print

    Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Shape-Up-or-Pay-Up-Emanuel-129945248.html#ixzz1YKDC9u5l

    • Isn’t this unbelievable? It is Chicago, however, and they deserve whatever is thrown at them for all their years of electing and putting up with their corrupt pols.

  54. Here you go Charlie. Get those envy juices flowing……

    http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/americas-millionaire-capitals.html

  55. Bottom Line says:

    • Hmmmmm……wonder if that was real or staged.

      • Or dubbed over…

      • Bottom Line says:

        I’m guessing it is authentic. I’ve seen MANY vids just like it, as well as witnessed a couple of them snap like that.

        Normally when you say that to a cop, you end up waiting while another officer fetches a warrant.

        But for some reason he couldn’t access that warrant, or else he would have.

        The judge was probably away on a golf trip or something.

  56. MSNBC had a synopsis of this “Buffett” tax that is coming out and is blasting the President for it. Saw it on their broadcast this morning. And, are you ready for this….D13 can at least say its fair….even if I do not like it. I think it is a regressive tax…however……it is being dubbed the millionaire and billionaire tax but it hits everyone over $22,500. At least it is hitting 90% of the population as it should…BUT…it is still double taxation and it is on capital gains…..and capital gains means any investment in which there is a profit…..and, as I understand it, there will be no consideration or deduction allowed for cars, boats, houses, and garage sales. So,a little misdirection in its selling but its application is universal….THAT is the only thing that I can agree with.

    • @ Buck……and I said it was fair “without” your coffee or a DP. 🙂

    • D13,

      All tax is dangerous, destructive and manipulative.

      This will do nothing to relieve any pressure on government budgets as there has been no government cuts – indeed, I will bet the next budget will be bigger than now, and will be larger by more than the predicted gain of such a tax (as the actual gain will be far, far less than claimed).

      It will raise the ire of the voting public – which may be a good thing – but the voters will place their faith into another charlatan and fool – which will continue to make things far far worse.

      It is but a step in the continued dissolution and destruction of the NWO and the State – necessary and painful as it will be.

      • BF

        Paying taxes is YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY my friend. It is the cost of living in a civilized society.

        It is time you join humanity and stop hiding out with your machine friends.

      • D13,

        So much for making a difference …. here comes the budget increases….

        Senate Appropriators Pass $50M FDA Budget Increase, Mainly For Food Law. The Senate appropriations panel cleared the fiscal 2012 FDA budget bill late Wednesday (Sept. 7) to boost FDA funding by $50 million beyond this year’s level, with the bulk of the additional money targeting implementation of the new food safety law and leaving the medical product portfolio with nominal changes ahead of user fee negotiations next year.

      • Oh, I quite agree, sir….My only point to make is that all this hoopla about millionaires and billionaires is smoke filled coffee house bull shit. It hits everybody and while I disagree with the tax….I do like that it hits everyone. Not just the rich.

    • President Obama on Monday proposed a deficit reduction plan that calls for about $3 in new tax increases for every dollar in additional spending cuts as he seeks to put his imprint on the ongoing talks with Congress over reducing the government’s staggering debt.

      In a plan his advisers described as his ideological vision rather than a compromise offer to Hill Republicans, Mr. Obama also threatened to veto any plan Congress sends him that makes changes to Medicare benefits without also raising taxes on the wealthy, which he argues is central to a “balanced” approach.

      “This is not class warfare, it’s math,” Mr. Obama said in the White House’s Rose Garden as he laid out the outlines. “The money’s got to come from some place.”

      The White House argues his plan totals $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years, though $1.1 trillion of that comes from savings on war-fighting expenses that all sides agree were going to happen anyway as the U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan shrink. Another $1.2 trillion has already been signed into law in last month’s debt deal and another $430 billion comes from lower interest payments because of the potential lower debt.

      Yet another $450 billion comes from the tax increases the president proposed last week — and has already accounted for in new spending he wants on infrastructure, and other tax cuts.
      President Obama walks away from the podium after making a statement at the White House on Sept. 19, 2011. (Associated Press)President Obama walks away from the podium after making a statement at the White House on Sept. 19, 2011. (Associated Press)

      That means in terms of actual new proposals, the president’s plan totals about $1.2 trillion, of which the lion’s share comes from his longstanding vow to raise taxes back to Clinton-era rates on the top income brackets. The rest is $580 billion in reductions to formula-driven entitlement programs such as Social Security, with much of the savings coming from reducing overpayments and finding waste.

      Those $580 billion in newly proposed cuts are dwarfed nearly three-to-one by the $1.5 trillion in additional taxes the president wants to see going forward.

      Mr. Obama said his plan calls for $2 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases, but he reaches that by re-counting cuts already in law or in the planning pipeline, and by factoring in lower debt service costs.

      The White House said if Mr. Obama’s plans are enacted, debt held by the public would peak at above 75 percent of GDP in 2013 — a rise of 15 percentage points in just three years — but would then begin a slow decline.

  57. THE NEXT STEP FOR EUROPE: Merkel Will Press Obama And The Fed To Help Bail Out The Eurozone

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/merkel-will-press-obama-and-the-fed-to-bail-out-the-eurozone-2011-9#ixzz1YQ184xQl

    …which has effectively caused a drop in gold prices.

    Your test for today:
    A coherent reason why this act would drop gold prices.

    Hint:
    This is a golden opportunity to buy gold at a discount if you have not yet reached your gold ownership goals.

    • Obama would have to be a complete idiot to bail out anything in Europe….wait….the first part is already accomplished. He, and his staff, are complete economics idiots. I don’t get it. Even the most stupid should know that you cannot spend your way out of debt, deficit, or trouble.

    • BF

      I am still waiting for YOUR explanation of why gold prices fell when this potential deal was announced.

  58. All I can say is -COOL

    Online gamers crack AIDS enzyme puzzle
    AFPAFP – 23 hrs ago

    Online gamers have achieved a feat beyond the realm of Second Life or Dungeons and Dragons: they have deciphered the structure of an enzyme of an AIDS-like virus that had thwarted scientists for a decade.

    The exploit is published on Sunday in the journal Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, where — exceptionally in scientific publishing — both gamers and researchers are honoured as co-authors.

    Their target was a monomeric protease enzyme, a cutting agent in the complex molecular tailoring of retroviruses, a family that includes HIV.

    Figuring out the structure of proteins is vital for understanding the causes of many diseases and developing drugs to block them.

    But a microscope gives only a flat image of what to the outsider looks like a plate of one-dimensional scrunched-up spaghetti. Pharmacologists, though, need a 3-D picture that “unfolds” the molecule and rotates it in order to reveal potential targets for drugs.

    This is where Foldit comes in.

    Developed in 2008 by the University of Washington, it is a fun-for-purpose video game in which gamers, divided into competing groups, compete to unfold chains of amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — using a set of online tools.

    To the astonishment of the scientists, the gamers produced an accurate model of the enzyme in just three weeks.

    Cracking the enzyme “provides new insights for the design of antiretroviral drugs,” says the study, referring to the lifeline medication against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

    It is believed to be the first time that gamers have resolved a long-standing scientific problem.

    “We wanted to see if human intuition could succeed where automated methods had failed,” Firas Khatib of the university’s biochemistry lab said in a press release.

    “The ingenuity of game players is a formidable force that, if properly directed, can be used to solve a wide range of scientific problems.”

    One of Foldit’s creators, Seth Cooper, explained why gamers had succeeded where computers had failed.

    “People have spatial reasoning skills, something computers are not yet good at,” he said.

    “Games provide a framework for bringing together the strengths of computers and humans. The results in this week’s paper show that gaming, science and computation can be combined to make advances that were not possible before.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/online-gamers-crack-aids-enzyme-puzzle-175427367.html

  59. God Bless OSHA…………………I am so glad to see how on top of things they are. Federal OSHA officials going after Sea World in the accidental drowning death of the trainer a year or so ago.
    “Whales are large, powerful,” said John Black, an attorney for the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

    Gee. Such an astute observation from a highly trained government official.

    The first of the three citations by OSHA claimed SeaWorld exposed its workers to drowning hazards and the chance of being struck during interactions with killer whales.

    Let’s see if I understand this correctly….Whale trainers in whale pool filled with 200,000 gallons of sea water and the trainers are to drowning and being struck during interactions with whales. Gotta hand to government trained observers.

    The second citation said SeaWorld failed to install a stairway railing system on the stage in Shamu Stadium, where the killer whale show, “Believe,” took place. The citation said a section of the stage without a railing had a 10-foot drop.

    More interesting observation from our highly trained OSAH inspectors……citing the part of the stage where the whale jumps 10 feet to take food from the trainer’s hand. There was no mention of the two safety harnesses that hold the trainer in place to lean out over the pool.

    A third citation said SeaWorld failed to equip outdoor electrical receptacles in Shamu Stadium with weatherproof enclosures.

    I am sure that weather proof enclosures (all within the employee area) are going to prevent more drownings in the whale pool.
    Un-friggin- believable.

  60. News Flash……( I have heard no other confirmation ) but the news tickler that runs across the bottom of the screen on CNN said…

    “Obama vows to veto Palestinian statehood.” Interesting as I thought he was all for it.

  61. I’m officially horrified-but on a purely technical basis-is the clinic guilty for not seeing the defeats? Will doctors be so careful to make sure they see any possible defeats-that they will exaggerate possibilities-just to be on the safe side? How will doctors protect themselves from this type of case? Is this the new money maker for attorneys-Wrongful Birth 😦 😦

    Couple Wins $4.5 Million in ‘Wrongful Birth’ Lawsuit After Claiming They Would Have Aborted Disabled Son

    * Posted on September 19, 2011 at 2:42pm by Billy Hallowell Billy Hallowell

    Ana Mejia testifying about her son Bryan’s disabilities (Photo Credit: Richard Graulich/Palm Beach Post)

    Many times, “wrongful death” is at the root cause of a lawsuit, but what happens in the case of a “wrongful birth” charge?

    In West Palm Beach, Florida, a couple sued a doctor and an ultrasound technician for negligence. The two claimed that they would have aborted their son, who was born with no arms and only one leg, had they known about his disabilities beforehand. PalmBeachPost.com’s Jane Musgrave writes:

    [The parents] claimed they would have never have brought Bryan into the world had they known about his horrific disabilities. Had Morel and technicians at OB/GYN Specialists of the Palm Beaches and Perinatal Specialists of the Palm Beaches properly administered two ultrasounds and seen he was missing three limbs, the West Palm Beach couple said they would have terminated the pregnancy.

    As a result of what some are calling a “wrongful birth,” Ana Mejia and Rodolfo Santana sued Dr. Marie Morel and an ultrasound technician for $9 million — a figure that was estimated to cover the child’s expenses for the next 70 years.

    The couple believe that the doctor and his staff member should have noticed the baby’s issues before he was born. For what was apparently seen as a failure to properly read sonograms, a jury comprised of four men and two women sided with the couple, holding the doctor 85 percent negligent and the technician 15 percent negligent.

    While the couple didn’t win the fill amount they wanted, they walked away with $4.5 million — half of the figure that was originally requested. Feeling overjoyed, they explained that the award would greatly assist their son Bryan.

    Attorney Mark Rosen, who represents Morel and the responsible clinics, says that the losing party will appeal. According to Rosen, the couple had refused an amniocentesis, which may have helped to predict Bryan’s problems before his birth. According to LifeSiteNews.com, he said:

    “There is nothing Dr. Morel wants more than for Bryan Santana to have a happy, healthy life. That doesn’t mean they’re responsible. Is it fair to blame physicians for acts of nature?”

    The Palm Beach Post’s editorial board weighed in on this contentious battle, with Andrew Marra taking a stand against the parents’ lawsuit:

    Bryan’s parents are understandably upset that they had no warning about the issues that awaited him. The problem with their lawsuit is its premise that their son is more flawed or somehow worse than a person with four fully formed limbs.

    Despite his considerable deformities, there is no reason to assume that Bryan cannot lead a fulfilling and productive life…Certainly, Bryan will face challenges that few have to consider, and that is tragic. Whether these obstacles mean his life is not worth living should be up to him to decide, not to Ms. Mejia and a jury of her peers.

    But Jac Wilder VerSteeg has a very different stance on the matter:

    Ana Mejia absolutely is morally justified in suing health care providers who failed to warn her that her son, now 3 years old, would be born with three limbs missing. […]

    So how does a mother who would have terminated a pregnancy have any standing to argue on that child’s behalf? Isn’t there something inherently hypocritical about a “wrongful life” lawsuit?

    Not at all.

    What do you think — do Mejia and Santana deserve the $4.5 million they’ve been awarded? Take our poll, below:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/couple-wins-4-5-million-in-wrongful-birth-lawsuit-after-claiming-they-would-have-aborted-disabled-son/

    • That’s birth defects not defeats.

    • What a wonderful thing for this child to find out when he grows up… My parents would have killed me if they knew I was disabled. How is he supposed to cope with his disability realizing that his parents feel this way?

    • VH…remember that the lawyer was probably on contingency and walks away with 1/3 of this. I mean absolutely no disrespect to my barrister friend, Buck, as I know his integrity is far above this….but his profession, like others, does not have a stellar reputation. Is there negligence….I would say no but apparently a jury said differently. Is it really a negligent situation to assume that an abortion was not done because they did not know and, therefore, a negligent situation arises because they wanted to kill their baby? Is it normal to assume that parents would not ask if everything was ok? This stinks. The very first question I would ask would be…..does he/she have all fingers, toes, basic necessities of life? In today’s technology of determining birth defects in the first trimester….what capable loving parent would not want to know?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Its a two-part inquiry for the jury:

        1) Was the doctor negligent in his failure to properly administer or read the sonogram?
        2) Is there sufficient evidence to believe that the parents would have had an abortion had they known?

        The jury found ‘Yes’ on both questions.

        • Interesting…..obviously more to this that I read. Doesn’t change my mind any but it is our system of jurisprudence.

          How are you sir….we got a little rain…couple of inches need about 10 feet more. The weather gurus say we will still be in drought the rest of this year….La Nina or something like that.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            So quick to pounce on the lawyers these days, huh colonel!?

            I’m good — got my cup of joe, plenty of work to take me through the day, and vacation coming up at the end of the week! Weather’s been a touch chilly lately (I’m sure Mathius is walking around with his bear jacket – crazy Los Angeleno!) but mostly sunny.

            • Oh yes, to the lawyers (at least lawyers are sometimes necessary evils)…..and politicians (well, when you find a good use for them, let me know…they even make my raptors sick)….(there are exceptions in the lawyer field and I feel you are one of those…exceptions, that is….you actually have integrity, I can see that……a little strange in some of your thought, tho…but you are ok in my book)……

              Is the temp under 90? If so…..chilly. Sweater weather…..enjoy the jo……I have the DP.

              • I do have an interesting question for you, counselor. I do not know if you are a father or not but….would you not ask the question if everything was ok as soon as a sonogram was taken? I mean, if they knew the gender of the child, why would not a parent ask……silly me, I guess.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Thank you for the vote of confidence and integrity. That may change though were you to find out I wouldn’t refuse to take this case per se. Oops, cats out of the bag!

                Nope, not a father, but you bet your a** I would ask that question. Did these parents? I don’t know. Even if they didn’t though, we would still need to know exactly what the doctor had said to them.

                Well under 90 here – hovering around 70. I should have figured you would need your jacket too, being from Texas and all…

              • Damn cats….hard to corral, sometimes. 🙂

            • Hey! That bear jacket is great.

              I killed that bear with my bare hands – it would be a disservice to his memory to waste his pelt.

      • From a purely legal standpoint-the parents had the “legal” right to abort this baby,they paid for this test-which either did or didn’t give them this information-if it was shown to clearly show the defects-than one could determine that the clinic was negligent in not giving it to them so they could make a decision based on the test. Not sure why they had to state that they would have aborted??????

        Course if abortions weren’t legal-we wouldn’t have these types of legal questions. Just another step on this immoral road.

        But now that a court has said one can be responsible for someone else choosing not to kill their unborn child-what effect will this have on insurance costs through paper work, additional tests or whatever else doctors and lawyers do because of this case? How many people who have disabled children will sue-just to get the money? etc. etc.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          This actually isn’t the first time this type of case has proceeded. But the entire reason why they had to state that they would have aborted is because the negligence of the doctor here does not go to causing the child’s disability, the negligence goes towards the parents having the child given the fact (and this is not easy to prove) that the parents would have opted not to proceed with the pregnancy if they had known of the child’s disability.

      • d13,

        Actually, my wife and I have had 2 ultrasounds now. While this is happening, the nurse apparently knows what she is seeing, but I really can’t tell for most of it. I can pick out important features of course (and we even saw her grab her foot and stick out her tongue!). To tell the truth, we were very much dependent on the nurse and doctor. We didn’t ask “are all of the limbs in place?” The nurse and doctor said, “everything looks good” and we believed them.

        Incidentally, we declined most of the genetic tests. After seeing this miracle taking place, I can’t imagine how someone would choose to kill their child because their life will be hard. I would much rather do my absolute best to make sure that their life is the best it can be. If it is full of love and support, it is a good life. Much preferable to death in any case…

        • I can see that also JB……We did not have this technology available when my children came along. We had to wait and see…….first thing I did was count fingers and toes…..lol.

    • V.H.

      I agree, this case poses serious issues in the long run.

      I find it very odd that the “requested settlement” was supposedly for the child’s long term care yet was based on the parents decision to kill the child.

      If the money was to care for the child, for life, then they are in essence acting on behalf of the child to get compensation for “injury to the child”. Which logically means that being born was the injury and that it was caused by the doctor and technician.

      Obviously there is an economic impact to them during his childhood. But this again means that the doctor caused the injury, which again leads to birth itself being determined as the injury.

      So now that we have established that birth itself is injurious, when the alternative is available, how long before the psychotic can later sue the doctor for allowing him to be born.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        A bit off on your analysis today JAC (usually even though we disagree, you’re very much on point). Of course the settlement was to be used for the child’s care, but it is not to pay for the injury to the child. And the injury is not birth. The settlement is payment to the parents for the financial hardship of caring for their child that they would not have had to undertake if they knew of the disability and opted not to have the child.

        • Oh boy, all the legal nuance aside-we have just crossed over into suing because someone wasn’t killed, instead of because they were.

        • Buck

          Actually I said that it was “both”. Except that the parents can not really claim they have any costs past the age of 18. At that point it becomes the child’s injury.

          I was also using the statement made in the article that the parents were suing for 4 million to cover the child’s expenses for a full lifetime of 70 years. At age 18 those costs move to the “adult” child. The parent can spend if they want, but they have no legal obligation to do so.

          And no matter how you try to cut it Buck, the essence of this case rests on the claim that allowing this child to be born alive CAUSED the injury to the parents and/or the child.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I agree — the injury stems from the birth itself, but it is not the birth itself that is the injury. Its an important distinction to make.

            As for the cost moving to the adult child, depending on the state it could be 21 or even 25, but you are correct that there is a line where that is no longer the responsibility of the parent. But let’s be honest — it could be a lifetime of much higher costs to the parents regardless of this line.

            • Hmmm, I wonder if the doctor could also be charged with causing the babies abortion-through misinformation too. Then on a Freedom of religion basis-if the doctor can be ruled responsible for the baby not being aborted-is he free to refuse to give sonograms because he would consider his self complicit in causing the abortion .

  62. A little lengthy but well worth the time. A good review of our problems.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/peter-schiff/2011/09/20/ceo-blows-away-congressional-hearing-i-was-fined-hiring-too-many-people

    Schiff is good. Can’t say much for DR. Boushey.

  63. The Pelosi Two Step……the new bridge being built adjacent to the GG bridge………..built in China because California could not afford the union labor. She says that lower costs was the decision to use China manufacturers of USA…….hypocrisy anyone?

    • Just finished watching the rest of that story……it is also being put together with non union labor.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        No surprise there. The hotels/ resorts she and her hubby own are very, very non union (like try to organize and your fired). The vinyards they own do not use UFW labor.

        Reading something interesting last night about unionization in the past. Somebody finally said something I have been thinking of for years which is that unions exist to restrict the size of the labor force, thereby driving up wages. This in turn led to the post WW 2 middle class being created (of which many of us are beneficiaries unless our last names are Rockefeller, Vanderbilt or Ford). When unions got beyond their initial purpose and into the land of free bennies then the rationale for their actions became suspect at best. Even union members turned on other union members for common sense reasons.

        With the current destruction of the middle class one wonders if unions will get back to basics and see a resurgence. I must admit that if they stay with demanding things like the employers picking up 100% of health care or pension costs when their salaries are reasonable as the public service workers do, they are doomed. ,

  64. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    I remember once, back in the early 1960’s there was a TV show called “the Defenders”, one episode which has stayed with me all these years involved a twenty-one year old who sued his doctor and won on the grounds that the doctor administered oxygen to him as a newborn which resulted in blindness. The interesting thing was that had the doctor not administered the oxygen, the child would have certainly died. It was probably Hyalaine membrane syndrome, in the news at the time because President Kennedy’s newborn died of it.

    At the end of the program, the young man was asked by the doctor, that if knowing the alternative to blindness was death, would you have preferred to die? I’m sorry to say I don’t remember his answer other than it was some type of cliffhanger where he never said yes or no.

    Those of us who do not have to face these issues of life and death are fortunate we don’t. A friend of my son’s has just found out their infant has a rare brain deformity which may cause retardation. I know someone whose eight year old was not delivered properly and has problems because of it. My eldest son has a friend from high school whose arms and legs were stunted at the elbows and knees. On the other hand I actually know a couple who twenty years ago had an abortion because the child was a girl and they already had one of those. I don’t think that there are ever easy answers.

    • WE certainly are-and I don’t mean to imply that it is-but how hard something is-just shouldn’t be the determining factor on whether or not something is the right thing to do. It is much better to determine the right thing before you have to face the hard thing.

  65. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.wallstreetsurvivor.com/CS/forums/p/45227/377829.aspx

    Since we haven’t had anything new to talk about in a while, how about that?

    At least it got covered by the Washington Post and ABC.

    • GRRRRRR!!!!!! that’s all I know to say-lets promote the expensive government backed losers and kill the productive energy avenues during really bad economic times.

  66. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.wallstreetsurvivor.com/CS/forums/p/45227/377829.aspx

    Sorry if this shows up twice, but it didn’t look like it posted the first time.

    “Green Jobs”… yeah, they’re green all right lol.

  67. I cannot get behind any job bill the President now proposes even if it is good. Over one hundred thousand jobs have been sent to China by this very administration and infrastructure manufacturing is being done in China. How can anyone get behind a jobs bill under this type of hypocrisy. And now China is beneficiary to our brand new fighter avionics, thanks to GE sending its division over there by Obama;s job Czar……..Immelt.

    This man is worse than any Republican and that includes Richard M Nixon.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      You can’t support a jobs bill even if you agree with it just because Obama is the one proposing it!? Come on now Colonel. Have some coffee. Take a few breaths!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Jobs bill my ass. It’s a stimulus with a new name to pay off more of his supporters. It will create zero jobs.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Wasn’t talking about the merits of this jobs bill — the colonel had stated he wouldn’t support any jobs bill proposed by this administration (even if he agreed with it) simply because it was proposed by this administration.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Honestly Buck, I wouldn’t support anything coming out of DC now, regardless of which party proposed it. I agree with the good Colonel, this adminstration is the worst ever in my lifetime. Obama makes Carter look great, and that is very sad.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            C-Span is a wonderful tool. Most recently it allowed me to watch Issa’s hearings on “Fast and Furious”. I have been a gun owner since I was 15 and bought my first rifle in NYC when I turned 16. When permits for rifles and Shotguns became required I applied at age 20, I applied and received a target pistol permit when I was 30. The same year, I filed for and did not receive an exemption for the registration of an obsolete 100 year old rifle which used unavailable ammunition because, the registration authority said “You could have the cartridges individually manufactured”. Upon moving to New jersey I legally transferred the registrations of my pistols here and then legally removed my M-1 carbine, 15 plus round magazines and AR-15 from the state when the legislature decided they were assault weapons. My point being that there are few out there who have the hands on experience of dealing with the firearms bureaucracy that I do.

            I tie these all together with the C-Span comment since I had the privilege of watching most of the Issa hearings. This administration is composed almost exclusively of liars. Field agents risked their careers coming forward and telling the truth. Their bosses not only don’t seem to remember who authorized “Fast and Furious” but are unaware of “when” anything happened. For this they got promotions I understand. I cannot tell you how many times I was waiting for the witness to invoke the fifth amendment the only real excuse for anything they did which was never done.

            Now, I am not letting Congress of the hook here either. The absolute blather perpetrated on the committee by the agency’s flacks would, in my youth, have resulted in citations for contempt of congress. I have a sneaking suspicion that there has been a deal worked out among Republicans and Democrats where they go so far and no further. In return, when they have a president who screws up, the opposite party will reciprocate. Whether this came out of the Nixon or Clinton unpleasantness or both, I don’t know. All I do know is that the hearings were useless other than as a forum for the congress to “look like” it was doing its job.

            My point, I would not believe anything anyone in this administration says about anything. Getting away from my area of expertise for a moment, just who has made the call on asking those geniuses at 1600 how many innocent, civilian lives have been lost in Libya as a result of starting a war to save innocent civilian lives? The game, my friend, is rigged. ,

      • Buck…..my own integrity will not let me support it because of the hypocrisy that is involved and before you ask….I would do the same if Perry stood on a stage and made claims of being concerned about middle class and jobs and then supports sending 100,000 middle class jobs over seas and then follow it with the hypocrisy of raising taxes on ANYONE….because of low revenues. I am offended that his jobs czar has sent two divisions of GE overseas for cheaper labor AND a special deal to shelter income. I am offended that Pelosi sits in her ivory tower lamenting US Business about sending jobs over seas…..and then supports sending the manufacturing of California’s new bridge to China. I am offended that Pelosi laments companies that do not hire union labor when her own companies will not hire union labor.

        It is pure hypocrisy for him or this administration to pound the pulpit and then do the opposite and claim he is for the US. So, I apply the “chicken Little” theory. He could stand on a stage and tell the truth now and I will not believe him if he had ten thousand angels sitting on his shoulder swearing he was right. I am tired of all the hypocrisy from all sides…..but especially this one. He and his administration is a joke.

        Now, you can add the hypocrisy of the first lady going around claiming this new policy on helping our US Veterans in her new program. It is pure bull shit but we all know that and do not pay any attention to her.

        It is the hypocrisy, Buck…….not the individual.

    • D-The last thing I read about the avionics thing-some government agency was discussing stopping GE from giving it to China-What happened????

  68. Bottom Line says:
  69. gmanfortruth says:

    Do you think it’s time to get a grip on the future?

    http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/time-to-consider-the-future/

  70. With no solution in sight for Europe and new fears of a global recession, investors dumped stocks and commodities and ran to the safety of U.S. Treasurys.

    So, commodities like gold, silver and platinum all went down as did the stock market.

    Question you have to ask: when the T-bills pay zero percent and inflation picks up, what will happen to T-bills? Where will the money go?

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      You raise a fascinating point here. As they said at the beginning of “Star Trek” We are boldly going where no man has gone before. What is the likelihood (only half facetiously) they will start paying us for borrowing money? Well of course, not us but rather Goldman Saks.

%d bloggers like this: