Reason Vs. Emotion

I grew up with a very logical father whom I adore(d). That, combined with some natural brain wiring has always made me prefer the logical side of the mind. Still, I always had more empathy than my dad, and I discovered it made a huge difference in life. We are not an island, it is good to have some ability to interact with others on an emotional level. I went through some very bad sections of my life, however, that were characterized by my total abandon of reason in favor of emotion and feeling. Every time I have allowed myself to lead totally with my emotions, despite my logical side, I have always ended up in trouble, turmoil, etc., be it psychological, financial, or some combination.

That said, I discovered, when my defense mechanisms kicked in, that logic and reason is not the answer either. My default defensive position is to shut down all emotion and feeling and mimic Mr. Spock from Star Trek as closely as possible. In the end, placing logic as the sole dictator of one’s mind really can destroy the soul. It is not that it makes you evil, it’s that it makes you soulless. A robot. Robots are not bad, they just aren’t good either. I prefer to be good, and I think “good” is essential to human interaction and to “good” in society.

So, yes, the Libra libertarian says it’s all about balance, big surprise. Actually, you would be surprised how hard it was to really embrace emotion after what my emotions did to me. Every bad decision I ever made, every time I have ever hurt myself badly, and every time I have ever really hurt other people I was leading with my emotions. On the other hand, some of the greatest beauty in my life also came from leading with the heart also, though most of those times I was still using my reasoning side at least a little bit.

The champions of reason always rail against the idea of the ends justifying the means. This is true. What they usually miss, however, is that the means do not always justify the ends, either. I fully agree that doing what “feels right” or doing something with a lofty goal does not excuse doing the wrong thing along the way. Caring for the poor by stealing from the rich is still wrong. However, declaring that one’s actions are “right” just because they are logical and consistent without concern for the outcome of those actions is equally problematic. What is it that makes a certain path “right”? Consistency is a key factor, to be sure, but one of the key things missed by Ayn Rand, for instance, is that just because something makes logical sense does not make it right, and more importantly, it does not make it realistic in terms of human philosophy. Humanity does not always act logically, often leading to things of beauty and even leading to innovation. A moral code cannot depend entirely on the means nor the ends, both must meet the criteria one has set for morality. If following perfect logic, for instance, leads to war and destruction, is that end justified by the means? According to whom? Is not, in that case, logic held as nothing more than a god in some religion? One must remain open to observations of reality, and reality does not always make sense, especially when that reality is the reality of the human experience and human nature.

The mind is more than feeling, the mind is more than reason. Faith, emotion, logic, reason…these are all aspects of the mind. All of these should not only be recognized, but utilized. To ignore any one of them leads to issues, and often one simply is in denial of engaging in that which they deny. That usually means they are caught off guard by it, they do things thinking they are acting with reason when they are really motivated in some ways by emotion or belief. In doing this they act out of balance or they lose credibility with others who can see the reality they are missing.

Everyone has beliefs, everyone has emotions, everyone engages in thinking, though perhaps it is not very good reasoning, it remains a part of the mind. Even if you recognize all the parts of your mind, if you fail to use them, or you allow one to overwhelm the other, you end up in trouble. When you fail to temper emotion with reason you end up acting foolish or even making a decision that seems right only because you fail to consider the consequences. In many cases this leads to more evil and negative consequences than would be had if the “caring person” did nothing at all. When you fail to temper reason with emotion and caring, you end up abandoning your fellow man, a state of soullessness, but eventually a state of peril, since no man is an island. Man is a social creature, without others we would not have survived, and it is not likely, even now, that we would survive without each other. Besides, emotions not involved tend to become erratic and involve themselves in other things. It is sort of like the best and worst part of you, and if you let it do its own thing because you ignore it, you end up allowing it to become a loose cannon.

One of the side effects, for me, of embracing the whole mind is that I was able to understand more clearly matters of faith. I had a crisis of faith in my younger days that lead to a rethinking of my whole belief system. Yet, it was not faith at fault, but corruption and those using the faith of others to gain power for themselves. I never have really reconciled my faith, not entirely. I am sort of an agnostic with Christian roots. Regardless, I learned key things about faith and its place in humanity and in my life. Faith is to emotion as science is to reason. Faith is of great value and great power. Science is too, but when those who champion science decry faith and deny its value they make a grave error. Faith may not always make sense, and yes, faith has been the root of much evil in the world. However, the exact same can be said of emotion. Just because something does not make sense does not mean it lacks value. Many people have found the strength they needed to help others, to help themselves, etc. by the power of faith. I never fault or belittle faith for this reason, it has power and can be used for good.

A caring intent is the evidence of the soul. Reason alone cares not, so reason alone will ignore the soul, and eventually, starve it. Suppressed enough, the soul may disappear altogether. The soul, however, remains as fragile as intent itself. If, in the process of achieving intent, the means are corrupt, then the soul is corrupt as well. If, in the process of intent, reason is abandoned and the goal of the intent is not achieved because the result of the well-intended act is more pain, then the soul is equally corrupted. If the social safety net is achieved by violence, then is it really an act of a good soul? If the safety net feeds the hungry but turns them into dependent slaves, and the scourge of poverty grows rather than being stayed or reduced, then the reasonless emotion cries out and redoubles it efforts, wreaking greater havoc and becoming an instrument of evil. Thus, both the abandonment of reason and the abandonment of emotion lead to the destruction of the soul. The two must be in balance. For some, the emotions may lead, but reason must temper it, thought and logic must prevail against feeling’s impulsiveness and its ability to be manipulated. Emotion without reason is foolish and lacks wisdom. For others, like myself, reason must lead, but I cannot allow it to rule me totally, lest I become soulless and cold, a robot rather than a man. Reason, without emotion, is heartless and will lead to a life without beauty and passion, hardly a life at all.

 And we must remember that if reason leads to pain, then it is not justified just because it is reasonable. Another solution must be found. Logic, no matter how pure, is not singular, many solutions may be found. If one does not lead where it should, another must be sought. This is the beauty of innovation, an aspect of the mind that is neither emotion nor reason, but is as important as either one. It is what fills the needs of humanity, be those needs born of reason or of emotion. It is often the arrogance of either emotion or that of reason, thinking they are right and closing off to the possibility of other solutions that squelches innovation, and leads, often, to battles between emotion and reason, rather than emotion and reason being in balance and seeking the help of innovation to find a solution that works for both sides.


  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Stuff Jon and good Morning as well 🙂

    It is interesting how politics can raise emotions so much, I’m guilty sometimes. Nothing like a long walk in the woods to get straight and move on. I can say that I’m sick of the race card being played at every turn. I’ll add more later!

    • I miss the woods walks, those always clear my head as well. I need to do them more often….

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I had a great walk! 🙂 Emotion plays a huge part in how things come to be. Think of how Obama was pushing the Buffet Rule and then realize that it’s nothing but a scam to benefit the ultra wealthy. But instead of seeing this, the blinders come out and the Obamanots believe his emotional plea (which is a total lie). Anytime a politician uses emotions about anything, it should br researched and that research should be made very public. Too bad the MSM is bought and paid for.

  2. Great article Jon! Although, I feel it is necessay, to state that religion is more than just emotion because God is real. 🙂 And yes-this article does have a point, I think it confirms your thoughts. Reason without taking into consideration man’s and woman’s emotional nature isn’t reasonable.

    Look Who’s Defending Monogamy
    By Glenn T. Stanton
    April 12, 2012 7:39 A.M.



    How important is it to the well-being of society? Is it merely a personal preference? Is it merely a Western ideal driven primarily by Christian belief? Or does it have larger, broader importance for a culture? This is a fascinating topic to examine for general students of the family and culture. Anthropologists tell us that around 85 percent of known societies through time have permitted multiple-partner marriage. Celebrated Rutgers anthropologist, Helen Fisher, tells us that only 0.5 percent of all polygamous cultures permit a woman to take many husbands. Men are the collectors of mates in both secular and biblical histories. But is monogamy, rather than a mere social construct, a greater social virtue and value?

    A fascinating and brand-new multidisciplinary study conducted by a small group of psychologists, economists, and anthropologists from the University of British Columbia, UCLA, and UC Davis explores this very question. Their interest is why monogamy as a “historical rarity and apparent ill-fit with much of our evolved psychology” has spread so successfully throughout the world in recent centuries. A good question, especially since, they note, “the very men who most benefit from polygamous marriage — wealthy aristocrats — are often the most influential in setting norms and shaping laws.”

    So why, as these authors ask, is monogamy “now enforced in most of the world’s highly developed countries”? Their answer? Sheer pragmatics. Normative monogamy — cultures enforcing exclusive, coupled marriage through law and social mores — provides dramatic and essential benefits for adults, children, and society. They offer four main benefits of keeping the bumble bee on one flower.

    First, these scholars explain that monogamous marriage reduces sexual competition among men, reducing social violence and crime for many reasons. Most basic is that marriage itself tends to reduce the likelihood of men being violent and committing crime, reducing a man’s overall criminal likelihood by 35 percent. It reduces the likelihood of property and violent crime by males by 50 percent. This shows up time and again in the literature. This is because wives tend to socialize men, and monogamous marriage reduces a man’s testosterone levels, while polygamy has no such effect.

    But polygamy shrinks the marriage pool for all but the wealthiest of men. This limits the socializing effect of having a wife, as well as creating greater anger, bitterness, and competition among the maritally shut-out men. In India, going from a male-to-female ratio of 1.12 to a more equalized 0.97 was shown to cut the societal murder rate in half! In China, increasing the ratio of men to women doubled their overall crime rate between 1988 and 2004. Not insignificant.

    Second, monogamous marriage tends to increase relational equality, increasing female influence and standing in the relationship. When there is more competition for available women, men must seek younger and younger wives, securing them before their competitors do, creating more of a father-daughter, rather than a truly spousal relational balance. A 14-year-old girl being pressured to marry a 30-something man is no one’s idea of female empowerment. And a woman who has to compete with other women in a marriage is a less powerful party to the marriage. Most dramatically, a woman who is a commodity to be collected and controlled — as polygamy nearly always demands — has no standing at all.

    Third, monogamy reduces conflict within the home because it doesn’t create competition and jealousy among co-wives, which the authors describe as “ubiquitous” in polygamous homes, even if Sister Wives tells us differently. And a comprehensive, cross-cultural review of psychological studies found that children from polygamous homes experience significantly greater amounts of conflict between their parents, household violence, and family instability than children being raised by monogamous parents. This is because monogamy creates a higher rate of relatedness — a tighter biological connection — between the members of the home. Polygamy creates more non-biological connections between various wives, their different children, and the increasing non-biological siblings. This naturally creates more family competition, resentment, and instability. As a result, these scholars explain that “living in the same household with genetically unrelated adults [sans adoption] is the single biggest risk factor for abuse, neglect and homicide of children.” (emphasis in original).

    Fourth, monogamy increases paternal investment, significantly improving child-well-being outcomes as well as the lives of the fathers. Polygamy actually tends to reduce the paternal work of all men in two ways. It reduces the opportunity for middle and lower-status men to become fathers by shrinking the pool of available women. And the more wives and children a father has, the less time and energy he has to invest in each. This is really eroded when harem-dad’s child-rearing time and energy competes with his wife-procuring time. Wealthy, highly polygamous men often don’t know each of their children’s names because they can range in the 30s, 40s, or higher. Boys and girls in polygamous cultures are shown to have lower nutritional health and poorer overall survival rates, even though their fathers are wealthier.

    Monogamy is sexual and familial democracy. Our authors explain without the slightest bit of apology or reticence that monogamy has been adopted by an increasing number of developing societies because “the supernaturally reinforced set of beliefs propounded by Christianity” found in monogamy lead to a “positive statistical relationship between the strength of normative monogamy with both democratic rights and civil liberties.” They continue, “Historically, we know that universal monogamous marriage preceded the emergence of democratic institutions in Europe and the rise of the notions of equality between the sexes.”

    It’s nice when science pounds the pulpit for sexual restraint and commitment.

    • Thanks V., I agree with you. I was not actually saying faith is an emotion. I was saying that faith is like emotion in the sense that, just like emotion is not always reasonable, faith is not always scientific, but that fact does not mean it is useless or bad or wrong. Emotions sometimes align with reason, sometimes they do not, same with faith and science. The champions of reason often dismiss emotion as useless or even consider it bad, but to do so would be an error. Similarly, the champions of science often dismiss or decry faith, but their error is equally grave. Faith has a purpose and is a part of the human mind/psyche, just as emotions are. I do agree, however, that faith and emotion are not the same thing.

      As for the specifics of your article, it is an interesting study. I know that many, even those who believe all religions are social constructs designed for controle, recognize the wisdom of many of the “do’s and dont’s” of certain religions. There are often benefits on a personal level, and even more so on a societal level, to following a religious lifestyle.

      • Brief aside.

        Jon, while I understand your reasoning and agree with your basic premise, I would like to add that science and faith need not be exclusive. I am a Christian and a physicist. I find nothing in the Bible that contradicts science. For example, the Bible says God made the earth and all its creatures in 6 days, but the Bible also says to God a day is as a thousand years. To fully understand what was meant in the creation story, we turn to science, which tells us the Earth is about 4 billion years old. The creation story, therefore, is a metaphor. Each “day” of creation constitutes a period of the development of the earth.

        I think science is a tool that is given to us by God to investigate the world around us. Both faith and science are necessary to truly understand each.

        What do you think?

        • Interesting thoughts JB. I wish that the radicals on the left could understand that your stance is what the VAST majority of christians believe. Nothing worse to me than those who constantly refer to any christian as a “flat earther” as a means to falsely dismiss whatever facts are being provided.

          • Flat earther accusation is incredibly retarded, in fact is flies in the face of the reality of scripture itself.
            Proverbs 8:27 excerpt: “When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,”
            There are a few interpretations of this, but the predominant one is that God established gravity and orbits and made the earth round. This was written long before Columbus or Galileo. It was, in fact, the misinterpretation and misuse of scripture by religious leaders seeking power that lead to the persecution of Galileo and other scientists. A little basic understanding of history is needed on both sides. Christians need to accept that their faith was used to justify millions of murders and many wars, and anti-Christians need to understand the history of the use of Christianity, how it developed, and its real content versus the things evil people have claimed were matters of scripture.

        • JB,
          I do not believe that science and faith are any more in conflict or incompatible than reason and emotion. There is much in scripture that is scientificly proven, and some that is not, but nothing that is necessarily disproven. However, those who believe in the Bible, as an example, do not do so because of scientific proof. They believe there is a God who created the heavens and the earth and that he sent his son do die for our sins and imperfections to restore the relationship God wanted to have with his creation, man, but was impossible because of the laws of sin and death. Science has not, and likely cannot, disprove this or prove it. Belief in this is a matter of faith. It does not require one to ignore or defy science, altho the understanding of scripture has, for many changed as we gain scientifc knowledge. This shows that dogmatism can be dangerous, presuming that you know you are right, especially about specifics, can lead to close-mindedness. Faith does not require blindness and closed thought. However, the fact that the common understanding of scripture has changes with our increase in knowledge also shows how compatible faith and science really can be.

          Some do not subscribe to the metaphor idea. They represent to me people that are imbalanced, that embrace their belief and refuse to question it, preferring to deny reality. This is like those who act on emotion and will not change their opinion in spite of being shown unreasonable or wrong. Others embrace the proven and the provable so much that they miss the value and power of faith, and even close their minds to that which may one day be discovered, they are like those who cling to reason so much that they cannot even open themselves to innovation, much less the potential beauty of emotion.

          So, in short, I agree, the two need not be in conflict, but they often are, not because either is wrong or incompatible with the other, but because of the imbalance of the people involved.

          • but nothing that is necessarily disproven.


            First of all, it’s great that 99% of the claims are non-falsifiable. We can’t PROVE there wasn’t a world wide flood with one man building an ark that somehow held two of every animal (except unicorns, because God hates unicorns). And the complete lack of geological evidence doesn’t mean it CAN’T have happened. And the genetic record which doesn’t back up the idea of a global pan-species genetic bottleneck like this doesn’t PROVE there wasn’t one. But neither can we disprove that the Earth wasn’t sneezed out of the left nostril of a giant space walrus.

            • Very true. However, I have seen lives changed for the better by faith in a God, none so far from faith in a giant space walrus. Understand that this is not a discussion of realism in religion, that can be debated all over the place, with no true winners since, as you say, so many things are non-falsifiable. That is not the point. I can take you to task on the ridiculousness of your emotions just as easily, but they remain a part of your thinking. More to the point, they remain valuable. So is faith. Also, some are more emotional by nature and have a greater need for feeling to live a full life than others. I am not one of those. But I recognize that such persons exist. I also recognize that many benefit and even depend on faith. Some would say that faith is a crutch, but then, some would say that emotional people are just “wussies” and need to “suck it up”. There is really little difference in the attitudes of the anti-faith people and the anti-emotion people. There is little difference in the dogmatic believer and the emo “we must act on our hearts” crowd. All four of the above are people whose minds are out of balance.

              It is not necessary for you to believe in the Christian God or faith to accept it and recognize its importance. It is not necessary for me to feel someone’s depression or joy or pain or whatever to accept it is there and understand the need to address it, and even help to address it. It is not necessary for a Muslim to give up his faith in order to be a “real scientist”. Some of the greatest scientists in man’s history have been people of faith, or at least people open to the idea of a higher power. It is not necessary for a person who leads with their heart to become an avid chessplayer and aproach everything in life with the attitude of an objective robot to understand the need for and incorporate reason into their thinking and into their philosophies and pursuit of solutions to the problems that pain them. All that is needed is a recognition that we are all different and have different needs, but we are also all the same and have a measure of emotion and reason, a measure of faith and of questioning in us, and that all those things are healthy and necessary, and that all those things will be needed in different measure by different people to attain balance, but that imbalance of those things will lead to problems.

              • I don’t necessarily disagree with any of that. Some people need faith. Some don’t. I don’t, but I don’t begrudge it to others. I only object to assertion that it’s infallible or perfect or correct when in direct opposition to science (which some people might contend is my “faith”). So the claim that nothing has been disproven in the bible, for example, really irks me because it’s in direct opposition to empirical reality (that’s not to say the whole thing is wrong, but there are definitely plenty of things I can point out the punch holes in the idea that it’s flawless). But if you want to believe in a higher power, I have no problem with you doing so.. unless, that is, your faith starts interfering with my life. When politicians, for example, start legislating creationism or some such in the class rooms, or when they try to outlaw porn, or when they legislate against gay marriage because the bible said so.. that is where I have issues.

                But, boy, won’t we all feel stupid if it does turn out that the Earth was sneezed out by a giant space walrus….

              • Indeed we would, and I guess you would win the cosmic betting pool. Sure, there are things that are flawed in every document behind every religion, including science itself. Science has proven itself vulnerable to corruption and error, and the fervent followers (not including you, I am talking the real extremists that consider science the one true god) are just as bad and closeminded as the extremes of any other belief.

                As for faith interfering in government, I couldn’t agree more. It is the basis for my resistance to both religion in government AND to the idea of society as a god or some other moral code as a justification for government infringement on people’s lives and their theft of private property. I see little difference.

              • Mat,

                So the claim that nothing has been disproven in the bible, for example, really irks me because it’s in direct opposition to empirical reality (that’s not to say the whole thing is wrong, but there are definitely plenty of things I can point out the punch holes in the idea that it’s flawless).

                It irks me when someone claims that something in the Bible has been disproven without giving a specific example.

              • I gave the flood as a non-falsifiable but highly unlikely example. But why don’t you tell me what day the last supper was on. Go ahead.

                Was it Passover?
                Or was it the day before Passover?

                Because it can’t be both.

                Yet it says both.

                So one of them is wrong.

                The other one doesn’t have to be right, but one of them is definitely wrong.

                Ergo, the claim that “but nothing that is necessarily disproven” is demonstrably false.

                Can we move along now?

                I’m not saying the bible is “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad” or “accurate” or “inaccurate.” All I’m saying is that it’s not COMPLETELY accurate. Personally, I tend to think that it’s MOSTLY inaccurate, but I can’t PROVE that. But it certainly does fly in the face of empirical reality to argue that you can’t disprove any of it.

              • So the contradiction is in the day of the meal.

                From Wiki:

                “In the 1950s Annie Jaubert argued that, while in the year of Jesus’ death the official lunar calendar had Passover begin on a Friday evening, a 364-day year was also used, for instance by the Qumran community, and that Jesus celebrated the Passover on the date given in that calendar, which always had the feast begin on Tuesday evening.[44] More recently, Humphreys, who holds that the “Palm Sunday” entry of Jesus into Jerusalem occurred on Monday, not Sunday, argued that the Last Supper took place on the evening of Wednesday 1 April 33.[45][46] If the Last Supper was on Tuesday (Jaubert) or Wednesday (Humphreys), this would allow more time than in the traditional view (Last Supper on Thursday) for interrogation of Jesus and his presentation to Pilate before he was crucified on Friday.”

                “Disproven” means that science shows us with certainty that something is incorrect. If there is uncertainty, it is not disproven, no?

                The book of John is often interpreted as being metaphorical in any case, using numbers that have some hidden meaning rather than the actual facts. I don’t disagree that this is an inconsistency.

                I tend to think that the inconsistencies we see in the Bible come from our misinterpretation of the Word of God. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some irreconcilable inconsistencies in the Bible. How can we humans possibly think we can properly interpret the mind of God? Inconsistencies just show us that we do not fully understand Him. I’m quite happy for that. After all, if the Creator of the universe has an intellect equal to mine… you’re all in for a world of hurt!

                In this sense, we agree.

  3. charlieopera says:

    Great post, Jon. I hope to get back to it later. I don’t see much room for argument at all (I have to look over the bit about taking by violence) but it is about the most balanced piece I’ve ever read here (well thought out and presented). Good on ya’.

    I’m pressed for time (school work), book work and it’s day 3 of atkins for me (oy vey) …

    Some poetry stuff … and Herman Munster?

  4. I rememeber studying the founding fathers and how they wrote the constitution. They would deliberate all day in unplesant heat and stuffy quarters. And after their long debates, using logic, reason and principle, they would go to the pub and reconsider everything after a few pints. What could not stand the nights hazy considerations would be tossed out the next day….

    Great article! Makes me think how when someone’s logic is disliked, they frequently are attacked emotionally.

    • there are lies that are so huge that it is difficult for a rational person to believe that such a lie has been attempted. The left’s talking points about the GOP, contraception, and women in America in the year 2012 are based on the biggest[i] lie of our century: the GOP is attempting to ban contraception in America.

      This lie cannot stand examination. The left lies about Social Security reform, unemployment numbers, the state of the economy, global warming, etc. The list is long. The script is methodical and boring. The politicians who deliver the lines of that script are boorish. But the assertion that the GOP is attempting to deny women contraception

      Read more:

      • Rick Santorum wants to ban porn.

        Good thing Obama didn’t take away our guns. We might need them if this ever gains traction.

        • The loss of political support for the environmentalism reflects the disgust of conservatives today, and this is based upon three distinct failures: (1) the Green rejection of common sense and market operations, (2) worship of dirt replacing stewardship of Creation, and (3) the willingness of Greenies to win arguments through unsavory means.

          (1) Conservatives grasp that living in the real world requires common sense and a grasp of market forces. Flushing the toilet too much is wasteful, but flushing the toilet only once a day threatens health as well as comfort. Recycling aluminum makes economic sense, but recycling everything is dumb.

          Forty years ago, environmentalism made sense to Americans concerned about industrial pollution. Regulations which required inexpensive changes in factories to reduce air pollutants by 95% made for a prudent exercise of state power for the common welfare, but requiring businesses to spend huge amounts of money to reduce another 2% of air pollution did not help ordinary Americans and cost them millions of good-paying jobs.

          Sportsmen have historically been among the strongest supporters of reasonable limits on hunting and fishing and the preservation of the natural beauty of our woodlands and streams. Lumber companies have no interest in cutting down trees at a faster rate than thoughtful reforesting will support. Green radicals who attack reasonable and good Americans, who know much more about the outdoors than Al Gore will ever know, display not an interest in nature, but instead another less pleasant motive.

          (2) Conservative support for wise stewardship of the world has deep roots in Judeo-Christian values. Stewardship of Creation, however, is the antithesis of the worship of Creation. Praying to trees and to mountains is a grave sin to religiously serious Christians and Jews.

          (3) Conservatives have learned that academia and taxpayer-sponsored research have been overrun with infestations of leftists with no interest in objective study. Climategate is, perhaps, the most notorious example, but the very disappearance of what were once called in academia “schools of thought” is a more sinister general condition. Anyone in any discipline who wants tenure, grants, and other perks of pampered pseudo-science must toe the line of party leftism.

          Read more:

    • charlieopera says:

      they would go to the pub and reconsider everything after a few pints

      Define “everything” … whose interests? Something tells me it was so all inclusive as the word “everything” suggests.

      • I think they talked about all interests at the pub, for better or worse. I still think that the greatest feat ever pulled off by politicians is to make discussing politics taboo. It keeps the rational non-politicians from having rational discussions and figuring out that the politicians are a large part of the problem.

        There is the real start to getting our country fixed: stop making political discussion taboo…

        • Agreed. I understand admonishing people to not engage in heated debate in social situations, it can really kill a party, or even lead to killing. However, to count it as impolite, or to say it is too heavy a subject is a horrible thing, it leads to the current level of ignorance and laziness when it comes to philosophy and politics. We need to return to calmness and the ability to disagree without being insulting or being insulted. Debate should never be about victory, beating your opponent through superior wordsmithing defeats the purpose. Debate is supposed to be a tool to find truth and superior solutions.

      • I think, in this context, he meant they reconsidered what they had discussed earlier after the heat of debate had subsided. It helps emotions to calm so that reason can be heard above the din.

        • I meant that in the first place, it’s historic fact. In the second place, getting too caught up in philosophy and natural rights, etc… sometimes common sense gets overlooked. At least that’s my view, if it sounds good sober, but stupid when drunk and hung-over, maybe a re-think is called for…. And the constitution, bill of rights, etc had to pass both the sober and tipsey tests….
          “not even a drunken fool would fall for that”….”good ideal, lets ask Sir Charles over there”…

          • I think, for me, its more often that the drunk ideas have to pass the sober test…lol

            Seriously tho, it is a great thing that they did. A lot of times the mental acrobatics we can go through when we are overthinking things really are quite foolish once an objective, simpler thinking process is applied. I could be an apologist for any philosophy if I could do enough “thinking” about it, but it does not mean that it would pass muster.

            • Think about something too long and hard and you create problems that weren’t there to begin with.

  5. 8)

  6. Jon,

    My Dad used to always say that you take everyone at face value and trust them. If they are untrustworthy, you will find out soon enough. I must say that this has cost me a few dollars and some sleep over the years but it is still valid. Those who were worthy of trust became fast friends or associates. The others, well, you never wasted much more time on them. You always knew who you could count on.

    • Good advice. I had a similar upbringing, tho I sometimes erred towards trust, gave to many chances to those who had already proven themselves unworthy.

  7. Interesting little statistic.

    The Tax Man Cometh 2 Days Later
    And It Can Be More Deadly for U.S. Roads

    Friday, April 13, 2012 – 02:25 PM

    By Richard Yeh

    Last-minute tax filers have two more days to procrastinate.

    The Internal Revenue Service has postponed Tax Day to Tuesday, April 17. That’s because the traditional filing deadline of April 15 falls on a Sunday.

    Typically, the deadline would be the following day, but April 16 is Emancipation Day, a public holiday in Washington, D.C., which is treated as a federal holiday.

    But those who plan to drive on Tuesday to the post office or their accountants should take extra caution on the road. Researchers from Sunnybrook Research Institute in Toronto looked at 30 years worth of U.S. highway data and found a six percent increase in the number of fatal car crashes on Tax Day, compared to a week before and after. That’s an average of 13 more deaths.

    Researchers can’t explain the uptick in certain terms, but they believe that “stressful deadlines might increase the risk of road trauma by impairing drivers.” Their report was published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

    Perhaps Benjamin Franklin saw this coming when he said, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

  8. KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, EDITOR THE NATION: No one’s talking about putting all one’s faith in government, but government has an important role to play in shared prosperity. Private-public partnerships are terrific. The administration wanted it with the infrastructure bank, which would have put thousands of people to work. But the Republicans are roadblocks in that process.


    MELODY BARNES, FORMER OBAMA DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER: … to Katrina’s point, all through this — this first term, what I saw, sitting in the White House, is that one policy initiative after another to try and spur job growth, to try and help the states, on jobs often and frequently occupied by women, was pushed back on by Congress. Efforts around equal pay pushed back on by Congress. About seven, nine Republicans voted for that initiative when the president signed it the first piece of legislation he signed when he walked in the door.


    PAUL GIGOT, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR WALL STREET JOURNAL: We’ve had the largest expansion of federal government spending since the nineteen, I mean, enormous that I can remember in this administration. The first two years it had open field, Democratic, vast Democratic majorities. You got what you wanted. You got a huge expansion of federal government. How is that working out for the economic security of women?

    VANDEN HEUVEL: But, Paul…

    GIGOT: It hasn’t. Real incomes are down.

    Stop bringing facts into the discussion, Paul. You know how liberals hate that.

    Beyond which, their answer always is that if given four more years to tax and spend, incomes will start going up.

    Read more:

  9. charlieopera says:

    @ Jon:

    AND to the idea of society as a god or some other moral code as a justification for government infringement on people’s lives and their theft of private property. I see little difference

    What about the infringement of money over people’s lives; the idea that those who have it get to rule (whether it’s through government that protects them or because they are in possession of the economics that determine how the rest get to live)? The consolidation of private property (that was never truly theirs to start with) is hard to justify for some (me, for one). Herein lies the dilemma. Not every dollar earned that led to riches was through hard work and risk. I’d go out on a limb and say most of it wasn’t, but no, I have no way of proving that (anymore than you have a proving it was legitimate). Certainly little of the capital was earned without violence (as the country expanded). Those who hold the controls/money (and this is not demonizing, just stating facts) get to not only make the rules, but interpret them. Shifts in the Supreme Court may sway a ruling left or right by degrees, but (for example) a liberal judge in the Treyvon Martin case may automatically put Zimmerman on trial (and ignore stand your ground) while a conservative judge may determine the killing justified and throw it out (never letting it get to a jury). We’re all subject to those shifts in the politics of the day, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Campaign finance reform (there is none) … the money, via the politics of the day, gets to fund its own interests without regard for anything or anyone else. The more I type, the more BF’s anarchism makes sense, no? Why should any of us leave our fate to the politics of the day?

    I’m not starting a war here … just giving another view on this.

    • Money only has power through trade. When someone oppresses through money, they do not do so alone. In fact, without voluntary trade, money is useless. Now, the same argument can be made for authority, but there is a difference. If you refuse to accept trade with a rich person because to do so would be unwise or oppressive or unethical, you have not violated any rights or societal agreements. More importantly, there is no violence or threat of violence involved. If I refuse to obey the law, there is a threat of force involved, this is the point of enforcement, without which a law is little more than a rule or recomendation. If I refuse to trade with you, there is nothing you can do about it other than make me a better off.

      All in theory, of course.

      In practice, money wields a great deal more power than that. In real life, if a government sets laws in place, and the populace disregards them because they are restrictive or violates their rights, etc., then there is still the threat of enforcement. In real life, if someone demands that you take a certain wage or a certain price then you can refuse. However, you are often the one that suffers the consequence. This is, in part, because there are others who will trade, meaning that only a collective can have any effect, hence the power of the unions (the real ones, not the crap we ahve now). Furthermore, it is not true that crime does not pay. Crime pays quite handsomely, if there is a demand for it. So violence could, in fact, be a real threat from someone who has the money to hire their own “enforcers”, and defense is difficult against that for those without the resources. Also, even without violence, it can be difficult to stand up to money when you also depend on it. This is part of why the unions has trouble. I often point to the government involvement in strike-breaking because they were in bed with the big business people even back then. That, however, was not the only thing that had to be overcome. There were many who were willing to work for less because they had no work at all, thus the strikes did no good because more workers were available. In some cases the strikers resorted to violence to maintain the strike. Regardless, it is a demonstration that it takes a lot of unified people to counter the power of a few people with money. Theoretically it might be easy to stop money, simply do not sell anything to the person you have a problem with at any price and you take his power. In real life, it is not that simple, because it requires unified effort.

      In theory, I find BF’s ideal to be, well, ideal. Nothing is then, as you say, left to the politics of the day. Also, the collusion of authority and wealth to wield power over the masses would cut down. The only reason I do not support that ideal in real life is that money, as you point out, still holds a lot of power. Anarchy does not have a mechanism to allow the non-violent poor to counter the violent wealthy. It does not have a mechanism to keep violence out of the free market. One of the reasons Russia had so many issues after the fall of communism is that its so-called free market was full of violence. The market/trade infrastructure was essentially a criminal element, since all that existed before the collapse was a black market run by the mob, essentially. When the government was removed, the mob was holding all the power, and they did not just step out of the way for the joy of watching a free market flourish. Government is in place to protect the rights (real rights, not the right to have a certain amount of stuff) of all people. That is ALL it should do. Protect from outside invasion. Protect from internal violence. Protect people from being forced into trade, so that the market can operate in a truly free manner.

      Now, even a separated government (separation of church and state as well as business and state) cannot create some utopia, all problems will not be fixed, but people have more power to handle those problems. Government, by being restricted to the roles I mentioned and stopped from meddling, will be of no use to the wealthy, since it is not allowed to do anything that would benefit them. That does not remove all the power of wealth, but it removes the ability to buy government and the ability to use violence to force trade. Thus, money is greatly reduced in power. It retains a lot, but not an insurmountable level. As such, it is a risk that is manageable, and an educated, reasonable populace, will thrive.

    • Interesting. Are we assuming here that the pigs will escape and go wild?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I wonder when they will go back to shooting wild horses?

        The are after all an “Invasive Specie”.

    • I don’t agree with the ‘how’ but I understand the ‘why’,1607,7-153-10370_12145_55230—,00.html

      • So, as usual, the good responsible folks pay the penalty for the irresponsible turds in our society. I do think that the first article went over the top a bit with the cute little piglets line. Let’s remember here, these little piglets were not going to wind up as house-pets like Arnold in “Green Acres” but rather as Spam.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Possible Solution, not involving arrest of DNR agents.

      Farmers: Kill your pigs per the law………..then dump their carcasses on the steps of the Capital Building and DNR Office Headquarters.

      • JAC;

        As usual there is more to this than what is being reported. Farm pigs can go feral in about six to eight months. Their features change, they grow tusks and hair, get meaner and leaner and do cause massive damage to crops and the landscape in general. However, most farmers who raise them for profit do not allow this to happen if for no other reason than they can’t sell them. They also don’t let them roam free because of the afore mentioned tendancies.

        The other issue is that the DNR has also forced every game ranch who sells Wild Hog hunts to stop and either kill their stock or have them removed to another game ranch outside of Michigan. The individuals that have made their living off of hog hunts are now being forced out of business. Those game ranch owners maintain a fenced in area that was regulated by the DNR by having a certain grade of fench dug into the ground a certain # of feet and around 8 feet above ground to prevent those wild hogs from escaping. This kind of hunting has been going on for several years and with very, very few escaping hogs reported. Typically those that have done this for a living buy their stock from Canada and they buy either Russian or European wild hogs.

        Now it is true that should an escaped Russian boar breed with feral pigs the brood crop will eventually turn more like the boar, however there is very little evidence that is the problem. And all those purchased hogs are vaccinated and inspected by our government, as well as being tagged for indentification.

        There were some 600 Game ranches in Michigan that sold Wild hog hunts and now they are either going broke or at least loosing a significant source of revenue.

        This is just another tactic by the state of Michigan to further control hunting. As you may recall a few years back they stopped dear baiting because they found (allegidly) one deer in Kent County on a fenced in deer farm with CWD (Chronic Waisting Disease), which is spread mouth to mouth or from an infected deer eating in the same area. The DNR did not produce any results of the tested animal or release any additional information and banned any and all deer baiting for over 2 years. During that ban they sought out hunters who continued to bait and fined them. It took a new governor to overturn the ban.

        Ted Nugent is on top of all of this and is fighting the ruling in court. He has a ranch near Jackson, MI and a good share of his guiding/hunting revenue came from Hog hunts. Yes Ted also offered deer hunts on both his fenced area and free range area, but those hunts were priced significantly higher than Hog hunts. A 8+point 3-4 year old Buck at Ted’s went from $3000-6000 dollars, where a hog hunt was only $500.00

        Ted is coordinating an effort to repeal the law or at least have it re-written so that those Game Ranches in Michigan that made their living selling hog hunts can continue. This new law was just another example of a DNR that has run amuk and is looking to further its control over hunters, fisherman and outdoorsman in general.

        I am sure the Colonel can also shed some light on this.


  10. I wonder if it isn’t our emotions that lead us to the basic understanding of right and wrong. And our reason based on that emotional knowledge, which then guides us on how to best reach that desired outcome.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Think of emotions as FEEDBACK mechanisms rather than knowledge. They may help us to inform, but if our thinking is messed up they can also misinform us.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    I truly enjoy watching a public official advocating violating our basic Constitutional rights without due process. This clown is a reason why I feel we need Revolution II.

    • I have a friend who has a very traditional Irish name. He has two sons, Martin and Sean. Both have been on the no-fly list since they were born due to the fact that they share names with former IRA members. It’s fun, in a perverse way, to see just how far these guys like Emmanuel can go pushing this “be scared, be very scared” crap.

    • Reason Vs. Emotion…It’s reasonable to want to conserve resources. It’s reasonable to not want to damage our environment. But then you get a song like this (lead singer is a lawyer) and it could mean anything you want it to mean….

      Beds are Burning Lyrics, by Midnight Oil

      Out where the river broke
      The blood wood and the desert oak
      Holden wrecks and boiling diesels
      Steam in forty five degrees

      The time has come
      To say fair’s fair (is this Obama’s fair or who”s)
      To pay the rent (to who? write a check to Mother Nature?)
      To pay our share

      The time has come (what time is it over there?)
      A fact’s a fact (OK, but you haven’t stated any facts)
      It belongs to them (who?)
      Let’s give it back

      How can we dance when our earth is turning (how can you not? earth turning is a “good thing”)
      How do we sleep while our beds are burning (mine is not on fire, nor is my house, neighborhood, etc…)
      How can we dance when our earth is turning
      How do we sleep while our beds are burning

      The time has come
      To say fair’s fair
      To pay the rent, now
      To pay our share

      Four wheels scare the cockatoos (is there ANYTHING that doesn’t scare the cockatoos?)
      From Kintore East to Yuendemu
      The western desert lives and breathes
      In forty five degrees (113F)

      The time has come
      To say fair’s fair
      To pay the rent
      To pay our share
      The time has come
      A fact’s a fact
      It belongs to them
      Let’s give it back

      How can we dance when our earth is turning
      How do we sleep while our beds are burning
      How can we dance when our earth is turning
      How do we sleep while our beds are burning

      The time has come
      To say fair’s fair
      To pay the rent, now
      To pay our share
      The time has come
      A fact’s a fact
      It belongs to them
      We’re gonna give it back

      How can we dance when our earth is turning
      How do we sleep while our beds are burning

  12. Just A Citizen says:


    Keeping in my foul mood today, thanks to TAXES, I would like to point out that your entire argument is based on a fallacy.

    Reason, or rational thinking, is NOT separate from either emotion or one’s soul. Likewise, logic is equally guiltless in this assertion.

    Logic= A method of thinking in order to eliminate “contradictions”.

    Reason/Rational = Use of cognitive abilities in the pursuit of “truth”, that being thinking that is “consistent” with REALITY.

    The character Spock has done more damage to our understanding and use of “logic” than all the left wing philosophers in history. The elimination of emotional response is NOT LOGICAL given that we are HUMANS.

    However, reacting to emotion in an INSTINCTIVE manner without thought can result in irrational choices. On the other hand, acting in a rational manner can become instinctive if we do the hard work of thinking. This will actually ENHANCE one’s inner soul, so to speak.

    • I do not necessarily disagree, tho I would say that my argument is to combat a fallacy. It is the discovery that reason/rational thought could only really be complete and only really be logical if in encompassed all of human thought that was the epiphany I hoped to express in this article. You are basically saying the same thing a different way, and refusing to allow the terms to be changed by our culture. Fine by me.

      The cold decisions of someone who does try to remove emotion tend to end badly. They are effective in war, but not in anything productive. I would add Sun Tsu and Machiovelli and even Ayn Rand to the list of those who have damaged the definition of reason in our society. Rand’s claim of reason as a justification for action, her embracing of the means justifying the ends is just as extreme and dangerous as those claiming the ends justify the means. She claimed she was using reason, when she was, in fact, acting with supressed emotion which resulted in explosive and unstable passion. Her character in Atlas Shrugged horrifies a lot of people for good reason. Dagny Taggart was supposed to be a woman of reason, but she was an example of a soulless person. A small measure of emotion and acceptance of emotion and voluntary charity would have done great things for the acceptance of reason.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    A little something to lift the spirits…………….at least for some of us.

    Video from the Tea Party celebration here on Saturday.


  14. Barbara Walters: ‘Do you like it when he’s rough?’

    Barbara Walters, the 82-year-old “View” co-host, brought some S&M to Monday’s show during a discussion of “50 Shades of Grey.”

    Whoopi Goldberg called the best-selling novel by EL James “mommy porn” that is full of “kinky sex and bondage.”

    Walters explained quite simply why women enjoy reading the erotic book: ”Women — especially women like us who work and who argue and this and that — when you go home you want the guy to be in charge, ” she said, “and more than be in charge — do very kinky things.”

    Goldberg did not like the images Walters put in her head saying, “that visual you just gave me has made my eyes bleed.”

    Walters took the conversation a step further and asked the most conservative co-host, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, if she likes it when her husband is “rough” during sex.

    And the only response to Walters’ comment? A loud “wow” from pretty much everyone on “The View.”

    Read more:

  15. A Puritan Descendant says:

    “Reason Vs. Emotion”
    Take the test………….

    My results,
    extreme thinker vs feeler
    very introverted vs extroverted
    slightly sensor vs intuitive
    very judging vs perceiving.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Fun little test.

      I am a “Reliable Realist”.

    • Sensitive Doer

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Energetic Doer! Go figure. I don’t feel like one.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I think it fits you. (notice I did Not say, “I FEEL it fits you” (as a feeler might say)) 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            THanks APD! Not many have been to kind to my thoughts lately 🙄 I just don’t want anything to do with politics (as far as being o politician). Maybe thats why I feel that way. In other ways I’m good, my garden is now half planted (early too) and my firewood stocks are ready for next winter. 🙂

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              gathered 4 cords the past two days and hopefully 4 more over the next two days. Will be glad to be done with that chore rather than wait til the last minute when snow is flying. One year i started my garden this early during a warm spell, but it got cold again and the normal May plantings caught the early plantings in no time, so now I just wait. The apple trees are starting to push already so I will be worried about frost catching the blossoms. Have enough hard cider for 2 years but sweet cider will run out if this year’s apple crop is destroyed. Now I know why the early Puritans prayed so much, LOL. (That and invading Indians, grin)

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I agree, get it done early. Having a good supply of firewood before Memorial Day weekend eases the mind for the summe. As far as the garden. I can cover all 2000 sq ft if needed. I’m trying to plant at intervals to make canning a little easier. It’s nice to have the good weather to plant early, not likely going to happen next year, so let’s enjoy it now! I hope your apple trees do well, I now have a recipe called “apple pie” that requires 1 gallon of apple juice, 1 gallon of apple cider, 6 cinnimin sticks and a fifth of Everclear (the good stuff, 190 proof. Comes out just like tasting apple pie. Just don’t drink too much, LOL, or you’ll be goofy on short time! 🙂

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                “eases the mind” exactly!
                Note to self: save “apple pie recipe”, Heh.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Note to self: save “apple pie recipe”, Heh.


    • Independent Thinker

      First on the list for careers that fit: scientist

      Go figure…

    • Cool test, very fitting. 🙂

      Your personality type: “Dynamic Thinker”

      Assertive and outspoken – they are driven to lead. Excellent ability to understand difficult organizational problems and create solid solutions. Intelligent and well-informed, they usually excel at public speaking. They value knowledge and competence and usually have little patience with inefficiency or disorganization.

      Careers that could fit you include:

      Business executives, CEOs, organization founders, business administrators, managers, entrepreneurs, judges, lawyers, computer consultants, university professors, politicians, credit investigators, labor relations workers, marketing department managers, mortgage bankers, systems analysts, scientists.

    • USW’s results:

      Your personality type: “Determined Realist”
      Practical, traditional and organized. Likely to be athletic. Not interested in theory or abstraction unless they see the practical application. Have clear visions of the way things should be. Loyal and hard-working. Like to be in charge. Exceptionally capable in organizing and running activities. “Good citizens” who value security and peaceful living.

      Careers that could fit you include:
      Military, business administrators, managers, police/detective work, judges, financial officers, teachers, sales representatives, government workers, insurance agents, underwriters, nursing administrators, trade and technical teachers.

    • Good Natured Realist. In good company with Barbara Bush and Mother Theresa!


    • Yea.. this sounds about right..

      Individualistic Doer

    • “Individualistic Doer”

      Quiet and reserved, interested in how and why things work. Excellent skills with mechanical things. Risk-takers who they live for the moment. Usually interested in and talented at extreme sports. Uncomplicated in their desires. Loyal to their peers and to their internal value systems, but not overly concerned with respecting laws and rules if they get in the way of getting something done. Detached and analytical, they excel at finding solutions to practical problems.

      I don’t get where extreme sports or not respecting laws comes from, but I do have a good balance but never tried ‘extreme’ sports, and disagree with some laws but who doesn’t.

    • pookisaurusrex says:

      Your personality type: “Determined Realist”

      Practical, traditional and organized. Likely to be athletic. Not interested in theory or abstraction unless they see the practical application. Have clear visions of the way things should be. Loyal and hard-working. Like to be in charge. Exceptionally capable in organizing and running activities. “Good citizens” who value security and peaceful living.

      Careers that could fit you include:

      Military, business administrators, managers, police/detective work, judges, financial officers, teachers, sales representatives, government workers, insurance agents, underwriters, nursing administrators, trade and technical teachers.

      Well, that was fun!

  16. Just A Citizen says:
  17. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, you sucked me into it. Personality test results:

    Your personality type: “Dynamic Thinker”

    Assertive and outspoken – they are driven to lead. Excellent ability to understand difficult organizational problems and create solid solutions. Intelligent and well-informed, they usually excel at public speaking. They value knowledge and competence and usually have little patience with inefficiency or disorganization.

    Careers that could fit you include:

    Business executives, CEOs, organization founders, business administrators, managers, entrepreneurs, judges, lawyers, computer consultants, university professors, politicians, credit investigators, labor relations workers, marketing department managers, mortgage bankers, systems analysts, scientists.

    As for the list of “comparable people”……….OMG!!!!! A collection of progressive lefties.

    • I don’t know who you got -but you want to talk OMG- I got Barbara Streisand.

    • @JAC…..catching up and took the test….Determined Realist……that means that Buck, the Walla man… a closet conservative……BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Does that mean I also secretly like DP?? I’m so confused and don’t know who I am anymore…

      • USWeapon says:

        Should I be shocked that you and I ended up the same, Colonel?

        • @ USW….lol……I figured we would be together on that test. Out of curiosity, all my “tic” marks were slightly left of the center mark except in the thinking category and it was pegged as far to the left as it could go.

          ***Note*** Left is referring to positioning on the chart and in no way refers political leanings……(for those of you thinking that the Colonel may be left of center politically… way Jose’.

  18. Mine was a sensitive doer and my daughter was an analytical thinker-wonder how that happened 🙂

  19. It’s gotta be rigged, I can’t be the same personality type as Buck……

    • Buck the Wala says:


      • Hunting Lawyers
        A BILL to Regulate the Hunting and Harvesting of Attorneys PC 370.00

        370.01.01 Any person with a valid California State Rodent or Snake hunting license may also hunt and harvest attorneys for recreational and sport (non-commercial) purposes.

        370.01.02 Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The use of United States currency as bait, however, is prohibited.

        370.01.03 The willful killing of attorneys with a motor vehicle is prohibited, unless such vehicle is an ambulance being driven in reverse. If an attorney IS accidentally struck by a motor vehicle, the dead attorney should be removed to the roadside, and the vehicle should proceed to the nearest car wash.

        370.01.04 It is unlawful to chase, herd or harvest attorneys from a power boat, helicopter or aircraft.

        370.01.05 It is unlawful to shout, “WHIPLASH,” “AMBULANCE,” or “FREE SCOTCH” for the purpose of trapping attorneys.

        370.01.06 It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW, Mercedes or Porsche dealerships, except on Wednesday afternoons.

        370.01.07 It is unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms, law libraries, health clubs, country clubs, hospitals, or brothels.

        370.01.08 If an attorney gains elective office, it is not necessary to have a license to hunt, trap or possess the same.

        370.01.09 It is unlawful for a hunter to wear a disguise as a reporter, accident victim, physician, chiropractor or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

        370.02. Bag Limits per day:

        yellow-bellied sidewinders 2
        two-faced tortfeasors 1
        back-stabbing divorce litigators 3
        horn-rimmed cut-throats 2
        minutiae-advocating vultures 4
        honest attorneys — protected (endangered species)

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Nice to hear that I’m protected!!

          But also just another reason why I refuse to live in California-land.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Where can we buy the license?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            You must appear in person in San Francisco over a 3-day period for a training session and pay an annual registration fee of $17,845.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I have been told that the license is free, with unlimited tags. However, because it is in California, a 10 DollarCarbon tax per regular tag must be paid and it is raised to 100 dollars depending on other reasons, such as homosexuals, minorities, women ect. The best part is that tags are free for white guys fresh out of Liberal Law College who want to work in California.

              I wo’t be hunting in California though, I fear I may be kidnapped and never return.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Sorry to hear that — from my understanding the license is only valid in California…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                No problem with me Buck! I would prefer to eat what I hunt and I have heard that lawyers taste something like puke when cooked. There are no good recipes for lawyers, unlike pigs, so the only reason to hunt lawyers would be for mounting. However, all the local taxidermists refuse the work because of the horrible stench of dead lawyers.

                With all that said, I prefer pigs over lawyers, wild or domesticated, for obvious reasons 😆

              • But if you shoot a lawyer without a license, it’s not murder, just poaching…

  20. Monday night on Sean Hannity’s “Great American Panel” I had a little tete-a-tete with Fox News contributor and notorious liberal wit Bob Beckel. Our exchange created a bit of a sensation because at one point during it Bob dropped the f-bomb — on air. But my issue with liberals like Bob isn’t their use of foul language; it’s their imperviousness to facts.

    The exchange began during a commercial break. When Bob pulled out the “class card,” accusing me of being “well to do” (I say “accusing” because to many liberals, economic success is something to be ashamed of), I told him to stick to the issues and to name one of President Obama’s spending programs that actually benefits Americans. “Head Start” was his reply.

    Head Start is an early childhood development program aimed at low-income children. It, too, is an example of a failed government program.

    I told Bob about a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report released in January 2010 called the “Head Start Impact Study.” While the report acknowledges that four-year-olds enrolled in Head Start showed modest short-term gains in some subject areas as a result of the program, those gains disappeared after a few years, and “no significant impacts were found for math skills, pre-writing, children’s promotion, or teacher report of children’s school accomplishments or abilities in any year.”

    In fact, according to University of Maryland professors Douglas Besharov and Douglas Call, children who are enrolled in normal day care programs receive the same educational benefits as children enrolled in Head Start, and for less than half the cost ($9,500 a year per child vs. $22,600 a year per child).

    These facts, unfortunately, don’t matter to liberals, who insist that we should judge big-government spending programs based on their good intentions rather than on their disastrous results.

    Monday night we saw what can happen when a liberal who believes government can do no wrong is confronted with facts he can’t explain away. In his anger, Bob missed the producer counting down to the return from the commercial break. The result: his angry assertion that I didn’t know “what the f***” I was talking about was broadcast live to Fox News Channel’s millions of viewers.

    The rest will live on thanks to Twitter, YouTube and the like. Unfortunately, the reaction will focus on his use of the f-word. It’s a shame that a single word will drown out the many words of the HHS report on Head Start.

    Read more:

    “It is often the arrogance of either emotion or that of reason, thinking they are right and closing off to the possibility of other solutions that squelches innovation, and leads, often, to battles between emotion and reason, rather than emotion and reason being in balance and seeking the help of innovation to find a solution that works for both sides.”

  21. Obama has been saying, and the liberal media have unquestioningly parroted, comments like this:

    What drags our entire economy down is when the benefits of economic growth and productivity go only to the few, which is what’s been happening for over a decade now, and gap between those at the very, very top and everybody else keeps growing wider and wider and wider and wider.

    The president’s claims are based on the initial research on income inequality from 1913 to 1998 by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, and an updated report by Saez. According to them, median American incomes rose just 3.2% from 1979 through 2007, with all figures adjusted for inflation.

    Citing the same study, Washington Post Opinion Writer Harold Meyerson stated in a March 27 column that while the Occupy Wall Street movement isn’t known for precise economic analysis, the group’s “sloganeering provides a stunningly accurate picture of the economy” with the gap between the top 1 percent and the other 99 percent growing ever wider.
    While never putting a premium on economic equality, America has always prided itself on being the preeminent land of economic opportunity. If all of this nation’s wealth is captured by a narrow stratum of the very rich, however, that claim is relegated to history’s dustbin.

    However, a new study entitled “A Second Opinion on the Economic Health of the American Middle Class” by Cornell University researchers led by Richard Burkhauser, found that when properly measured, the median household income rose 36.7%, not 3.2%.

    So why the significant difference? The Cornell economists state that Piketty and Saez made many “odd choices” about what to measure and how to measure it. They focused on something called “tax units” rather than households, a move that ignores the impact of couples who live together, kids who move back in with their parents after college, and senior parents who live with their adult children.

    And that’s not all. In the earlier study, Piketty and Saez also ignored the value of all government transfers, including welfare, Social Security, and other government provided cash assistance, along with the value of health-care benefits and tax returns.

    “ So the tax and regulatory polices of the past three decades did not lead to stagnation for the middle class at the hands of the rapacious rich,” James Pethokoukis stated in his article on the new research.
    Claims to the contrary—such as those made by Obama, the Occupy movement, and many liberal economists—never really passed the sniff test of anyone who lived through the past few decades. And now we know why:

    Even more interesting is an article written by Alexander Eichler for the Huffington Post Website that has as its headline: “ Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush.”
    That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years—and the ones it’s lifted have been mostly yachts.

    Read more:

  22. April 19, 2012
    Is the GOP really the party of fiscal responsibility?
    Published: 9:59 PM 04/18/2012

    By Peter Tucci
    Editor, Daily Caller

    For decades, the federal budget deficit has been a strong issue for Republicans because voters believe that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to balance budgets. That’s why Mitt Romney is hoping that the large budget deficits of the past five years will weigh heavily on voters’ minds in November, while President Obama is hoping that voters will instead focus on issues like his contraception mandate and the membership policies of Georgia country clubs.

    But is it true that Republicans are better than Democrats at balancing budgets? The parties’ federal records offer few clues — partly because it’s hard to draw generalizations about the parties from the behavior of a single government over a short amount of time, and partly because in recent decades neither party has been able to exercise complete control over the federal government for more than a few years at a time.

    Analyzing the parties’ state-level behavior is a better way to answer the fiscal responsibility question, for two reasons: 1) the larger sample size (50 states vs. one federal government) makes the data more reliable; and 2) in many of the states, one party has long dominated state government, so it’s easier to assign blame or praise for bad or good policy outcomes.

    If the Republican Party is truly the party of fiscal responsibility, you’d expect heavily Republican states like Utah (which has historically had an overwhelmingly Republican legislature) to accumulate less debt than heavily Democratic states like Hawaii (which has historically had an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature).

    To see if that’s the case, I used Gallup’s 2011 report on party affiliation by state to create a list of the 12 most Democratic states and the 12 most Republican states. (The 12 most Democratic states are Hawaii, Maryland, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Illinois, Delaware, California, New Jersey and Minnesota; the 12 most Republican states are Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Alabama, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota and New Hampshire.) I then looked at how much per capita debt each state has accumulated according to a report from a non-partisan state budget watchdog called State Budget Solutions. The result is presented in the graph below.

    It turns out that Republican states really do tend to have less per capita debt than Democratic states. In fact, of the seven states with the least per capita debt, five are among the 12 most Republican: Nebraska (1), Wyoming (2), Montana (5), Alabama (6) and South Dakota (7). The state with the third-lowest per capita debt is Mitch Daniels’ Indiana, which nearly missed being one of the top 12 most Republican states (as did fourth-place Tennessee and eighth-place Oklahoma). With the exception of Vermont (11) and Minnesota (21), all of the 12 heavily blue states have larger-than-average per capita debts. Connecticut has the largest per capita debt of any state, at $5,402 per resident. Hawaii has the second most debt per resident and New Jersey has the third most, though its Republican governor, Chris Christie, is doing his best to solve his state’s pension-fueled budget problems. The average per capita debt of the 12 heavily blue states is $3,022, compared to just $1,190 for their Republican counterparts. So when Republicans say the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility, they have a point.

    Read more:

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Not really sure you can take this single factor and extrapolate the data to draw this type of conclusion. A few initial thoughts:

      1) State budgets differ greatly from federal budgets (as do state politics vs. federal politics)
      2) I don’t think you can really compare California or New York’s per capita debt versus that of Wyoming.
      3) Do you have the numbers for federal per capita debt under Dem Presidents versus GOP Presidents (not to mention Dem-controlled Congress vs. GOP-controlled Congress)? I’d be curious what these numbers show as well.

      • 1) But each state decides how much and what they think they need to spend on.
        2) Why not? Wyoming & NY both deal with a lot of snow, Calif, not so much. Most of it comes down to what they decide to spend on and CA & NY years ago committed to pensions for their public sector that they now cannot afford. And in many cases, the ones who made these commitments aren’t the ones now having to figure out how to pay for it, or how to break a contract…
        3) Great question! Looks like the Dem controlled congress is what you can tie most debt to…

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Funny you should criticize an analysis of debt per capita when just yesterday I was being vilified on HP for using debt to GDP numbers. Seems the lefties there think per capita a better measure.

        You seem to be creating questions to which the answers were already given. The Question is whether R’s are truly more fiscally responsible.

        The author has used DEBT as the criteria. This can be challenged but not the rest of his analysis.

        The fact that state budgets are different is irrelevant to the Question. The Federal has already been explained as unworthy of evaluation because of the lack of single party control. The same holds for those states that flip back and forth.

        You can compare any state on a per capita basis. Especially when comparing willingness to take on debt. What is not revealed, however, is any other factors that could be hidden. Like Wyoming’s gas/oil/coal resources and a willingness to exploit them.

        The federal numbers under various Presidents and Congress would be irrelevant, as the author already explained. However, such data has been accumulated and it shows just that. The Fed Budget and the Debt continues to pretty much rise at the same pace, regardless of who has a majority in Congress and who sits in the oval office. The exception as I recall are those years where ONE party controls it all. Then the debt climbs faster.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I don’t think debt per capita is necessarily a bad indicator. I do think that

          1) You really can’t use any single indicator to make such a broad conclusion;
          2) States vs. Federal is apples to oranges; and
          3) State A vs. State B is DP to coffee

      • 1. Yes, they do-which is why the Federal government should stop taking over so much of the State’s rights and responsibilities-because obviously politicians on both sides go a little nuts when they have too much power at the Federal level. But that truth still doesn’t negate the truth of the above statement.

        2. Why??

        3. No I don’t have those numbers -but as the article stated it is hard to determine those numbers with any accuracy.

        • The Conrad Fiasco
          By Yuval Levin
          April 19, 2012 9:45 A.M.

          Imagine if Paul Ryan had produced his budget proposal and put it before his committee, but then John Boehner killed it, insisting that the House should not pass a budget of any kind so that his members could be spared a difficult vote in an election year. Surely had any such thing happened it would have been treated as a monumental leadership crisis among House Republicans and a sign of gross dereliction and disorder.

          Well that is exactly what has happened among Senate Democrats this week. Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad proposed a version of the Bowles-Simpson plan as a draft Democratic budget and said he would bring it up for markup and eventually a vote in his committee—which would be the first time the Senate Democrats have actually bothered to propose a budget in nearly three years. But then Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid stepped in and killed the idea, insisting that no budget was necessary and forcing Conrad into a bizarre farce in yesterday’s committee markup—which involved no votes, and consisted largely of pleading by the chairman directed implicitly against his own leader.

          And yet, the story has mostly been treated in the political press as a failure of bipartisanship. Politico described it all as “a study in gridlock” and “a metaphor” for a “broken and politically polarized Congress.” Describing the pressure Conrad was under, The Hill deadpans that “Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who consulted with Conrad in recent days, said that he understood Conrad’s attempt to take the temperature of his committee but said the Senate is not ready to come together on a bipartisan plan yet.” One gets the sense that “consulted” has a different meaning in Chicago than in the rest of the English speaking world.

          But as a study in gridlock, this week’s events should lead to a particular conclusion about the sources of that gridlock: House Republicans have proposed and passed a budget, the chairman of the Senate budget committee sought to propose one of his own, but the Senate’s Democratic leadership preferred inaction instead. That is in fact how essentially all of the “gridlock” of the 112th congress has happened, and it is not properly described as gridlock but as Democratic dereliction. Republicans have put their views and proposals on the table, and Democrats have been afraid to do the same and so have offered nothing but vitriol.

          The Bowles-Simpson approach to deficit reduction is not best understood as a bipartisan middle ground: It would involve major tax increases but no reform at all of our health-care entitlements (which are by far the foremost drivers of our debt problem). That makes it a plausible opening offer from the Democrats in budget negotiations, not a plausible ultimate outcome of such negotiations. But the Democrats have been unwilling even to make such an opening offer. They prefer instead to offer nothing but demagogic scare tactics and then complain about an absence of bipartisanship.

  23. Woman’s Liberation gone so so wrong. Now if one dresses sexy-she obviously has a responsibility to be promiscuous-I seem to remember fighting the charge of slut on the basis of clothing-remember the days when it was a woman’s fault if she was raped based on her chosen outfit.

    Jezebel: Pro-Life Women Who Dress Sexy Must Be Slut-Shamed

    by David Swindle 22 hours ago 88 post a comment
    Behold the dazzling intellectual gymnastics of today’s practitioners of cultural Marxism:

    1. Last summer, in response to a Canadian cop suggesting women should “avoid dressing like sluts,” self-proclaimed feminists around the country participated in “slut walks” wherein they dressed like porn stars. “Slut” was an empowering badge of pride.

    2. On February 29 of this year, Rush Limbaugh used the word “slut” to describe professional “reproductive justice” activist Sandra Fluke who apparently has sex so much that she needs the government to pay for her contraception. After fierce condemnation for his words, Limbaugh apologized. Fluke refused to accept it.

    So which side of the Madonna-whore complex do progressives find themselves today?

    Now in the newest attack on Governor Scott Walker in response to his successful challenge against the thuggery of Wisconsin’s private sector unions, Jezebel has piggybacked on a smear from Alternet and targeted one of his aids with personal attacks dating back to her college days. What heresy unleashed this new sexist attack against Ciara Matthews?

    Working at Hooters while holding pro-life views.

    Erin Gloria Ryan of Jezebel delivers the “slut shaming,” throwing in an old picture of Matthews in her uniform for good measure:

    In a hypocritical turn, Matthews seems totally fine with selling chaste sexiness but not permitting sexuality — she used to be a waitress at Hooters. Now, short of cooking meth or murdering enemies of the mob, doing what you have to do to work your way through college is generally admirable, and Matthews shouldn’t be faulted for donning the shiny suntan nylons and orange short shorts of the Hooters uniform. As they say, if you’ve got it, flaunt it.

    But profiting from selling a plasticized form of unnatural sexiness designed to arouse men while simultaneously believing that women should be forced to face the “consequences” of actually giving into to their sexual desires is a pretty backward way of thinking. And she should be taken to task for it. So we’ve posted this hilarious picture of her in her Hooters uniform to illustrate the ridiculousness of all of this — Walker, Matthews, their wacky beliefs, and the general asshats who we’ve somehow elevated to positions like Governor of an entire goddamn state. Vote, people! This is what happens when you don’t!

    Look at the way Ryan understands sexuality. In her imagination, unplanned pregnancies happen because of women “actually giving into to their sexual desires.” A woman’s reproductive urge is a primal, divine force that no law or lack of money should dare impede. Any opposition to the right to abortion on demand is akin to “not permitting sexuality.”

    So is there any surprise that Ryan would so resent the emotionally and intellectually mature conservative woman? That she would loathe women who don’t live in fear that someday they’ll wake up with “consequences” as a result of a night trying to heal their emotional brokenness with self-destructive casual sex? That she would long to destroy those who have mastered the art of being sexy without being promiscuous–of being a multilayered, complex woman who can take charge of her own life and know how to draw out her partner’s respect, commitment and desire?

  24. I’m still not a big fan of Ms. Coulter, but this is a good example of why she is popular and successful. When she wants to, she can nail an issue….

    The racist history of gun control laws

    By Ann Coulter
    Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of “stand your ground” laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC’S Karen Finney blamed “the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.”)

    This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.

    We don’t know the facts yet, but let’s assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

    If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America’s oldest and most august civil rights organization.

    Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country’s history.

    Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.

    (Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU’er, but every ACLU’er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)

    In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks — even freemen — could not own guns.

    Chief Justice Roger Taney’s infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: “[I]t would give them the full liberty,” he said, “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

    With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.

    Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.

    After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted “Black Codes,” denying black Americans the right of citizenship — such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms — while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.

    For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.

    The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 — passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant — made it a federal felony to “deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property.” This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress’ authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.

    Under authority of the Anti-Klan Act, President Grant deployed the U.S. military to destroy the Klan, and pretty nearly completed the job.

    Read more:

  25. @ Buck…….interesting reading. I also read one similar on CNN. In my reserve unit, there is a consitutional lawyer in the JAG office. He found Ginsburg’s questioning interesting and also that of Kagan’s. He thinks that the position of not using the 1867 law pretty significant. Hehas predicted that the Commerce Clause will not apply because of the verbage of penalty vs tax.

    Supreme Court signals it won’t punt on ObamaCare decision

    Read more:

    • His, the JAG, reasoning is that a penalty does not fall under the definition of raising revenue.

    • He also thinks that if the SCOTUS rules against it because of the penalty issue, that it is DOA if it is revived taking out the penalty because the ruling would define the penalty issue and any type of increased tax as a result of not taking Obamacare would still be a penalty issue by definition.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Interesting thoughts from your JAG friend, and he may be right in the ultimate decision, but I would be a bit surprised by SCOTUS now taking a hard-line approach to penalty vs. tax. SCOTUS has pretty much ignored this distinction for decades from my understanding.

      • JAG-man reasons that it would be a stretch even for a liberal SCOTUS to rule that a penalty is revenue under the commerce definition. He thinks it does not pass the revenue test because there would be no revenue if in compliance. He did cite something, that I do not remember, that he felt supported that but what the hey……I am not a barrister,,,,I am a mere retired old Colonel who knows nada….Just thought you would be interested.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Let me add that the only reason this argument is even on the table is because of the bizarre and absurd notion of the LEFT that the Taxation Clause gives Congress the authority to pass any law it wishes. Because of those little words, “for the General Welfare” at the end of the provision.

          In a foul mood again today…………. sharpening my skinning knife.

          Hope all is well in the land of Texas today. Looks like some bad weather possibly coming your way again.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        If the court doesn’t slap down this obfuscation of the words “penalty” and “tax”, and the relationship to the taxation clause, we are DOOMED.

        It will mark the completion of the Progressive’s project to REFORM our language.

  26. The gay men penis-size study falls under the NDRI’s drug abuse, AIDS and crime research category. In 2006, the year the organization started funding the penis-size research, it received $899,769 in taxpayer money.

    Read more:

    For the record, I blame Obama!

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh the IRONY, or should I say Hypocrisy.

    Sitting here listening to US GOVT officials calling for “return of Syria to the Syrian people”.

    I wonder if these asshats realize their own days are numbered?

    • Worked really well in Egypt didn’t it? LOL I keep thinking how many times a “little” foreign conflict was used by politicians to try and hold onto power…

  28. @ JAC…..good afternoon sir. This is the time of the year for nastyweather. We are used to it. Have already sharpened skinning knives…now loading ammunition.

  29. Obama losing military support. Tricare, the veterans promised heath benefits, are part of the “shared responsibility program” in the Presidents new budget proposal. Everyone must pay their fair share is the mantra of spewed bullshit. A retired service member with a pay scale of E-6 (50k), would see his out of pocket expense rise 8 times his current out of pocket expense. Tricare is the veterans health service. Under the Obama health proposal, if the military member cannot afford this,,,,,then they must drop Tricare and go under the new Obama Care. In other words, the government broke its promise….not surprising.

    However, under the same “shared responsibility program” the average salaried government worker (130 k) has been exempted. The Federal Employees Union and all government workers in the DC area have been exempted from the shared responsibility program……and their health coverage not touched nor changed and their out of pocket expenses lowered by 21,4%.

    This is proposed in the 2013 budget….you know, the budget that has not been voted upon for the past three years in the Senate…..that one. I do not know why we should be worried, though. Beginning in 2014, under the Obama Care….Tricare will be totally eliminated and forced under the Obama Care anyway…..for Veterans…..but the Federal Employees Union and the Washington DC Federal employees are also exempt from this.

    And you wonder the disdain.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I saw this information somewhere the other day. I noticed then, and again now, a statement that isn’t consistent with my own “actual experience”.

      Regarding the regular salaried govt employees: “and their health coverage not touched nor changed and their out of pocket expenses lowered by 21,4%.”

      Our “out of pocket” Govt Health Insurance costs have risen EVERY year, while the coverage has DECLINED.

      So I am wondering where this notion that the regular salaried folks are getting some new “reduction” in out of pocket costs.

      And of course, the COLA increases are still frozen, meaning that regular Govt employees are falling behind inflation once again. For those who don’t realize it, they got hammered in the Nixon/Carter years. Two more clowns who thought fixing prices was a solution to economic problems and their “popularity deficit disorder”.

      • @ JAC…..interesting. Let me ask….are you part of the Federal Employees Union? If you are, you are not changing, according to this letter that I have received. I did see where the non union government employees are being hit pretty hard. The numbers that I am quoting are coming directly from the government itself. The 21.4 % has not taken effect as yet. It takes effect in 2013 and 2014. If you are a Federal Employee Union member or work in the Washington DC area, you are totally exempt from all rules of Obama Care. This is in the bill that was passed. The TriCare that I am talking about does not change either….until 2013 and 2014…..two incremental changes. The numbers I am quoting , I have it in front of me from the Tri Care admin office listing our options for the next two years under the new rules that will go onto effect then.

        Look it up in the new law…if not struck down. If the mandate is struck down…I think it is a moot point because all my legal contacts tell me that the entire Obamacare is predicated on mandates. But I knew your COLA’s were still frozen….the automatic ones. Ours are too.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Good Morning Colonel. Hope all is well in the Great Republic of Texas this morning.

          My wife’s Agency is part of a Fed Employees Union, but she is not. I honestly don’t know if there are multiple unions within the Fed system. I know the Postal Workers are separate, but not sure about the other Agencies. I knew we were exempt from some of the Obama Care stuff because we have our own policy. I was concerned that it would be “classified” as a luxury policy however, given the pretty good coverage. The policy is under Federal Blue Cross/Blue Shield, by the way.

          Thanks for the heads up. I will now have to do some homework to see what is headed our way.

          So the essence of what you are reading is that POTUS has not only set rich against poor, white against black, but now “select” Govt employees against other Govt employees.

          Such a UNITER, don’t ya think!

    • “We have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it”

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    A classic example of brainwashed liberlas should be put in Psych hospitals. The Author is a total moron who misinterpreted everything said to play his little liberal race card 👿

    • gmanfortruth says:

      UHG! “why brainwashed liberals”. Geez I’m fed up with this race bullshit!

    • Some people only believe in analogies when it benefits them, like when Bill Mayer calls Sarah Palin horrendously sexist names, and not when Rush Limbaugh calls someone that wants free birth control a slut. Or when you call George Bush a nazi, and not when you call Barack Obama a nazi.

  31. The Agenda

    NRO’s domestic-policy blog, by Reihan Salam.

    The Business Cycle and the Birth Rate
    By Reihan Salam
    April 19, 2012 4:44 P.M.

    Last year, Gretchen Livingston of the Pew Research Center observed the following:

    States experiencing the largest economic declines in 2007 and 2008 were most likely to experience relatively large fertility declines from 2008 to 2009, the analysis finds. States with relatively minor economic declines were likely to experience relatively small declines.

    For example, North Dakota, which experienced one of the nation’s lowest unemployment rates (3.1%) in 2008, was the only state to show even a slight increase (0.7%) in births from 2008 to 2009. All other states and the District of Columbia experienced either no change, or declines, in births during that period.

    These correlations are based on fertility trends calculated using data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau and economic trend data from six familiar indicators (per capita income, per capita gross domestic product, employment rate, unemployment rate, initial unemployment claims, and foreclosure rates) tracked by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and RealtyTrac.

    Since 2007, the U.S. fertility rate—which controls for variations in the size of the female population of childbearing age—has dropped markedly from 69.6 births per thousand women ages 15-44 to 66.7 births per thousand women ages 15-44 in 2009. Provisional data for 2010 indicate a further drop to 64.7 births per thousand women ages 15-44.

    The Pew Research Center analysis also finds evidence of an association between economic hard times and fertility declines by race and ethnicity. Hispanics, whose employment levels and household wealth were particularly hard hit by the Great Recession, have experienced the largest fertility declines of the nation’s three major racial and ethnic groups. Conversely, whites have experienced smaller economic hardships, and smaller declines in fertility. From 2008 to 2009, birth rates dropped by 5.9% among Hispanic women, while birth rates dropped 2.4% among black women and 1.6% among white women.

    As Livingston goes on to note, it is possible that this fertility decline merely means that women are postponing childbirth, e.g., it seems that the fertility decline is concentrated among younger women. If, however, we’re seeing a secular deterioration of the labor market position of less-skilled workers, one wonders what impact this might have on fertility decisions over the longer-term. Moreover, among the upper-middle-class, child-rearing is seen as a far more labor-intensive activity than it had been some decades ago. Parents who are more attuned to the future labor market prospects of their children have been diverging from those who are less so in their fertility decisions, and this is likely to have significant implications for the skill mix of the prime-age population in future decades.

    This evolving landscape strengthens the case, in my view, for Robert Stein’s call for a more “family-friendly” tax code:

    There are, of course, already some modest tax benefits attached to having children. Combining the impact of the $1,000 per-child tax credit with 15% of this year’s dependent exemption of $3,650 (15% being the income-tax rate paid by most middle-class parents), it turns out that ­having a child today reduces the typical household’s annual tax burden by a total of about $1,550. But considering both the cost and the value of raising children, $1,550 is much too low.

    The exact cost of raising a child is notoriously difficult to estimate, given disparities in spending at different income levels — not to ­mention the countless unquantifiable factors involved. But if we take the commonly cited Department of Agriculture figure of $13,000 per child per year through age 17 (a figure that does not even account for college-­education costs) — and the fact that Social Security and Medicare will absorb about 25% of the labor income of a child born today — we would find that sharing the direct financial costs of raising children to the same extent that the benefits of their future labor income will be shared would require reducing the annual tax bill of parents by $3,250 per child (25% of $13,000).

    Another way of looking at the issue is to consider that the present value of future Social Security and Medicare contributions for a typical worker born today is about $150,000. Rewarding parents for creating these future contributions suggests annual tax relief of about $8,500 per child.

    To correct for this inadequate treatment of households with ­children, the existing dependent exemption for children, the child credit, the ­child-care credit, and the adoption credit should be replaced with one new $4,000 credit per child that can be used to offset both income and payroll taxes. (This amount is set much closer to the $3,250 figure than the $8,500 one mostly to reduce the plan’s negative impact on federal revenue.)

    The new child credit would accomplish several significant policy goals. First, it would offset the anti-parenting bias created by Social Security and Medicare. Second, the credit would help simplify the tax code by getting rid of other exemptions and credits that apply to ­children. Third, and very important for many families, it would end the bias against families with a stay-at-home parent now caused by the child-care credit (which applies only if both parents are working for pay). And finally, it would reduce effective marginal tax rates for many middle-class families.

    This view is not universally embraced. It certainly represents a departure from horizontal equity, in which families with children would enjoy far more favorable tax treatment than families without children earning comparable incomes. And of course there are other ways to achieve the same goal, e.g., through a direct subsidy rather than a tax credit. While I tend to favor the elimination of tax expenditures, I recognize that ordinary income should be treated somewhat differently than capital gains and dividends. In a similar vein, I think it is entirely coherent to treat the decision to have children as meaningfully different from consumption as conventionally understood; the expenses associated with child-rearing can be understood as a form in investment in human capital. The case for the mortgage interest deduction strikes me as much weaker, particularly when we consider how it interacts with supply constraints in the housing market.

    Unfortunately, many people will nevertheless see calls for an increased child tax credit as just another form of special pleading. I doubt they can be persuaded otherwise. Fortunately, my sense is that a majority of voters would be broadly sympathetic to the idea that a more decentralized, parent-centric approach to investing in human capital has merit.

  32. Hmmmmm-Opinions

    Obama‘s ’Bridge to Work’: Allows People To Collect Unemployment While Testing Jobs

    Posted on April 19, 2012 at 1:07pm by Becket Adams Becket Adams

    Obama Admins Bridge to Work Allows People To Collect Unemployment While Testing New JobWASHINGTON (AP/The Blaze) — The Obama administration is looking for states that will experiment with unemployment insurance programs by letting people test a job while still receiving benefits.

    (Related: D.C. Hands Out Mass Firings As Employees Caught Collecting Unemployment While Working)

    The plan is a key feature of a payroll tax cut package that President Barack Obama negotiated with congressional Republicans in February.

    The Labor Department will open the application process Thursday for 10 model projects across the country. Any state can apply for the “Bridge to Work” program.

    The plan is modeled after a Georgia program called “Georgia Works.” Under the plan, workers who have lost jobs can be placed in other temporary jobs as trainees for short periods to “retain their skills” or gain new ones while receiving unemployment money. About a third of the time, those workers wind up getting hired full-time.

    A number of states are combining unemployment benefits with on-the-job training, including North Carolina, New Hampshire, Utah, and Missouri.

    A senior administration official said those states would be eligible to apply for the federal demonstration project. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the program before an administration announcement.

    States that are chosen could get waivers from the federal government allowing them to tap their unemployment insurance accounts to pay for such costs as transportation for workers in temporary jobs.

    Administration officials said they hope the waivers and assistance offered by the federal demonstration projects could help rectify any problems that have emerged.

    Supporters of the programs say it helps workers retain or learn new skills and add new job references to their resumes. The plan passed with support from leading Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, according to the AP.

    It also is designed to answer critics of unemployment benefits who say the aid discourages some people from aggressively seeking work.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Would need more information on the particulars of the program, but initial thought…I like the idea.

      • Georgia Works: a snapshot

        By Victoria Loe Hicks

        The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

        In the search for ways to put Americans back to work, President Obama looked to a program created in Georgia eight years ago, Georgia Works. Unlike many proposals put forward by either Republicans or Democrats, this one appears to have bipartisan support. Here’s a snapshot of how it works

        The basics

        Georgians receiving unemployment benefits are matched with employers who are seeking employees and who agree to provide up to eight weeks of training. The employers do not pay the workers, who work no more than 24 hours a week; instead workers continue to receive their unemployment checks and a $240 stipend to help cover transportation, child care and other expenses.


        Employers get up to eight weeks to assess the job candidate, at no cost. If the company decides to hire the candidate, it has avoided the cost of training that worker.

        Job seekers get a chance to assess the company and to show what they can do. Whether or not they are hired, they get training and experience that may benefit them down the line.


        The amount and quality of training workers receive is dependent on participating companies. Companies get free trainees at the taxpayers’ expense. Workers receive very little money during the time that they are in the program.


        2003: Georgia Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond launches the program.

        2005: The U.S. Labor Department recognizes the Georgia agency as the most effective in the nation for helping unemployed residents get back to work quickly.

        2009: With 10 percent of Georgia workers unemployed, Thurmond, a Democrat, expands the program, making it available to anyone who is out of work, not just those eligible for unemployment benefits.

        2010: On the heels of the expansion, the cost to the sate increases dramatically.

        2011: New Labor Commissioner Mark Butler, a Republican, scales back the program, restricting eligibility once again to those collecting unemployment.


        More than 32,000 workers and 16,000 companies have participated. One-quarter of workers were hired by the firm they trained with.

        What critics say

        “A review of data for the Georgia Works trainees who found employment between November 24, 2009 and September 30, 2010 shows two-fifths found jobs doing general clerical work. … 70 percent of the trainees hired after the end of the training program found employment in these or similar low-wage jobs.”

        — Eileen Appelbaum, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research

        “We reviewed Georgia Works. It looks more like work than training. You can’t try someone out and not pay them. It’s not allowed under our nation’s labor laws.”

        — Andrew Stettner, deputy director of the National Employment Law Project

        What fans say

        “We stand ready to work with [President Obama] if there is interest in implementing a similar program on the federal level.”

        — House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

        “Georgia Works should be deployed on a national basis. It is a proven, effective approach to helping the jobless get back to work.”

        — The Rev. Jesse Jackson, president of the Rainbow Push Coalition

        • The only negative I’ve read that I think could be a problem-is companies using this program to just get, free government payed employees. But you’d be talking about an 8 week turnaround-don’t see much advantage to any company in doing that. Also saw where other States were trying our this program on their own-so not sure why we would need it at a Federal level?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            One problem with the George program, from my brief research, is that those in the program only get paid the unemployment benefits they receive, even if this amount is below minimum wage. Obama’s program would require employers to kick in any additional salary to meet minimum wage requirements. From my very basic understanding, Obama’s program is also taking certain steps to help ensure employers don’t utilize this program to get cheap labor at the expense of its current employees (e.g, firing current employees and replacing them with prospective employees under this program).

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Show me where in the Constitution we gave Congress the authority to establish and manage such a program????????

      • The first thought I have isn’t always whether or not an idea is Constitutional-I assume that is because I am so used to this type of stuff happening at the Federal level. MY bad “) But I did question why -we would need to do this at the Federal level-when it was already happening at the State level.

        So- what do you think of the idea on a State level?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I can’t wait to see the lefty attorney argue that the WARS were in fact paid for with Tax Dollars.

      That should stop all the whining about “Bush’s UNFUNDED Wars”!! Bwahahahahahahaha

      • Can we at least continue to wine about his immoral, legally dubious, and under-false-pretenses wars?

        And, I don’t think anyone meant that his wars were “unfunded” in the sense that “we’re not paying for them with tax dollars” so much as they mean that he kept them out of the official budget. I’m not 100% on this, but didn’t he classify them as emergency spending or some such, so that the cost wouldn’t count toward his total ‘government budget’ numbers or some such?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          The actual issue was that much of the costs were not included in the broader budget bills. This causes Congress to address the expenditures in separate legislation. A practice that has been done for decades whenever Congress has to address some cost not foreseen in the budget.

          So the complaints were nothing but a Political Stunt perpetrated by DNC Leadership.

          Now for the current debates. The LEFT WING talking heads have been pounding the notion into the sheep heads that the DEBT and DEFICIT is due to “Bush’s Unfunded Wars”. And the sheep being sheep, go around bleating this notion to everyone they can.

          So in fact “someone” is pushing this idea. And of course it is in FACT true. We were borrowing to fund Govt before the Wars, during the Wars and will continue after the Wars. So it is hard to say that these or any other particular expenses are “funded”.

          This brings me back to the Trial. To argue that “my tax dollars were used for the war” means the war was “paid for”. I’m sure this won’t stop many on the LEFT from continuing to argue out of both sides of their mouth on this.

          To your first point. ABSOLUTELY argue against these “immoral” wars. The rest, however, is simply a matter of opinion, depending on what kind of animal you ride to the voting booth.

        • cough,libya,cough, cough

          And what of our President, who was so quick to intervene in Libya and even though it was really about protecting European oil deals, used as his excuse the moral high ground of protecting civilians? Barack Hussein Obama claims to be a Christian. Is he going to defend black Christians against Islamist jihad, rape and murder?

          Read more:

          • Sorry, did I say somewhere that I approved of Libya? Maybe I ate some bad sea food that day and wasn’t paying attention. Let’s check the list*…

            List of wars of which I (tentatively) approve:
            1. Revolutionary
            2. 1812
            3. WWII **

            List of wars*** of which I don’t approve:
            1. Mexican-American War
            2. Civil War ****
            3. Spanish-American War
            4. World War I
            5. First Barbary War
            6. Indian Wars
            7. Philippine-American War
            8. Korean War
            9. Vietnam War
            10. Persian Gulf
            11. Iraq War
            12. War in Afghanistan
            13. Quasi-War (Undeclared Naval War with France)
            14. Boxer Rebellion
            15. Lebanese Civil War
            16. Grenada Invasion
            17. US Invasion of Panama
            18. Somalian Civil War
            19. Bosnian War
            20. Kosovo War
            21. Libyan Civil War

            *assume that anything I missed belongs on the later list
            ** some conditions apply
            ***yes, I am fully aware that some of these are “police actions” or some such. Bullsh*t. They’re all wars, except for #6 which is better classified as a genocidal annihilation of an indigenous population.
            **** Yes, that’s right.

            • So if this a big issue for you, you must be supporting Ron Paul. He’s the only one who has spoken out against all these foreign military actions. And FYI…

              • It is a big deal for me. And I do like a lot that Ron Paul has to say, in particular his dovish position on the military. If he had a prayer of winning, I would strongly consider voting for him. I might anyway if he runs as an independent, but I doubt it – I haven’t really made up my mind on the general yet though it’s looking like the Big O. His social stance spooks me a little bit though. He’s against gay marriage and thinks that abortion doctors should be tried for murder (not very small government, btw) – I don’t think, however, that he’d necessarily achieve either of these goal, but it is a problem for me when I want to vote for him, amongst other social policy concerns. On the flip side though, today being 4/20, I’ll note that he’s in favor of legalizing marijuana and though I’m no pot head, this is definitely the right thing to do.

                Re Andrew Jackson: First let me state the obvious that I don’t support his actions per that article. That said, I think it’s unfair to paint the democratic party with that brush. Yes, he may have been one of the early founders of the party, but the Democratic party has grown and changed a great deal since then. Conversely, Republicans often call themselves the party of Lincoln though Lincoln wouldn’t have a prayer in today’s Republican party. The truth is that if I were alive back then, I probably would have been a “Republican” or even a Whig. Andrew Jackson would be a “Republican” and Lincoln would have been “Democrats” if they were alive today. (interesting article re this).

              • Matt,

                I don’t know, looking back at historic figures and saying how they would do things differently, they lived back then and did as they did… I can see where we question the accuracy of some of the history we are taught, lies and bulldookey have been around since before written language. Was a little disappointed no one commented on my post of Coulter’s racial history of gun control, as a history buff, I can say she was spot on!!! PS, don’t overdo that DeadBull stuff…


            • You left out the Alamo……and rightly so….it belongs on no list….it was not a State yet…..Mexico pissed us off……but they are getting their revenge now.

            • You list the First Barbary War and not the Second. Was it because of the outcomes, or the cause, or because you missed it on your list.

              • Just missed it. I copied the list of conflicts off the internet and then sorted them into my sub-sets. Truth be told, I know nothing about either Barbary War (and didn’t know until you said so that there was even a second one – though of course “first” implies that there’s a “second”). However, it’s a pretty safe assumption that I don’t approve of either.

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    For those who follow currencies, here is a statement that I would like your opinion of. 🙂

    Beijing just gave the country’s commercial banks the green light to dump U.S. dollars — for the first time ever!

    Is it any surprise that the U.S. dollar is hovering near record lows against the Chinese yuan, ready to plunge further? I think not!

    • Nothing more than currency manipulation……I would check to see where the Chinese yuan stands in the rest of the world. It does not. Investors and speculators are not touching it. Let China do it……and then try to collect interest…..

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Great, let it come out at trial as evidence towards his claim of self defense. That’s all we’ve been arguing for!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yes, let it come out in the trial. Once and for all, the left will learn that the right to self defense works when properly armed and trained. Bringing fists to a gunfight will be a hard lesson to learn, maybe people should be taught to keep their hands to themselves.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Or, maybe those on the right will learn that you don’t get to start a gunfight in the first place…it’ll be an interesting lesson for sure!

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    When Michelle has a hammer in her hand she usually hits the nail directly on the head. Just like this time.

    One of my favorite smart people told me the other day he thinks Mr. Obama will easily win again. Why??? Because he will continue to do what he did last time, and has been doing since elected. He will simply say things that can be interpreted by the Sheep in any manner the Sheep WANT to interpret the meaning. Thus ALL the Sheep will think he is standing with them. Even the Wolves dressed like Sheep.

    A master Snake Oil Salesman.

  35. Partisan posturing! When has a gun ban ever stopped a criminal? If someone wants to attack others, how ofter do they think the threat of being arrested gives pause to someone who plans to be arrested or killed? It’s only a deterent to the law abiding, who’s behavior shoud be encouraged, not discouraged…..And a signal to the wolves, the sheep are helpless!

  36. By Bill O’Reilly

    As author of the book “Killing Lincoln,” I know a little bit about the nation’s first Republican president and the current President Barack Obama knows something about Mr. Lincoln as well.

    In fact, he often cites old Abe in his speeches. Here is an example yesterday in Ohio.


    OBAMA: I believe that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. I agree that everybody has personal responsibility for their own lives. Everybody has got to work hard. Nothing is ever handed to us.

    But I also agree with our first Republican president, a guy named Abraham Lincoln, who said that “through government, we should be able to do together what we can’t do as well on our own.”


    O’REILLY: Interesting sound bite. Number one, Mr. Obama is responding to criticism from this program and other places that he is a social justice guy who wants government to somewhat control individual outcomes. The President denies that but there is no question that his administration has embraced the entitlement culture spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on it.

    Now, what Mr. Obama said about Abraham Lincoln is also very interesting. We should do together what we cannot do as well on our own. Ok. What did Mr. Lincoln actually mean by that? Let’s take slavery, for example. No American could defeat that on his or her own. We had to fight a war for emancipation. Americans in the north had to band together to defeat pro-slavery forces. That’s a legitimate function of the federal government. Is it not? Of course it is.

    Now, I believe President Obama would say that a just society is what Abraham Lincoln stood for. And that’s true. But collective justice is far different than individual justice. All of us get hosed in life. Nobody escapes unharmed. The federal government can’t alter that reality. We will pay for our mistakes and for the bad things people do to us.

    What President Obama does not seem to understand but Abraham Lincoln did is the limitations of the bureaucracy. If the President continues spending the way he has in the past, he’ll bankrupt the country. Is that justice for all? Economic chaos is not far away. And that is what this year’s presidential election will be about.

    Unlike some of you, I believe Mr. Obama is a sincere man. But I do not believe he understands economics. And I don’t think he lives in the real world. But he should. He should.

    For years Barack Obama worked on the south side of Chicago. He saw millions of dollars poured into that neighborhood. And he saw the money did very little to improve the lives of the people there.

    In fact, the south side of Chicago is worse now than it’s ever been. But President Obama has his story and he is sticking to it. But Abraham Lincoln’s story, that’s another matter.

    And that’s “The Memo.”

    Pinheads & Patriots

    As you know, airline security driving a lot of folks crazy, and in the case of 49-year-old John Brennan, you can take that literally.

    Brennan got fed up with the TSA in Portland, Oregon, and got naked.

    JOHN BRENNAN, GOT NAKED IN AIRLINE SECURITY: They had actually already patted me down and were testing the residue from that pat-down. I had to ask what was going on. They were not very informative about what was going on.

    And at the point I found out I tested positive for nitrates, which are an explosive, I decided the best way to show them that I’m not carrying a bomb is to take off my clothes. They get to choose when they see us naked in those machines, and I just decided, I’m going to speed the process up.

    O’REILLY: Brennan has been charged with indecent exposure. Even though we’re sympathetic to his plight, he is a “Pinhead.”

    Read more:

  37. Wow-are you kidding me-I agree with the one gentleman-just teach me the language. There is no reason for these issues to even come up in these types of classes unless the teacher intentionally brings them up.

    “Teaching as a Subversive Activity”: The Theory of Political Indoctrination
    April 12, 2012 – 6:13 am – by Zombie

    Last weekend I visited the U.C. Berkeley campus and on a whim attended a lecture with the provocative title “Teaching as a Subversive Activity — Revisited.”

    Because this was a presentation aimed at education insiders only, the lecturer, retired professor H. Douglas Brown from S.F. State, seemed perfectly willing to let the cat out of the bag about political indoctrination on college campuses. Fortunately, I had my trusty camera with me, so I was able not only to snap a few pictures but also record several key portions of his speech, which I found so eye-opening that I felt the general public deserved to hear it as well.

    The timing couldn’t have been better: A devastating new report issued by the National Association of Scholars had just been issued a few days beforehand, which documented with exquisite and irrefutable detail the extreme liberal bias at the University of California. However, the main problem with the NAS report (which you can download in full here if you’re interested) is that it’s too overwhelming and too technical to deliver the kind of emotional impact needed to sway public opinion. To drive home the point in a more personal way, the NAS report needed an introductory companion anecdote of a professor frankly confessing the rationale behind what is essentially the “theory of indoctrination.” As if on cue, Professor Brown stepped into that role, unwitting though he may have been.

    Let it be noted that Professor H. Douglas Brown is no wild-eyed extremist; in fact, he’s rather bland and respectable and not the most thrilling of speakers, as you will soon hear. But that’s what made his presentation so disturbing: radical and self-admittedly “subversive” attitudes that affect the future of society are discussed with matter-of-fact nonchalance. The main drawback of Professor Brown’s verbal style (at least from my point of view) is that he often resorts to the academics’ tried-and-true escape hatch, which is to rephrase statements as questions, so as to have plausible deniability if later confronted. Thus, for example, instead of just flatly saying something like “We should indoctrinate students with leftist ideologies,” he asks “Should we indoctrinate students with leftist ideologies?” and only after five minutes of talking in circles eventually concludes “Yes.”

    The title of Brown’s lecture is taken from an influential and groundbreaking book published in 1969. Written by Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner, the manifesto Teaching as a Subversive Activity did not actually advocate political indoctrination in the classroom, but rather it was one of the first books to completely deconstruct the concept of education itself, and the “subversion” it advocated was much deeper and more structural: Get rid of tests, the notions of “the right answer” and “the wrong answer,” the memorization of facts, the ascendency of teachers, and so forth; instead, make education an ungraded process of learning how to think and how to criticize, respecting the opinions and ideas of the students themselves. Of course, this being 1969, it was presumed that the establishment status quo with its facts and rules was rigid and conservative, while the students were radical and transgressive, so all one had to do to foment a revolution was simply to put the kids in charge of their own education, and they’ll naturally overthrow society without even being specifically instructed to do so. (If you’re curious, the entire text of Teaching as a Subversive Activity is now available for free online as a PDF document.)

    In the decades since, many of the recommendations in Teaching as a Subversive Activity and similar books were in fact implemented to various degrees, but things didn’t quite work out as the authors envisioned. Without some structure, students often flounder aimlessly. Furthermore, the “authority figures” controlling academia are no longer uptight conservatives, but are instead now liberals, progressives and radicals themselves, so when students are encouraged to ignore those in charge, then they may very well ignore the progressive messages as well.

    Professor Brown’s talk focuses specifically on this problem: His basic thesis is that it is no longer sufficient to simply tell students to think for themselves, because then we lose the ability to influence them, and there’s no guarantee that the students will then develop progressive worldviews. The “Revisited” part of the lecture’s title means that these days, we must be more blunt and to the point: Since the good guys are now in charge, let’s just dispense with all the experimentation and instead directly indoctrinate the students in leftist thought and ideals.

    Now, I’m sure Professor Brown, were he to ever read this essay, would take exception to my characterization of his lecture; but listen to the excerpts below and judge for yourself. Although he (and his legions of fellow educational theorists) seems partly aware of his biases, and frankly admits them, he also seems to be blithely oblivious to the depth of his political prejudices, which you’ll encounter below.

    I’m not presenting this lecture in and of itself as a significant political watershed, nor as a shocking behind-the-scenes glimpse at academic bias. Rather, it’s just another random day at a random university; stuff like this goes on all the time. And it’s this normalcy of radicalism that makes it so alarming; people in the academic hothouse chat about the most disturbing ideas as if they were discussing the weather. The banality of subversion, as it were.

    Below you will find six audio clips from his April 6 lecture, followed by six exact transcriptions. The sound quality of the audio is, admittedly, rather poor, so read the transcriptions as your main resource and only refer to the mp3s as proof that the transcriptions are true and accurate. The lecture was nearly two hours long in full, far too long to present in a short essay like this, plus I was only able to record segments of it, so what you see here are only excerpts; but they’re a fair representation of the overall lecture. (Portions of the transcriptions [in brackets] indicate words that are not clearly audible; Ellipses […] indicate passages skipped because they were inaudible or were asides.)

    Following each clip are brief comments and analyses by me.

    Also scattered throughout the essay are photos I took of various slides in Brown’s PowerPoint presentation; if you want to see the whole thing as a PDF document, the Berkeley Language Center (which sponsored the lecture) has made it available here.

    Ever wonder how “progressive” educators justify their one-sidedness? Behold:

    Clip 1: “Agents for Change.”

    Host: OK, well, it’s a great pleasure to introduce Professor H. Douglas Brown — Doug Brown — who is truly an iconic figure in language acquisition and language teaching broadly, incredibly influential with many years of experience. He’s professor emeritus at San Francisco State Department of English and also director for 22 years of the American Language Institute at S.F. State.

    H. Douglas Brown: Thank you very much. …

    The Postman and Weingartner book was intriguing to me because I thought, “Well, what do you mean teaching as a ‘subversive activity’? What are we talking about?” And of course what Postman and Weingartner were trying to point out, not for language teaching in particular but for education in America and the United States in general, to what extent are we shaping the lives of the children in our public schools and the kids in our high schools? To what extent are we perhaps subversively providing messages to them on: What is good? What is bad? What is right? What is wrong?

    The first observation is that our motives are rooted in our desire to help people, to communicate across national, political, and religious boundaries and our desire to be agents for change in this world.

    Wonderful phrase: “Agents for change.” And it certainly fits with that whole mentality that Postman and Weingartner were talking about in their “subversive teaching”; “agents of change.”

    Right from the beginning Brown is unconsciously wrestling with the distinction between the book’s publication date of 1969, when the “right” and “wrong” values which teachers were conveying to students were presumed to be old-fashioned and reactionary and thus ripe for “subversion” by new teaching methods, versus today, when educators are now motivated by all sorts of noble ideals, and thus it’s OK for modern teachers to tell students what to feel. Of course, the philosophical framework no longer makes total sense, since (as a questioner after the lecture later pointed out), if teachers still want to be “agents for change,” the old puritan society they are rebelling against no longer really exists anymore, so what are they trying to “change” now if the change they sought already happened?

    Whenever you see the phrase “Critical Pedagogy,” your indoctrination alarm bells should ring.

    Clip 2: “A Two-Edged Sword”

    H. Douglas Brown: Is all language teaching — does all language teaching have that same motive? Some of you may have taught at or been to the DLI, the Defense Language Institute, down in Monterey. And I would say when I was down there for several workshops that the teachers openly admitted that the reason for teaching a certain language was basically to listen to radio broadcasts and to — I mean if you want to use the word “spy,” it’s to spy on another country and figure out if they have any deep dark secrets or gonna come over our heads and annihilate the United States. So, that’s not exactly the same spirit that this particular statement is in and it’s not exactly why you teach language, in order to get people to be able to spy more easily. But it is a motive. And you and I know that there are languages being taught — perhaps in this country, in many countries of the world — where the ulterior motives are not necessarily for peace, they’re not necessarily to communicate and be nice to somebody who is of another culture, another country or another religion; so it’s a two-edged sword.

    But I think most of us agree that at least in almost all of our schools and universities here in the USA, we are at the heart of the matter agents for change, for communicating across borders — and to try to bring down the barriers that lie between cultures, politics.

    See, all the good teachers have pure hearts and just want peace, love and harmony; but down there at the evil Defense Language Institute, they just teach people to become spies. Boooooo! Because God forbid we take any steps to forestall our enemies by learning their languages.

    In the passage above, Brown is segregating educators into two clearly distinct camps: the “good guys” like himself and the vast majority of liberal teachers who want to bring unity to the world; and the “bad guys” who use education to help the military-industrial complex. And the good guys are all “agents for change.”

    Clip 3: “Refrain From Revealing Your Own Beliefs”

    H. Douglas Brown: Because if we, if we agree that we all kind of have a moral imperative as language teachers, an imperative to be someone, a teacher, not just another unit of linguistic bits and pieces. To be someone. And we’re going to have to face these questions. So can we be agents of change? And at the same time refrain from revealing our own beliefs and convictions — or should we? It’s kind of a two-pronged […]. So, being an agent for change. But the question that I’m still leaving on this is “Can you, or can you refrain from revealing your own beliefs and convictions?” One of my teachers at the ALI says no, she would never be able to do that when it comes to hatred and prejudice. And she cited the issue of the KKK and she says, “I will NOT be balanced in my treatment of the Ku Klux Klan and what they did — and are doing — in the Southern part of the US. I will not present that other side.”

    “Oh well, you know, they could be right.”

    She just said, “I’m not there.”

    So, is that a good place to be? Should you present both sides? All the way, even though you intensely dislike that other side? I mean, that is the question.

    You can see in this passage Brown’s typical academic habit of hedging his statements by phrasing them as questions. Translated into direct speech, what he seems to be saying is: We shouldn’t even bother hiding our political agendas when we indoctrinate our students. To illustrate this point, he cites a (probably apocryphal) scenario in which a teacher was expected to present “both sides” of arguments for and against the KKK, something she refused to do, and rightly so. Using an extreme example that nobody would argue with is a good way of getting your foot in the door; from there on down it’s a slippery slope, and teachers can use the same excuse to justify one-sided discussions of all sorts of topics which they will claim also don’t merit even-handedness, a process we see being played out in classrooms constantly, with stories cropping up nearly every day of teachers exclusively presenting the liberal side of issues, or actively disparaging or misrepresenting conservative concepts.

    In case you didn’t catch it, the phrase “moral imperative” means “My progressive views are so over-archingly correct that it becomes my moral duty to spread them, and a crime against the world to keep them to myself.”

    Here’s the slide he was showing during the discussion above.

    Clip 4: “Just a Complete Wacko”

    H. Douglas Brown: The third question: “Does our zeal for realizing our own vision of a better world stand in the way of truly equal, balanced treatment of all issues?” So in this part I want to talk a little bit about Christianity or religion in general. I had a very devout Christian ALI teacher a few years back who came to me and said that, “I’m teaching English because I really want the whole world to believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior.” OK [laughs], I took a deep breath, and sat back in my chair and, y’know, made a few comments about how I appreciated anybody with zeal, but that first of all this is a state institution, and that we’re not a Christian institution, and that part of our whole ethos in the United States of America has to do with freedom of religion or — if you wish — freedom from religion, depending on what your perspective is — and that a motive like that could remain in the back of her mind, I thought, but that we weren’t going to ask her to get up and start reading John 3:16. [This is an] English class. That this was beyond the mandate and beyond the scope of what the American Language Institute was doing. Well. Was that the right thing to do? Was she just a complete wacko in saying that she wanted everybody to convert to Jesus Christ, or what? I still think y’know, I think I said the right thing. She left ALI fairly quickly [audience laughter] because she realized that we were not an institution where she could teach Jesus as The Way. And she did say Jesus was The Way, and I said that, well, y’know, “That’s, I’m sorry, but we can’t do that.” And I think she went to another place.

    So that’s just one example of, y’know this balanced treatment, and how far does your zeal for a particular issue go? I mean, let’s — we can name any issue — how far does it go?

    Here’s another kind of ridiculous little example, but: from an ESL textbook this dialogue came: “Why do you smoke? Because I like it. You shouldn’t smoke. Well, it makes me less nervous. But it’s not good for your health. I don’t care. Well, you will die young.” That was actually in a textbook. Well, you know, that’s sending a message. That’s not exactly balanced treatment of tobacco use. And I’m afraid I would have a hard time giving balanced treatment on an issue like that. I would tend to kind of go along with this dialogue and say, you know, “Stop smoking.” But what is our mandate? What is our moral imperative as teachers and what can we do subversively and yet maybe not so subversively that could get to be fairly overt?

    Well, I think that’s the realistic thing when we become agents for change and when we become teachers with some sense of our moral imperative.

    So one of my favorite books that came out by a former ALI student, had a chapter in it on homosexuals in— I think they were just in just Any City, USA, and it was about “Daddy’s Roommate.” And do you teach this, and how do you teach it? And what do you do when students rise up in holy wrath and say, “Well, you know that’s” — whatever they’re going to say — “It’s a sin, it’s bad, or whatever, to be a homosexual?” How do you treat that? What do you do as a language teacher?

    We had a unit at ALI about, it was a videotape, about My Two Mommies, a wonderful, wonderful, very sweet videotape, and kids of gay parents were being interviewed. Beautiful, beautiful tape. But some students didn’t like this, right? I mean, you can imagine. They thought, “What are you trying to teach me?” Well, we’re trying to teach English, but we’re trying to get you to think a little bit. Maybe some of them didn’t like that, and we got some controversy over that.

    We had an article about burning down an abortion clinic that we also used at ALI once. Equally controversial.

    This clip is truly mind-boggling. Brown first cites the example of a Christian teacher who of course is completely forbidden from discussing her crazy values with the students, something Brown recounts with pride — and then moments later he turns right around and discusses how “wonderful” and “beautiful” and thus reasonable and praiseworthy is his curriculum about homosexuality and abortion clinics and so forth. He’s not even trying to be unbiased here; he’s just presuming that his worldview is correct and superior, and the Christian’s worldview is “wacko,” and thus it is right and proper to banish her and instead promote his agenda.

    (An explanatory note that applies to this clip and many of the other clips as well: Professor Brown’s specialty was teaching English as a second language to adult students, so many of the scenarios he presented involved introducing progressive American liberalism to foreign students who sometimes had brought with them conservative or old-fashioned values from their native cultures, and who were therefore affronted by his politicized language lessons. As a result, the “indoctrination” scenarios he described are somewhat different from standard public school scenarios in which teachers can manipulate the comparatively unformed psyches of young American children.)

    Clip 5: “I wish that people didn’t have that freedom”

    H. Douglas Brown: So I’m kind of pushing down here toward a resolution of all this, in a way, and that is: In order to make these decisions about what you do or don’t do or what you face or don’t face in a classroom: Are there universal values? I happen to think they’re not universal, because “universal” means everybody believes in them. There’s no such thing as everyone, six and a half whatever it is billion people on earth believing the same thing.

    But, I do think that within our culture, and this is speaking in the United States of America, within our culture, there is a certain given set of working moral hypotheses. One is the equality of human beings. Two is freedom of individuals to speak out, write their opinions about sensitive — that’s a double-edged sword. Sometimes I think all of us wish that people didn’t have so much freedom [audience laughter]. I don’t know how many of you listen to any syndicated morning talk shows lately, but there are some times when I wish that people didn’t have that freedom. Ultimately because they disagree with me [audience laughter]. A culture of open-mindedness. We tend to think, yeah, you know, we believe that’s basic to our ethos. We believe in nonviolent resolution of conflict and we tend to believe in responsibility as stewards of the earth, to take care of this planet.

    And so some people have disagreed, of course, that we shouldn’t even be talking about this stuff, and [one] teacher said, “Your charge is to teach English or French or whatever, Finnish, or whatever language you’re teaching, and not morality. So just teach the bits and pieces and get off this, you know, sort of holier-than-thou kind of thing. Teachers should emphasize unity, not difference, so don’t do any of that controversial stuff. You get people too upset. The teacher is an authority figure. Students will believe whatever you believe in order to please you, so you should steer clear of sensitive issues. Because if you say something that is on one of these sensitive issues, the student is likely to look at the teacher and say ‘Oh yeah, well, whatever you say, teacher.‘ Or teachers will inevitably sometimes they push their own beliefs and agendas.” Yes. I think we do.

    The question is: How do we do it? And the view that you don’t have to believe in a point of view, I mean, I, I — maybe, maybe if you really backed me into a corner I might sort of reluctantly respect a student’s point of view who said that, y’know, “Racial prejudice is good.” But I don’t think I’d respect it as much as respect the right of the person to believe this. And then to dialogue with the person.

    I nearly fell out of my chair when he first said that he wished conservatives didn’t have freedom of speech, and then practically the very next phrase out of his mouth was that people like him believe in “a culture of open-mindedness.” I mean c’mon, does he have any self-awareness? How could someone say that with a straight face? And the audience just laughed, ha ha ha. This only confirms what I have long suspected: That liberals have banished overt conservative thought from many college campuses with “speech codes,” and that given half a chance they would implement the same thing society-wide, and feel sanctimonious and justified in doing so.

    The key phrase in the passage above, which you kind of have to hear in the audio clip to fully appreciate, is when he says “Yes. I think we do.” The tone of his voice is a sort of adolescent “Duh!” Of course we’re going to push our own beliefs and agendas on our students. That’s a given. The only remaining question is: How should we indoctrinate your children? Overtly, or surreptitiously? Rigidly, with no talking back allowed; or more casually?

    The key thing to remember from this passage is: Liberal teachers are so convinced of their moral superiority and pure intentions that they do not feel guilt or doubt about imposing their views on others.

    The expression on his face conveys how he feels about the counter-arguments presented on the PowerPoint slide.

    Clip 6: “If You Were a Republican You Had to Really Hide It”

    H. Douglas Brown: In Berkeley — um, Berzerkely, as it’s known to those of us outside of Berkeley — we live in a luxurious metropolitan area, I think. I’m now living in the [Sacramento] Valley. Uh, now, I don’t want to say anything bad about those nice folks that, y’know, that provide our strawberries and crops and everything, but I’m learning — [this is another true confession] — I’m learning to live with and make friends with Republicans [audience laughter]. Nothing wrong with Republicans, but I — at San Francisco State University I think if you were a Republican you had to really hide it, and/or if you felt that you were on the right side of the political spectrum. So, it’s actually a good lesson for me, because you know I’m hearing stuff that I wanna just — you know I want to come back at them, [completely] overcome here, I want to try to see if I can diplomatically engage with them, especially when there is a challenge. But you’re right that this area is a wonderful area to expose students to. If they were in, I don’t know, Platte, Nebraska or something […]
    Yes, sir.

    Questioner: With regard to that, actually when I was listening to your talk I couldn’t help but think of Rick Santorum’s recent attacks on higher education—

    H. Douglas Brown: He and I are just two peas in a pod [audience laughter].

    I only included this passage in case there was any doubt as to Brown’s (and the audience’s) political leanings.

    Having said that about the audience’s political leanings — well, it wasn’t unanimous. After the scripted part of the lecture, there was a question-and-answer session (which I mostly didn’t record, unfortunately), and this guy pictured here emerged as the hero of the day. He was the only person to speak his mind and basically call Brown out on the carpet. I don’t have a tape of his exact words, but he basically said, “Are you nuts? My job, like yours, is to teach English to immigrants; and all they want is to learn the language. Period. Politics is completely beside the point, and the reason students get mad at you is not the specifics of your viewpoints, but because you’re wasting their time on social issues when all they want to learn is the grammar of an unfamiliar language. Get over yourself, and get back to basics.” Well, it wasn’t quite that direct, and it was said with a thick Indian accent, but that was the gist of it. I was so impressed, I later took this picture of him.

    One other audience member made a good point, which I mentioned above; A guy a few rows behind me noted that since the contemporary status quo in almost all universities is liberal by default, then what is modern “subversive teaching” even being subversive against? Itself? But Brown just laughed it off and didn’t really address the question.

    What did we learn from all this? Well, aside from the obvious — that the educational establishment not only indoctrinates students, but also openly discusses the best way to do it — I learned of the various code words they use to mask their discussions. Here’s a handy list: Remember these phrases, and keep an ear out for them when dealing with teachers or educators.

    Code Phrases Alluding to Indoctrination

    If you hear or read academics using any of these tell-tale terms, they are actually discussing how to indoctrinate students:

    • Critical pedagogy
    • Agent for change
    • Moral imperative
    • “Critical” anything
    • Subversive
    • Mandate

    • It leaves me in jaw dropping shock! How can one so well educated be so incredibly closed minded which, where I come from means dumb.. The business about teaching language to “spy” is an excellent example. Historically speaking, it would have been kind of nice to have a better take on the language and culture of people we have been to war with in the past. Possibly would have averted some of the wars or, at the very least, made the prosecution of those wars easier and consequently less bloody for all. Not to see this, especially for a man like this, a “boomer” I presume, who has some vague recollection on WW 2 spoken about by his elders is mind boggling.

      Many of us have advocated the teaching of morality again in the schools. Well, it obviously is but it is the kind where kind fuzzy thoughts outweigh facts and surprisingly where it’s is just fine to be judgmental so long as the teacher “bully” picks only on those who differ on political thought from him. Makes me wonder just how different though he is from the National Socialist teacher political “bully” who taught in German Universities in the ’30’s? I would love to be able to ask the hoople that question.

  38. “They have little breasts and they have fancy hair … it just disturbs us that this is the image that they want girls to see.”

    – Dana Edell, SPARK Movemen

    I find it very revealing and frustrating that these People think a little girl seeing a true representation of a girl as some how “disturbing”.

    Read more:

  39. @ Buck……actually, no, I do not support minimum wage laws and never have. Why do I need some bureaucrat telling me what I have to pay. If I want to pay a dollar….then I should be able to pay a dollar. If I want to pay 25 dollars, I should be abe to pay 25 dollars. If people choose to work for me under those circumstances…..hooray for me. If not, I will have to find a wage that they will want to work for me. Water seeks its own level…….

    I owe nobody anything. If I wish to undercut my competition….does it matter why or how? It is free market.

    The biggest rub is……if you want minimum wage laws, then do not average the states as a whole. The cost of living in New York is ridiculous. The cost in Texas is not… most places ( except Dallas, the wannabe new york of Texas). Figure a minimum wage based upon the area….I would be against it but it would go down easier.

    Give me a good example of why there is a minimum wage? I have never herd a good argument….Please give me one.

    • Oh, and Texas is trying to figure out its Spring…….more “naders” headed our way……lots of rain, hail…..then July and August and September will be here and we will offer blood sacrifices to the raid gods foe any type of wet weather…..Hell, last year North TExas was pissed because the hurricane that hit Port Arthur sent the rain east and not up here…..

      But Texas is treating me just fine.

    • charlieopera says:

      Good morning, Colonel (and all). I’m struggling to meet deadlines this week (school and otherwise) and have only been able to take snapshots of the discussions. Day 8 of atkins/down 8 pounds and I’m in full ketosis … it’s ugly.

      As to minimum wage. Nothing would make this socialist happier than if the government abolished a minimum wage. Why, yous ask? Because nothing would bring about a true class revolution faster. Employers will always find cheaper labor elsewhere (see outsourcing), but that deals with corporations. Permit small businesses to hire at their own discretion and you’ll have the little guy fighting the little guy until the little guy figures out he’s a slave to wages and greed. Then the real game begins.

      It is a good measure of reason vs. emotion(the soul), by the way. An owner decides profit is more important than whether or not his/her workers can live on their wages. Ayn Rand at her finest. Self-interest vs. the greater good. It’s the stuff of revolutions …

      Good book recommendation here. Excellent read. North Carolina author on the tragedy of a church service involving snake worship. Really fine read.

  40. Just finished reading the Hunger Games books-Loved the ending!!!

  41. The tab for U.N.’s Rio summit: Trillions per year in taxes, transfers and price hikes

    Read more:

    The UN is a joke, has been a joke, and will always be a joke.


  43. Do we need to worry about this?

    Hundreds of thousands may lose Internet in July
    APNews | 5 hours ago

    Hundreds of thousands may lose Internet in July

    For computer users, a few mouse clicks could mean the difference between staying online and losing Internet connections this summer.

    Unknown to most of them, their problem began when international hackers ran an online advertising scam to take control of infected computers around the world. In a highly unusual response, the FBI set up a safety net months ago using government computers to prevent Internet disruptions for those infected users. But that system is to be shut down.

    The FBI is encouraging users to visit a website run by its security partner,, that will inform them whether they’re infected and explain how to fix the problem. After July 9, infected users won’t be able to connect to the Internet.

    Most victims don’t even know their computers have been infected, although the malicious software probably has slowed their web surfing and disabled their antivirus software, making their machines more vulnerable to other problems.

    Last November, the FBI and other authorities were preparing to take down a hacker ring that had been running an Internet ad scam on a massive network of infected computers.

    “We started to realize that we might have a little bit of a problem on our hands because … if we just pulled the plug on their criminal infrastructure and threw everybody in jail, the victims of this were going to be without Internet service,” said Tom Grasso, an FBI supervisory special agent. “The average user would open up Internet Explorer and get `page not found’ and think the Internet is broken.”

    On the night of the arrests, the agency brought in Paul Vixie, chairman and founder of Internet Systems Consortium, to install two Internet servers to take the place of the truckload of impounded rogue servers that infected computers were using. Federal officials planned to keep their servers online until March, giving everyone opportunity to clean their computers. But it wasn’t enough time. A federal judge in New York extended the deadline until July.

    Now, said Grasso, “the full court press is on to get people to address this problem.” And it’s up to computer users to check their PCs.

    This is what happened:

    Hackers infected a network of probably more than 570,000 computers worldwide. They took advantage of vulnerabilities in the Microsoft Windows operating system to install malicious software on the victim computers. This turned off antivirus updates and changed the way the computers reconcile website addresses behind the scenes on the Internet’s domain name system.

    The DNS system is a network of servers that translates a web address _ such as http://www.ap.org_ into the numerical addresses that computers use. Victim computers were reprogrammed to use rogue DNS servers owned by the attackers. This allowed the attackers to redirect computers to fraudulent versions of any website.

    The hackers earned profits from advertisements that appeared on websites that victims were tricked into visiting. The scam netted the hackers at least $14 million, according to the FBI. It also made thousands of computers reliant on the rogue servers for their Internet browsing.

    When the FBI and others arrested six Estonians last November, the agency replaced the rogue servers with Vixie’s clean ones. Installing and running the two substitute servers for eight months is costing the federal government about $87,000.

    The number of victims is hard to pinpoint, but the FBI believes that on the day of the arrests, at least 568,000 unique Internet addresses were using the rogue servers. Five months later, FBI estimates that the number is down to at least 360,000. The U.S. has the most, about 85,000, federal authorities said. Other countries with more than 20,000 each include Italy, India, England and Germany. Smaller numbers are online in Spain, France, Canada, China and Mexico.

    Vixie said most of the victims are probably individual home users, rather than corporations that have technology staffs who routinely check the computers.

    FBI officials said they organized an unusual system to avoid any appearance of government intrusion into the Internet or private computers. And while this is the first time the FBI used it, it won’t be the last.

    “This is the future of what we will be doing,” said Eric Strom, a unit chief in the FBI’s Cyber Division. “Until there is a change in legal system, both inside and outside the United States, to get up to speed with the cyber problem, we will have to go down these paths, trail-blazing if you will, on these types of investigations.”

    Now, he said, every time the agency gets near the end of a cyber case, “we get to the point where we say, how are we going to do this, how are we going to clean the system” without creating a bigger mess than before.


  44. Whoa,,,,,,,my own home town of Fort Worth wanting to pass a law that bans the hiring of smokers. D13’s thoughts are……..there is already a ban on smoking in the workplace and public forums so to ban the hiring of smokers is a moot point and not necessary. D13 will vote against this.

    D13 prefers the OSPTSTM (Obama’s Smoking Plan to Save Tax Money)…give tax breaks to cigarette companies and encourage smoking. By smoking more, you will die quicker, thereby, saving the tax payers in long term medicare and medicaid costs.

  45. The crack in the dam……Audi opts to build plant in Mexico and willing to take on the highest murder rate in the world… save money. Low cost wages and no corporate taxes makes the gamble worthwhile according to Audi. Toyota considering the move next……no unions, low cost labor, no taxes…………….

  46. Can someone please explain how this investigation can cost up to 1.6 million? Fine..they’re going to fly some investigators many could that be, 4 maybe? So you have airfare and per diem expenses…some of the SS guys have already been relieved of their duties..we’re paying the investigators salaries whether they go down there or not.. where does this add up to 1.6 million? And how does the UK know this?

    This is why I get sceptical of our 16T debt. Too many numbers are thrown around. Each side has a different set of numbers. I’d really like to see a balance sheet, to the penny. I know, everyone has a wish list…….

    • Good Morning, Anita………..since the Democratic Senate has taken over, and since Obama has been in office……..there has been and will be NO balance sheet. It is being help up purposely. There is no budget and there is not going to be one. If this guy is re-e;elected and the Dems maintain the Senate….you will see no balance sheet for another four years minimum. There have been four attempts to a budget being submitted by the House since 2010….all shot down at the Senate.

      • I read an article on yahoo criticizing Romney’s planned budget, and comparing it to Obama’s budget, nowhere in the article did it say that Obama’s budget was voted down 414-0, and that the Democratic controlled Senate hasn’t proposed a budget in years.

      • Good Morning Colonel, There has to be a better way of dealing with expenses. Just seems to me a number gets pulled out of the sky to throw at any given problem. How are you supposed to keep anything balanced when you don’t have good numbers going in..just doesn’t make any sense. I know, there is no answer with these clowns running things these days.

        Have some video ammo below for you to use with Buck the Liberal…

  47. Video: ‘If I Wanted America to Fail’

    posted at 5:00 pm on April 22, 2012 by Morgen Richmond

    A provocative new video from the folks over at Americans for Limited Government promoting a new project focused on economic liberty and free market policies. It’s very well done, if perhaps a little on the long side. Watch:

    The message at the very end is especially poignant:

    If I wanted America to fail I…I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.

    This is exactly right of course, and the prescription for change is more than just about electing a new president in November, or the GOP winning a majority in the Senate. Yes, the destructive effects of big government on economic prosperity and individual liberty have been exponentially worse since Democrats won a majority in Congress in 2006. Culminating in the nightmare of 2009-2010. But America veered off course long before this, with both parties complicit in the growth of runaway government spending and the perpetual expansion of federal power.

    I don’t think Democrats want America to fail any more than Republicans do, and I don’t think this is really the message of this video. But there is an immense contrast in the vision of what a successful America means between the left and the right. For many Americans, I daresay most, an America that seeks to maintain a facade of shared prosperity by confiscating more and more resources from the most productive among us, and placing them at the disposal of power-seekers in Washington D.C., is not a vision of success at all. It’s a recipe for decline, and friction in our society at a time when we should be seeking out and supporting more effective, and unifying, solutions to the challenges we face.

    This is the choice we face at the ballot box this November.

    • Anita……Buck does not need this lesson. He already knows it. He fully understands the philosophy and he fully understands its impact. Buck is who he is….he adopts the Liberal philosophy not because he wants to argue…..but because he believes in it. Funny thing is…..he believes in the “SOCIAL” side of Liberal philosophy…but practices the Conservative side…… free enterprise. His profession, as I understand it, is primarily estate planning. Estate planning embraces and teaches conservative investment and planning to REDUCE the tax impact. So, he practices conservative values but espouses Liberal Philosophy…..and he drinks coffee. But I think that Buck, the Walla Man, lives and breathes in New Jersey or New York…….it is the air and bagels that confuses him.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Woah now there colonel! I do not teach conservative investment and planning — I take some very aggressive and very risky approaches. Depending on the client of course.

        You are right about one thing though — NJ bagels do confuse me. How can they be called bagels!? They’re really nothing more than round-shaped bread with a hole in the middle. Man I miss good NYC bagels!

        • ROFLMAO……………of course…………..reminds me of a general that once said…..this is NOT a retreat…….it is a strategic withdrawal.

    • gmanfortruth says:


      Good morning 🙂 You are applying common sense to the argument 🙂 Can that really work or will emotions come into play?

%d bloggers like this: