Memorial Day & open mic

My father passed away a few months back.  Still feeling the loss.  He had his first heart attack in his 40’s and waged a pretty good fight for over 30 years.  Neither he or I ever served, but we both shared a love of our country and the price many have paid for our freedom.  I think there is a difference between honoring the soldiers and honoring the wars.  Did we have to fight in all of them, Korea, Nam, Bush’s or Obama’s?  I think no, but I don’t think anybody has been able to give a clear answer.  Did we have to fight the Revolutionary War?  Maybe things would be better if we were still an English colony?  But don’t look at Canada or Australia, the freedom GIVEN to them came after the war we fought.  A war fought for Independence.  WW1 I think we could have avoided, and that might have prevented WW2.  WW2 I think we had to enter that fight, Germany proved modern weapons backed by the will of a madman, it is possible to conquer the world.

But this holiday is not about the wars, curse them all.  It’s about the patriots who put their lives on the line for a belief that what was achieved by our war for independence was worthwhile.  That even today, freedom is worth the cost they personally pay.  Remember the Hero’s

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1kaXpnJD-0

Advertisements

Comments

    • Good choices. Never heard either of them, though I like both bands.

      A very sincere thank you to all the SUFA vets, whether you are proud of it or not (beee efff).

      Sorry for your loss LOI..I can relate.

      Starting my weekend with a trip to the doc for a bum knee, oh joy! Temps heading to 90 and I can’t be at the lake. CURSES!

      • I too am sorry for your loss, LOI.

        Thank you guys for your service and sacrifice -These days remind me of your honor and fills my heart with pride and my eyes with tears for the loss. May God bless and keep you!

        • Thank you ladies, you here talk about how to measure a man. I’ve come to think one way is by the void they leave behind that no one else can fill. But he had a very good like and lived it as he wanted until the end…

  1. charlieopera says:

    Some blood for your lust … The Doc is back!

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/05/doc-is-back.html

  2. Enjoy the holiday weekend SUFA! We have great weather in my neck of the woods, hope the same goes for everyone!

  3. Charlie,
    It has become evident, based on your comments in the last post and for some time now, that you refuse to listen to anyone else’s definition of capitalism or even consider the concept of a society with a free market. So, perhaps I should take the first step and get a definition from you. I tend to rail against socialism as only workable in the short term if it is voluntary and downright unworkable and evil if it is forced. Just in case I am laboring under a different definition than you are, thereby leading to false criticism, I would like to ask you to define, as precisely as you can, what socialism is in your view. Describe how such a society would be set up, how would it be governed, how would it function, etc.

    You say that in a socialist society all would maybe have an equal opportunity to succeed. How would they succeed? What would define this success in your view and by what mechanism is one able to achieve success?

    • charlieopera says:

      Jon, I’m not playing this game again on this site. You have to be kidding me. How about you define capitalism and when it was EVER free in the U.S. (and not just the BF sale of a cup of coffee without going into how the coffee was grown & picked). I refuse to listen? You have to kidding me. You don’t like how I strip capitalism down to its core so you and BF, et al, have to constantly redefine it yourselves … one minute it’s capitalism/free market, the next it’s not true capitalism, etc.

      Enough … it doesn’t work. End of story.

      • Charlie, Today I engaged in a free market/capitalism transaction (3 actully). It is May Days in the nearset town and they have lot’s of garage sales and rummage sales. No government control, no taxes, 100% free market (which includes negotiating prices). THat is what capitalism is to me. The mess (called business) that the government has their greedy paws involved with is not what I call capitalism, at least not in the true meaning to me.

      • Alright Charlie, it is useful to be on the same page, and since I do not know if you have heard me explain my definition and I may have some variances from other here, here goes:

        1) Concerning the existence of “true Capitalism” in the US, I do not know for certain if the US has ever had “true capitalism” on a nationwide scale. The northeastern states were pretty close for a while, shortly after our independence, tho there was certainly some government corruption on some local levels. The southern states, of course, were involved in slavery, which is true exploitation. The Constitution had allowances for slavery, whether it was written as it was because it was the best they could do hoping that it would be ended eventually (as many constitutionalists think) or just as a means to keep it going (as many who hate the constitution think) does not matter, the fact remains that all men were not equal under the law. Some of the northeastern states had laws pertaining to morality that I do not care for, but I am not sure that there was a great deal of impact on economics. As the northeast grew more industrialized, the “1%” began to do more and more dirty deals wtih government, and yes, they exploited the cheap immigrant labor. Most who came here seeking freedom and a better life found it, but for many it was only slightly better, especially if they stayed in the cities. While it was not immediate, however, the workers did find that they could combat the factory owners. Were it not for their government buddies, the factory owners would have caved long before they did, restoring equilibrium. (Capitalism does not prevent exploitation or a host of other bad things. Bad people will do bad stuff in any system. What it does do is distribute power so that people can stop it.) The unions eventually won in spite of government resistance, until the government pretended to side with them, corrupting the unions as well. The bottom line is that real free markets existed in rural towns and places with less government, or at least less government contact. The primary failing of the Constitution was that it failed to keep business and government separate. Our government adopted corrupt business invovlement early on, including the concept of the corporation, central banking, and the granting of lands, sometimes through imminent domain to private companies in the name of “infrastructure” and “progress”. So, no real free market on a national scale, but some great examples on a smaller scale, and not just a few, thousands of towns and communities operated this way. It was a risky life, but one where a great many found great success, or at least a good middle class life. The needy found help without government assistance, and those who would take advantage were quickly found out ostracized. On a national level, the RELATIVELY free markets lead to great economic growth, putting the US on par and even beyond the other nations at the time in a very short period of time. It is this combination of evidence that capitalism works on a small scale and evidence that freer markets, even if not totally free, exhibit far greater prosperity for far more people than less free markets that gives me such faith in free markets. The clear similarities to natural and organic systems also adds to this.

        2) On to defining Capitalism. I do not really like the term “capitalism”, I tend to prefer “free market”, because I think it is a more clear term. Capitalism, however, is the predominant term used by most people, and so I will use it. When I do, unless otherwise specified, I mean the same thing as when I use the term “free market”. Capitalism, at its most basic, is trade. Trade has been a part of human society since the beginning of society itself. Whenever trade was expanded or more open or more free to be engaged in, it has always led to improvements in economies, culture, technology, etc. for BOTH sides of the trade, for BOTH societies. When, instead of trade, conquest was engaged in, the result was destruction for the weaker society and a massive loss of both life and wealth. Even countries that got rich off of the conquering of other societies, such as Spain in the conquest of south and central America, the wealth was wasted and lost and full of corruption and bloodshed. This was an act of greed, but it was never an act of trade, not an aspect of capitalism.

        Capitalism operates totally on the basis of voluntary trade. It does not use force for any reason. On its own, it has no mechanism to prevent exploitation or fraud other than the reaction of the market to not buy things from untrustworthy sources. This is where BF and I differ, since I do not have a problem with laws against false advertising and fraud or a legal system in place to handle breach of contract and other conflicts that arise in matters of trade. I see these actions of a government as a means of keeping trade free, of assisting the market with those who would cheat or use force or lie in order to exploit others or gain wealth that is unearned. Other than the basic conflict resolution and regulations against fraudulent activity, however, government has no place in business. As soon as government is allowed to be involved, it opens the door for corruption, for persons with wealth to use government as a tool to manipulate the free market to their advantage. There are things that can be done to manipulate the market without the use of government, with the power of wealth alone, one can undersell others, afford to survive temporary rises in material costs, buy up competitors, etc. The market, however, has a lot of mechanisms to counter this. Labor unions, market reaction, a free and open media, etc., all can be employed to keep the super wealthy from gaining full control. The other primary means, of course, is competition. Competition prevents total consolidation unless that competition is restricted somehow. This is the issue with government involvement, laws can easily be sold as a good idea to the public because they regulate and restrict businesses, often those that people feel are acting out of bounds. The problem is, these laws most often do more to restrict competitors and potential competitors than they do to impact business operations, thus those persons are free to stay in business making money when their business practices would have otherwise put them under or cut significantly into their profits, as other competitors gained market share.

        Essentially, capitalism depends upon the right to private property. It depends upon free and open and voluntary trade. It seeks freedom for all and seeks to treat all people equally in a legal sense. Manipulation in the market to change outcome is not permitted, any market with legal manipulation is no longer a purely capitalism system. Also, any such market has negative consequences for that manipulation, and in most cases, the greatest impact is on the 99%, or more so, on the 10-20% at the bottom. Class mobility is hampered, the costs of economic damage is concentraded at the bottom, etc.

        3) In terms of the coffee example, you have some perspective on your coffee bean pickers. Have you ever been to Costa Rica? Have you seen the coffee fields and the worker villages? I have. Granted it was back in ’98, I cannot speak to the current conditions, but at the time, workers in those fields made a living. Workers in the Columbian fields not so much. The difference? Nationalized fields in Columbia, workers were exploited to slave-like levels. Many Columbian workers headed north to the Costa Rican fields. The stunk for the Costa Rican workers, since the Columbians would work for less (because it was a lot more than they made where they were). Yet, the fields succeeded and the workers kept working and the Worker village grew and thrived. They were not wealthy, but they were not poor, and their lot was improving as the Costa Rican economy grew. Costa Rica is not pure capitalism either, but it is far more free than its neighbors, and that additional freedom made for better worker conditions and pay. Exploitation practiced in surrounding despotisms were the primary depressing force on the labor market. Things are not always as they seem, your $5 Starbucks coffee profits many, and believe it or not, that includes the workers. At least the ones in freer countries.

        • Good post.

          This is where BF and I differ, since I do not have a problem with laws against false advertising and fraud or a legal system in place to handle breach of contract and other conflicts that arise in matters of trade.

          Here is your danger here.

          You are dialoguing about economics and then add in a feature of politics as if they -somehow- are the same thing.

          Economics is a science of cause/effect.
          Politics is the manipulation of some men for the benefit of other men.

          The problem I have with laws of fraud, etc. is not an economic problem.

          It is a societal problem of politics and cross-purposes.

          Root Principle:
          Initiation of violence is evil.

          A principle holds no exceptions. There are no exceptions to that root principle.

          If you create an exception to such your root principle, you have declare it to be not your root principle – there is something else more rooted that one so proclaimed that caused you to pervert this one.

          Your root principle is something else – OR you misunderstand your own root principle. I cannot discern which point from the other….
          …however, I know mine.

          Fraud does not initiate violence. It is abhorrent and despicable, but if there is no violence, no violence can be done without you, in revenge, initiating it – and breaching the principle.

          If a despicable act is non-violent, the recourse must only be non-violent. And there are a near-infinite number on non-violent consequences to such acts, so preaching “violent” revenge is really the evil here.

          You gave your money to a liar freely.
          That is your fault and not at all worthy of using evil to correct it.

          • So, economics of your “laws” against fraud.
            Cause and effect.

            By establishing violent revenge to non-violent acts of fraud, you relieve yourself of the necessary due diligence – since, if you are cheated, you can pummel and steal from your liar by grant of the violence providers.

            With such a recourse, your need to do proper due diligence is reduced.
            Such reduction makes you more careless.
            You enter into more fraudulent transactions then otherwise.

            Because fraud is now punished by extreme violence, the risks go up.
            The profit of fraud is very high.
            The high risk ensures the frauds undertaken are “worth” it, and not petty.
            The frauds become measured in billions, not hundreds, of dollars.

          • I see your point here BF, passing responsibility could indeed have great consequences. I will have to consider the consequences of carelessness on the market, it could make fraud more prevalent regardless of law. Further, you are correct that I am inserting politics into an economic matter, which is indeed dangerous. Capitalism in its purest form is not political. Socialism, on the other hand, is inextricably linked to politics even though it, too, is economic in nature. This is because it requires a central management or cooperative management of all resources, thus it requires political interaction on some level, even in a voluntarily socialistic group.

            I know we have had the debate before on fraud vs. theft, but I still consider fraud to be similar to theft. Neither require a violent act (tho theft includes violence as a means, fraud generally does not). I gave my money to the defrauder conditionally, not freely. Freely giving the money would imply it was a gift, not a transaction. Both result in a warping of the market. Stealing something and selling it is a false source of “supply” and “production” because the theif did not produce or trade for his goods. Fraud, too, is a false source of supply and production since the product or service is not what it appears, or does not exist.

            I believe theft is evil, I count fraud as a form of theft, therefore I do not have as much an issue with involving violence. I would not want the government to have a monopoly on this, however. In other words, rather than making it illegal, I would prefer that government have a prescribed manner in which to handle fraud in cases where they are needed, since some people might not have the resources to handle it themselves.

            Now, your economic consequences were half right. I agree with the first one. I do NOT agree with the second. Fraud is not a product or service, not an economic good, so it is not subject to “supply and demand” laws. Making fraud illegal does increase the risk. That would make it more rare, especially more rare for low-profit or petty fraud. That does not, however, mean that higher profit fraud would exist less if fraud were not illegal. You would measure fraud in billions either way, even more so if it were not made risky, because there would be the high-profit occurrences AND a great many petty frauds. There is no evidence that restriction would make fraud get worse. The same holds true for theft. Theft is risky. If, for instance, non-violent theft was legal, do you think high profit theft would decrease in favor of low profit theft? Of course not, you would see BOTH high and low profit theft because the risk would decrease.

            • Jon

              Further, you are correct that I am inserting politics into an economic matter, which is indeed dangerous. Capitalism in its purest form is not political. Socialism, on the other hand, is inextricably linked to politics even though it, too, is economic in nature.

              In both cases it is political.

              In both cases you can use economics to understand cause and effect.

              Thus, you can judge which best solves your problem.

              This is the problem and point I have with Charlie and others.

              The offer this problem, X.
              X is typically some material deficiency of a minority of people.
              They argue Socialism is the best solution to solve this deficiency.

              But by applying economics, their solution – Socialism – does not solve this deficiency, it masks it.

              And while it masks it, it damages other parts of the economy making the deficiency on other people grow. They reapply their Socialism over there, damage some more of here – making it worse and worse as time goes by.

              They are able to get away with this disaster because the mask creates a short-term illusion of success – and as these adherents to Socialism are short-term thinkers, their time measures are aligned to the peak and they see nothing more.

              Socialists -with nary an exception- are economic illiterates because they have little long-term analysis.

              The only exceptions are those that admit to the economic depravity they cause, but claim their cause is worth such economic hardship – that is, equality of poverty is more important the inequality of prosperity.

              So my measure of good and bad is: does your solution solve your problem.

              If I take a Socialist to his word, it is obvious his solution does not.

              If he still demands his solution in the face of its failure, then you know this man in not rational,, is a demagogue and is dangerous.

            • Jon

              I know we have had the debate before on fraud vs. theft, but I still consider fraud to be similar to theft. Neither require a violent act (tho theft includes violence as a means, fraud generally does not)

              Because theft requires violence, ignites the right of violence to correct.

              Fraud,

              Freely giving the money would imply it was a gift, not a transaction.

              Hmmm..
              Theft is NOT a transaction, which is why it is theft.

              Fraud IS a transaction, which is why it is not theft.
              It is not a gift, as you had an expectation of a return from this transaction.

              Both result in a warping of the market.

              Yes, which is why both are repugnant.

              But simply because it is repugnant is not a satisfactory excuse to use violence.

              Making fraud illegal does increase the risk.

              It is as unnecessary to make “fraud” illegal as it is to make a law against murder as if without such laws, both would exist unrepentant.

              Society already recognizes that lying is wrong like it knows murder is wrong.

              The reason there is a law against murder is to sanction violence in response to it.
              All law is violence – bar none.
              Law sanctions the use of violence to enforce an edict.
              The only legitimate use of violence is against violence.
              Thus, that is the true measure of a righteous law – is it against violence?

              . You would measure fraud in billions either way, even more so if it were not made risky, because there would be the high-profit occurrences AND a great many petty frauds.

              I disagree, and there are volumes of sociological studies that back me up.
              See: drug war and prohibition as examples

              Bootlegging today is rare and hardly newsworthy. When was the last time you heard of a ring of moonshiners? The only ones are small and petty and fringe.

              Increase the risk to bootlegging, as in Prohibition, and see what changed.

              Drug war the same.

              In all matters, that which is petty becomes prohibited, always leads to become dangerous and extreme during its prohibition.

              This includes murder and theft, as well.

              If, for instance, non-violent theft was legal, do you think high profit theft would decrease in favor of low profit theft? Of course not, you would see BOTH high and low profit theft because the risk would decrease.

              No, sir, you are mistaken here, as above. It is sociologically demonstrated that the tradeoff is always between:

              Rare, random, low intensity theft/violence
              with
              Common, directed, high intensity theft/violence

              You get one or the other, but not both systemically.

              • PS:
                This is why we have different laws regarding different degrees of theft.

                If we applied the same level of sanction against stealing a bubble gum as robbing a bank, bubble gum thefts would end up in gun fights too.

              • “Because theft requires violence, ignites the right of violence to correct.”

                Theft does not require violence. If I take something from you when are not home, what violence has been committed? If I use a stolen identity, I have harmed no one, not acted in violence. I have simply taken something that was not mine, and taken it from you. This harms you financially, but if I do not take too much, you will not starve or die or suffer harm due to the financial harm. If you consider financial harm to be violence, then fraud is also violence, as it harms you financially. For instance, I sell you a machine that is supposed to save you time. You give me money for this device. The device is a fake, nothing like the real machine that I showed you in my sales pitch. You have now been hurt financially because you spent money and now must do so again because you did not fill the need the first time. You may say this is risk, but so is amassing wealth, because it could be stolen. The harm is caused by the thief or the defrauder.

                “Theft is NOT a transaction, which is why it is theft.
                Fraud IS a transaction, which is why it is not theft.
                It is not a gift, as you had an expectation of a return from this transaction.”

                Yes, I had an expectation because it was an ATTEMPTED transaction. It was not a transaction, however, if you do not receive the goods or services, the transaction is incomplete. If I receive the wrong goods then it is a damaged transaction, but because it is a purposeful damage to the transaction, it has the same effect as taking something from someone. Yes, you agreed to hand me money, but would not have done so had I not purposely mislead you.

                “But simply because it is repugnant is not a satisfactory excuse to use violence.”

                No, its not. But this logic has to apply to non-violent theft also. Is violence still ok to get your stuff back?

                “It is as unnecessary to make “fraud” illegal as it is to make a law against murder as if without such laws, both would exist unrepentant.
                Society already recognizes that lying is wrong like it knows murder is wrong.
                The reason there is a law against murder is to sanction violence in response to it.
                All law is violence – bar none.
                Law sanctions the use of violence to enforce an edict.
                The only legitimate use of violence is against violence.
                Thus, that is the true measure of a righteous law – is it against violence?”

                Agreed. I feel fraud is equivalent violence to theft, thus laws against it are against violence.

                “I disagree, and there are volumes of sociological studies that back me up.
                See: drug war and prohibition as examples”

                No, completely different cases. I absolutely agree that suppression of a product, service, or anything in demand will not have the intended effect. There is no “demand” for fraud. It is not a product or service, it is a method of stealing. You cannot compare it to drugs, because people want drugs, so they will find another way to get them, the increase in risk increases price and drives the market unerground. Increasing risk might affect the profitability of fraud, but that would only make perpetrators more careful, it does not create an underground market or an increase in crime because it is not an economic good to begin with.

                “In all matters, that which is petty becomes prohibited, always leads to become dangerous and extreme during its prohibition.
                This includes murder and theft, as well.”

                So, if we removed laws against murder and theft, you believe they would become less frequent and less dangerous? What evidence do you have of this? I can see many cases where laws do nothing to prevent crime, where they have no change on occurrences, but to say that they create more makes no sense. Criminalizing a market commodity, like drugs, creates crime (not just by making the drug use a crime, but by fueling dangerous men with marketable commodities.

                “No, sir, you are mistaken here, as above. It is sociologically demonstrated that the tradeoff is always between:
                Rare, random, low intensity theft/violence
                with
                Common, directed, high intensity theft/violence
                You get one or the other, but not both systemically.”

                If you are using prohibition and similar actions as your sociological demonstration, then I am not buying it. You are comparing the creation of victimless crime by supressing a market product to criminalizing an act that harms others. Do you see the difference?

              • Jon

                Taking of my property damages me, since a man needs property to live, taking such without agreement destroys my ability to live.

                Fraud causes no such thing as you agreed to release your property.

              • Jon

                If you consider financial harm to be violence, then fraud is also violence, as it harms you financially

                I do not consider financial harm to be violent, otherwise any business loss -regardless of cause- would be such.

              • Mathius says:

                Flag,

                You agreed to release your property IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING.

                It is a contingent release. I release this, IF you do that. Since you did not, in fact, “do that,” I do not release my property (money). Because you are absconding with money I do not contractually release due to your failure to fulfill your end of the bargain, you are stealing my money.

                Image that, prior to completion, all exchanged items are held in escrow. Until the terms on both sides are completed to the full extent of the contract (I will buy X from you for $10), the property remains yours. If you place item Y into the escrow instead of X, it doesn’t release. So if you then abscond with my money, you have stolen it. Yes, it’s fraud because it’s a violation of the contract, but it’s theft because you took something that wasn’t rightfully yours.

              • Mathius,

                Flag, You agreed to release your property IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING. It is a contingent release. I release this, IF you do that.

                You are slightly – but vitally – incorrect.

                You agreed to trade your property for a promise made good in the future OR for a specific good provided at that time.

                You are told it is liquid gold but it is olive oil.
                But because you failed to do your own due diligence, and test the liquid for its content, you blindly accepted what was given.

                You are told that in trade for you gold today, I promise to give you my car tomorrow. That day comes, and you get no car.
                You -again- failed your own due diligence in evaluating the quality of my promises.

                In all cases -the core underlying component is that you freely without violence surrendered your property.

                If you subscribe to a belief that you can utilize the force of violence to correct your own freely executed action, you will open the Pandora’s box of infinite justifications to use violence to correct any of your freely executed actions.
                This is your fault.

              • I need property to live, therefore losing property is damage. However, losing property is not violence. Thus, if I steal from you without the use of violence, you do not believe violence is authorized. Is that what you are saying?

              • Mathius says:

                You are told it is liquid gold but it is olive oil.

                Perhaps.

                But I didn’t agree to buy “whatever’s in the jar.” I agreed to buy “liquid gold.” You represent to me that what is in the jar is this liquid gold, and I trust you, which is why you are ABLE to take my money. But that’s not what the agreement was. It wasn’t $10 for jar o’ olive oil. It was $10 for jar of liquid gold. And you failed to deliver such. The jar is still yours and the money is still mine.

                I suppose I could put on my lawyer hat (it’s a fez) and poke all kinds of holes in that, but that’s the gist. A fraud in this sense is the failure to fulfill a contract in accordance with the terms of the contract. An uncompleted contract does not release (morally) the money to you. Thus taking the money is theft.

                You agreed to trade your property for a promise made good in the future OR for a specific good provided at that time.

                So here, for instance, the original property (payment) is not GIVEN, per say. It is GIVEN ON CONTINGENCY. We have a contract and just because the exchanges are time-shifted doesn’t mean that you can fail to complete and still have a valid contract. I paid $10 up front. Because the contract is unfulfilled, imagine that it’s still in escrow. Now you failed to provide the specified good or service at that future date. Therefore, the contract is VOID. The escrow returns ownership of my $10 to me. Therefore the $10 is not yours – you just happen to have possession. It’s mine. It’s mine because we do not have a completed contract giving it to you. And you’re decision to hold my property against my will is, yes, theft.

              • I understand that transactions have an inherent level of risk. A loan is always a risk since a person might not be able to pay it back. However, to mitigate risk, contracts are in place to offset risk. If I have a mortgage loan and I default, I do not get to keep my house, I can be forced to return that property. Is this wrong? Should a contract such as this be unenforceable?

                I do get the danger of using force to mitigate your risk. However, fraud is an issue of intent, not simply the act of a failed transaction. There is a big difference between fraud and an inability to complete a transaction or contract. This is an important thing to address. Trust is essential for trade. There are risks, always, but if trust is destroyed then trade will cease.

              • Jon

                I understand that transactions have an inherent level of risk.

                Exactly.
                And one of the many risks is failure to perform (ie: break a promise)
                Another is exaggeration of benefit (ie: lying)

                All that you are to claim is that some point on a rainbow of these you feel it is wrong enough to kill a man.

                What you want is to mitigate your own failure of due diligence – you figure you can find most on the low end of the rainbow, but are fearful of the super-evil genius who, no matter what, can fool you no matter what your diligence.

                Yet! The latter condition is not mitigated by your “law” either! You still are pummeled – because in the end it’s your fault and failure of diligence

                <blockquote. If I have a mortgage loan and I default, I do not get to keep my house, I can be forced to return that property. Is this wrong? Should a contract such as this be unenforceable?
                It is enforceable – just not by killing someone (which is the ultimate end of initiation of violence).

                I do get the danger of using force to mitigate your risk. However, fraud is an issue of intent, not simply the act of a failed transaction. There is a big difference between fraud and an inability to complete a transaction or contract. This is an important thing to address.

                Nope, couldn’t care less your intent.
                You either chose to do this, or it was an accident.
                Why you chose to do this really doesn’t matter, except in the adjudication of penalty.

                Whether you stole the bread for kicks or to feed your starving kids – you are a thief. Your reasons are irrelevant. You are judged a thief.

                How we deal out the consequences of your theft DOES matter based on intent.

                Trust is essential for trade. There are risks, always, but if trust is destroyed then trade will cease.

                Yet, trade will not cease.
                So trust is earned and established – word bonds become vital and this becomes your enforcement.

                A man who no one trusts will get no trade. He will die in a week or live as a recluse.

                Trade slows down -yes- but those that are trustful win big in such a society that chooses not to use violence to mitigate economic loss.

              • Yes, my fault for getting myself pommelled, sort of. I get that I was fooled, and that is partially my fault (unless I was not fooled by another, but by myself, in which case the fault is all mine. If I believe what I am buying is greater than the seller thinks, and yet it is not, I have fooled myself. If I am tricked then I am fooled by another. I remain the fool, they remain deceiptful). However, in cases of contracts and such, force IS used. I can be forced to leave the house (the house is not mine at that point, but if you agree that justifies the force used, then you agree with Mathius that goods are in escrow, not truly owned until the transaction completes on both sides.) So, according to you, that is equivalent to “killing someone”. Not sure how all violence or force equals killing, but whatever, it sounds more like an emotional appeal to me, stated for effect rather than logical reasoning.

                As you say, there are variances in the penalties for things. There is a reason for this. The variance does not seem to bother you, but then you escalate all law to equal violence and all violence to equal death. What am I missing here?

              • Jon

                However, in cases of contracts and such, force IS used. I can be forced to leave the house (the house is not mine at that point, but if you agree that justifies the force used, then you agree with Mathius that goods are in escrow, not truly owned until the transaction completes on both sides.)

                One has a right to his property – this is a fundamental right.

                But this is not the case with your example of fraud – you willing exchanged your property for what you received.

                The core principle is freedom – did you freely agree to the exchange.

                Unlike the house,which is not yours – what you have in your hand after the trade – olive oil – IS yours.
                It is merely not what you thought you had.

                Not sure how all violence or force equals killing, but whatever, it sounds more like an emotional appeal to me, stated for effect rather than logical reasoning.

                No, it is very logical and reasoned.
                All law is the use of violence to enforce an edict, and if resistance to the edict continues, ever escalating violence is applied up until death.

                You can be killed by a cop for jaywalking – true, not in the first minute – but should you resist the edict – you will be.

                As you say, there are variances in the penalties for things. There is a reason for this. The variance does not seem to bother you, but then you escalate all law to equal violence and all violence to equal death. What am I missing here?

                You are missing the layers between
                the law
                the enforcement
                the judgement
                the penalty (if guilty)

                Each layer has its own action, justification and process.

                The law says “Stealing is a crime” – period. There are no “if or elses” about it.
                You steal, a cop will enforce the law and arrest you. You can argue with him, but he will say “Save it for the judge”.
                The judge will weigh the facts against the law. “Did you steal?” “Yes” “Guilty”

                NOW and ONLY NOW will they measure the penalty with… “why did you steal?” “For kicks! or To feed the kids” … 5 years jail, former – suspended sentence, latter.

      • Charlie,

        If freedom is wrong -as you say it is- then truly, humanity is doomed

      • Just A Citizen says:

        TRay

        Excellent!!!

        I am curious what Buck and Mathius have to say about this article. We may have to move it forward on Monday or Tuesday to make sure they see it.

        It is just one more work that shows the “connections” of the “P”rogressive movement to Marx, and in my view Plato.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        TRAY

        P.S.: Just wanted to mention that the “new way” proposed by the Fabians, namely controlling production via Govt rather than actual public ownership is the Birth of Fascism.

        Which was included in the Progressive agenda by different names. Mussolini adopted the concepts and the word FASCIST as a political system was made popular.

        • It looks like the introduction of Keynes theories into our economy may be at the root of much of our financial problems. Over regulation was viewed as a means to collapse capitalism so that it could socialism could rise in its place. Looks to be working. I also found it interesting that FDR & JFK were students of this economic philosophy.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            T-Ray

            If you think that interesting, track backwards in time the connections of THOSE PEOPLE who were the shakers and movers behind the political fronts, like FDR and JFK.

            Folks like Schlesinger, for example. You will find that the power to “make Kings” was handed from one to the other to the other. All beginning with Progressive, Fabian Socialist in the late 1800’s. Those who helped JFK get elected and were “staff” or “advisors” were in the FDR structure and their mentors in the Wilson structure before that.

            Now in all fairness, I expect you would find the same “connected lineage” among the Republicans. I have just never come across a comprehensive work on the subject.

      • Great read and the comments are good too!

  4. For those who have seen the elephant as Civil War vets used to say and those who can imagine it.

    What an outstanding piece of work.

  5. Judy Sabatini says:

    That was absolutely wonderful.

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Sometimes it is OK to see the silver lining in those black clouds. Oh crap,……did I say black?

    Anyhow….enjoy some good thoughts this weekend.

    Word of the day: PERSPECTIVE.

    http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/25/reasons-for-optimism-in-todays-world/?hpt=hp_bn2

  7. First off lemee say thanks Vets for everything! Then…

    Capitalism vs Socialism (Communism) vs Oligarchy; Statism vd Federalism, Progressive VS Liberal VS Conservative blah, blah, on and on I’ve read all of your arguements for and against. My personal opinion is that our country has become pure “Corparatism” with a healthy dose of Socialism designed with the ultimate goal of benefiting the elitist powers that be. The outright lies and doublespeak our Representatives, Senators, Judges and President spew simply amazes me. They prey upon the members of this society using racial, social and religious beliefs of each individual to bewilder, confuse and seperate them from their own specific agenda. I honestly feel as if I have no representation at all in our government from my own philosophical mindset of what government should be. I am a slave to a social design that I do not agree with at all and believe there needs to be a Paradigm shift within that design. My life has become the following video

  8. Good morning, all. Thanks to all the Vets, living and dead. Now, on to today.

    “It’s the economy, stupid.”
    America’s economy is in a meltdown. Unemployment remains historically high with just 58% of working-age Americans in the labor force — the lowest reading since 1983.

    Homeowners have been hit with falling prices (down 33% in the last five years).

    And, while the stock markets have swung violently in both directions, the S&P 500 is actually lower today than it was 12 years ago.

    It’s no wonder that the Center for Economic and Policy Research reports that the median household net worth (for a person between the ages of 45 to 64) fell by nearly 50% since 2003.
    It is undeniable at this point. There is a meltdown on Main Street, and it is hitting middle-class America the hardest of all.

    These recent headlines tell the somber story . . .

    Wall Street Journal: “Bleak News for Americans’ Income: Pay Fell 7% in Last Decade”
    CBS News: “The Middle Class Faces a Lost Decade”
    Bloomberg: “Falling Wages Threatening U.S.”

    Read more: Meltdown on Main Street: Three Dangerous Numbers Reveal Why Obama Will Lose the Election

  9. Mathius says:

    ::Lurking::

  10. Ah, Canada was free NOT because of the US but inspite of it.

    Those the honor war beget war.

    • Hypothetical, as was my post. Also was specific, honoring those who served, not the cause or the wars. Can you offer any proof the world would be better if the Revolutionary War were never fought? Maybe where Washington and the others were hanged as traitor’s, the desire for freedom was eradicated? A world of kings and queens instead?

      • LOI

        Can you offer any proof the world would be better if the Revolutionary War were never fought?

        Ridiculous comment.

        Except to the radically insane, war is horrific – so an argument that says that war is “better” then no war is as insane.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          He didn’t say that war is better.

          But asked if the WORLD would be better off if the Rev. War never happened.

        • War is horrific. Slavery and tyranny is also horrific. Should one not fight for freedom? Is violence perpetrated by tyrants not enough reason to initiate violence in defense and regain freedom? Is a large scale effort such as that not war? It is horrific, but it is superior to continued slavery.

          • Jon

            War is horrific. Slavery and tyranny is also horrific. Should one not fight for freedom?

            Sure, but no war was fought for freedom – they were fought for something else and later relabeled.

  11. ;p

  12. PS:
    While you are singing the US national anthem, remember this fact.

    The tune is actually a British pub song To Anacreon In Heaven

    The Anacreontic Society was a popular genetlemen’s drinking club, based in a pub in the Strand, London. The words of the song had been written by the society’s president, Ralph Tomlinson, honoring the memory of that oft-forgotten, rarely read Greek poet, Anacreon.

    Just remember that when you put your hand over your heart – you are humming a tune of a bunch of drunk Brits about a drunk Greek poet.

  13. Nobody in the entire photo is looking at the photo within the photo of the dead hero, the poor woman’s missing son.

    My belief is that 60 year olds should never send 18 year olds to be killed.

    And of course the government convinces them and lies to them that they are killing others, killing civilians, killing other 18 year olds, killing and maiming each other, all for a good cause.

    It’s never for a good cause and for every single war you can always trace it back to who is making the most money.

    Back to the Civil War (the North wanted its share of the Southern cotton tariffs) and even back to the Revolutionary War (the myth of “taxation without representation” and now, 240 years later, people are taxed Federal, State, City, Sales, Luxury, Property, and god knows how many other places.)

    But I write posts and put it here and elsewhere. I get so many hate-comments. Most of them came from the pro-peace sites. In general, people talk their good theories of war and peace, when you touch a chord inside of them, that’s when their reality comes out.

    And most of it stinks.

    In the above photo, everyone is looking at the returning hero. Even the mother who is holding up the picture of her son, the hero who died in the war, desperately hoping that someone has seen him.

    Not a single person is looking at the photo of the dead 18 year old. The real heroes are forgotten. The real histories are made up mythologies. The “good” reasons always hide the real reasons.

    The above photo is a picture within a picture.

    It’s a photo for all of us, where we live our lives being fooled and hypnotized, while searching for the real heroes who might lie dormant inside of us.

    We mostly die without ever finding them.

    😦

    • I’ve seen this picture before. It is post WW 2 German. The returnee is probably a POW. The young man in the photo wears a German uniform and the man behind the photo is wearing an M-43 field cap. Her son probably disappeared into into a Soviet Gulag. My father had a friend at work whose son, born in Germany, went back for a visit right before war broke out. Drafted into the German Army, captured at Stalingrad, he only made it back in 1956. He was one of the fortunate 10% who survived. These men were ghosts.

      Generally speaking there is not much in your posting above that I disagree with. Every year, I pick a deceased vet, do a short bio and have a pre Memorial Day presentation at our last Scout Troop meeting in an effort to encourage attendance at the town parade. We are marching for HIM. More than once, I have been told by parents that my presentations missed the larger picture. I answer, “What larger picture?” The loss of an 18, 19, or 20 year old is the ONLY picture.

      Before one gets involved in a war, one should damned sure disabuse him or herself about the nobility of the result, not necessarily the cause mind you, but the result. As the Colonel says below, the definition of a hero is far different from that which is normally accepted. Lee was right, “It is good that war is such a terrible thing otherwise we would learn to like it too much.”

      • SK,
        Lee was wrong.

        We love war.
        We cheer war.
        We call men who slaughter innocent people “hero’s”.
        We invent evil and bizarre justifications to sooth such souls tortured by such killing.
        Those that are smashed by war are hero’s, though all they did is die – badly and horribly.

        Nope, “we” love war – can’t get enough of it until we are bankrupt.

        • Only because those who “cheer it” have absolutely no idea of what they are cheering for. It is our job to change that and rub their faces in it. Remember that high school teacher in Remark’s “All Quiet on the Western Front?”

          Things are worth dying for and in the long run, they are worth dying a horrible death for but you go in with eyes wide open.

  14. Good morning, BF. That is an interesting picture because I see three or four different scenarios. Heroes come in all shapes and sizes and all ages and gender. The real hero in the picture is the mother……not the dead son nor the returning one.

    War, any war, is always the inevitable politics of the world. They are not governed by the men and women who fight them but are governed by the men and women who feel that such is necessary. Those of us who have been in war, and even more so, been in face to face contact, with the enemy (perceived or otherwise) understand the factor of war. There is only one……to kill or be killed. All other “factors” are not relevant.

    The most relevant factor is not the act of war itself but that of the heroes, on both sides, that fight the wars. The mental anguish, the physical, threat, and the true act of having to kill. Once one kills and sees the eyes of the slain, it is indelibly etched into the mind. It never goes away….ever. The stench never goes away.

    So, this day is never about the wars we have fought. It should never be about that. It should be all about those that never made it back. It should be about those that left pieces of themselves in foreign lands. It should be about the ones who survived and have the ghosts that live with them for life. It should be about the families that had to endure the hardships of their loved ones being sent to fight and having to endure the pains of war long after the actual battles are history. The battles of the mind never end and the changes it makes in relationships and families never cease. A warrior is never the same….ever,,,,and it is the families that have to suffer……so maybe they are the real heroes.

    The picture you submitted is quite stark and it tells several stories. The pain on the woman’s face……tells all. She is the real hero in that picture.

    The rest……..is politics and should NEVER have nor play a role in Memorial Day nor Veteran’s Day. It is not picnics or cookouts nor having fun at the lake. These are side benefits of Memorial Day as a holiday. It is not about the Flag…..that is no hero, either. It is a symbol.

    today is a hard day for me for several reasons. The main one is that I lost my best friend, in my arms, and there was nothing that I could do about it. When he was dying and his last wishes were for me to convey to his wife how sorry he was that he was not going to make it back…..it was not the war that did it…nor the politics that made it happen….it was his unselfish thought of his wife, that made him the hero. It was the blank stare and the last rattle that made him the hero. It has been over 40 years since that episode and it was like yesterday….but I called his wife, as I do every year, and remind her that she and her son, that are the real heroes….and Richard.

    This is what it means to me and it is my definition of hero.

  15. Dear all veterans at SUFA- I wish I could write something really profound to express my gratitude….but I will just have to settle for saying thank you.

    Thank you for every time you were tired, hungry, thirsty, lonely, homesick, scared, freezing cold, burning hot, went without sleep, tried but couldn’t sleep, or were so exhausted you couldn’t stay awake…..

    Thank you for every time you missed your home, your dad, your mom, girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, husband, kids, brothers, sisters, friends….

    Thank you for every time you wished for a home cooked meal, a juicy burger, fries, and milkshake, a cold beer, a thick steak with a baked potato…..

    Thank you for every minute you waited in line…..

    Thank you for every time you had sore feet, arms, legs, back…..

    Thank you for every time your blisters had blisters…..

    Thank you for every time you saved your buddy’s life, or he saved yours…..

    Thank you for every tear you shed…for every drop of blood you shed….

    I am the recipient of freedom I did not earn. You did it for me, and you didn’t even know me.

    Thank you.

    Murf

  16. 😯 SWATTING 😯

    It’s a long scary read..what are we going to do about this? Can’t ignore them or you’ll be swatted for sure.
    http://patterico.com/2012/05/25/convicted-bomber-brett-kimberlin-neal-rauhauser-ron-brynaert-and-their-campaign-of-political-terrorism/

    • Read about that last week from another target. You would think a former “domestic terrorist” being active in political organizations would draw scrutiny, but they’re liberal organizations….

  17. As predicted…….Europeans flocking to buy US Treasuries. German Chancellor Merkel has confirmed once again that Germany is not going to prop up the bloated giveaway programs in Greece, Spain, France, and Italy. The Euro is dying quickly and the smart money is abandoning the Euro and flocking to the US…..not China, not Russia…..not anyone else. Several Europeans are dropping the Sterling as well.

    Germany has said that those countries had better go austere or they are going to die on the vine. It is not the responsibility of the world to prop up failing governments and their lazy society. (Her words, not mine) Merkel has said, and her parliament seems to be in lock step with her, that there is no need to put our public money behind countries who do not take care of themselves. All of this entitlement mentality is bankrupting Europe, she said, and that is a shame.

    The US Treasuries have no yield but are popular because of their strength and safety. Look for the dollar to get stronger in the near future.

    What I am not understanding is why the economists are hitting the panic button in the US…UNLESS… a lot of people have their retirements in European interests, such as 401 investments, etc. I do not see a problem…..if people put their faith in the Euro…that is called risk….too bad….the roll of the dice came up snake eyes for them.

    Interesting that George Soros is all of a sudden dumping some of his gold.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      D13,

      The dollar is only getting stronger because it is the least stinky fiat currency among the tremendous pile of $hit, and the governments of the world are not about to abandon fiat money. To do so would be to admit the complete and utter failure of their economic “system”. However, the system may well fail in spite of their best efforts. When that happens, there is no telling what gold will be worth in terms of dollars, but what I suspect will happen is that eventually the PEOPLE will stop using fiat currencies for trade when they finally get fed up with a system that is designed to impoverish them and only make the elite “rich”. When the people have finally had enough, and refuse to trade in fiat money any more, then you had better have gold and silver.

      Keep in mind that when this country was founded, only gold, silver and copper were “real money” and any “notes” which you had were merely a promise to exchange that note for real money. The notes had no “value” other than when the fact that they could be exchanged at any time for hard currency.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Where will the money go when China announces it has a “gold backed” currency?

      I see the anxiety in the US over two issues.

      1. The bankers are depending on continued dollar “devaluation” to fuel their profits, including the stock market.

      2. There is some risk to our financial system via bad European debt. But NOBODY seems to know how much, which brings back the fears of 2007.

      • China cannot announce a gold backed currency…..it does not exist. UNLESS…….China devalues its currency by 40%.

        I am not the least bit worried about the Euro dying.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          You should be worried about the Euro dying, it was always a complete fantasy to “keep the European Nations independent, but unite them under one currency”. It was never gonna work in the long run. It won’t be long now before Greece, Spain, and Italy all go back to their own currencies and abandon the Euro. The question, after that, becomes whether or not Ireland and France follow suit. The Euro COULD still exist at that point, but I doubt it.

          The Germans are in a no-win situation, try to keep the Euro intact and get EVERYONE to stay in the “common currency” but hemorrhage money relatively rapidly, or allow countries to leave the Euro, and hemorrhage money VERY QUICKLY, but then become the only truly solvent country in Europe after the turmoil caused by the collapse of the Euro.

          Regardless of what the European Union Council in Belgium says, what this whole situation is going to come down to is what Germany decides is best for Germany, and once Germany makes that decision, that is precisely what is going to happen.

  18. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    BF,

    I think I see part of Charlie’s problem. You said in a previous post (in “The Plan thread) that capitalism is infinitely scalable. You and I accept this as true. Charlie does not believe this because he has never seen it – we can’t fault him for that, NONE of us has ever seen on anywhere near an infinite scale.

    You and I blame this failure on GOVERNMENT, whereas Charlie blames this failure on CAPITALISM ITSELF, partly because he has never seen it, and partly because of his somewhat warped definition of the concept.

    In a way, I cannot blame him for his “lack of faith”, it is hard to believe in a concept that has been so purposefully distorted for so long, and has never really been given a chance on an appreciably large scale.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, yesterday was about silver linings. Today is about HARSH REALITY.

    Happened across the end of Hannity’s show last night. A group of pundits talking about Mr. Obama’s past and election chances. At the end he asked how many thought Mr. O would be re-elected. One gentleman who raised his hand explained.

    The election will come down to about 6-8 swing states and about 12 (?) counties within those states and about 60,000 (?) votes within those counties. These counties are the “urban” areas.

    So unless Romney can take away a few Blue States, he is toast. Because Mr. O could actually lose Florida and STILL WIN given the reality of the 60,000 people deciding the whole thing in places like VA, PA, WI, IN, AZ, NV, OH and CO.

    Sorry SUFA. Somebody had to say it so figured it might as well be me instead of you know who.

    😦

    • Fear not my friend, For the pundit is just a media whore who is paid to make rediculous statements. He can no more predict the future then you or I, unless it is all fixed.

    • ????? Do the majority of people on SUFA Care if Obama is re-elected? I thought it didn’t make any difference-that we either shouldn’t vote or should vote for a third party who has no hope of winning. So why is this such bad news???? It’s not like anyone on here believes anyone other than Romney or Obama can actually win.

      • If there is an election, it really won’t matter. Obama is tanking the country, Romney will just tank it slower. When this government is replaced, then voting may be in order, but voting now is just voting for more corruption and theft.

      • While I, for one, do indeedy care if Obama is re-elected, I am also in agreement with G-man. It doesn’t matter in the long run. The only difference will be the rate at which we go down the crapper. Either one will not either be willing or will not be able to take the neccessary steps to save the Nation.

        Not willing, of course, would be Obama. Or maybe not so much unwilling as, does not and will not see anything wrong with what he is doing in regards to debt and deficits until it is far too late. The insufferably arrogant moron thinks he can do NO wrong. Or perhaps he doesn’t care because it is intentional. Sometimes I think one is true, then the other.

        Unable will be more Romney. Despite the fact that he could win the election, it will not matter anyway. He would be unable to make the changes needed because it would take more than just his will to do it. There are far too many out there who think there is nothing wrong with the way we are headed. And also I don’t belive a “moderate” anything is what this Nation needs. We need someone or rather a BUNCH of someones willing to make the decisions neccessary. The HARD decisions.

        Because, as much as lot’s don’t want to believe it, hard decisions must be made if we are to survive. Decisions that will cause most of us to suffer in one way or another. Almost none of us would come out unscathed in this. Obama’s fault, Bush’s fault, Congress’ fault, it doesn’t even matter now. We as a nation, have gone too far to fix it without major sacrifices being made. There IS no other way.

        BF has been saying this for a few years now. A lot either didn’t listen or did not believe what he said. I would fall more into the “did not WANT to believe” side. But I have thought the same thing for some time now. It’s time to cut our losses and face the music. In my opinion we had a chance before Obama was elected to fix this without TOO much sacrificing, but after 5 trillion dollars of more debt and Hundreds of Trillions more in Unfunded liabilties we are past the point of no return. We may have indeed been past that point by the end of Bush. All I personally can say for sure is that we for sure are in the deep Dookey now.

        I don’t believe there is anyone out their with the Political will to make the hard choices but MAYBE Ron Paul. And he, unfortunately, doesn’t stand a chance of election. I will vote for Romney and the slower route to destruction of our way of life. But either choice will end the same way.

      • I care & think it matters. I do not like what I see happening, the parties and media seem to be choosing for us who will be the two candidates, keeping us locked into the two party system. I think the town halls, TeaParties and Ron Paul offer some hope there will be a shift at some time. It does seem each state has basically “rigged” their election laws to keep independents and third parties out.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Who will win?

      If it is it all about the economy, then Romney should win hands down (54%-46%?)

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/47566735/Marc_Faber_100_Chance_of_Global_Recession

      With likely downturns in Europe, our exports should drop. This should mean more and more layoffs of US workers. Obama would be toast in November.

  20. May 29, 2012
    10 dead, more than 40 shootings in Chicago over holiday weekend
    Rick Moran

    This is the city with one of the most restrictive gun control programs in the country.

    Chicago Tribune:

    A department spokesman would not confirm the tally, saying several incidents were still under investigation and could not be classified at this time.

    According to the summaries, there have been at least 200 homicides so far this year compared with 134 during the same period in 2011. That’s a 49.25 percent increase over last year.

    On Tuesday, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy are expected to hold a news conference where they discuss two new crime reduction strategies.

    The 10 people killed over the long weekend outnumber the four reported slain during the 2011 holiday weekend, when severe storms hit the Chicago area and forced many people inside.

    Shootings are up nearly 14 percent over last year, according to the unofficial summaries. There have been 851 shootings so far in 2012 compared with 747 during the same period in 2011, the police data showed.

    The seemingly worsening violence comes as the Emanuel administration touts its efforts to combat gang crime and add officers and resources to some of the city’s most dangerous neighborhoods.

    A 50% increase in homicides? Whatever Rahmbo is doing, he better change it quickly. The city — with the massive assistance of the state and federal government — did a good job during the NATO summit. I was in Chicago for the Heartland Climate Conference and I can tell you I have never seen such a massive police presence anywhere. Cops on horseback, cops on bikes – thousands of them. It made me feel weirdly safe while at the same time offending my republican sensibilities.

    It’s not like Chicago cops are incompetent. They’re not. But whatever deployment plan they have in place, they better change it or Chicago is going to become known as the Murder Capital of the US.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/10_dead_more_than_40_shootings_in_chicago_over_holiday_weekend.html#ixzz1wHv7qndV

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    d13 the colonel

    Good afternoon Colonel. PC Alert.

    Did you notice that we can now use the word “denigrate” without fear of being called RACIST.

    Now you have to admit this is ONE GOOD THING done by POTUS!

    ROTFLMAO…hahahahahahahahaha

    Hope you had a great weekend.

  22. Even Texas can screw the pooch….

    A 17-year-old Houston honor student jailed 24 hours for missing too much school likely spent the night surrounded by “every type of criminal that exists,” one Houston defense attorney said.

    Diane Tran, an 11th-grade honor student at Willis High School near Houston, was sent to jail for 24 hours last Wednesday by Judge Lanny Moriarty and ordered to pay a $100 fine for excessive truancy.

    It’s unclear how many days Tran missed, but state law reportedly permits only 10 absences in a six-month period.

    Tran, who works full-time at a dry-cleaning business and part-time for a wedding planner, has been supporting her brother and sister since her parents separated and her mother moved away.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/28/texas-honor-student-jailed-for-missing-too-much-school/#ixzz1wI6C0QL8

    • Yeah, LOI….pretty stupid….however, in the judges defense, she had been previously warned and a court order issued…..which she ignored.

      I see the irony on two things….(1) In order for her to have to support her family, she would have had to drop out of school to do so……which sucks and,

      (2) The news report did not have all the facts (shock there) in that she was warned and a order issued……what choice did the judge have? None.

      Now, the bastards that should be accountable are the truancy officers to start with…the Texas public schools has a program just for this type of incident and she did not know about it. The truant officers DID know about it and did not inform her of all her options.

      She was not jailed for missing school, she was jailed for ignoring the original court order…..something that the news does not report very well. This is still not right, in my opinion, but the truancy rate in Houston is horribly high along with gangs. The truancy officers can go to a court and get an order without her being present. Sort of like a bench warrant. They go to her and show her the warrant and if she ignores it, they arrest her…just like ignoring a speeding ticket. It gets filed and the school reports the absences and when it reaches the cutoff they arrest her. It is bullshit in a case like this….but Houston is so big that they do not handle these things individually. The truancy folks have as much power as child protective services…….they are like the Gestapo, with CPS being worse.

      They have already fixed the problem and she is able to do correspondence as well as attend class now.

      • I might add that our veterans group is going to help. We will provide tutors and limited financial assistance to get her over the hump.

        • Fox News just reported that a “group” has raised 70k for this girl..posted some comments from viewers..all but one viewer supported the girl.

      • Sorry D, but in my view, the judge should have thrown it out. That is the reason cases are brought before a judge, to follow the law and ensure justice is done. They are supposed to be the check and balance on the system. I do agree the truancy officers and the school are where the problem started. Have been told about a homeschooled child being reported truant when they knew he had withdrawn from the school for bullying and had supplied the course material for homeschooling. He was placed in hand/waist and leg cuffs in front of his mother and forced to climb into a van for transport to juvenile detention.

        It’s a sad, sad thing to happen in a supposedly “free” country….

        • You do not have to be sorry to me…….I understand and agree….the judge does not even see these kids. It is a bench warrant. But that is going to change pretty radically soon. School districts now have the power over the state in their own jurisdictions. I am quite sure that this type of treatment will go by the wayside. We, our veterans group, is not being silent on this.

          • This appears to be a case of conspicuous enforcement — taking the law to its limits in an attempt to deter criminal activity. But conspicuous enforcement of a law also serves another purpose: It calls on the public to ask whether the law is reasonable in the first place.

            Mandatory attendance and truancy laws are well-intentioned. No responsible person wants children to be deprived of an education because of the negligence of a small minority of unfit parents. Yet, as economists regularly warn, intentions are not the same as results. Once these sorts of laws are passed, reformers consider the problem fixed and focus their attention elsewhere, without asking whether the law was an effective solution.

            In the case of Ms. Tran, it certainly was not. No one was made better off by the enforcement of the law. This is not to say the law should be enforced selectively, but rather a sign that the law is not serving its purpose.

            Indeed, Ms. Tran’s predicament is a small part of a greater problem in the U.S.: overcriminalization. Over the past few decades, state and federal lawmakers have made more things illegal and made the punishments for breaking laws more severe.

            In the case of most criminal laws, no one has asked the key question: “Who’s going to jail?” We as a society are making voluntary and victimless acts criminal simply to express disapproval, without asking what the real human costs of enforcement are. Indeed, the United States has the highest per capita prison population in the world. Over 7 million Americans are in prison, a massive 3% of the adult population. Nonviolent offenders compose more than half of the American prison population.

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/27/diane-tran-and-americas-overcriminalization-problem/#ixzz1wNRxsoBd

  23. Just A Citizen says:
    • Had an interesting conversation yesterday. A friend told me the standardized tests are a racket, where the test makers sell several levels of material. When schools buy the low or mid level product, test scores suffer. Found this at a link in your post….

      The Pineapple and the Hare, h/t to the New York Daily News:

      In the olden times, animals could speak English, just like you and me. There was a lovely enchanted forest that flourished with a bunch of these magical animals. One day, a hare was relaxing by a tree. All of a sudden, he noticed a pineapple sitting near him. The hare, being magical and all, told the pineapple, “Um, hi.” The pineapple could speak English too. “I challenge you to a race! Whoever makes it across the forest and back first wins a ninja! And a lifetime’s supply of toothpaste!” The hare looked at the pineapple strangely, but agreed to the race. The next day, the competition was coming into play. All the animals in the forest (but not the pineapples, for pineapples are immobile) arranged a finish/start line in between two trees. The coyote placed the pineapple in front of the starting line, and the hare was on his way. Everyone on the sidelines was bustling about and chatting about the obvious prediction that the hare was going to claim the victory (and the ninja and the toothpaste). Suddenly, the crow had a revolutionary realization. “AAAAIEEH! Friends! I have an idea to share! The pineapple has not challenged our good companion, the hare, to just a simple race! Surely the pineapple must know that he CANNOT MOVE! He obviously has a trick up his sleeve!” exclaimed the crow. The moose spoke up. “Pineapples don’t have sleeves.” “You fool! You know what I mean! I think that the pineapple knows we’re cheering for the hare, so he is planning to pull a trick on us, so we look foolish when he wins! Let’s sink the pineapple’s intentions, and let’s cheer for the stupid fruit!” the crow passionately proclaimed. The other animals cheered, and started chanting, “FOIL THE PLAN! FOIL THE PLAN! FOIL THE PLAN!” A few minutes later, the hare arrived. He got into place next to the pineapple, who sat there contently. The monkey blew the tree-bark whistle, and the race began! The hare took off, sprinting through the forest, and the pineapple … It sat there. The animals glanced at each other blankly, and then started to realize how dumb they were. The pineapple did not have a trick up its sleeve. It wanted an honest race — but it knew it couldn’t walk (let alone run)! About a few hours later, the hare came into sight again. It flew right across the finish line, still as fast as it was when it first took off. The hare had won, but the pineapple still sat at his starting point, and had not even budged. The animals ate the pineapple.

      Here are two of the questions:
      1. Why did the animals eat the pineapple?
      a. they were annoyed
      b. they were amused
      c. they were hungry
      d. they wanted to
      2. Who was the wisest?
      a. the hare
      b. moose
      c. crow
      d. owl

      According to a New York Public Schools Parents blog, this isn’t the first time this head-scratch-worthy question has surfaced in a state exam.

      Apparently, the same reading passage and associated questions have been recycled by Pearson for standardized exams in Florida, Illinois, Delaware, New Mexico, Arkansas, Alabama, and perhaps other states, causing huge confusion among students for at least the last seven years.

  24. A little something for all the “Tax the Rich” Liberals and Democratic/Socialist/Progressives out there. If you had the openmindedness to think, it only makes sense.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/05/29/why-taxing-rich-doesnt-work/

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    What duty does a citizen owe to the government that secures the society in which he lives? What can it expect and rightly demand of him in support of itself? A nation that rests on the will of the people must also depend on individuals to support its institutions in whatever ways are appropriate if it is to flourish. Persons qualified for public office should feel some obligation to make that contribution. If not, public service will be left to those of lesser qualification, and the government may more easily become corrupted.

    • JAC,

      What duty does a citizen owe to the government that secures the society in which he lives?

      What duty does a man owe to the Devil that secures such a man his bread and water … at the terrible cost delivered on some other man’s head who had is food and drink stolen?

      What can it expect and rightly demand of him in support of itself?

      What can the Devil rightly demand of such a man – who arms himself for duty as a minion of such a Devil and go forth to kill, rob and steal on such command?

      A nation that rests on the will of the people must also depend on individuals to support its institutions in whatever ways are appropriate if it is to flourish.

      Hell exists by the will of the People – all its structures depend on those self-centered souls for Hell to flourish.

      Persons qualified for public office should feel some obligation to make that contribution.

      Person’s qualified for the roles of demons should feel obligated to make their evil contribution felt upon the hearts souls and tears of other men.

      If not, public service will be left to those of lesser qualification, and the government may more easily become corrupted.

      God knows, only the best for Hell! Wouldn’t want Hell not to work at peak efficiency!

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        BF,

        Would you say that Jefferson’s quote should at least apply on the LOCAL level?

        • Peter,

          The closer such politics is formed and managed to an individual, the less evil it can do.

          Centralization of ANY institution breeds dangerous ill. The problems expands to the square of the logical distance between decision maker and doer.

          The closer a decision maker is to the consequences of his decision, the less likely these decisions become distorted, wrong, bad, corrupt and evil.

          Thus, having the decision made in Washington commanding a task in your town can be made worse by having a decision made in Brussels commanding a task in your town – and made ‘better’ having the decision made in town council commanding a task in your town.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      JAC,

      You forgot to attribute your quote. Thomas Jefferson, I believe.

      My paraphrase of that quote often goes, “those who are intelligent enough to run for office are far too intelligent to run for office, so we are doomed to be ruled by idiots”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Peter

        Yes I did, on purpose.

        It had one both the effects I hoped for.

        1. It caused the man who deems himself Jefferson to argue with himself. And I, as Adams, had a good chuckle.

        2. It prevented Mathius, Buck or Charlie from condemning the concept because they did not know it was Jefferson. They couldn’t write it off to some Rich White Guy.

        I am so proud of my own cleverness I can’t stand still. 😉

  26. Interesting developments in the primaries here. It appears that several heavily democratic counties, in their own democratic primary, voted against Obama. Several democratic counties came in between 34% to 48% Obama and named others. IN other words, it appears to be a no vote for Obama. In several heavily Hispanic populated counties in South Texas…..in the Democratic primary, Obama did not carry against nobodies.

    Wonder what that means?

  27. There were enough voters to turn out in the Republican primary to throw the Senate seat into a runoff…..Dewhurst vs Cruz…………..Dewhurst is the established Republican moderate….Cruz not much better but is more conservative. Veterans groups pushed enough votes to force runoff…..

  28. bamadad says:

    Well it appears that California government will even steal your voluntary tax money. What a bunch of low life’s from both sides of the isle.

    http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-calif-9-11-fund-raided-deficits-070528674.html

  29. May 30, 2012
    Janet Napolitano’s Nasty Words
    Henry Percy

    Breathe easy! The NOC (that would be National Operations Center) of DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has analysts checking social media against their ADBs (Analyst Desktop Binders) for Bad Words. Really Bad Words. Words used by terrorists. Go here, then scroll down to p. 20 to see what our brave public “servants” are tracking in order to profile the Bad Guys.

    So let me understand this right, Madam Secretary Napolitano. Suppose I write bleepbleepbleepbleep.” I have just used 11 Key Words & Search Terms (see para. 2.13 of the Analyst Desktop Binder, pp. 20-3).

    Am I now flagged in an) report, minus, of course, any

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/janet_napolitanos_nasty_words.html#ixzz1wMI9NJRS

  30. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  31. Well, well, well……what has happened to the separation of church and state…..The Attorney General of the United States,an administration official, held a meeting today with the African American ministers and pastors coalition, telling them that despite the SCOTUS rulings in favor of voter ID laws, it is a discriminatory act designed as an attack on the black community and that the ministers have a “theological responsibility” from the pulpit to get out the vote for Obama. In addition to this, the AG will hold workshops with the theological community on how to vote and what to say in order to maintain their tax exempt status.

    So, SUFA left…………….I suppose that the AG telling the church how to vote and what to say to avoid losing tax exempt status is ok? I suppose that inciting the racist theme is ok? I suppose that the Administration’s direct involvement in church politics is ok?

  32. CBO…..just announced today……that the cost of health insurance will not go down but up significantly under the current Obamacare. The CBO says that the cost of health insurance to families under $250,000 will rise 10.6% in each of the next four years under Obamacare.

    The CBO also announced 21 new taxes and increased taxes under the plan, It also said that a startling new revelation has occurred as well. Obamacare was being based on the tax breaks for small businesses to help them pay for the new plan. It was estimated and put into the numbers, that four million business’ were eligible for this status and that, in reality, there have only been 140,000 applications. Small business is staying away from it. So the numbers are now reflecting the fact that business did not flock to it as expected.

  33. And, finally, I do not understand why everyone is so upset at what is going on in Syria. The executions and killing of children and women in their beds. What is not to understand? It is the mentality of that region. It is normal and it was expected.

    Everyone is hoping for a diplomatic solution that will not be coming. You cannot offer diplomacy to governments who do not want it. Should we go in? No sir….it is none of our business. We are not the worlds policeman and if the kids are killed that is the way of the world. It is a civil war. It may be a moral outrage but it is not our business.

    It is no different than what happened in Iran in 2009. The same thing happened.

    Russia and China are arming Assad…..let it be.

    • Lets get back to our roots, provide the rebels with weapons…if they have the cash! And bleeding hearts are upset because they are people JUST LIKE US, except, they aren’t like us…
      Six people in a small village in northeastern Pakistan have been sentenced to death after a cell phone video of them singing and dancing together surfaced, Agence France-Presse reports.

      The six revelers, two men and four women, were recorded together at a wedding, in severe violation of tribal customs that forbid the commingling of sexes at weddings. The wedding took place in the Gada village of the Kohistan district, some 100 miles north of Islamabad.

      After the death sentences were handed down, “it was decided that the men will be killed first, but they ran away so the women are safe for the moment,” according to Kohistan district police officer Abdul Majeed Afridi.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/29/report-six-pakistanis-sentenced-to-death-for-dancing-singing-at-wedding/#ixzz1wNcRJtBe

  34. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.kitco.com/ind/Bevan/20120528.html

    BF, do you have any details on this supposed law that is in the works to put the US taxpayer on the hook for over a quadrillion dollars worth of derivatives if/when the whole sham goes “blooey”???

    This is the first I have heard of it, but yeah, I am not sure how people would react if they actually knew about this.

    Do you know if there is any substance to this?

    Anyone else can chime in too if they happen to know about this supposed proposed law. The Kitco article is a bit vague and fails to give the identity of any such proposed legislation so I am not sure if this guy is accurate (if so, JAC’s “WE ARE SO SCREWED” is about to take on a whole new meaning) or if this guy is way out there.

    • Peter, I like to think that I am pretty saavy on economics….I think this is pretty far out there. But that is my opinion. YOu can take a look at all the gold reserves and then take a look at the countries that have some of it and there currency valuations…that will give you a pretty good look.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Seemed pretty far “out there” to me as well, but usually Kitco is a VERY reputable source, which is why I was wondering about this.

    • Peter,

      There is no such law – but it would take about 10 hours to make one.

  35. Anybody paying attention to economics today? Euros flooding out of Europe on record levels. US treasury and dollars sought after…..commodities taking a hit as traders are deciding that commodities are on shaky ground…. Oil fell to the 80’s….

    Elvis was sighted in New Jersey….

    • Yep, worries of a major recession in Europe.

      • There will be one…..it is inevitable….Germany will be the big dog and will survive quite nicely.

        Those who did not follow their prospectus in their 401’s will yell……that is called risk.
        The same risk as those that fell for the over priced IPO of Facebook….and that stock has not stopped yet…I am predicting….somewhere around eight to 14 bucks……

        I do not get it…..people do so much trusting without investigations and then cry foul…..we need more regulation…..when the only regulation that is needed is educating oneself on economics and whatever they choose to invest in….ignorance of investing is just like ignorance of law……no excuse.

        SIGH

    • Gold up, Platinum down – sign of recession worries!

  36. Could one of the redistributionist supporters explain to me how voting for this Treaty, with the obligations without any forseeable benefit, is even being CONSIDERED by us?

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/23/law-sea-treaty-will-sink-america-economy/

    • There are many, many other U.N. Treaties that Obama just can’t wait to sign as soon as they get through Congress.

    • There is no explanation nor can there be one…..it will not pass the Senate nor the House.

      • I’m not sure about that. I HOPE that’s the case. There sure are a lot of morons in Congress supporting UNLOST. And the Administration and the SecState are really pushing the Small Arms Treaty, giving the U.N. jurisdiction in the US and interfering with our 2nd Amendment rights.

        You have to admit that stranger things have come to pass in the last few years.

  37. New York State accounted for the biggest migration exodus of any state in the nation between 2000 and 2010, with 3.4 million residents leaving over that period, according to the Tax Foundation. Over that decade the state gained 2.1 million, so net migration amounted to 1.3 million, representing a loss of $45.6 billion in income. The calculator shows that 612,520 people renounced their citizenship in New York State and moved to Florida in the 10-year period, taking with them $19.7 billion in adjusted growth income.
    Between 2009 and 2010 alone, 40,195 New York residents moved to Florida, taking $1.3 billion in income. WHY? Because the state does not have an individual income tax, an estate tax, nor an inheritance tax.

    Between 2000 and 2010, the most recent data available, 551,914 people left California for Texas, taking $14.3 billion in income. Texas has no state income tax or estate tax. A total of 48,877 people moved to Texas from California between 2009 and 2010 alone, totaling $1.2 billion in income. Another 28,088 from California relocated to Nevada and 30,663 to Arizona, a loss of $699.1 million and $707.8 million in income respectively.

    This, of course, will increase the taxes of those that are left.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Morning Colonel!

      Methinks you extrapolate a bit too much here. At least as far as NY to FL goes. Sure taxes do play a role, but attributing this migration pattern almost exclusively to tax policy misses the point that FL is just where all the old Jewish NYers go!

      • ‘Morning, Buck…..not my numbers……numbers that I took from the most recent Money article. The same article gave me the numbers on California….however, does it really matter what the reasons are? Money is the name of the game. Not saying that New York is not a neat state but its politics and cost of living is unbelievable. Same in California.

        Good example is that of my neighbor. A California transplant. He sold a 1400 square foot home in California for $450,000. This is unbelievable….comes to Texas and buys 3700 sq ft home for $189,000. Milk, bread, cheese, meats are all lower by as much as 20%.

        Good enough reasons, I guess.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Oh I agree taxes and cost of living come in to play in these decisions. And I don’t dispute your numbers. I just dispute any implication that taxes and cost of living is the sole or primary reason.

          In fact, a lot of people I’ve known to move down to FL don’t even have a NY taxable estate — their prime reason was the weather. Other people I’ve known refuse to move down to FL regardless of any tax benefits because they much prefer to live in NYC.

      • @ Mathius……you coming to Texas? Buck said you were….. 🙂

        • Oops, I meant Florida.

          • Mathius says:

            I like the dry heat.

            Texas is fine. Houston should be liberal enough for me, and I know you have some In ‘n’ Out burgers opening up (have you tried this yet?).

            I’d miss my wife though….

  38. Way to go New York………..your food police is going to ban sugar drinks over 16 ounces. No more super sized drinks, Mayor Bloomberg has so decreed. You can have all the coffee you want over 16 ounces and all the diet drinks (chemical laced) you want…..but not that sugar. Next on the list according to the mayor…..no more double meat burgers, no more quarter pounder’s, no more killer INN and OUT burgers over one paddy in size….with that goes no more large fries.

    Sigh………………..what else?

    • What else? Red Bull! LOL

      To you know who..how’s that big government working for ya?

      • ANita, yes, it does include Red Bull…..ANY sold sugar drink over 16 ounces, can or fountain.

      • Mathius says:

        RB is sold in pounders 16 oz and more, but generally it’s served in 8.4oz cans. I try to restrict myself to the smaller size or I wind up a little too juiced.

        So maybe the bigger ones would disappear, but it wouldn’t affect me much.

        That said, however, I’m still not in favor of any restriction on the ability of people to poison themselves.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          “I’m still not in favor of any restriction on the ability of people to poison themselves.”

          Well said. At least to the extent your decision to poison yourself doesn’t result in poisoning me as well (e.g., smoking).

          • Buck,
            You err but again.

            They are not poisoning you by smoking.
            You are on their property.
            You can leave.
            And you should.

            But what you should not do is call on government to violate a man’s property and prevent him from smoking on that property simply to please the stupid whim of your demand.

            Because what happens is exactly this you now complain – if you believe you can invoke government to stop freemen doing things on their property just to please you –other men will invoke government to stop you from doing things on your property to please them

            But you do not understand that….

            • Buck the Wala says:

              sigh

              We’ve been through this before and I’m just not going to go through it again. See Mathius’ post below in re smoking.

              • Buck

                been through this before

                Yep, and both you and Mathius abandoned your futile and irrational arguments in the middle when you contradicted yourselves- and you will do it again now too.

                You always end up singing this mantra which underlines your entire political theory:

                Freedom for me, but not for anyone else

            • Mathius says:

              I don’t think Buck is objecting to people smoking on their own property. I think he’s objecting to smoking in public areas. (I assume that, in pirate land, every inch of land is owned by someone, thus someone establishes what is / is not permissible on their land, but here in the real world, there are public areas and they are shared by all people). He’s objecting to having to rush through a haze of smoke every time he leaves a building or restaurant, or to being unable to enjoy a nice day in a public park because someone’s polluting the air around him.

              It’s not a question (only) about offended sensibilities – that is, that it’s unpleasant – but they’re also doing actual harm, a small amount each incident, but still real harm. Especially if, like me, you happen to be out with a pregnant wife who should definitely not be exposed to smoke.

              So, in the real world, in the world that actually exists, where no one personally owns the sidewalk or the public park, how do you feel about people smoking in those areas and creating a cloud of carcinogens to which others are subjected? Is the person wrong to smoke there, or should the other people just have to accept it and cede the space?

              In other words, do you have a right to create a dangerous environment for other people which forces them to choose either restricted mobility / freedom of movement or physical harm, considerate of the fact that neither participant owns the specific piece of land?

              Let’s assume your response is that it’s perfectly ok… until you hurt someone, then it’s wrong. Given that, who is in the wrong when that harm occurs? The guy who created the cloud of fumes, or the guy who breathed it in? Are you free to go out and set up bunch of landmines in a public space, then blame me for stepping on them?

              • Yes, he is.

                He doesn’t want a restaurant or bar to have smokers.
                He wants his demand to be superior to the owner of the bar or pub or any of the other patrons.

                He can enforce whatever non-smoking dictate on his own property. All the power to him.
                But you and he is unsatisfied with that limit.

                So there is your contradiction.
                You start your mumble by claiming “I don’t think Buck is objecting to people smoking on their own property”

                And then, in less than a paragraph, destroy property rights by equating “public lands” to be “pubs and restaurants”.

                Both of you believe this perversion is ok, because Dear Buck cannot stand “rushing through a haze of smoke”

                Too sad, the two of you.

              • Mathius says:

                I’m pretty confident that Buck is 100% ok with people smoking on their own non-open-to-the-public property (ie, in their homes).

                I’d be willing to bet that Buck is NOT ok with people smoking in restaurants. Personally, I’m somewhat torn on this, but I remember the days when it was common to have people smoking in the booth next to you and your choice was not go out or being poisoned. And I remember when it became a ‘smoking area’ which was better, but still not good enough. I’d like to believe that the free market would take care of this issue, but I just don’t think so. THIS is where Buck and I have a ‘perversion’ or internal conflict, ie private property treated as public property. We are aware of the internal conflict. But, for us, we are ok with this because we recognize life as a gray-scale balancing of rights and greater good. We know that you don’t, so arguing this will never get us anywhere.. let’s move along, shall we?

                But, for the sake of argument, let’s discuss public land. Can you answer my questions above with regards to actual public-public lands (ie, public parks, sidewalks, etc)? I’m actually far more interested in your take on this.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Pubs and restaurants are private property…held out for public use.

                There is a distinction to be made between pubs and restaurants on one hand and your private home on the other. Shades of grey, my friend, shades of grey!

              • Buck

                Pubs and restaurants are private property…held out for public use.

                The use of private property DOES NOT CHANGE it to NOT private property

              • Mathius,

                But, for the sake of argument, let’s discuss public land. Can you answer my questions above with regards to actual public-public lands (ie, public parks, sidewalks, etc)? I’m actually far more interested in your take on this.

                Ask the owner.

                PS: There exists no such thing as ‘public’ property. There are always ‘owners’ – that is, the one who determines the use of such property with no veto.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      First heard about this this morning while driving to work. We’ll see if this actually happens — I’m pretty doubtful. At least nowhere near to the extent the rumors are flying.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        You miss the bigger point. It is not whether you or others support the idea.

        It is that a person in public office thought it was “their” role to propose and implement such an idea.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I would say it is the person in public office’s role to propose and implement such ideas. What too often gets missed though is the people’s role to either accept or decline such an idea.

          • First sentence..NO
            Second sentence..What?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              The person in public office should be proposing laws and regulations. That is most certainly part of their job. But the people should be more involved in accepting proposed laws prior to their implementation.

              Note: I’m not saying that every single proposed law should be put to a referendum — that would be wildly inefficient, not to mention that certain things (e.g., the equal rights of a minority) should not be put up for popular vote.

              • I have never assumed the person in office should propose anything..that’s the job of the congress or ,locally, the city council. Besides that it time for the people in office to start abolishing some laws not proposing more. You want us to just accept everything?

              • Truly, this is where the world got all screwed up – by people like Buck.

                The person in public office should be proposing laws and regulations.

                Totally and absolutely wrong, if you wish to live is a free society.

                If you wish to live in tyranny, you hit a home run.

                The People should be proposing the law and regulations they wish to live within and the public officers should be codified that desire.

                But Buck promotes dictatorship – that the People’s Superiors (nearly universally called “Your Leaders” … in German, “Der Fuhrer”) determine such law and dictate it and enforce it upon the People.

                There was no “great leader” who woke up one morning and said “Ah HA! Murder and Theft is wrong, and now I make such law that says so!”

                The People made murder and theft wrong, and eventually codified it into law primarily for the purpose of consistency of punishment, penalty and retribution

                It is the gentle, but constant distortion of law and its creation by people like Buck and his progressives that always leads the People into tyranny.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                BF, you miss the stage where the people VOTE for the people in office. But I know…everything amounts to tyranny, dictatorship and violence.

              • Buck,

                You place so much power on voting, when in fact it is utterly pointless.

                I vote you in because you promise to protect property rights.
                You get elected.
                You turn around and destroy property rights with your Anti-smoking, anti-sugar, anti-(fill in Buck’s hates).

                Now, you claim voting “makes a difference”.

                You are either naive or diabolical.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Once again you propose the ULTIMATE CONTRADICTION in GOVT.

                “not to mention that certain things (e.g., the equal rights of a minority) should not be put up for popular vote.”

                You can not explain how you form your govt by popular vote but then constrain the popular vote to change that govt.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                As concisely as possible: majority rules with safeguards to minority rights.

                Now…I gotta actually get some work done today…silly job always getting in the way…

              • Mathius says:

                Why won’t they just pay me to SUFA all day?

    • Mathius says:

      In ‘n’ Out is beyond the reach of Bloomberg.

      ::phew::

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Got worried there for a second though, didn’t you?

        • Mathius says:

          I live right on the CT border (walking distance). Good luck with this ban. All it means is that I’ll do my Red Bull shopping and double-patty burger eating in CT. It’s not like in CA or TX where you have to drive hundreds of miles to get to the nearest neighboring state. Probably more than 90% of the population of NY lives within a half-hour of some other state.

          If you ban something like this, it just drives commerce elsewhere.

          Meanwhile, however, I agree with the implication of our esteemed Texan friend.. it’s kind of crazy to go after sugar while ignoring all the other crap floating around.

          • It’s plain crazy that a supposedly free country keeps trying to make everything illegal. And if they do target that other crap, it will have unintended consequences. A lot of the “bad” foods are also cheap. So a baloney ban will have an adverse impact on the poor.

            • Mathius says:

              I generally agree. This, by the way, is one of the major issues I have with marijuana being illegal. It’s a relatively benign drug, which you cannot use.. oh, but you can take prozac which has a million side affects, no problem.

              Likewise, ban sugar, people will turn to nutrasweet etc, and those are just festering chemical cocktails – who knows how bad they are for you. Not that sugar is good, but sometimes the alternative (chosen due to the distortions brought on by these kinds of regulations) are far worse.

              As for freedom, as I’ve said before, I completely support your absolute right to poison yourself… with two caveats.. one, you don’t poison others along the way, and two, that you don’t make me pay your medical costs. For #1, I think you can smoke in private, with other smokers, in your car, in public when no one is within, say, 20 feet of you, away from children, blah blah blah blah blah. But if I’m, say, eating dinner at a restaurant, you shouldn’t be able to sit down next to me and turn the air I was breathing into a carcinogenic haze, nor should I have to hold my breath when I leave a building because the smokers have assembled all in the doorway. It’s shared air, and you don’t get to poison it. For #2, there’s a big difference between a random malady and a self-inflicted one. If you just so happen to have been hit by a drunk driver while minding your own business, that’s one thing, but if you get lung cancer after smoking a pack a day for 30 years, that shouldn’t be the hospital’s job to fix at their own expense because you don’t have insurance. Frankly, I don’t think hospitals should have to treat anyone at a loss, but especially not self-inflicted wounds. If you shoot yourself in the leg while drunk or if you eat yourself into oblivion and weigh 1,300 lbs and need bypass surgery, that’s not just bad luck or random chance, that’s you being an idiot and you, alone, should have to bare the weight of your bad choices. How does that sound to you, Mr. Illusion?

              • Wow! Damned if I wouldn’t vote for you if you ran for office Matt. But then I question will you vote for someone who believes the opposite of what you have just laid out? Like Bloomberg and Obama?

              • Mathius says:

                Yea… I guess….

                Because the alternative is worse.

                Unless I run for office, there’s never going to be a politician I agree with 100%. I’ll fight them on policies with which I disagree and I’ll support them on policies with which I do agree.

                My platform:
                1. Abolish all drug laws.
                2. Abolish all blue laws.
                3. Legalize prostitution.
                4. Convert the FDA into an advisory agency (ie, you can buy things that they don’t approve, but they’ll be labeled as such) (except for antibiotics which are a public health issue).
                5. End agricultural subsidies.
                6. End oil subsidies.
                7. END ALL FOREIGN MILITARY ENGAGEMENTS. (Korean/Israel is ok IF Korea/Israel pay for our expenses, but with a 10 year withdrawal time frame)
                8. Full pentagon audit, budget reduced to 10-15% of current over 5 years.
                9. Large increase in infrastructure spending (funded from decrease in pentagon budget and wars).
                10. Pay off the debt. Seriously.
                11. Massive government transparency improvements. Strong legislative enforcement of such (inclusive of removal from office / criminal charges).
                12. Welfare converted to Workfare (or disability, as appropriate).
                13. Food stamp abuse punishable by 5-year (1st offense) / permanent (2nd) disqualification from program.
                14. Government out of marriage – completely. Not even civil unions. Overturn DOMA.
                15. Equal rights for gays.
                16. Tax policy does not distinguish between marital status.
                17. Reinstate line-item veto.
                18. All laws must have a 1-page rider in plain English explaining the Constitutional authority under which they were passed. This will be subject to approval by a panel of randomly-chosen 8th grade civics classes – if they do not approve, law must pass judicial review prior to enactment.
                19. All laws must be limited to a single ‘subject’ per law – no earmarks, no riders, no tacking on unpopular items to things that have to pass, etc.
                20. President lives in a nice little brownstone in DC, work is done in a nondescript office space nearby – the WH is rented out at annual auction and proceeds are used to pay down debt.
                21. Trading on Congressional knowledge (insider trading) is a felony.
                22. Overturn Citizens United.
                23. Dismantle 99% of nuclear arsenal.
                24. Massive expansion of nuclear power / hydroelectric.
                25. Air Force One rented, same as WH. President travels in coach on commercial airlines. President must spend entire flight talking to other passengers.
                26. Presidential / Congressional pay benchmarked to indicators of economic health (ie, the better the economy, the more you’re paid). POTUS / Congress banned from lobbying for 10 years following leaving office. Similarly, they may not take jobs as news commentators.
                27. Executive Orders legislatively banned (so it can’t just be turned back on by the next administration).
                28. Discontinue production of the penny, the nickel, and (soon) the dime as they cost more to produce than their respective values.
                29. CIA instructed to covertly add prozac to the water supply for all news outlets.
                30. Buck appointed to SCOTUS.
                31. Reinstate Glass-Stegal.
                32. Repeal PATRIOT Act.
                33. Massive expansion of legal immigration and guest worker programs.
                34. Anonymous holds in Congress abolished. To filibuster, you must actually stand up and literally talk the bill to death. The rule which says you cannot accuse other congressmen of being disingenuous is abolished because, damn it, they are disingenuous and you should be allowed to call them out on it.
                35. States are allowed to secede, but they must pay for their share of the national debt when they go (in proportion with their electoral votes).

                Thank you for your vote!

          • Mathius,

            You are wrong again.

            You play a very dangerous game believing these two things:
            1) You can avoid the ban by border-jumping.
            2) Because you believe you can border-jump, the problem isn’t so real.

            Border-jumping in most States is a serious crime – example of a grandmother going to jail for 10 years because she bought a cold medicine in one State to use in other.

            Second point, because you believe you can avoid the prohibition makes the prohibition on others ok is a really bad argument.

            • Mathius says:

              I just said it’s not particularly enforceable. Not that it’s ok or not wrong.

              I went to school in PA on the Jersey border, where the cops would routinely arrest kids who hopped the border to skirt liquor laws. All I’m saying is that, at least for NY, it’s tough to enforce a law like this because of the number of other nearby states and the situation of so much of it’s population near those borders. Further, given the difficulty of that enforcement, it’s likely to drive commerce to nearby states.

              Am I still wrong?

              • Mathius,

                I continue to forget your the same guy who still doesn’t believe the Universe is consistent and operates from natural law – thus reasoning and logic are flimsy concepts for you.

                Further, given the difficulty of that enforcement, it’s likely to drive commerce to nearby states. Am I still wrong?

                No, but you are wrong to stop your analysis there – which is why you Progressives create so much evil – you are so short-sighted and only focus on short-term thinking and the cost and devastation to long-term destruction.

                When a law is difficult to enforce, the enforcement of such law becomes more and more violent and draconian – if any lesson of the “war on drugs” proves, it is this point.

                There is a tipping point – where your Dear Leaders in their need to maintain legitimacy either must: abandon the law and repeal it, fearing widespread revolt due to this enforcement OR step up the violence to higher and higher degree to enforce the law should they believe a retreat damages their legitimacy.

              • Ug, missing negation.

                …and NOT the cost and devastation and long-term destruction.

              • Mathius says:

                When a law is difficult to enforce, the enforcement of such law becomes more and more violent and draconian Not necessarily.

                In NYC, it’s against the law to jaywalk. However, this has proven to be impossible to enforce. Why? The people, en masse, has simply decided to ignore it. The police could have fought back, as you say, by making the penalties draconian. But this would have generated a pushback from the citizenry and threatened the position of the powers-that-be, so rather, the police simply shrugged and decided to ignore the law as well.

                There is a tipping point – where your Dear Leaders in their need to maintain legitimacy either must: abandon the law and repeal it, fearing widespread revolt due to this enforcement OR step up the violence to higher and higher degree to enforce the law should they believe a retreat damages their legitimacy. EXACTLY.

                Or.

                They must fight or cave. Sometimes they fight by making the laws draconian. Sometimes they cave and repeal (or disregard) the law.

                ————

                So, again, how am I wrong, exactly? Because I didn’t reach further to a conclusion you prefer but which isn’t necessarily inevitable?

                ————

                I continue to forget your the same guy who still doesn’t believe the Universe is consistent and operates from natural law

                I believe it is consistent and operates according to natural law. I just don’t think we puny and primitive humans should be so egotistical as to believe that any/all of the so-called laws which we have ‘discovered’ are necessarily laws themselves rather than expressions of more fundamental laws. And, until we know those fundamental laws, the absolute faith you have placed in the ‘laws’ you know might be misguided.

                Maybe you can exceed the speed of light.. but only when wearing a funny hat.
                Maybe there isn’t an equal and opposite reaction on the first Thursday of every billion years.
                Maybe black holes allow light to escape if you ask them really, really nicely.

                Unlikely, sure. But I don’t know the fundamental laws of space and time (neither do you, by the way) – the reasons BEHIND the laws we know and love. So, until then, I’ll continue to believe that, however unlikely, anything could be possible and that the things you think are definitely true are only probably true.

          • “”””THUD!!!”””””…………………………………..MEDIC>>MEDIC>>

  39. Malaika Brooks was seven months pregnant and hastily driving her 11-year-old son to school one day in 2004. Little did she know, she was about to be tased. Three times.

    On Tuesday the Supreme Court declined to hear Brooks’ case, upholding the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that officers did not knowingly violate her Fourth Amendment rights.

    Brooks’ saga began when she refused to sign a speeding ticket. She had been pulled over for traveling 32 mph in a 20 mph school zone. After declining to sign the ticket, police asked her to exit her vehicle so she could be arrested. However, she refused.

    Police officers then electrocuted her with a Taser three times, dragged her to the ground and handcuffed her.

    Brooks filed suit. A federal judge ruled that the case must see a courtroom, as officers had no legal immunity. Ninth Circuit judges felt otherwise, however, ruling that officers could not have been aware that their conduct was unconstitutional or unreasonable, citing legal ambiguity at the time.

    The appeals court ruled that Brooks “alleged constitutional violations, but that not every reasonable officer… would have known – beyond debate – that such conduct violates the Fourth Amendment.”

    Brooks was convicted by a jury of refusing to sign a traffic ticket — a criminal offense in Seattle — but no decision was reached on her resisting arrest charge.

    Each Taser shock occurred within a 42-second window. The Taser left permanent burn marks on her thigh, arm and neck.

    Fortunately, after the incident Brooks gave birth to a completely healthy baby girl.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/30/supreme-court-ignores-lawsuit-from-pregnant-taser-victim/#ixzz1wS13Kp3Q

    • Mathius says:

      Wait, what? It’s ok to abuse your rights as long as the officers wouldn’t have known beyond debate that it was a violation?

      Huh?

      • Despite ‘Castle Doctrine,’ defendant is convicted in slaying

        By Mensah M. Dean
        Philadelphia Daily News

        A PHILADELPHIA JUDGE said Wednesday he was convinced that a disabled, retired Marine was being attacked in the moments before he fatally stabbed a man last October, but he concluded that the stabbing was still a criminal act rather than self-defense.

        Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner then convicted Jonathan Lowe, 57, of voluntary manslaughter and possession of an instrument of crime. The judge found him not guilty of the more-serious charges of first- and third-degree murder.

        Lowe, who wears a pacemaker and has survived two strokes and two heart surgeries, could face up to 12 1/2 to 25 years in prison when Lerner sentences him Aug. 16.

        The case underscores how uncertain the claim of self-defense can be, even in a state that revised its “Castle Doctrine” last year to give an individual the right to use deadly force in self-defense anywhere in which a person has a legal right to be. The revised law also eliminated the duty to retreat before using that force

        http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20120531_Despite__lsquo_Castle_Doctrine__rsquo__defendant_is_convicted_in_slaying.html

      • Mathius says:

        Illuminati spelled backward is itanimulli. Go to itanimulli.com.

        hehehehe

      • Just A Citizen says:

        LOI

        So the million dollar question is: Why did the local PD send an officer along for the visit based on such skimpy evidence of a threat?

        Inquiring reporters would ask the PD what “evidence” they were given to justify this trip.

        • Agree, myself, I would document the officers name and the EPA agents. If they contacted the local LEO’s, I would want that info provided as well. What was the reason they gave when they requested an officer to be present? I might also try to fly somewhere, see if I had suddenly made the no-fly list….

  40. Watched this yesterday & agree. Total hit piece. Nothing inaccurate, but far from fair and balanced…. It will tarnish their image and should. All three hosts were gushing over it.

    There have been many on our side who have shrugged their shoulders and said, “So what? Ever watch MSNBC’s coverage of Romney?”

    This is absolutely true. And don’t we criticize coverage like that? Right again. It’s hypocrisy to criticize biased coverage from a news organization that crosses the line between informing the viewer and advocacy and stay silent – or even support a network that purports to be “fair and balanced” but offers a naked hit piece on a political opponent.

    Ed Morrissey:

    Note that F&F isn’t just playing a campaign ad or a YouTube spot from an outside political action committee. Nor does this come from the production company of one of its opinion-program hosts. The video starts with “Fox and Friends Presents” on the screen, making this an explicit argument from the news channel itself.

    Should a news organization produce and publish attack ads like this? I know the initial response will be that other news organizations offer biased perspectives and hagiographies of Obama that go well beyond a single video … and that response is entirely valid. However, we usually criticize that kind of behavior with other news organizations, too. If anyone wanted to look for evidence that the overall Fox News organization intends to campaign against Obama rather than cover the campaign, this video would be difficult to refute as evidence for that claim.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean that outside groups and the Romney campaign shouldn’t consider producing something like this on their own. It makes a pretty powerful argument against another four years of Barack Obama, but that shouldn’t be the job of news-reporting organizations, even when we like the message.

    TV Newser reports that the video was “created by an associate producer and was not authorized at the senior executive level of the network.” I would hope not. And I would guess that associate producer’s days at the network are numbered.

    This is not a question of us playing by the rules while the other guys do whatever they want. It’s a simple question of what’s right and what’s wrong. And regardless of whether you think what’s in the video is true or not, a news organization has no business making what amounts to a free campaign commercial for the candidate they support.

    When MSNBC or CNN airs a biased hit piece, righty blogs all across the spectrum dissect it and criticize the networks for their dishonesty. This is how to fight bias in the media – not by creating a counter-biased hit piece as Fox did with the above video.

    For a network that prides itself on being “fair and balanced,” Fox just jumped the shark.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/when_news_organizations_cross_the_line_of_advocacy.html#ixzz1wS4Cj9zi

  41. if Congress were to confine our 40 percent tax rate to the “evil” top 1 percent, they’d bring in $72 billion in additional revenue in 2012, an increase of less than 6 percent.

    So the administration’s official line (dutifully echoed by the mainstream media) that the deficit is due to the so-called “Bush tax cuts” — is a crock. In “Bush’s tax cuts didn’t get us in this mess” at Chicago Sun-Times on May 28, Steve Huntley writes:

    Conflating the housing bust and the Bush tax cuts is a way to distract the voters from the failure of the administration’s nearly trillion-dollar stimulus and other policies to right the economy.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/a_raging_prairie_fire_of_lies.html#ixzz1wSEmqj14

  42. May 31, 2012
    Academic Tenure, or Trickle-Down Entitlement Theory
    By Daren Jonescu

    Those who wonder how the modern university could have become so fundamentally disdainful of political liberty should consider that the entitlement mentality that is destroying Western civilization began in academia. Academic tenure is the original entitlement program.

    Conservatives rightly fear that civilization could reach a tipping point at which a majority of citizens are subsisting on government redistribution programs, and hence have a vested interest in blinding themselves to the fact that their “entitlement” simultaneously imposes an unjust and coercive “obligation” upon others to provide for them. The university, as usual, was the vanguard of this intellectual development, not merely in the sense of helping to promote it through bad theory, but in the more direct sense of creating its own entitlement to foreshadow all the others.

    All entitlement programs are sold as responding to a genuine need. In a community that has lost its rational moorings, one man’s need can easily be converted into another man’s obligation. After all, who has the right to deny someone what he needs? Once one accepts that conversion — accepts, specifically, that my needing something trumps your property rights — it is the shortest step to declare that the need itself is actually a right. FDR’s infamous Marxist-inspired “second bill of rights” is a classic example of this. It was an early Americanization of the principle that everyone ought to be enslaved to everyone else. (Naturally, it is enslavement by other names; America’s current super-cool upgrade of FDR favors the name “social justice.”)

    A right is a claim one can make against other people. To deny someone his right is to deny him his freedom. Hence, the entitlement mentality is grounded in a twisted conception of freedom — namely, freedom understood as a lack of risk, guaranteed security, and the removal of any need to take responsibility for one’s actions and their natural outcomes.

    And this brings us back to academia. Academic tenure — in effect a lifetime-guaranteed academic career, immune to judgment of one’s effort, merit, or sanity — is a creation of the twentieth century, the entitlement century. From the medieval inception of the modern university as a vessel of Catholic philosophy, theology, and legal theory through the end of the nineteenth century, university teaching posts were secured only by the judgment and approval of the institution’s administration, and protected only by the good faith of administrators in their pursuit of intellectual excellence and social honor.

    The result of this pre-tenure system was that few professors ever lost an academic job for academic reasons. That is to say, universities reserved the right to decide whom they wanted to hire and to ensure that their schools’ reputations were not imperiled by an employee’s words or actions; beyond that, most professors were left to their own consciences in pursuing their work.

    In 1915, however, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) issued a “declaration of principles,” according to which boards of trustees would be entirely barred from any attempt to restrict the intellectual activity of a professor, faculty alone would have the authority to hire new faculty members, and professors would be protected by a system of formal tenure, to be designed and operated by professors themselves.

    This declaration of principles would more accurately be called a list of demands. The professors were, in short, staging a polite coup in the university. Academia, in every sense that matters, would henceforth be controlled entirely by the teachers. If this sounds essentially benevolent to you, and like a reasonable safeguard of intellectual activity, consider what it implies, and what it has meant in practice.

    Except for the most extreme cases, such as those involving overt criminal activity, the proprietors of the university — those who provide the campus, the buildings, and the professors’ salaries — have no direct say in the hiring and firing of those who are to represent their university in the community.

    Here is the danger of this scenario: if the faculty alone determines who can be hired in the first place, and ultimately who is granted tenure, then you have a recipe for the most insidious form of establishmentarianism, the true enemy of the academic conscience that tenure was allegedly supposed to protect. The gang that controls the neighborhood now decides who gets to come into the neighborhood. After a vetting period, during which the gang demands that you prove yourself up to their standards — i.e., non-threatening to their internal status quo — they either chase you out of the neighborhood or present you with your own gang jacket.

    The pre-tenure academy retained traces of a patronage system, in which a scholar was obliged to convince his potential patron that he, the scholar, had an extraordinary mind. In the tenure system, the scholar is obliged to convince his judges that he is not extraordinary, or rather that he is ordinary, in the relevant ways. Orthodoxy is king. The stifling effects of this orthodoxy-protecting system are seen even in the sciences. (Global warming “deniers” are a clear enough example.)

    However, in the humanities and social sciences, establishmentarianism of the sort promoted by the tenure system has even more direct societal implications. For the dominant theories in these disciplines set the tenor of society as a whole. The leftward ratchet of modern civilization can be traced to the universities. Academia’s own leftward ratchet is cranked by the tenure system.

    In America, the anti-individualist, socialistic principles of Dewey presided in the Ivy League schools in the early twentieth century, when tenure was adopted. Professors sympathetic to such theories, given (or rather, seizing) the power to choose their own colleagues, naturally tended to favor the like-minded. Thus, what might otherwise have been a “fling” with Marxist progressivism in the university became instead an entrenched, multi-generational establishment.

    And the circumspection that subversive thinkers — whatever their merits — had hitherto been forced into by practical considerations was obliterated by tenure. There was almost nothing one could not say. There was every incentive to push the collectivist, illiberal envelope. Those seeking tenure must win the approval of the leftists — activist or milquetoast — who control the hiring committees. They do this by espousing ideas consistent with those of their judges, while perhaps attracting attention by putting a toe into previously uncharted (or at least unpopularized) progressive waters.

    Then, once they have tenure, the more ambitious types leap headlong into that water with impunity, while the milquetoasts keep the chairs warm and dutifully attend to the less glamorous tasks of the revolution, such as half-wittingly teaching the basic tenets of leftism to each new generation of undergraduates.

    Through this mechanism, cocooned and incubated by the tenure system, the Dewey-inspired espousal of an “individual creativity” detached from — actually explicitly at odds with — individual liberty evolved into Marxist “critical theory”; into the post-Freudian liberation of the id from the constraints of bourgeois capitalist society; into the Rawlsian rape of seventeenth-century “state of nature” theory as a rationalization for the welfare state; into the revival of Marxist-style class divisions and theories of the systemic oppression of every class and sub-class by the non-poor white male; and finally, it seems, into the open demand for the dismantling of the remains of liberty, the denial of all property rights, and the subjugation of all mankind under a reign of induced poverty, degradation, and self-loathing, to be undertaken in the name of “the planet.”

    Thus, the general moral, political, and economic destruction wrought by the modern entitlement mentality is a reflection of the degraded “life of the mind” holed up in the erstwhile ivory tower, which has since been converted into a walled fortress with a moat, through the power structure created by the tenure system. Obsolete, ridiculous, and dangerous ideas are no longer merely tolerated in order not to risk throwing out the baby with the bath; they are now the coin of the academic realm.

    Convicted on trumped up charges of impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens, Socrates is offered the opportunity to recommend his own proper punishment. He proposes that if Athens really wants to give him what he deserves, the city ought to provide him with free lunch every day for the rest of his life. As Allan Bloom observed, what else is today’s tenure but a free lunch for philosophers?

    The difference, of course, is that Socrates’ withering irony, which led to his being sentenced to death, was intended to mock his jurors, and to reassert his rejection of their charges, whereas today’s alleged free thinkers are dead serious about having all the risk removed from thinking. Corrupting the youth, modern-style, is the safest, most pampered job you can get. Bill Ayers, a perfect embodiment of both the corruption and the corrupting of modern youth, gets his free lunch for life, along with the critical race theorists, the radical feminists, and the members of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, dedicated to the despotic, redistributive impoverishment of seven billion people.

    As I noted earlier, entitlement theories tend to distort their new “rights” claims into a new, illiberal form of freedom. In the case of tenure, the distortion is called “academic freedom.” If that term means anything, it is only as a rephrasing of the natural rights to free speech and association. In the U.S., at least, it can have no other legal significance. Otherwise, it can apply only to institutions, rather than to professors, as an extension of property rights — but this is precisely what the tenure system denies. Nevertheless, the professoriate’s supposed “academic freedom” has come to be regarded as sacred, although no one can explain what it means.

    In practice, academic freedom is the perfect counterpart to the distorted new freedom developed from modern entitlements of the sort championed by FDR — the “freedom” from responsibility for oneself and one’s choices, and permanent security against personal risk. Academic freedom, as the tenured class perceives it, means freedom from ever having to face adverse consequences for one’s views, or for advocating courses of action that might unravel civilizations.

    The great minds of the past understood that new ideas invite danger, both figurative and deathly literal. From public ostracism to political condemnation and sometimes execution, the harsh realities of the free thinker were faced — bravely and resignedly — by Socrates, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Aristotle, Boethius, Dante, Galileo, Spinoza, and so many other transformative figures throughout human history. They thought on, in exile, battling political enemies, condemned by religious authorities — feeling compelled to speak and write as they did, even at the greatest risk. These men were, in short, exemplars of the free individual, the rational soul exercising its powers and taking responsibility for the results, however unjust those might be.

    Today’s “thinkers,” by comparison, have, through the coup that established tenure, achieved in reality what Socrates proposed in mockery — total protection and deference from the powers that be, including even the trustees of their own universities, whose campuses they occupy entirely at their own whim, and without recognition of any authority beyond themselves. They are the original “occupiers” — is it any wonder they have created, and sympathize with, the new “Occupiers”?

    The scholar class — once so vital and honorable a part of civilized man’s moral and political development — declared itself an entitled class — i.e., immune to the natural risks of human endeavor, intellectual or otherwise. From that moment on, it was unreasonable to hope that, as a whole, they would ever be friends or supporters of individual liberty. The risks of self-determination, and the uncertain outcomes of rational agency, are the glorious core of freedom. The entitlement mentality obviates those glories, and hence produces a mind unreceptive to, and disdainful of, true freedom.

    Your children are being prepared for the “real world” by men and women sustained by the oldest, most corrupt entitlement program. What kind of influence are such people likely to have on young minds?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/academic_tenure_or_trickle-down_entitlement_theory.html#ixzz1wTsQwqwo

    • Just A Citizen says:

      From the article:

      “It was an early Americanization of the principle that everyone ought to be enslaved to everyone else. ”

      Now lets see who has been paying attention.

      What is the “name” of this ethical principle?

      Waiting…………………………..

  43. I’ve been hearing grumblings from freinds at the hospital I used to work at, but this is the first in writing.

    I will say this to anyone who is even entertaining the idea of voting for Obama – Please stay home on election day – You are NUTS.
    BB

    I am SO afraid that this JERK is going to be re-elected……
    We can’t stand another 4 years of this

    Forget about getting to age 75, this exact thing happened to me this
    morning at Danbury hospital here in Ct. I was scheduled for a cardio-lite stress
    test. This is a tread mill stress test where during the process they
    inject nuclear dye into your blood stream and then put you in a CAT scan or
    something similar and take a picture of your heart. If all is good the
    heart shows up red, if there are blocked arteries anywhere that portion of
    the heart shows up pink. I have had three of these tests in the past
    twelve years due to blocked arteries discovered in 2000. They use the test to
    determine if I need a roto router or a bypass operation.

    So I arrive at the hospital at 8am this morning and I am in the process of
    checking in at Cardiology and the lady says that my appointment has been
    canceled. She makes a call and speaks with someone and hands me the
    phone. It is a nurse in cardiology who says that my medical coverage denied the
    procedure. I said it was routine, part of my heart maintenance process
    and ordered by my PCP and with approval from my Cardiologist who is the head
    of Danbury Cardiology which is right where I was standing. She goes, “yes
    but we were denied our request”. So I say, I have Medicare so what is my
    backup insurance doing denying anything. Then the bombshell, she says it was the
    Medicare board that denied the procedure.

    At that point, I turn to everyone behind me, and it was a long line, and I
    say to them “well you won’t have to wait too long today because my stress
    test procedure was just canceled by a Medicare Death Panel. I am only 67
    so can you imagine what is going to happen when we really get old”. The
    entire waiting room and everyone there from patients to staff just went
    dead silent. So I turn to the front desk and tell them, ” I guess I will have
    to write a letter to the editor of the Danbury News Times and call my
    Senators and Congressman and let them know the Death Panels have already
    convened”. Then I walked out.

    By the time I got home the message machine was blinking. My PCP had
    already called and so did the hospital and guess what, Medicare decided to
    approve my stress test procedure and if I could get back down to the hospital they
    would fit me in right now for this 3 hour procedure. I told them I
    couldn’t make it, that I was going fishing because I didn’t know how many more
    fishing trips I could get in before I went into cardiac arrest but not to
    worry about me costing the government any money because I am a 30%
    disabled Army veteran, due to Agent Orange poisoning which is what caused this
    heart problem to begin with, and I qualify to be buried for free in a plain pine
    wrapper in the cheap graves section at any National Cemetery. I
    certainly don’t want to cost our government any money so maybe we just
    won’t do this procedure anymore and we can use the money to redistribute it to
    all of the illegals to keep them alive so they can mow the lawns at the
    National Cemeteries.

    So this Death Panel crap has started. If we don’t vote this guy and his
    criminal cronies out of office this November then we will all die younger
    than we should as broke paupers as the country goes bankrupt. Feel free
    to distribute my note to anyone and make it a mission to not only make your
    vote count but on behalf of all of us please make an effort to change the
    thinking of anyone remotely willingly to get intellectually engaged in
    this critical time in our country’s history.

    I have no words!!

    – SENIORS –

    WELL ISN’T THIS SOME SPECIAL NEWS GRANDMA AND PAPA!!!

    I had one of the most troubling, most disturbing conversations ever with
    Dr. Suzanne Allen, head of emergency services at the Johnson City Medical
    Center in Tennessee . We were discussing the “future” and I asked her had she
    seen any affects of Obama Care in her work?

    “Oh, yes. We are seeing cutbacks throughout the services we provide. For
    example, we are now having to deal with patients who would normally
    receive dialysis can no longer be accepted. In the past, there was always
    automatic approval under Medicare for anyone who needed dialysis — not anymore.”
    So, what will be their outcome? “They will die soon without dialysis,” she
    stated.

    What about other services? She indicated as of 2013 (after the election),
    no one over 75 will be given major medical procedures unless approved by
    locally administered Ethics Panels. These Panels will determine whether a
    patient receives medical treatment or not. While details on specific
    operating procedures and schedules, Dr. Allen points out that most
    life-threatening emergencies do not occur during normal hospital business
    hours, and if there are emergencies that depend to be resolve within
    minutes or just few hours, the likely hood of getting these Panels approval in
    time to save a life are going to be very challenging and difficult, if not
    impossible she said.

    This applies to major operations such as receiving stents, bypass surgery,
    kidney operations, or treating for an aneurysm that would be normally
    covered under Medicare today. In other words, if you needed a life-saving
    operation, Medicare will not provide coverage anymore after 2013 if you
    are 75 or over. When in 2013? “We haven’t been given a specific date — could
    be in January or July….but it’s after the election.”

    This is shocking to any of us who will be 75 this year. Her advice — get
    healthy and stay healthy. We do not know the specifics of the actual
    implementation of the full Obama Care policies and procedures — “they
    haven’t filtered down to the local level yet. But we are already seeing
    severe cuts in what we provide to the elderly — we refused dialysis to an
    individual who was 78 just the other day….we refused to give stents to a
    gentleman who was in his late 80s.” Every day, she said, we are seeing
    these cutbacks aimed at reducing care across the board for anyone who is over
    75.

    We can only hope that Obama Care will be overturned by the Supreme
    Court — otherwise, this is a death sentence to those who are over 75….perhaps
    you should pass this on to your friends who are thinking of voting for Obama
    this year. Regardless if you have private health care coverage now (I have Aetna
    Medicare Part B) — it will no longer apply after 2013 if the Ethics
    Panels disapprove of a procedure that may save your life.

    Scary, scary, scary. Think about this? You? Your parents?
    Your loved ones? Didn’t know about it? Of course, not. As Nancy Pelosi said….”well, if
    you want to know what’s in the bill, you’ll have to read it…..” After it was
    passed. This is a graphic reminder of the need to stay healthy. Get your plot now
    at Forest Lawn….while they last. Is this a death sentence to those of us
    who will reach 75?…..Yes!

    • Chilling

    • charlieopera says:

      Gman, paranoid much? A little over the top maybe?

      Valium, my brother .. take a few.

    • Several years ago, the local rag did some digging on a prominent Sacramento historical citizen of the early 20th century. The individual was wealthy but gave to and did many things for Sacramento. He even got a park named after him. The revisionist historians found that in the early part of the century, he espoused eugenics. Of course the term brings up the horrors that occurred under Hitler and the Nazis so he was tarred with that brush and there were threats and attempts to remove his name wherever it appeared.

      The news yesterday and posted above point to death panels, gendercide (selective abortion based on sex), abortion of imperfect fetuses, etc. So what makes us so different than the old eugenics crowd? Are we not going down the same path albeit with slightly different logic and means? Will not the 1%er’s of the future be the committee members that decide if your mother or grandmother must not be treated for whatever ails her? Since these barriers have now fallen, will the next barrier be active euthanasia? It will start as a voluntary act but will progress to being committee controlled and mandatory once you are no longer a positive contributor to society, i.e. you are not generating wealth that can be confiscated but you either have stored wealth that can be confiscated immediately or you are consuming wealth of others with no hope of potential return. How far down this slope will we slide?

      • Mathius says:

        Since these barriers have now fallen, will the next barrier be active euthanasia? It will start as a voluntary act but will progress to being committee controlled and mandatory once

        That’s a big leap.

        Eugenics have been practices in one form or another forever. Is it not eugenics to select a capable mate in order to produce the best possible offspring? Is this not how our very biology is designed? The driving mechanism behind evolution?

        To suggest that INDIVIDUALS practicing INDIVIDUAL eugenics is a far cry from a committee making the decisions on their behalf.

        Adding, BS on your gendercide! One “sting” video revealed that a planned parenthood worker wasn’t judgmental to a woman pretending to want to abort based on gender does not mean that there’s a pattern of gendercide in the US (nevermind that their whole job centers around not being judgmental. The woman even said that most doctors won’t perform one if they know that’s the reason. In fact, the female:male birth ratio has actually INCREASED (more females born per male) since the 60’s in America. India, however.. well they have a serious problem with it.

        • http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_sex_rat_at_bir-people-sex-ratio-at-birth

          1.047 males to every female in the US in 2011. Note China and India have ratios greater than 1.12. Gendercide is a reality in these countries. Natural birth rates are always higher for males over females.

          Matt, there is a difference between naturally selecting a mate and scientifically engineering the gene pool to create the master race. I did not say that gendercide was popular in the US just another unintended consequence of on demand abortion as is abortion of imperfect children. The definition of imperfect is wide open. Is short imperfect? If so, then I might not have been here.

          We permitted abortion on demand, now we are denying medical care to seniors. What is the next step along this progression? Who decides? People rant here about the 1%er’s. Are we to trade in the current 1%er’s for a new set who are politically linked and get themselves appointed to the medical/scientific panels that determine if mom lives or dies?

          • Mathius says:

            What medical care are we denying to seniors? Are these the fabled Death Panels?

            Have you ever seen the movie Gattaca? It’s a great movie. I disagree (of course I do!) with the conclusions in the movie, but it’s still excellent. I suggest watching this and then Idiocracy.

            • Did you not read gman’s post?

              Hi Ho Hi Ho It’s off to work I go.

              • Mathius says:

                Do you mean the hit-piece that he copy-pasted from Infowars and chain emails?

                Yes, I read it.

                http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp

                ::hits snooze bar::

              • Jenkins: The 5th Avenue to Serfdom
                Nobody thought about taking away your Big Gulp until the government began to pay for everyone’s health care.

                By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.

                Mike Bloomberg’s move to regulate the size of sodas sold in his city illustrates why it’s a good thing he is a mayor of New York and not the czar of all the Russians. American big cities tend to be one-party states to begin with, but at least their totalitarian impulses end up being merely cute because they’re so easy to evade.

                Under the Bloomberg plan, any cup or bottle of sugary drink larger than 16 ounces at a public venue would be verboten, beginning early next year. You’ll still be able to buy as much Coke as you want in a supermarket. Go home and pour yourself a bucketful. As Mr. Bloomberg himself was the first to note, you’ll also still be free to buy two medium drinks in place of today’s Big Gulp at ballgames, theaters, delis and other venues where the ban would be in effect.

                “New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” added Mr. Bloomberg, peculiarly.

                Half of the city’s residents allegedly are obese or overweight—a stat seemingly belied by the ladies who lunch and the impression on the subway that New York remains one of the few places in America where people have not ballooned to supersize. But by the state’s own estimate, it spends $8 billion annually treating obesity-related ailments under Medicaid, which is how 40% of city residents now get their health care.

                Here is the ultimate justification for the Bloomberg soft-drink ban, not to mention his smoking ban, his transfat ban, and his unsuccessful efforts to enact a soda tax and prohibit buying high-calorie drinks with food stamps: The taxpayer is picking up the bill.

                Call it the growing chattelization of the beneficiary class under government health-care programs. Bloombergism is a secular trend. Los Angeles has sought to ban new fast-food shops in neighborhoods disproportionately populated by Medicaid recipients, Utah to increase Medicaid copays for smokers, Arizona to impose a special tax on Medicaid recipients who smoke or are overweight. New York itself, with private money, some of it from Mr. Bloomberg’s own pocket, has also tried the carrot approach, dangling direct payments to encourage beneficiary families to adopt healthier habits.

                So perhaps the famous “broccoli” hypothetical during the Supreme Court ObamaCare debate was not so fanciful after all. It flows naturally from the state’s fiscal responsibility for your health that it will try to regulate your behavior, even mandating vegetable consumption.

                As we never tire of pointing out, the unlikely roots are found in the 1998 tobacco settlement. Those cases weren’t filed on behalf of smokers, whom courts ruled repeatedly accepted the risks of smoking. Under an even more ancient principle, known as subrogation, courts long held that if a customer doesn’t have a case against a product that injured him, his insurer doesn’t have a case either.

                In 1994, Florida legislators bulldozed these principles so the state Medicaid agency could sue cigarette makers for the cost of treating sick smokers. When the state is the insurer and can change the rules to suit itself, after all, why brook any limitation on its ability to pass the buck? Law is a convenience for our rulers only when it gets them off the political hook of having to mediate purely private disputes between their cranky subjects. The one thing the state has no interest in using the law to restrain is itself.

                Yes, we’re still a long way from tyranny in America. The right to smoke in a bar; the right to snarf a transfat-soaked french fry; the right to lug a 32 oz. tub of Grape Nehi into the movie theater—these are not precious rights. But it’s also true that nobody thought of taking them away until the government itself became responsible for our runaway health-care spending.

                To many liberals, ObamaCare was overdue. Other advanced societies long ago recognized an obligation to provide universal health-care guarantees. The U.S. needed to catch up.

                Yet it’s a mistake not to root political actions, even those based on “universal” principles, in their time. Two generations ago, the impetus was to extend health care to those who didn’t have it. The entire industrial world is at the opposite end of an arc of government growth and sustainability today. The new impetus inevitably will be to deny health care to those whom it is not cost-effective to treat. That’s a side of Bloombergism the body politic may one day find harder to swallow.

                http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303640104577440033754690936.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          “Eugenics have been practices in one form or another forever. Is it not eugenics to select a capable mate in order to produce the best possible offspring?”

          NO!

          Any more bizarre questions?

          • Mathius says:

            Let’s check with our friends at Wikipedia… the fount of all human knowledge:

            Implementation methods
            There are three main ways by which the methods of eugenics can be applied. One is mandatory eugenics or authoritarian eugenics, in which the government mandates a eugenics program. Policies and/or legislation are often seen as being coercive and restrictive. Another is promotional voluntary eugenics, in which eugenics is voluntarily practiced and promoted to the general population, but not officially mandated. This is a form of non-state enforced eugenics, using a liberal or democratic approach, which can mostly be seen in the 1900s.[43] The third is private eugenics, which is practiced voluntarily by individuals and groups, but not promoted to the general population. (emphasis added)

            Catch that sentence at the end there?

            That one would include mate selection.

            Yes, it could also include selective abortion, test tube babies, genetic modifications, etc. But that’s not my assertion.

            My assertion is that eugenics, in one form or another, has always been in play. That form being PRIVATE eugenics, predominantly in the form of mate selection.

            3 seconds of Googling:

            Introduction to the Concept of Eugenics
            The term “eugenics” was coined by Francis Galton in 1833. At its most basic level, eugenics refers to practices designed to improve the genetic makeup of the human race. Alternatively, eugenics can be defined as efforts to improve the physical, intellectual and moral qualities of the human race through breeding practices. Eugenics practices include a wide variety of customs and behaviors, ranging from incest laws to the evaluations we use in the mate selection process. While scientific knowledge of eugenics has only become available relatively late in our history, the basic principles of eugenics techniques such as selective breeding have been known for millennia. And even without this knowledge, we are naturally endowed with certain capacities that predispose us to behave in ways that have eugenics consequences. (emphasis added)

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mahtius

              I stand by my claim.

              As usual you try to read something into a definition which is not there. I think you spend to much time with your “lawyer” friends.

              Picking a mate is NOT selective breeding for certain genetic traits, let alone those deemed “better”.

              What you have going here is also that age old practice of including examples that are considered acceptable to rationalize and gain acceptance of those which are NOT acceptable.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Hey, I’ll have you know I’m no “lawyer”…but a real lawyer. The fancy degree in Latin on my wall says so (or at least I think it does…I can’t read Latin anymore).

                I award Mathius points for his accuracy in using the term eugenics in this manner. JAC shall forthright pay to Mathius 100 Mathius-points (these are, after all, the only currency used in our Mathiusocracy). Case dismissed!

              • Mathius says:

                Did I say anything about the unacceptable methods? Did I suggest somewhere that I’m in favor of forced sterilization programs, perhaps?

                Nope. I made an assertion.

                ::asks court reporter to read back the transcript::

                T-Ray: The news yesterday and posted above point to death panels, gendercide (selective abortion based on sex), abortion of imperfect fetuses, etc. So what makes us so different than the old eugenics crowd? Are we not going down the same path albeit with slightly different logic and means? Will not the 1%er’s of the future be the committee members that decide if your mother or grandmother must not be treated for whatever ails her? Since these barriers have now fallen, will the next barrier be active euthanasia?

                Mathius: To suggest that INDIVIDUALS practicing INDIVIDUAL eugenics is a far cry from a committee making the decisions on their behalf. (nevermind that that’s not a completely coherent sentence)

                Mathius: “Eugenics have been practices in one form or another forever. Is it not eugenics to select a capable mate in order to produce the best possible offspring?”

                JAC: NO! Any more bizarre questions?

                Mathius: (citing sources) Eugenics includes mate selection. (citing more sources) “we are naturally endowed with certain capacities that predispose us to behave in ways that have eugenics consequences.”

                JAC: I stand by my claim. As usual you try to read something into a definition which is not there.

                Mathius: What do you mean? I didn’t write the definition per wikipedia or the paper I referenced. They both say it can be private and includes mate selection. I just happen to agree.

                JAC: Picking a mate is NOT selective breeding for certain genetic traits, let alone those deemed “better”.

                Mathius: Of course it is! You choose a mate based on attractiveness (genetic), inteligence (genetic inclination), disposition (possibly genetic), mental heath (possibly genetic). You wouldn’t pair bond with an ugly crazy person, would you? And you might think twice before having kids if you were carriers for some nasty genetic disease, wouldn’t you? And you don’t have kids with your cousin despite being a Southerner – why? Because it’s illegal and our society has a taboo against it? Why? Because your kids come out with a third eye. Because there is a GENETIC risk to the offspring in mating with your cousin. Eugenics, eugenics, eugenics. All of it.

                Just because you don’t think in those terms doesn’t change the fact that your biology does. Your brain is hardwired to seek out and mate with the “best” (ie, superior) mate in order to produce the “best” offspring with the best chance of (A) survival and (B) going on to reproduce into the next generation. It’s what drives evolution whether you like it or not.

            • That eugenics was part of the progressive agenda is one of the most heavily-airbrushed features of history.

              • Mathius says:

                Irrelevant to the topic at hand. The question is whether humans practicing mate selection (no coerced) qualifies as a form eugenics.

                Comment stricken from the record.

              • Mathius,

                The answer is
                No

                Eugenics is the applied by a external party upon others – Eugenists NEVER would believe THEY would subject themselves to their own bizarre, evil theories!

                You selecting a compatible mate is wholly natural, right and good.

                Others forcing it on you is not natural, not a right and evil

              • Mathius says:

                Others forcing it on you is not natural, not a right and evil

                I think you’re having reading comprehension problems..

                See if you can follow along:

                Implementation methods
                There are three main ways by which the methods of eugenics can be applied. One is mandatory eugenics or authoritarian eugenics, in which the government mandates a eugenics program.

                Bad, agreed.

                Another is promotional voluntary eugenics, in which eugenics is voluntarily practiced and promoted to the general population, but not officially mandated.

                Not good, agreed.

                The third is private eugenics, which is practiced voluntarily by individuals and groups, but not promoted to the general population.

                This is where the sirens should be going off in that oversized hollow cave you call a skull. PRIVATE. PERSONAL. INDIVIDUAL. FREELY CHOSEN. WHOLLY NATURAL.

                ie, per YOU, this is GOOD.

                Now, what can this “Private Eugenics” include? Well, per my other article, “the basic principles of eugenics techniques such as selective breeding have been known for millennia. And even without this knowledge, we are naturally endowed with certain capacities that predispose us to behave in ways that have eugenics consequences.

                What does “selective breeding” mean on a PRIVATE and INDIVIDUAL level? It means Mate Selection.

                Why/How do we select for makes? A wide variety of ways, some of which, such as physical attraction, are GENETIC in nature or, like intelligence, are at least partially GENETIC in nature. Even though you don’t, personally, think in eugenical terms, your biology is programmed to seek out “superior” mates so that you can produce “superior” offspring. The net result of this, over generations, is that a “superior” GENE POOL for our SPECIES (as defined by the net aggregate of all participating breeding pairs) emerges. What, again, is the stated objective of eugenics? To produce a “superior” gene pool?

                How did humans get so smart? Because somewhere along the way a smarter monkey emerged from the regular monkeys. More monkeys of the opposite sex preferred him/her (MATE SELECTION!), therefore he/she passed on his/her genes more successfully. Wait a few million years, and ::drum roll please:: somehow we wind up with Homo Sapiens. What created the “superior” gene pool? Cumulative mate selection acting in a manner with eugenic consequences.

            • In the early decades of the twentieth century, eugenics “fell squarely in the mainstream of scientific and popular culture,” according to Yale history professor Daniel Kevles, author of the 1985 book In the Name of Eugenics. Theodore Roosevelt popularized the term “race suicide,” for what he saw as the dwindling of the old Anglo-American stock, and the young Winston Churchill advocated sterilization and labor camps for “mental defectives.” Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger decried the proliferation of “human weeds,” while progressive reformer Havelock Ellis thought that getting the reproductive choices right would require the sexual liberation of women.

              • Mathius says:

                Still irrelevant to the topic at hand, but:

                progressive reformer Havelock Ellis thought that getting the reproductive choices right would require the sexual liberation of women.

                Why is this wrong?

              • Mathius,

                Your reading list is deficent.

                …because if you read what she meant, she included the mass slaughter from infanticide to be included in such women’s “rights” – ie:abortion

        • http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/05/31/MSNBC-Host-Sex-Selective-Abortion-Constitutional

          Actually, so far it is two “sting” video’s-but the important part of either of those videos was the woman stating that PP feels they have no right to be judgemental. No argument for abortion means anything except those words-Here they are in another form-“A woman’s right to choose”-right and wrong means nothing.

          It’s pretty obvious that the only thing one can judge as wrong today is the act of judging. Good luck with remaining civilized when all ideas of right and wrong are replaced with Me, Me, Me-I will do what is good just for me. We are slowly turning into an inhumane, sick society and you actually seem to think we are doing what is for the Greater Good.

          • Mathius says:

            So, we should delve into every woman’s deeply personal motives? She should have to lie to her doctors? And… queue the laws banning this… followed by… official inquiries into the motives of otherwise legal actions involving very public trials airing all sorts of very private details. “How many sons do you have Ms. H?” “3” “And did you decide to abort before or after learning you were pregnant with another boy?” … yea.. there’s no way this can go wrong..

            What’s always amazed me is how people who are otherwise small government and who scream at the top of their lungs at the very idea of any intrusion into their private lives will immediately jump into another woman’s uterus to tell her what she can do, how, and why. It’s very simple. Judge if you like (*cough* judge not lest ye be judged *cough*), but you don’t get to interfere in people’s private medical decisions based on your OPINIONS of morality. Condemn it all you like.. just don’t try to invoke government to tell them what they can and can’t do or else don’t complain when someone from the government shows up at your door to check the contents of your fridge to ensure you’re eating properly.

            As for your article (I didn’t read it, just going off the link): “MSNBC-Host-Sex-Selective-Abortion-Constitutional”.. so what? It IS Constitutional. Maybe you’d like to argue that it SHOULDN’T BE.. but it is, so why are we giving an MSNBC host a hard time for stating a fact?

            • You don’t talk this way about anything else Matt-Suddenly something which is “Constitutional” can’t have limits. And a liberal is going to argue that I should worry about government interference-that’s like the pot calling the kettle black 🙂

              But your problem Matt isn’t that you are against laws that restrict people’s actions (in your selective areas)-it’s that you and your fellow dems. aren’t teaching that people have the right to be immoral -your teaching that there isn’t anything immoral. That it is wrong to judge. And by God if you do judge, we will charge you with discrimination and force you to comply. But guess what, the only way you can have a free society, which is also civilized, is for the individual people to judge-if they do not than the government will.

              But when it comes to abortion-your rights have nothing to do with it-no one has the right to murder.

              but the point of my comment was that people who believe that abortion is okay accept sex selective abortion as acceptable simply because abortion is legal. They actually believe that they cannot JUDGE that something they know is wrong is wrong.

              Did you read the above article about Bloomberg and his nanny state-it was pretty good and if your worried about people telling you what you can and cannot do-you might look at where the Progressive policies that you deem okay are taking us. I don’t think you can deny that the more the government pays the more the government is going to restrict our freedoms.

              “Yet it’s a mistake not to root political actions, even those based on “universal” principles, in their time. Two generations ago, the impetus was to extend health care to those who didn’t have it. The entire industrial world is at the opposite end of an arc of government growth and sustainability today. The new impetus inevitably will be to deny health care to those whom it is not cost-effective to treat. That’s a side of Bloombergism the body politic may one day find harder to swallow.”

              So in conclusion-when the government gets out of my home, business, and church. I’ll happily get out of everyone’s personal business when it comes to using the government as an enforcement tool-except abortion, I think we still need to enforce laws against murder.

  44. May 26, 2012
    Born Alive to a Dead World
    Casey Mattox

    Proponents of the culture of death have long reaped fruit from various forms of their “quality of life” verbiage. From pleas for “safe” and “legal” abortions for mothers with “unwanted” pregnancies — aka pregnancies impacting the mother’s preferred quality of life — to fights for legalized killing of the physically or mentally handicapped — aka children who, if born, could not enjoy the preferred quality of life adults assume — those who’ve spoken loudest for the culture of death have spoken in unity: our value is in our capacity, not our humanity.

    These arguments are ethical and moral train-wrecks which, from time to time, are dragged out into the light by examples of inhumanity usually hidden behind closed (abortion clinic) doors.

    One more in a recent series of such examples arose last week in Vietnam, when an “aborted” baby girl was born alive and left to die beneath a covering of blankets.

    In Vietnam’s Gia Lai Province, expectant mother Nguyen Thi Thu T. decided to have her child killed following two ultrasounds that showed that the child had congenital defects. Thus, seven months into pregnancy, the girl was aborted via premature delivery (expected to be fatal, given the supposed defects) and placed in a bed under blankets, where her body was to rest until Thi Thu T. returned to get it and have it buried.

    However, to the mother’s shock, when she returned, she found her daughter alive under the blankets. Moreover, she discovered that the ultrasounds had been wrong — the baby had no defects.

    Upon the discovery, hospital staff rushed to save the child whom they thought they had left to quickly expire. But it was too late: umbilical bleeding had taken its toll, and she died.

    Note here the utter inhumanity of the “quality of life” argument, and the gut-wrenching agony imparted by the knowledge of the little girl struggling to live.

    The mother chose to abort her child in the first place because the girl wasn’t perfect — at least according to ultrasounds. This certainly would have been taxing on the mother — her quality of life — as well as the child and her quality of life. So the decision was made to simply wipe her life out altogether.

    And because the abortion clinics have the act of taking a life down to a science, ending this baby’s life should have been routine. But the variable in the scenario was the child’s will to live. Thus, others’ plans for her death notwithstanding, the little girl lived, at least for a time.

    By living, she forced the watching world to come face-to-face with those they are accustomed to discarding, testifying to that same world’s inhumanity. And face-to-face, the mother and the hospital responded with frantic efforts to spare this child’s life instead of take it.

    The “quality of life” verbiage leads to death, and it rewires our consciences so that death by scalpel or vacuum — or even by intentional neglect under a pile of blankets as was the plan in this case — does not repulse us as it should. However, life, even at its most fragile, is recognizable. And when it is recognized by that dim flicker of conscience that God continues to stoke inside each of us, life urges us to defend and sustain those who can never defend nor sustain themselves.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/born_alive_to_a_dead_world.html#ixzz1wW7yoGZF

  45. charlieopera says:

    What is it called when everyone is enslaved to the rich?

    Capitalism!

    Stellaism wins … vote for me and I’ll set you free!

    Stella in 2016!

  46. Mathius……..I am soooo upset with you.Andromeda and the Milky Way are not going to collide for another 4 billion years………crap, you had me building Rapto shuttles way to soon. I wish you wold get your facts straight….

  47. @Charlie,

    Not paranoid at all my friend. just bringing out the morbid truth about socialized medicine and your dreams of a utopia. So instead of being slaves to the rich, you would have us all being slaves to the state. Not to mention that we will all be equally poor. Your ideas have proven to be a failure, maybe you should come up with something fresh that might actually work to the benefit of people 🙂

    • Mathius says:

      I’m all ears. How ’bout a Mathiusocracy. As the name suggests, it’s rule by and for Mathius.

      I’m a pretty nice guy.. it’s highly unlikely that’ll be much worse than the current system..

    • charlieopera says:

      Not to mention that we will all be equally poor

      Assuming you’d be right (and that’s one hell of a stretch), what’s wrong with equality? Do you really need to feel superior to the next guy? What’s that all about?

      Come on Gman … socialism minus the military dictatorship works (Holland) … it can work here too … and it will, sooner or later … the alternative if falling apart fast.

      • No it won’t. We might indeed have it here, but it will not succeed. it will fail just like it has everywhere else. Your definition of “succeed” is that it will have success with the superrich elite, who will not be affected by it, except to get richer from it. Everyone else will be equally poor. Productivity and quality will be gone because, what’s the point if it’s just taken away from you if you succeed in life? They only take your success and split it with those who don’t care. So soon after, No one will care.

        Not even the poor are happy to BE poor.

        • charlieopera says:

          There’s an awful lot of assumptions in your statement Esom … you seem fairly brainwashed to me. I’m one of the hardest working people I know … and I know many more like me … and egads, we’re socialists. So much for that lazy theory ….

          • Mathius says:

            You’re so lazy you couldn’t even finish that comment.

            Friggin’ commies..

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Yep, it is always easy for Socialists and Communists to BRAG about their theories while living and working in a Capitalist system.

            Take your hard working backside to China or Russia or North Korea and tell my how it works out.

          • Just ask the Russian people how well it worked. Ask the Cuban people. If loving the way my Country and the way it is supposed to be is “Brainwashed”, then I are it.

          • Charlie, you are a believer. Expecting everyone to do their utmost for the greater good, even expecting a majority to do so, is like expecting most people to really love going to church and tithing. It only is true for believers, not most people. And some people will lose their motivation once weighted down by the great many who have none. Are you sure that you would work just has hard if the system were the one of your dreams, where extra effort on your part did not really benefit you personally, but lack of effort on your part did not leave you wanting?

            • charlieopera says:

              Jon: I’m not that naive, although I do believe self-motivated people will always find a way to keep moving forward. Not everyone does it for the gelt (whatever it is they do). I’m also not naive enough to think my idea is a utopia (I leave that name calling nonsense for those who fear it so much, they have to knock it however possible). What I see is a system (here) turning toward a potential revolution that will “probably” be steered toward slow but sure socialism. If it gets there in time, no revolution. If the gap continues to widen and there’s no solution (for jobs, etc.), revolution. Violent or not, it’ll be very well deserved.

              • I agree, self-motivated people will find a way, and it is not always a money motivation. That is absolutely true. I see a system turning to revolution too, but it wont just be a revolution, it will be a civil war. Because a lot of people will seek what you seek, and a lot will seek what I seek. Those in my camp see the nation falling into more socialism and more fascism, and see that as the reason for the problems, INCLUDING the wealth gap. Those in yours see capitalism as the fault, and think that the socialist path is the fix.

                I am glad to hear that you do not think your proposed future will be a utopia. I feel the same way about freedom/capitalism. It is a point of reality lost on many who believe in their ideal.

      • There are no rich people in Holland? My niece lived there for a few years, have to ask her about that and who does all the work and pays the taxes, the Muslim immigrants?

        • charlieopera says:

          The point, Stephen, about Holland is there is a much more balanced basic necessity situation there than can ever exist here. The elderly are treated with respect and dignity (for giving to the system for so long, they are rewarded, not neglected as soon as they are no longer pragmatic (as in our society). Of course they have rich people, but not to the degree we have as regards influencing policy. Our rich own us. The rich there do not own the rest of the people there.

          • Gotta watch out with some of those things.Having dealt with a few thousand seniors because of my career, I was amazed at the number of kids who ignore their parents. Now, that is not just this generation. In ’69, ’70, and ’71, when I was but a callow youth, I worked with a senior rescue unit in the So. Bronx. They were pulling out 80 year olds from all but abandoned buildings. Many spoke nothing but Yiddish. Upon questioning by our Yiddish speaking colleague we found they had well off family in Westchester or on the Island. In many cases, they made it clear that they did not want to be a “burden” to their kids but visiting their folks once or twice a year would have been a nice touch on the part of the kids who benefited from their sacrifices.

            Society is nothing but a reflection of those in it. Seniors are ignored not because of the 1% but because of the 99%.I think both you and I were raised otherwise. In my case it took, in my sisters, it did not.

            The one great weakness in this country is its ignorance of its past and its willingness to disregard hard earned wisdom. That was then this is now seems to be the general motto. We love to re-invent the wheel every twenty years or so. Just imagine how far our drive would get us if we skipped that step.

  48. Slowly but surely, the Chinese are working towards ending the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. IMHO, they will succeed.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/china-japan-begin-direct-currency-trading-212024953–finance.html

    • IMHO. This whole world is going straight into the dumpster. Hope I don’t live to see too much of it, and at the same time, dread the fact that I will leave my kids to face it. I never thought I would see this day in America. And I don’t like it.

  49. charlieopera says:

    ESOM … you just have to start watching comedies … I recommend The Honeymooners with Jackie Gleason (now there was a guy living a dull life) … but he had hope … hope springs eternal … hope and change, no … just hope … hope for a better day … hope for a better way (because this one just ain’t cuttin’ it) … hope there’s a last minute revolution election day and Ralph Nader is given the keys to the car (along with enough little Naderities to win both houses) … then we’ll see something good come of this mess we’ve made.

    • Mathius says:

      I was flipping channels last night and stumbled across the Mary Tyler Moore Show.. now that was a classic piece of American comedy gold. They just don’t make ’em like that any more..

      I never saw the Honeymooners.. guess that one fell through the cracks in my childhood.

      ::toast’s Charlie and Esom with a glass of Vitameatavegamin::

      • Mary Tyler Moore show ROCKED! My fav next to MASH

        • Mathius says:

          Anita,

          I tuned in too late for the intro! I had this song stuck in my head all night last.

          It was, indeed a great. Not sure why, I but I always loved the throwing of her hat in the air. MASH was (I agree) even better. Allan Alda has always been one of my favorite comedians (side note, the guy who payed Winchester came out of the closet recently.. big surprise, right?). Man, I had such a thing for Houlihan.

          Also great from my childhood: Dick Van Dyke Show (tripping over the ottoman!), Newhart, Get Smart, Welcome Back Kotter, F-Troop, and I don’t care what anyone says: Lassie.. as well as Lassie-in-water (Flipper).. ooh and MacGuyver.. and another thing.. Colombo. Mr. Ed and I Love Lucy were hit or miss but could be great as was Patty Duke. Am I missing anything? Bewitched – I had a thing for Samantha too!

          Kids these days just don’t know what great television really is!

    • Glad to see you hoping for a Revolution Charlie, but it wouldn’t turn out the way you seem to believe. It would most likely wind up with the end of the United States. Most likely, we would wind up with several new countries. And the only ones likely to ends up Socialist would eithe be on the Left coast and maybe the East Coast NE.

      The South and Southwest wouldn’t. And we also would not take government from the others anymore.

      But I also don’t see much funny about it either.

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    Just finished a round of golf with a very nice gentleman from S. Korea. Thought I would share one discussion with SUFA.

    I asked him to give me an HONEST answer to one question. What happens to S.Korea if the USA were to pull completely out?

    Honest Answer? he asked. YES I said. He replied:

    “I can answer in one word, NO PROBLEM.”

    Now don’t laugh at the poor mans’ mistake about the number of words in “no problem”. It is the point that matters.

    He did go on to say that all the talk about the North overrunning the South is Politicians and those who make money in the military business.

    Anyone have information to add to this?

    • Mathius says:

      What were his qualifications?

      That is, I can opine all day long about what would happen if the US did X, but that doesn’t make me an expert, does it?

      (not saying he’s wrong.. just looking for clarification)

      Adding, my suspicion is that he’s probably right. North Korea, for all it’s talk, probably would be very disinclined to start another war with it’s (much richer, much more developed) neighbor to the south.

    • If you are talking about the troops on the ground…..they can go. If the Navy task force stays.

      The real question is would North Korea attack….. I believe that it would because it has everything to gain and nothing to lose. A Navy task force remaining in the area could stop it but pull out totally……really good question. But, the animosity is so bad between the Korea’s…….and since NK is starving……yes, it would be in their benefit albeit a short one because they cannot do it without logistical support from China.

  51. TEXAS BEER JOINT SUES LOCAL CHURCH OVER LIGHTNING STRIKE!

    A bar called Drummond’s (in Mt Vernon, Texas ) began construction on an
    expansion of their building, hoping to “grow” their business.

    In response, the local Southern Baptist Church started a campaign to block
    the bar from expanding – petitions, prayers, etc.

    About a week before the bar’s grand re-opening, a bolt of lightning struck
    the bar and burned it to the ground!

    Afterward, the church folks were rather smug – bragging about
    “the power of prayer”.

    The angry bar owner eventually sued the church on grounds that the church…

    “Was ultimately responsible for the demise of his building, through direct
    actions or indirect means.”

    Of course, the church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection
    to the building’s demise.

    The judge read carefully through the plaintiff’s complaint and the
    defendant’s reply.

    He then opened the hearing by saying:

    “I don’t know how I’m going to decide this, but it appears from the paperwork that what we have here is a bar owner who now believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that does not.”

    • Mathius says:

      That was great, LOI!

      • ALWAYS
        ASK, NEVER ASSUME !!

        His request approved, the CNN News photographer quickly used a cell phone to
        call the local airport to charter a flight.

        He was told a twin-engine plane would be waiting for him at the airport.

        Arriving at the airfield, he spotted a plane warming up outside a hanger.

        He jumped in with his bag, slammed the door
        shut, and shouted, ‘Let’s go’.

        The pilot taxied out, swung the plane into the wind and took off.

        Once in the air, the photographer instructed the pilot, ‘Fly over the valley and make low
        passes so I can take pictures of the fires on the hillsides.’

        ‘Why?’ asked the pilot.

        ‘Because I’m a photographer for CNN’ , he responded,
        ‘and I need to get some close up shots.’

        The pilot was strangely silent for a moment, finally he stammered,
        ‘So, what you’re telling me, is . . .
        You’re NOT my flight instructor?’

      • Ya gotta love Texas……………………..Where else would you have this happen? ROFLMAO

  52. GOLD 🙂 bout time! I know, I know BF..but gee whiz, I’ve been stressin.

  53. charlieopera says:

    Great Book News … Reviews: Girlchild … Who Mourns for Maggie … and here’s Charlie & Charlotte …
    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/06/great-book-news-reviews-girlchild-who.html

  54. @Jon

    I am glad to hear that you do not think your proposed future will be a utopia. I feel the same way about freedom/capitalism. It is a point of reality lost on many who believe in their ideal.

    Aside from my pot stirring, I don’t kid myself about socialism being some kind of panacea. Abuse of power comes in all colros, shapes, sizes and isms … and I agree that governments can be as bad as the people running them. I also understand capitalism isn’t supposed to guarantee anybody anything … but as money and power shifts more and more in one direction (which I believe is an absolute must in a capitalist society), more and more see the “dream” fade … I don’t believe in letting people ride free either. I don’t like it when people scam the system, etc., and that is something that would be just about impossible to stop under any system, but right now we’re skirting toward disaster for a number of reasons and I don’t see us moving away from more government involvement (good or bad) because of the disaster we’ve created (allowing so few to have so much). Bottom line, so long as we depend on the crap we have in office today (both parties), we’re doomed. Whether its a slow or fast doom remains to be seen. Yesterday I almost upchucked my birthday pablum when I heard some jury let Edwards off the hook. We finally had one of these bastards by the short hairs (in a position to let them face one of the crimes he’s committed) and they let him go. And, yes, I don’t care what the evidence said. We all know what this clown pulled and why he did it. It was a chance to make ONE of them pay and just like Wall Street (where we can’t even attempt to bring them to justice because it was written into the fugazy legislation), nobody does any time and we all foot the bill. We just can’t have representation by a number of professional lawyers and con men.

    • I agree with a lot of this, its just a difference in perspective. That and the one main disagreement about money flow in capitalism. Those at the top try to make money flow their way in any system. Capitalism has shown the best class mobility AND the best lower class conditions of any system. The more those at the top are able to get their puppet governments to do, the wider the wealth gap and the worse off the poor are. I see the same problems you do, I just see a difference cause.

      • Capitalism has shown the best class mobility AND the best lower class conditions of any system

        Maybe. Some in Cuba might argue. They have the highest adult education and the lowest infant mortality rate (last I checked–not too long ago). Some of our poor live horrendous conditions not brought to the television screen for obvious reasons. The tent cities in Sacramento brought a lot of attention to middle class people defaulted out of their homes but there are plenty of Americans living in horrendous poverty that just don’t get the coverage. Our propoganda machine is no different than theirs …

        • I am well aware of media coverage issues, they happen in Cuba too, btw. As for adult education, that has nothing to do with class. You can have a masters degree and still be dirt poor, trust me, I know a few. You are confusing class mobility with statistics that have nothing to do with economics. Even infant mortality rates are not signs of economic status. There are a variety of things used to mess with those stats, including not counting abortions, or counting, them, as the case may be. Also, still births and premature births are not counted in many places. We count them because we attempt to save the child. We do not always succeed, but a better comparison would be a percentage of wanted pregnancies brought full term. Even then, there are variances, such as the general health and vitality of the tropical regions once you include even basic modern medicine to combat some of the fevers and diseases of those regions.

          • My point, Jon, is that claiming our poor is better than someone else’s poor isn’t exactly an achievement; not when our rich are so much more wealthy than the rest of our own country (never mind the other guy’s rich). Pointing to how “good” our poor have it is a BF tactic that is nothing more than a strawman argument. The issue is class, by the way. How are the poor here supposed to climb out of poverty? Telling them they have it better than the poor in Indochina or Cuba or Kenya (if it’s true), isn’t an answer.

            Our poor live in the mountains, too. Keeping them out of sight is probably helpful to our patriotic zeal and land of opportunity fantasies, but it doesn’t change the fact they are poor, uneducated and without health resources.

            • Actually, pointing at how rich people are is the strawman, unless you really care more about fairness than whether people have their needs met. Our poor do live better than most of the rest of the world. They have more access to health care, more food, and yes, more opportunity here than they would in any other country.

              Telling the poor that others have it worse and they should be grateful is not an answer, that is true. Telling them they have opportunity, but that opportunity is not a guarantee is an answer. Showing them what it takes and how to act to help them improve their chances of success is an answer. Giving them money is an answer, but a pretty lousy one without them earning it, or at least knowing that it was kindness from people who care AND who work that supplied it.

              The other reason it is important to show that our poor are better off is to show that systems in other parts of the world do not work better. Showing that our poor class is expanding the more we expand our safety nets should show that the “war on poverty” is a dismal failure, that our safety nets are making things worse. You just have to open your eyes and see reality my friend.

              • Actually, pointing at how rich people are is the strawman, unless you really care more about fairness than whether people have their needs met. Our poor do live better than most of the rest of the world. They have more access to health care, more food, and yes, more opportunity here than they would in any other country.

                Just not try, not when it comes to Europe. Not even close. The poor of Europe have way more health care, way better education and the poor you refuse to acknowledge in the U.S. (those not in the media’s eye) are as destitute as anywhere else.

                Telling the poor that others have it worse and they should be grateful is not an answer, that is true. Telling them they have opportunity, but that opportunity is not a guarantee is an answer.

                And how and where does that opportunity present itself, Jon? Please don’t tell me “if I did it, they can.” You (nor I) have a friggin’ CLUE what abject poverty is; living generation to generation in it, etc. And when our so-called “middle class” white kids can’t find jobs after taking mortgages to attend college, where are the opportunities for those without educations?

                Showing them what it takes and how to act to help them improve their chances of success is an answer. Giving them money is an answer, but a pretty lousy one without them earning it, or at least knowing that it was kindness from people who care AND who work that supplied it.

                And how do you propose to do that, Jon? Letting them starve? Cutting off their electric (since you don’t want to pay for it)? Letting them eat one another?

                The other reason it is important to show that our poor are better off is to show that systems in other parts of the world do not work better. Showing that our poor class is expanding the more we expand our safety nets should show that the “war on poverty” is a dismal failure, that our safety nets are making things worse. You just have to open your eyes and see reality my friend.

                Nice try, but showing that our poor class is expanding while our rich class is expanding does indeed prove what a failure our system has become. As more and more people join the ranks of the poor and wealth increases for the tiny few, you want to blame safety nets? Now that is some scary ass tunnel vision, my brother.

              • The other reason it is important to show that our poor are better off is to show that systems in other parts of the world do not work better. Showing that our poor class is expanding the more we expand our safety nets should show that the “war on poverty” is a dismal failure, that our safety nets are making things worse. You just have to open your eyes and see reality my friend.

                War on poverty … Jon, I hate to ruin your fantasy, but it isn’t the war on poverty that is placing more and more middle class into the ranks of the “poor” … it’s a lack of jobs and opportunity. The fact the wealthy have NEVER done so good at the same time kind of ruins your theory …

              • Europe is not the utopia you think it is, look outside of the media’s eye over there. And even if you could make an argument for education and health care there, the opportunity to advance or change class over there is significantly lower. The real employment level over there is staggerringly low, and starting a business over there makes starting one here look easy. And trust me, it ain’t easy here. The number of regulations and unfavorable tax situations here are retarded, regardless of what the media says about “business friendly legislation” or policies that “help small businesses”.

                Opportunity does not “present itself” you go find it. You get off your butt and go looking for it. There is work here, lots of it. Some of it does not pay well, but you will not starve. You wont be able to afford cable or cell phones or fancy things, but you can make it. And once you are making it, you can start climbing. There are no guarantees, but there is a chance. Those chances are harder to find tho, much harder than they used to be. You know what has changed? More government involvement, more dirty deals between big biz and big government. Big biz has always been there tho, so what has changed is the expansion of government.

                I propose to make them work for their government assistance. Go clean graffiti or do public works projects or something. Put in some effort. Stop thinking you can get something for nothing. Its a good lesson to learn.

                It does show what a failure our system has become. However showing accelerating decline whose curve matches the accelerating government regulation, safety nets, spending, etc. should be a pretty clear message. Our system is failing because of too much government “assistance”, not because of too little. If something is not working, you do not redouble your efforts, you change tactics. You cannot put out a fire by piling on wood faster and faster. Our system is becoming less and less capitalist every year, and yet you think our decline is capitalism fault? At what point do you accept that its what we are doing now that is causing the problem rather than blaming it on what we used to do?

              • The war on poverty is destroying the workforce, granting an entitlement mentality and removing motivation. It is focussing on education rather than work and experience. It is wasting trillions of dollars that could be spent better in private hands. And the increasing success of the super-rich does not ruin my theory, it proves it. Only competition will slow the rise of the wealthy and allow the classes to be more mobile. Only freedom will grant equal opportunity. The super-wealthy have bought all the power they need to stay super-wealthy without having to work for it. The reason they could do this is not because of capitalism, because in capitalism, power is not for sale, it is distributed too evenly and thinly to consolidate so much. How you can support the safety nets of a government owned by the 1% is always puzzling to me. You rail against the government AND the 1%, but still fall for the propoganda and fail to see the real effects of the policies you support. You are not looking closely enough at the real effects of those policies over the long term. Government run education and charity is destroying people by the millions and you are cheering it, even tho you claim not to trust the government because of who owns it.

        • Love ya guy but you are letting the “poor” in horrendous conditions off the hook. As Grandma used to say, “Soap is cheap”. Of course, she said it in Russian and I didn’t know what she said until my Dad translated.

          The established liberalism I had when I got out of college immediately clashed with the reality of what I saw, on the ground, in the trenches of the South Bronx, Central Brooklyn and Harlem between ’69 and ’71.

          Suffice it to say, you have an entirely different take on the subject of the “poor” when you have trudged through an apartment building backyard in July and had to negotiate yourself through a four foot high (no fooling!) pile of pampers. Got my first pair of hip waders the next day.

          Got back to the office that day. The brain damaged over educated libs made excuses. The blue collar, HS degree, at best, rehab inspectors more or less agreed with my Grandma. In 21 years, that never changed

          • Stephen: I hear you, but not all our poor live in urban areas. And not all in urban areas have anything near the chance of those in the suburbs. Not just excuses, facts. How does a generation of poverty change overnight? It doesn’t.

            The other question is what do you do about it? Let them rot is a guarantee you’ll be seeing them climing through your window one day. Now, I know GMan will at the ready to shoot them on sight, etc., but that’s his fantasy. What would probably happen is much different.

            Education is the key but it can’t be handled the way it’s always been handled (what you experienced). But do you really think we could enforce education in this country? I’m not so sure the 1% wants it. I know they could care less.

            The gap widens … every day.

            • Education IS the answer, but then again education must be a desired goal. Not that I believe anything I might read in the NY “Daily News” but there was a story last week about a young man (12) killing himself because he was bullied. Bullied in part, because he was smart in school. The current underclass derides school and education and it has only gotten worse.

              There are books to be written on the subject. Things have gotten worse in the past 40 years. Television and movies offer us the neat stuff they say we could/should have and as the commercial says, It’s mine and I want it NOW!” Well, nobody wants to wait, nobody wants to get it the traditional way. Mad Ave. has really screwed the pooch here. I want it now and I will get it anyway I can. 16 years of education or 12 and a trade school is way too much to ask.

              Us suburbanites started out exactly where? In my case, uneducated coal miner grandfather in PA, to 10 th grade educated bartender father in NYC to my undergraduate scholarship and a move to the middle class ‘burbs” from the city in my 30’s, to my children’s four Masters degrees. Two moved back to the City, one to the burbs and one went rural.

              Regarding the poor, if they don’t get their own shit straight, even with my help (Lord knows I have tried) , then I will be at the barricades with G-man. I’ll try to make it a clean kill.

              Regarding your 1% descended from the Illuminati, even they are smart enough to know that their current status and privilege depends on stability and their wealth ultimately derives from the production of goods and services which an uneducated populace will never be able to afford. I long for the day when the colleges and universities, (The REAL one percenters) have no more students and have to involute spontaneously or get a job.

              • The current underclass derides school and education and it has only gotten worse.

                You need to explain this to Anita. She suggests we (liberals) are all brainwashed. Jon thinks education is a rigged deck; that a Harvard degree is no more powerful than one from Brooklyn College.

                Us suburbanites started out exactly where? In my case, uneducated coal miner grandfather in PA, to 10 th grade educated bartender father in NYC to my undergraduate scholarship and a move to the middle class ‘burbs” from the city in my 30′s, to my children’s four Masters degrees. Two moved back to the City, one to the burbs and one went rural.

                You ignore quite a few things in this anecdote, Stephen. For one, you ignore that some of your classmates (especially minority classmates) had zero to little of the same environment you came from (10th grade educated bartender) … some of their fathers weren’t educated at all … couldn’t find a job … or may not have been able to provide the necessary assistance (emotionally as well as financially) to help their kids move on. My anecdote negates yours. I had friends that came from New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn and they had a far more bleak outlook than I had growing up in Canarsie. Some did fine; others did not, but not all who did not didn’t because they couldn’t get their shit straight

                Regarding the poor, if they don’t get their own shit straight, even with my help (Lord knows I have tried) , then I will be at the barricades with G-man. I’ll try to make it a clean kill.

                I hope you two have lots of ammunition. They will outnumber you big time.

              • Mathius says:

                ::blows whistle::

                Ok, time out!

                New Rule: Anecdotal evidence is hereby banned from use at SUFA. Penalty shall be an escalating number of raps on the knuckles with a ruler for each offense.

                Time in!

                ::blows whistle::

              • Actually Manhattan College is not equal to Harvard except in the Engineering world where a Manhattan degree is highly desired and usually guarantees a job. But, you are spot on about Harvard. I, and you know that it is not where the degree comes from but rather what was the degree for that really should count. There is the old boys and now, I’m sure the old girls club that takes care of all those little ivy babies. .

                Wrong Matt, if the anecdotal evidence comes from a large enough sample or experience pool I believe it quite valid as a predictor. Again my experience in the Army related to the above. I was in the service with a number of Ivy grads, perhaps the only time in my life that I would associate closely with such people and get to know them. I also was in service with a number of people quite like me. 2nd generation American-born, who went to lower tier colleges. At the poker games and bull sessions, I learned that intellectually, I had nothing to fear from the blue bloods. The quality of their education was in many cases on a lower level than mine. Charlie is right though. Most of the upper echelon already had their jobs (and futures) lined up after they punched their ticket in the US Army.

                In the Heights, the division line was East to West regarding “status”. You did not have to go to a different neighborhood. The poor were East of Broadway in a five block wide neighborhood. Quite a few of my classmates had either immigrant fathers, absent fathers or addicted fathers,( alcohol being the drug of choice).

                There are books to be written here too. My point is that education is the solution and can overcome the negatives but it cannot be spoon fed. That has been tried. I guess as recent examples, one could point to Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon as people driven to succeed despite the failure of their fathers. In a way, even Obama fits that mold. Certainly they are examples of “overcompensating” but they are examples. In addition, we all know people who have followed that route in escaping from a less than perfect start.

                Now you have forced me to veer off into the importance of families. As I said, things have gotten far worse in the past 40 years. The illegitimacy is off the wall. That clown in the news recently who has proved his manhood by fathering some 30 plus kids with 20 some women is an example and what an example, especially to his male offspring!

                I love this site because it does force me to think and bring a lot of notions/ideas I have had into a form of organization. I posit often that things in this country were moving along fine until the ’60’s. Problems were being identified, solutions were occurring. Starting with the Kennedy assassination the rug got pulled out out from under. People my age really started believing that they were the “best and brightest”. Most still think they were. The current generation too (just listen to the BS at commencement addresses on C-Span) believe that they are the best and brightest also. Yet being the best and brightest is not based on learning some academic theory, it is based on the practical (and successful) use of knowledge. That second string college education of mine taught me to respect the scientific method in every aspect of life. Propose a solution, test the solution, analyze the result, test again until you verify the result multiple times. Then and only then is your theory proved. That is not exactly what goes on today in most aspects of our society. Trial and error are discounted in favor of bashing the square peg into the round hole.

    • Charlie,

      First, you must acquire for yourself a grounding in economics. Without this, your prescriptions for a “cure” will be a killer instead.

      Second, you have overcome this political confusion and contradiction.

      You imagine that by ridding reality of one of scarcity’s symptoms – prices – you miraculously rid reality of scarcity itself.

      However, reality proves that this belief is deluded. The manipulation of prices or the ridding of them only makes scarcity worse, deeper, more broad and lasts longer than if prices were free of such manipulation.

      Thirdly, you must be able to abandon your long-held, but fallacious and terribly flawed beliefs in the face of reason. I know this is the toughest thing for you to do, as it is the toughest thing for anyone to do. But it is the only way to move forward to reach a reasoned, coherent and cohesive political theory that actually works.

      • BF. My God says you’re full of hot air and that I shouldn’t swallow any of it.

        So there …

        • Charlie-if I remember correctly your wife is a Christian-send her my respect-I just cannot imagine how often she has to pray for patience 🙂

          • VH … Christian democrat who leans toward social democracy … very liberal and very religious … wouldn’t have an abortion but believes it’s a woman’s right to choose. She is particularly pissed off at Obama but can’t imagine a Republican anywhere near the oval office again … so she’ll probably vote for Obama … and she does have patience … she tries not to scream everytime someone in her office rants against socialism without having a clue about what it could mean to the vast majority of Americans who continue to get shafted by the 1% on a daily basis. She’s coming around … her god bless her.

        • Charlie,

          You prove my exact point.

          With a puerile understanding of economics, you have no tools and no ability to understand cause/consequence, except from an infantile point of view.

          Ergo, your solutions are equally puerile.

          • And you’re still full of hot air. How cool is that?

            • Charlie,
              It is obvious you have zero economic understanding.

              I can help.

              As Friedman said:

              Economics is an amazing science, whose laws are so simple they can be written on one page, and understood by anyone – except so few do.

              Let’s break this cycle. Let’s get you up on economics – and then, if you hold to reason, you will be able to better apply your observations – which tend to be valid – and apply equally reasoned cause/effect – unlike you do now.

              To start:
              The most fundamental law of economics is:

              Supply and Demand.

              All economic theory is based on Supply and Demand.

              Simply:

              What is in high demand raises the price of the good.
              What is in high supply lowers the price of that good.

              Any question or comment, Charlie?

              • You forgot this part:

                And when enough control of the economy rests in the hands of less than 1% of the population, they get to rule.

                How’s that working out for the 99%?

                Not so good, eh?

                So, when the 99% need basics (fuel, food, etc.), the 1% get to set the terms (not that hot air free market you cling to because the 1% controls that market and even you admit it isn’t so free).

                So there goes your simple lesson, BF …

                Like I said, hot air … it’s only valid in theory my friend. The realities of capitalism are sooooo much different …

                Now, play nice and have a good day.

              • Charlie

                you forgot this part:

                You are a fearful man, Charlie.

                You know what you espouse is foolish crap.

                You know that because you are not an idiot – you do understand that your political theory has created the greatest human misery in history. You know that shows your crap to be exactly that.

                You have no alternative, though.

                You vehemently against the mercantilists, but because you do not understand economics, you also put yourself against the solution – free market.

                With no alternative due to ignorance, all you can do is promote the same crappy evil that has already proven to be really bad.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Charlie,
                Fuel is a bargain. For the cost of one gallon of gas I can travel 30 miles. What would it cost to raise/feed/water a horse and wagon? For the cost of one gallon of gas I can till all the soil needed to grow my own food and then some. What would it cost by backside to break that soil by hand, or cost of oxen/horse?
                Food and Fuel are bargains, Charlie. But you whine about the bargain not being free. Food price is not controled by the 1%, there are farm stands everywhere.
                People whine about food/fuel prices because they are maxed out from borrowing for extravagance.
                You want to control oil companies, while I wish to thank them.
                Blah Blah, later, it is time to plant more seed.

  55. EPA beginning over flights of ranches and farms with cameras. It is really funny that the ranchers are not complaining and that the pundits are complaining. The EPA says it is cost effective to monitor by spying…..the ranchers say……just learn to lead them better. IT is a privacy violation, to which the ranchers agree, but “we prefer to handle this our own way”, a prominent Texas rancher retorted. “We have a right to protect our livestock by any means necessary. Flying low over herds will make then run and scatter into fences or off cliffs We just handle it the same as we handle wolves, coyotes, and rustlers. The only problem is learning how to lead them.”

    • Here in redneck CA we call it SSS (shoot, shovel and shut up).

    • Naten53 says:

      “Over flights”… with what? Any links or info you can point us towards?

      • Actually I do not have a link……it is common knowledge and it was all over the television the other day…..I will see what I can find. They are small single engine plans….probably Cessna, since they are high wing…..however, they are painted a sky blue with an emblazoned EPA on the tail….and a Federal “N” number. They have been doing it quite awhile….

        They claim they are looking for drilling rigs….in an area where there are no drilling rigs.

  56. Ha!

    Figured out why Charlie struggles so much.
    http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp

    I posted one of my comments, and it showed it required at least a Grade 12 and probably 1st year University level of comprehension.

    I did one of Charlies and it showed it needed a Grade 8.

    Charlie simply does not understand what I write.

    To Charlie’s benefit, his readability index is very high – simply more people are able to read his prose vs. mine.

    I am not sure if that is good or bad.

  57. From the Economics of Politics:

    Another “voting is ridiculous” comment:

    [P]oliticians trying to select policies that will attract voters know that the voters will put much less energy into trying to make a correct choice than they would when purchasing an automobile or some other item whose shortcomings and advantages will accrue to them alone.

    The voters, therefore, are likely to be badly informed and may favor a politician or policies that are directly contrary to their interest. From the standpoint of the individual candidate, what is important is what the people want given their perception of the value of their vote on the outcome and the cost of becoming informed, not what they would want if they were better informed.

    But when I vote I am aware that my vote will have almost no effect on the kind of policies I shall get.

    The result occurs because the policies and politicians chosen will be determined to a much greater extent by the votes of other people. Politicians once again know this, and hence attempt to design policies which shall attract ill-informed voters.

  58. Gee, BF, you sure must be feeling insecure this fine weekend … you keep calling me names … Matthius and I pretty much destroyed your hot air arguments last week (me just following his lead) … but it was nice to see at least some on this site aren’t taking your hot air for more than its worth (less than that exploited cup of coffee, my brother).

    I’m an 8th grader … my wife would argue … she’d say you’re giving me too much credit.

    She’d also roll her eyes at your hubris and look to the realities of the situation, which you can’t becuase it makes you look even more silly than an 8th grader …

    You’re still okay by me, brother … just full of hot air … there are worse things.

    • Charlie,

      Matthius and I pretty much destroyed your hot air arguments last week

      You can dream, that is your only outlet and solace.

    • Charlie,

      Your wife does not understand what “hubris” means.

      YOU are hubris – you advocate a failed system regardless of the massive, historical evidence of its failure as if it was a cure.

      I advocate free choice – which is what you fear – since if free men are allowed to make their choices, you know they will not chose you.

      • HOT AIR … seriously, dude, how far off the ground do you get?

        • Why do you bother with such childishly emotional retorts?

          You are not presenting an argument.
          You are not presenting new facts.

          You are having a temper tantrum.

          • Do you have any idea how arrogant your statements are? There are libraries loaded with books that both support and argue against your point of view. Yet you call people names as if YOU are the authority.

            That to me, after reading your never ending declarations of how life is in BF world, are nothing more than hot air. I don’t agree with you, my man. Nothing personal, but I think you’re the one having the temper tantrum.

  59. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Commissar Charlie, ask Dmitry how things will end up doing it your way. Do you want to live like that? Or only if you get to be the commissar?

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/01/a_former_soviet_citizen_on_leftist_propaganda

    • Puritan

      And remember, the greatest human evil comes from the Socialist mindsets – Fascism and Communism

      From the founder of Fascism – and you can hear Charlie’s voice…

      “Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics”.

      “Fascism repudiates the conception of “economic” happiness”

      “Laissez faire is out of date”

      “The paid slaves of kings in their gaudy uniforms, their chests covered with crosses, decorations and similar foreign and domestic hardware ….. blinding the public with dust and flaunting in its face their impudent display”.

      “The Socialist party reaffirms its eternal faith in the future of the Workers’ International, destined to bloom again, greater and stronger, from the blood and conflagration of peoples. It is in the name of the International and of Socialism that we invite you, proletarians of Italy, to uphold your unshakeable opposition to war”.

      * The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
      * A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
      * The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
      * The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
      * A minimum wage.
      * The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions

      “Mussolini, however, declared that he was fighting the Socialists, not because or their socialism but because they were anti-national and reactionary”.

      “There Mussolini was still following a distinctly radical line. he asserted that his programme was similar to that of the Socialists, that Fascism was helping their cause, that it would carry through the agrarian revolution, the only one that was possible in Italy. He even welcomed the occupation of the factories”

  60. gmanfortruth says:

    @Flag, We are coming to a point, in the next few months, that those in the city will be begging for more government, and those in the country will be the polar opposite. Tough times to come! September 2012, the next Revolution will begin, atv their calling, not ours!

  61. gmanfortruth says:

    Fathers Day

    A fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up – fireman, mechanic, businessman, salesman … and so forth.

    However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, “My father’s an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes to music in front of other men and they put money in his underwear.

    Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money.” The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little Justin aside. “Is that really true about your father?”

    “No,” the boy said, “He works for the Democratic National Committee and is helping to get Obama re-elected, but that’s too embarrassing to say that in front of the other kids

  62. Did anyone see the TV report the other day…America’s poor lives better and is more wealthy that the average world middle class.

  63. I’m thinking the Wisconsin recall may be the big story for a couple days, unless the media can downplay it… Imagine this as an example for the US economy, cut spending, end union abuse (sorry GreaterGood) and you prosper. Keep on the Obama/Democrat path and our new slogan will be we are all Greece.

    George Will Schools Krugman on Gov. Walker: $3 Billion Deficit ‘He Inherited’ Has ‘Become a Surplus’

    New York Times columnist Paul Krugman got another much-needed education from syndicated columnist George Will on ABC’s This Week Sunday.

    After Krugman impugned Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wisc.) for his so-called “fiscal irresponsibility,” Will simply and quite accurately responded, “A more than $3 billion budget that he inherited, a deficit, has now become a surplus” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: We have a couple minutes left before we have to take a break, and I just quickly want to go to you, George Will, because you’re calling this recall election in Wisconsin, coming up on Tuesday, Governor Scott Walker, the Republican, facing a recall, the second most important election this year.

    GEORGE WILL: Yes, because it’s a microcosm of what the country faces, an attempt to change the trajectory of the public sector. You have this extraordinary conflict there where unions are defending their privileged position. And it does look as though Wisconsin people are going to try and take that back.

    The man running against Scott Walker, Mayor Barrett of Milwaukee, has used the Walker reforms to save $19 million in the Milwaukee budget itself, so he’s running against a man whose reforms he’s emulating and using.

    PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: And yet, of course, Walker is proposing tax cuts that will do much more to hurt the budget than any of these alleged savings. So this is — it is a microcosm. It is — it’s not — it’s not fiscal responsibility versus irresponsibility. It is a vision of what kind of country you want to have and whether we’re going to redistribute income upwards.

    WILL: A more than $3 billion budget that he inherited, a deficit, has now become a surplus.

    That about says it, doesn’t it?

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/03/george-will-schools-krugman-gov-walker-3-billion-deficit-he-inherited#ixzz1wpZUrjAH

  64. As one who has made the occasional dumb mistake (which readers tend to be quite adept at catching), I figured I’d give the Associated Press’s Todd Richmond and his editors a while to correct a pretty obvious miscue relating to a Wisconsin gubernatorial recall campaign visit by challenger Tom Barrett. In a report whose first version appeared yesterday morning and currently has a 2:42 p.m. Saturday time stamp, Richmond wrote that Barrett’s campaign Saturday started “with the Barron County Dairy Breakfast in Hillsdale, a burg of 1,250 people about 90 miles west of Minneapolis.” Well Todd, if Barrett actually was 90 miles west of the Twin Cities, he would not have been in Wisconsin; he would have been about halfway between Minneapolis and the North Dakota border. (Hillsdale, Wisconsin is really about 90 miles east of Minneapolis.)

    On more substantive matters, Richmond, with the help of an agenda-driven headline (“Wis. governor works to meet voters before recall”), portrayed Walker as an awkward in-person campaigner, someone not instantly recognized by many people who have lives outside of poltics (imagine that) and, of course (while not mentioning union and leftist spending at all) as a beneficiary of “a jaw-dropping $31 million in campaign cash.” He also wrote that polls show the race as close while failing to note that Walker leads in either every one or nearly every one. The relevant paragraphs from Richmond’s report are after the jump

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/06/03/ap-coverage-walker-barrett-wis-recall-campaign-visits-lacks-sense-direct#ixzz1wpc7qEkj

  65. @ Jon … I’ll try and answer as I can.

    the opportunity to advance or change class over there is significantly lower.

    Class is the problem, Jon. Not everybody wants to be Donald Trump (believe it or not). Not everyone needs to feel like they own more than the next guy. Some people just want to pursue their interests without having to work 2 and 3 jobs to survive. So imagine the frustrations of generations ofthose living in poverty when they don’t have the opportunity for 1 job?

    I don’t think Europe is a Utopia. You people sure like to toss that word around .. Can you at least think of something original to say and put down the Tea Party playbook. How’s your 1% utopia working out for you?

    • I agree that not everyone wants to be Donald Trump. If you do not need that, great. I know a lot of people like that, they just want to work enough to afford their hobby or pursue art or raise a family and spend time with them. Freedom of opportunity supports that fully. I would point out the frustrations of those living in poverty in any system, why do you think we have so much immigration here? Opportunity is still here, tho it is on the decline due to destructive government action.

      I will try to stop using the “U” word, it does get thrown around too much and is designed to initiate an emotional response, not be a reasonable argument. I apologize. And no, I do not think we have a utopia here either, your statement is just irrelevant as mine (which I am sure was your point, and thank you for calling me on it). 🙂

      • You’re okay by me, Jon. You actually put it in better words.

        Opportunity is on the decline here but it (I think) goes more to technological advances and chaper labor markets elsewhere that are Protected by a government OWNEd by the wealthy. My point being … of course the 1% is going to own the government and do their utmost to protect their economic interests … that’s fine for them … but it comes at a cost to the rest of us. They’re the ones who are free, Jon … not so much the rest of us … and the further down the economic ladder you go, the more those at the bottom are slaves to either waves or welfare. I’m not for a complete welfare state (as I’ve stated countless times) … I just don’t see the point in letting 1% consolidate further and further their hold on the rest of us. Sooner or later it’s going to break apart.

        • I agree, its just that we have different ideas on how to stop the 1%. Also, I do not dislike the 1% because they have so much. I do not even dislike all of them. I dislike the ones using their wealth to gain power over others, the ones who think they deserve to rule. It is power I despise and want equalized, not wealth.

  66. @Jon #2:

    There is work here, lots of it.

    Really? That’s pretty interesting. I’ve seen my industry suffer not only dramatic job losses but serious cuts in salary.

    Some of it does not pay well, but you will not starve. You wont be able to afford cable or cell phones or fancy things, but you can make it. And once you are making it, you can start climbing.

    Again with the climbing? Jon, how about surviving. You’re way too sure of yourself regarding that “will not starve”. A kid fresh out of college with $100K in loans and working at K-Mart pretty much guarantees he/she won’t be “climbing” anywhere soon, my friend. Let’s try and stick to reality here, okay?

    There are no guarantees, but there is a chance. Those chances are harder to find tho, much harder than they used to be. You know what has changed? More government involvement, more dirty deals between big biz and big government. Big biz has always been there tho, so what has changed is the expansion of government.

    So it’s the government that big business owns that is the problem?

    And you guys tell me I’m illogical?

    • Mathius says:

      The US has a more rigid class system than India.

      Take a look. (it’s a little tough to read, but the grey shaded areas represent Denmark whereas the dark areas represent the US). If you are born in Denmark, in the bottom 20%, you have roughly even odds of ending up anywhere in the economic scale (with a mild skew toward the low-end). If you are born in the bottom 20% in the US, you have about 70% of dying in the bottom 40% and about a 5% shot at joining the top 20% (to say nothing of joining the 1%). Yet everyone dreams of “climbing the ladder.” BAH!

      Social and economic mobility in the US is a myth.

      We are not the land of opportunity, and we haven’t been in generations (if ever). This is a lie we tell ourselves at night before we go to sleep.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Given the very graph you presented that is an absolutely STUPID conclusion.

        The graph in fact shows there is mobility, in both directions. Which means there are NO CLASSES.

        Look like Denmark’s system is better at making the well off worse off though.

        • Yes, well, we can’t begin to offend the wealthy in these discussions. All that hard work they did to “earn” all that money … I guess all those working for them had nothing to do with any of it.

          Yes, and how could anyone see a class distinction in America … where all men are created equal?

          • Mathius says:

            where all men are created equal

            Of course what you meant to say was “where all while male land-owners are created equal…”

            Oh, and also, not Jewish or Catholic for some states.

        • Mathius says:

          Huh? Were you looking at the same graph I was? Are you, perhaps confusing the fact that there is SOME mobility for the idea that there is a LOT of mobility?

          If you’re born rich in America, odds are huge that you’ll die rich. If you’re born poor, odds are huge that you’ll die poor. That’s class immobility. Denmark still has this, but it’s far less pronounced.

          So there’s two interpretations we can go with. Either the system is rigged/biased in favor of keeping the rich rich and the poor poor…. or rich people are inherently smarter and/or harder working such that they naturally in each generation rise to the top like the proverbial cream that they are. Conversely, of course, if there’s no class system bias in America, the only viable conclusion for why 70% of the poor die poor is that they’re stupid and lazy and sink to the bottom like the proverbial stones.

          So which is it: rigged system, or stupid and lazy poor people?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Almost 60% of those born in the bottom 1/5 MOVE UP one or more economic quintiles during their lifetime.

            That means that if you are born poor the odds are far greater that you will end BETTER OFF than you started.

            • Mathius says:

              Let’s just ignore that more than 40% of Americans who are born poor die poor.

              Yes… they’ll move out of the bottom bracket (about 60-ish%). But not that they’ll make it to the middle or upper brackets (around 25-ish%). What, in your humble opinion accounts for this? If poor people aren’t intrinsically lazier or dumber than rich people at birth, then why do only a quarter of them make it into the top 50%?

              Put another way, in a random distribution (bell curve), 60% of the born-poor should be in the top three brackets (middle, upper, top). But the actually number is less than half that. Similarly, 20% should be high achievers, reaching the top 20%, but it’s only about a quarter of that. So what accounts for this difference?

              Don’t bother. I’ll answer for you. Rich people can afford better schools. They can afford tutors. They can afford better early education. They can afford better prenatal care. They can afford better nutrition (vital for a developing brain). They can afford better health care. They can afford better after school programs. They can afford SAT prep. They can get into better colleges. They can afford to send their kids to those colleges. They can send their kids to those colleges debt free. They can afford post-grad education. They can send their kids to those schools debt free. Their children can afford to be unemployed so they can take on resume-boosting internships. They can pull strings and talk to their networks (the good-ole-boys) and get their children better starting jobs. (Don’t tell me this isn’t true or accurate.. I benefited directly from all of this, so I know full-well what I’m talking about).

              Yes, I’m smart. I’m much smarter than “average”. Whether I’m an intellectual 1%-er or not I can’t really say (not that it would be meaningful anyway). And yes, I’m (moderately) hard working. But if you were born poor, ceterus paribus, your odds of out-competing me were basically null. The deck was stacked against you from the get-go.

              • The deck was stacked against you from the get-go.

                Bada-boom-, bada-bing. I could’ve copied the entire post but didn’t bother.

                Even myself, a blue collar turned white collar turned criminal turned author/back to white collar cannoli man understands this basic FACT. Even I had advantages that many of my teammates in high schools (those who managed to dodge the bricks thrown at their buses) never came close to having. How you can assume that anyone/everyone has the same opportunity and ability to self-motivate themselves to what YOU consider success is about as arrogant (and STUPID) as it gets.

                Now, I guess I’ll have to wait for the hot air balloon to make its entrance …

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Trying to compare income bracket movement to a random normal distribution (bell curve) is ILLOGICAL.

                As usual you propose a FALSE conclusion and when proven false you run in circles trying to draw everyone into your rabbit hole.

                By the way, when I was young all the rich kids went to public school. So I guess that kind of kills your theory about education and mobility.

                As for the reason more don’t move up?

                WELFARE STATE

      • Tell it to Oprah..tell it to Eminem..John Long, Grant Long and Terry Mills (all graduates of my city’s high school), Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg..all of them nobodies to start with. Then maybe you can ask all the docs who come here from India, or how about all the NHL or MLB players coming from other countries. Why? For the OPPORTUNITY to make it rich.

        • Anita, my love … you listed 8 (who did great for themselves) plus some professional athletes (who did better for the owners of their teams) … vs. how many millions who didn’t?

          Are we to measure everyone against the very few success stories? We probably don’t know many of the names of those who died from freezing to death or eating dog food or whatevder … just becuase they weren’t self-motivated enough to become Steve Jobs or Oprah?

          By the way, Oprah is an Obama supporter …

          Now don’t get angry with me …:)

          • Who’s fault is it they they weren’t self motivated? Not the 1% for sure. When it all breaks down Charlie, you (everyone) are your own worst enemy. You can’t deny that. Please don’t throw the disabled on me..

            • Then where do I throw them? You want to point to success stories and ignore the multi-million times more failures. I am my own worst enemy how? I consider myself successful enough I was able to turn away from money. I’m not a wealthy man but any means but I’m happier now than ever before (when I had much more money). I am very self-motivated, but no longer toward earning money. I do what I have to do to live comfortably, but I don’t kid myself for a second that EVERYONE had the same opportunities I had growing up white in a blue collar neighborhood that was guilty of promoting (violently) seggregation (there are studies on it–Canarsie in Brooklyn) and having tremendous educational opportunities some others (many others) couldn’t imagine? We are our own worst enemy when we assume everyone can and/or should do as we do …

              • Anyone can make it Charlie. It depends how motivated you are. What are all the govt programs for then? Billions spent to prop people up. You make what you can of it. Friend of mine years back decided she wanted to be a mom when she turned 17..bound and determined to be a mom early.. two kids and a failed marriage later she used the govt programs..Section 8..free food, free daycare, free classes..went that route for 18 mos..today she is a successful engineer making plenty of cash. She used the programs and made it. You guys are giving the unmotivated people a reason to stay unmotivated. At our expense.

              • Mathius says:

                All else being equal, 9 times out of 10, a rich person will crush a competitor from the lower classes.

                What are all the govt programs for then? Billions spent to prop people up. They’re the reason it’s not 10 times out of 10.

              • Mathius,
                Bulldonkey!

                If your exclaim was even remotely true, there would be no inovation or small business.

                But since there is innovation and small business is vastly larger then “big” business, your claim is FALSE.

                Entanglements of the rich bind their actions. They are far more worried about preserving wealth then making more of it.

                Innovation comes from necessity, not satisfaction, Mathius.

              • Mathius,

                Again you are wrong.

                Billions reallocated by government is not meant to prop people up – it is enslave people into dependency – dependent people are powerless because they transfer the right of action to those that pay them to do nothing independently.

        • Mathius says:

          Anita,

          This should help clear up this line of thinking. link

          • Are you kidding me? Facts put directly in your face..facts you can not dispute..is not enough for you? There is no better proof to show that anyone can make it than to show who has actually made it. There are millions like my examples just like there are millions of your examples. Some are motivated, some aren’t. That is not anecdotal!

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Anita,

              Anecdotal evidence goes both ways — and in fact favors Mathius’ and Charlie’s points. For these 8 examples you provided of individuals becoming super wealthy, there are millions of examples of individuals born in poverty who remain in poverty.

              Not to mention, Zuckerberg really isn’t all that great of an example. True, he wasn’t born a billionaire, but he didn’t exactly raise himself out of abject poverty either.

            • Mathius says:

              Anita, you’re missing it.

              Exceptions are exceptions. They aren’t the rule. Zuckerberg isn’t NORMAL. Gates ins’t NORMAL. Jobs wasn’t NORMAL. What’s normal is that the son of a janitor grows up to become a janitor.

              You’re arguing that people CAN make it. No one is denying that.

              What we’re arguing is that it’s UNLIKELY. More to the point, that the whole system is set up in the United States stacked in favor of the rich. Everything is set up so that the children of the rich have a vastly better shot at becoming/staying rich than the children of the poor. Specifically, if you are born in the bottom 20%, odds are 40+% that you’ll die there. Why? Are poor people lazy or stupid? Why? If not that the economic, social, legal, political and educational systems of the United States are biased against the poor, then why are the poor so much less likely to break out of poverty into the middle or upper rungs?

              There are millions like my examples just like there are millions of your examples. Sure, there are millions like your example. There are TENS AND TENS of millions like my examples. Yours is the exception, mine is the rule.

    • I am not saying there is as much work as there should be, but there is work. Certainly more than is being taken advantage of. Certainly enough that we need not be spending so much on food stamps and other assistance programs.

      Well, that 100k in loans is a problem isnt it? Maybe the kid shouldnt have spent so much. Maybe if we got back to disliking debt as a culture instead of rolling the dice with all our chips before life even starts we would be better off. College is hurting more than it is helping these days. I know what deep debt is like, I know what climbing is like. I have done it. I have not done it without help, but I have done without ANY government help. Survival has a lot to do with attitude and with willingness to give up luxuries.

      Greedy, power hungry, uncaring people that want to rule and exploit are the problem. But you cannot just kill someone for greed, there would not be many people left on earth. So what can you do? Take away their weapons. Government is the weapon of the 1%, it represents a whole sector of power that, when combined with the power of wealth, is very difficult to fight. Removal of government from economics creates a separation of power between the power of authority and the power of wealth. Without the government hammer, the rich are vastly weaker and can be handled by the 99% easily. Safety nets are a distraction at best, designed to lull the masses into continued exploitation. Further, they are paid for by the rich, but not the super-rich, not the 1%. They are paid for by the middle and upper middle class, and even the lower to middle rich classes. Those classes get drained of economic resources thereby insulating the super-rich from ever having to compete for the good investments and the big money -making methods. They stay at the top and siphon more and more wealth, while using safety nets to make everyone think they are better off than if they were free. Yea, its logical, its even obvious if you don’t buy the propoganda.

      • Well, that 100k in loans is a problem isnt it? Maybe the kid shouldnt have spent so much.

        Right, he/she shouldn’t have considered going to a private college to compete with those from Harvard (spending closer to $200K because they can afford it) … so where does that put his/her chances of earning enough to pay the loan back now?

        He/she could’ve gone to a city university and then applied for a transit job (at least he/she’d have retirement and a union to support him/her).

        Maybe if we got back to disliking debt as a culture instead of rolling the dice with all our chips before life even starts we would be better off. College is hurting more than it is helping these days.

        And that, of course, is the student’s fault? Jon, I’m trying to follow this one.

        I know what deep debt is like, I know what climbing is like. I have done it. I have not done it without help, but I have done without ANY government help. Survival has a lot to do with attitude and with willingness to give up luxuries.

        And therefore, if Jon can do it, everyone should? Do you know what abject poverty is like? Did you eat welfare cheese? Did you content with rats in your bed? Did you have no heat in the winter? Did you live in Appalachia and have no education to speak of?

        Greedy, power hungry, uncaring people that want to rule and exploit are the problem. But you cannot just kill someone for greed, there would not be many people left on earth. So what can you do? Take away their weapons. Government is the weapon of the 1%, it represents a whole sector of power that, when combined with the power of wealth, is very difficult to fight.

        Here, I agree with you, Jon. But you and I both know that cannot happen. And reducing what is there only further consolidates the power of those who own them. How about rewriting the rules somewhat more fairly, with those doing the writing have some say in the matter?

        One of your favorites, “Thomas Jefferson himself was wary of the power of the dead over the living in the form of an unchanging Constitution. To ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years.”

        Removal of government from economics creates a separation of power between the power of authority and the power of wealth. Without the government hammer, the rich are vastly weaker and can be handled by the 99% easily. Safety nets are a distraction at best, designed to lull the masses into continued exploitation. Further, they are paid for by the rich, but not the super-rich, not the 1%. They are paid for by the middle and upper middle class, and even the lower to middle rich classes. Those classes get drained of economic resources thereby insulating the super-rich from ever having to compete for the good investments and the big money -making methods. They stay at the top and siphon more and more wealth, while using safety nets to make everyone think they are better off than if they were free. Yea, its logical, its even obvious if you don’t buy the propoganda.

        Except it’s the 1% that benefits (increases their wealth) … so maybe you have a few things mixed up in your formula.

        • He should not have gone to that school without affording it. He could have still gotten his kmart job without it, and he would not have a student loan payment. You seem so focussed on degrees. You realize its a friggin scam, right? Who do you think runs the colleges? Who owns Harvard? The 1% for sure, they fund it and they decide who they want in there and who gets where from that education. Its not the degree, it never has been, it is a means to maintain the nepotism and class division, and no amount of government cheese will change that. Its not that the harvard people are any smarter. Hell look at our last president, he was a dummy, but he was in the right family and the right school. If you got into harvard, you would be no closer to becoming president than you are now. You would just be an inconvenient charity case that got a degree there. It is meaningless and the knowledge is no better than anywhere else. The education system is a rigged game that is doing more to exploit the younger generation than ANY big business has EVER done. Hell, I would rather see child labor again than see the destruction the college degree system is wreaking on this country.

          Yes, if I can do it, then so can a lot of other people. Not everyone. I am healthy and I am smarter than average, and I know a lot of people. A lot of that is because I have a good attitude and I help people and I take care of myself and I apply my mind and study, its not really that I have any great abilities. No I have not eaten welfare cheese, I refuse to do so. I HAVE gone a year spending less than $2 a day on food, skipped eating for a day here and there, skipped meals a LOT. I HAVE gone without heat in the winter and AC in the summer. I kept my rental place at 50 degrees one winter to be able to afford the bill and not bust pipes. I skipped AC that year altogether. I had another winter where we had no heat at all, just a kerosene space heater in the kitchen to keep the pipes from freezing. Got 10 inches of snow that year. Never sought or received government assistance. I am educated on my own dime and my own work. I have a two year degree that I paid for with private scholarships and my own money. I have had help from friends and family when times were really bad, but help was not always available. You go without and you keep pushing. I am not bragging, just explaining why I have no patience for whiners and laziness and people who think they are entitled to the same advantages they assume I have. Most people I know on assistance have had MORE advantages than me. So yea, if Jon can do it, so can others, MOST others. You got a real disability that you didn’t cause, I got sympathy, and I will do my best to help you. But I don’t trust the government with my money when they say they will help you, because they government really sucks at helping people.

          No, my formula is fine, you just are not paying attention. I can compete with the big guys, I am as smart as they are. I know where to invest my money, but I CANNOT LEGALLY DO SO! Problem? Government. Remove government from investment regulation? Problem solved. Everyone benefits. Rich make less because they dont get exclusive access to good investment. Understand how it works? Not an instant fix, but it is the only workable fix.

          • I don’t agree with most of what you say here, Jon. That Kmart job may not be there without his degree. And if he doesn’t get that degree, how does he climb?

            Assuming everything you claim about your hardships is true (and I’m assuming it is), big deal? You cannot juxtapose your situation on someone else. I’m sure some have suffered even more than you and “made it” … but it is yet another anecdote. There are far more who didn’t come close. Millions more.

            So what do you think we should do with them? Let them rot? Do you really think they’ll just go away? Do you want to put them on reservations the way native Americans have been shafted? We’ll call them loservilles?

            MY friend, they will come back to bite you on the ass sooner or later. The wider the gap grows, the more people join the loser club (and through no fault of their own) … if you can’t see it now, you never will. The middle class is dying a fast death … and we’ll the third world capitalism has to make us before we’d like to admit it. Then there will be nothing else to do but go socialist/communist. perform a hybrid now (social democracy) and restrain the 1% and things might not go so hardline in the end. Leave it the way it is, and it’s guaranteed chaos (my opinion–not the word of God).

            • My point is that higher education, while it is a good thing, it cannot make everyone successful. There is still supply and demand, and the degree you have and the school it is from will have an affect. However, if everyone has a degree, then other things make the difference. Everyone cannot be a lawyer, even if everyone had law degrees. Everyone cannot make 100k a year for any job. You cannot escape the market. The problem is that so many have a degree now that we are spending more to get one than the degree gets you. It is a scam. A harvard degree might be better than another one, but hte information is not better, it just costs more and you rub shoulders with a different “class” of people. Even then, if we all got to go to harvard, there would be other ways that some would make it and others not. So people need to wise up and stop spending more on college than it is worth. IF you have something specific you need to know for a specific job that you are motivated to get, then go for it. If you are just getting a degree to have one because you were told you needed one to succeed, then you are just pissing your money away.

              Yes, I am an anecdote, but I am not a super success story (yet). What I have done, truly anyone could do if they are motivated. I am all for helping people climb, or at least get onto the ladder, but I help them, not the government. The government wastes my money in the process. And they do it in a horrible way that keeps people from starving but it does not put them on a path of climbing, it puts them in a cage at the bottom, and adds weights to everyone that is climing. That way the people at the top dont have too many to share the top with. The best thing to do is get government out of the way and let the market decide. Some will still suffer, but more will be helped in total than not. Freedom has always led to more widespread success and less sufferring. Always. It has not fixed all things for all people, and neither has anything else. You cannot remove suffering and inequality from the world, so you do the best you can. From what I have seen and studied, freedom is the best we can get, despite its problems.

              I see the same things you see. The difference is I see the cause, and you think the cause is the fix. We are less free than before and we are dying on the vine. That is no coincidence.

  67. Jon, the irony of it is that everybody that championed the “global” economy is not against it because the jobs went to “lower paying” global economies. Does no one understand the concept of supply and demand?

    I was watching interviews of this so called OWS crowd and it was pathetic to listen to the ones interviewed that said until he gets a $80,000 a year job, he will be right there protesting, He further said that he was entitled to that wage as a starting wage, Anything lower was sub standard. So, you cannot argue that type of faulty logic at all.

    No one is guaranteed anything. I marvel at the “homeless” standing on a street corner that are obese. I have not seen skinny homeless anywhere in the US. I did see them all over the world. Even our tent cities under the bridges are there by choice. Shelter and food is available everywhere, in the US. I have never seen anyone eating out of a trash can here.

    Our family does not sell anything over seas at all. We do not deal with the tariffs and things but the only thing that we produce is oil and gas which we sell to refiners. We also raise cattle and alfalfa. We had employees at one time but they are too expensive to keep as employees so we hire all independent contractors now. Even our “cowhands” are independents, They work harder and better anyway because the more they work, the more they make. They are paid for a job well done. They provide for their own retirement and their own health. We do not hire illegal immigrants as our neighboring ranchers do but we more than make up for it in no loss of cattle, theft of property, and loyalty. Loyalty is not obtained through wages…..it is earned.

    But, government is killing all of business. The regulations are becoming stifling as our reason fro dropping employees. So, there is some reform that needs to be done but it is not reforming capitalism……it is reforming the regulatory system that bastardized capitalism. We really would like to go back to employees…….but we are getting used to working with independents and have found good ones that the expense of going back to employees is quick becoming not worth it..

  68. @Anita … another anecdote, my love. Your friend had help and made it. Bless her. Not everyone who has help and doesn’t make it is a lazy SOB. Maybe your friend was somewhat smarter … or determined. I have no idea. I do know people who did all the right things and wound up screwed six ways to Sunday for their efforts. Is it their fault? Should we just kick them out because “our expense” is more important than helping someone? In my lifetime I saw black kids kept from schools in my neighborhood with violence. You think once those kids were allowed in, the environment was conducive to them (at ages 7-17) to educate themselves? Maybe they were a little uncomfortable? Maybe they were at a more than slight disadvantage?

    I know you know better …

  69. @ Charlie……hello from Texas, you Canoli Meister……

    You asked. “And therefore, if Jon can do it, everyone should?”
    D13 says: Yes.

    Charlie asks: “Do you know what abject poverty is like? ”
    D13 asks: “Please enlighten me……where does it exist now? Be specific if possible.

    quoted: “the rich are vastly weaker and can be handled by the 99% easily.”
    D13’s answer:: “This can be done right now. It takes perseverance of the 99% and not some government regulation to do it for them.

  70. The hot air balloon has arrived … time for coffee (with my cannoli) …

    • Maybe it might cause your brain to engage.

      Note to self: Another lesson about the futility of reason applied to irrational people.

      • Okay, so from now on, when you enter a discussion, you have to use this … pretty please?

        That will let us all know that you’re about to insult whomever you don’t agree with and that they should take their unengaged brains out for a walk (or a coffee) …

        • Insult, yes.
          True, nonetheless.

          You have no argument nor reasoning for your position and faced with your contradictions you do the worse thing: ignore them and blunder on as if they didn’t exist.

          The consequence of your blundering is logic like this:

          “When a surgeon in an operating room … cuts and cleans and amputates, and the wound bleeds, do we say to him your hands are stained with blood?” Assad said in a televised speech to parliament. “Or do we thank him for saving the patient?”

          A mass murderer of innocent people dismissing such murder by demanding his people thank him.

          That is the consequence of your philosophy, Charlie.

          • BF’s logic:

            The wealthy worked hard (yeah, right) and sacrificed and took risks to make it to where they are now. So what a bunch of surgeons had to operate on all those victims on the road to that success. So what people all over the world as well as at home were exploited to the point revolutions were fought in foreign countries and unions had to be formed here to protect basic safety … so what the wealthy own a government to protect its interests and maintain a stranglehold on those below them … so what less than 1% own the vast majority of wealth and the 99% are subject to the whims of the 1% … so what people have lived in poverty for generations? Look at the 1%’s … they made it! The 99% must be losers for not making it. Tough noogies on them.

            Then you point to the government created by the 1% and say it’s too big; that the handouts (bones, we call them) given to those who remain in poverty is not only stealing what isn’t their, it’s keeping the rest of the 99% from becoming independent (and/or wealthy themselves). You point to the very few who make it through the mess (like Snooki) and say, “See what the free market does? If Snooki can make it, why can’t all those other losers?”

            Except when it doesn’t serve your purpose, you’ll remind us it isn’t really a free market.

            And the hot air just keeps pumping, my brother … post after post after post … you don’t even get tired of hearing yourself … but I kind of like the foghorn …

            So, please, click on the foghorn again.

            • Mathius says:

              Charlie,

              Let’s be fair. A LOT of the wealthy inherent a MASSIVE head start / advantage. God knows I didn’t get where I am solely on merit. I had a huge amount of help. That said:

              The wealthy worked hard (yeah, right) and sacrificed and took risks to make it to where they are now. By and large, yes they did. Some, like Paris Hilton (**brief pause while I barf in my trash can**) were handed the world on a silver spoon and just do whatever they want. 99% of the rest of the 1%-born have to work.. somehow. Yes, we had this massive head start, yes we had better education, yes we have trust funds, yes we are debt-free. So, yes, it’s far EASIER for us to “win” the race. And it’s far easier / safer to take risks (invest / whatever) if the downside isn’t homelessness and ramen noodles. All true.

              But just like we don’t accept Anita’s examples (Jobs/Gates/et cetera) to paint all the lower class as potential successes, we similarly should judge the whole of the top brackets by the few barf-worthy examples of slackers.

              So let’s not go overboard and pretend that we got where we are without hard work and/or brains. I BUST MY ASS to be where I am. Yes, I had help – lots of help – but it certainly wasn’t handed to me on a platter either. Not agreeing with the Hot Air Balloon (BF), but I just think you should be careful about painting all of us with the same brush.

              • So let’s not go overboard and pretend that we got where we are without hard work and/or brains. I BUST MY ASS to be where I am. Yes, I had help – lots of help – but it certainly wasn’t handed to me on a platter either. Not agreeing with the Hot Air Balloon (BF), but I just think you should be careful about painting all of us with the same brush.

                Neither I nor you know exactly how many of the 1% actually work hard, Matthius. And you do not work as hard as you claim to (sorry, but that is my opinion). I’m not equating physical work with mental anguish. But I have to doubt your anguish as to it’s worth vs. salary (assuming you’re a six figure salary–maybe you’re more). The point is, there are investors who don’t, in fact, have to work much at all. I know we’ve been down this road before, but I don’t agree with your assessment. Much of the real wealth in this country is passed on via inheritance and even for those who go through private schools and bust their ass (as you claim to do) … they aren’t exactly making the same sacrifices as their predecessors nor are they taking much risk. In fact, the risk load is lightened considerably generation to generation as money is diversified.

                Education is but so long (law degrees, MBA’s etc.). Big deal. The connections you make after (or during) the degree process are way more important than the degrees themselves. And you’re only “killing yourself” in school for so long (2-3 years)? Again, big deal.

                RN’s work hard. Doctors work hard. Some (not all) teachers work very hard. Word processors don’t work hard at all (if they feel stress, it’s probably their personalities) … and I’m going to venture to say that hedge fund managers don’t exactly kill themselves either. I don’t know this for a fact, but what I do know is that their reward is far greater than it should be (here we really disagree because I don’t believe in this bullshit market system). Somebody saves a life (a doctor working in ER) is worth much more to me than somebody who makes some billionaire another billion. Sorry, but that’s how I perceive it. Snookie doesn’t deserve what she gets, but she gets it. Is she killing herself? Maybe she is (to her mind), but I doubt it.

                You can always point to my being crazy … I accept that, but I don’t agree that hedge fund managers kill themselves (unless you mean to define “Killing oneself” as voluntarily spending absurd amounts of time on your job, but that to me isn’t killing oneself. I spend absurd amounts of time writing … but I’m not killing myself doing so (just getting carpal tunnel).

              • Mathius says:

                hedge fund managers don’t exactly kill themselves either If you actually believe this, you’re out of your mind.. sorry buddy..

            • Charlie

              BF’s logic: The wealthy worked hard (yeah, right) and sacrificed and took risks to make it to where they are now.

              Who cares?
              It’s not your money.
              It never was your money.

              You didn’t do anything to earn their money.

              It’s not your, never was, never will be – your envy is showing.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I know Charlie has said this before, and I’m sure he’ll say it again, but it irks me too, so now I’ll say something — it has absolutely nothing to do with envy. Your continued insistence that it is all envy is missing the point.

              • Buck

                No, it is only about envy

                He is looking at another man’s wallet and declaring judgement as well as actions against that man because of it.

                If that wallet did not exist, he would not be doing that. If that man was poor, would Charlie make the same argument? Not at all.

                So it is only about material things – not ideas or actions

                Therefore it has nothing to do with what action the man has undertaken on Charlie – Charlies has made his judgements solely based on the size of the man’s wallet

                That is envy.

              • Hey, foghorn … blow it out your ass already:

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You can sit there and scream out “ENVY…IT IS ALL ABOUT ENVY!” to your heart’s content. That’s just not the case. Hate to break it to you.

                Methinks this is the reason Charlie keeps trotting out that old fog horn though…

              • Sorry, Buck – but it is exactly that, no matter how much you deny it – since you suffer it too.

                You are measuring the man by what he has, not what he does – and you know you are doing that

              • Buck, what is it then? I get listing those in need as a problem, that is not based in envy. But listing great wealth as a problem is an envy thing. Pointing to the gap between rich and poor as a problem without regard for the level at the bottom is a matter of envy, not care for the needy. IF the poor had enough to eat, shelter, and a basic level of education and health care available, would you still be upset that people at the top had 1 million times the wealth of those at the bottom? I daresay Charlie would still have a problem with it, he would come up with something else the have nots dont have and say it was important, but the real issue is with the haves.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Jon, I believe it is absolutely essential for us to provide those basic necessities — food, shelter, education, health care (and I would add a basic living wage) — to all individuals living without our society. So, let’s start with those items, provide those items and then we’ll see if there remains an ever-widening income gap (and, if so, the effects of that gap) and we’ll revisit this discussion!

              • Buck

                But that is the lie of it.

                You don’t stop there – those basics were well handled 100 years ago.

                They (the Poor) don’t stop there either. They always want more.

                Their numbers never decrease – it always grows, because you give the rewards of effort for doing no effort – a deal more and more people take.

                So you demand larger and larger taking from the Productive class, feeding more and more of the Unproductive class – until there is no more money left.

                Then, you shrug your shoulders and go “whoops! My bad!” and walk away from the massive economic and social disaster your unthoughtful program created.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                BF, who are you to say what I am thinking? What motivates me?

                You argue that my concerns are simply me being envious. I tell you that is not so. Your response: ‘of course it is.’

                Where is that fog horn when you need it??

              • Buck

                BF, who are you to say what I am thinking? What motivates me? You argue that my concerns are simply me being envious. I tell you that is not so. Your response: ‘of course it is.’ Where is that fog horn when you need it??

                But you are lying.

                Your solutions make what you claim is your “concern” worse, more broad and more systemic.

                If a man claims his wish for “A”, offers “B” as a means, but “B” makes the wish for “A” unobtainable, what would you think of that man?

                Insane?
                Irrational?

                But what if he is neither?

                The only answer:
                diabolical

  71. @ Mathius…..you will really like this one.

    Texas Legislature to take up in next session. The legalization of the use of Marijuana….to be treated the same as alcohol and subject to the same penalties if impaired. It will be treated in public places the same as any smoking ordinances. Anywhere someone can light up a cigarette, you can light up a joint. (Personally, cigarette smoke and marijuana smoke are offensive as it smells like camel dung, and yes, I have smelled all three but I can choose to not be around.) This,of course, can only be done if there is no Federal law against it…..but what the hell…we do not pay much attention to the Feds anyway. You may grow your own, harvest it, and suck it down…..but it will not be fore sale locally. There is a hint of talk in the Texas Legislature to regulate it, sell it, and take the taxes.

    So, how is THAT for conservative Texas, Mathius?

    • Mathius says:

      Shit. I guess I’m moving to Texas…

      But have you considered the ramifications of this, Mr. 13? Let’s gaze into my crystal ball, shall we?

      It’s 2013, Texas enacts this law. Suddenly, en masse, every hippy liberal (including Bill Maher) from NM, AZ, the entire midwest, and the entire deep south moves to Texas. There are 25mm people in Texas, but within the space of three years, there are 55mm, the entire increase being comprised of hippy liberal types.

      Suddenly, your state isn’t deep Red anymore. Now it’s actually safely blue (while the south/midwest are now blood-red).

      Elections roll around and now Texas isn’t just in play, but it’s actually supports Hillary ’16 combined with NY and CA, the Red-Shirts didn’t stand a chance.

      All of your elected officials are replaced with liberals. Guns are banned. Smoking (tobacco) is banned. Red meat is banned (except for In ‘n’ Out). Pickup trucks are banned. Raptors are banned. Carbon Dioxide is banned (breathing is taxed and regulated). The Mexican border is thrown wide open, everyone who enters is give instant citizenship, a membership card to the Democratic Party, and a giant wad of food stamps. Taxes go up.. Way up..

      As goes Texas, so goes the nation, with NY, CT, and TX as a power block, they drag the whole country to the extreme left. In 2020, following the census, Texas now has 65 electoral votes – more than even California. On the back of this new math, Hillary wins her second term, and in 2024, Dennis Kucinich is elected (with running made Jon Stewart).

      What have you done?! God have mercy…

      • OOOORRRRRR????????????????

        • Mathius says:

          There is no “or”… this is the inevitable result of your decisions.

          I’m sorry.

      • Where did the 55 mm come from? NY, CA & CT? “every hippy liberal”, leaving conservatives now in the majority, except in Mass., blue has become red…. 55mm hippy liberal’s come unarmed to the most well armed state in the nation, demanding gun control.
        And where that means hitting the target you were aiming at, suddenly there is a shortage in every hippy liberals…..

        And they live happily ever after!

        • You have to understand that after the hippie liberals screw up something like NY, Massachusetts or California, they move to places like NJ, Maine and Colorado. They NEVER ever get that they ere responsible for the screw up. They are like my 1st World War French Generals and machine guns. The failure was in the troops lack of elan, not in the inevitable result of modern mechanized war. The libs think that they just didn’t try hard enough. Beware!

  72. Recently a Wisconsin judge seriously overreached her authority when she sentenced Philip Caminite, pastor of Aleitheia Bible Church to two years in prison for teaching his flock to discipline their children! Such illegal judicial actions are one reason many of us think many judges rank alongside used car salesmen, and I don’t mean to insult used car salesmen by the comparison. I suggest that Judge Maryann Sumi might improve her status by selling cars, not sending preachers to prison.

    The pastor is to be supervised for six years after serving his time and is forbidden to have any contact with his church and to have no leadership in any church. So we have a court stomping on the constitutional rights of a preacher and telling him where he can go to church and forbidding him to follow his calling of preaching. I wonder if Maryann has ever read the First Amendment.

    If this case stands, it will be a Damocles sword hanging over the head of every preacher, priest, and rabbi in the nation. In fact, every church leader should preach on this subject next Sunday, and end with “No judge or any other official will tell me what to preach. Never, never, never.”

    Assistant District Attorney Shelly Rusch wanted the preacher to be sentenced to five years in prison and 15 years of extended supervision, calling him “the spoke in the wheel of this conspiracy.” Shelly is as confused or radical as Maryann since the pastor was teaching what true preachers have taught for centuries. Sorry dear, not a conspiracy. Shelly should be back in her kitchen baking cookies.

    The judged said that the sentence, in part, was “intended to send a message that child abuse will not be tolerated and to prevent Caminiti from once again teaching members of his church to spank their children with wooden objects to cure them of selfishness.” The judge is not thinking or is skewed in her thinking since teaching people to discipline their children is not child abuse. In fact, I have always taught that parents who refuse to reasonably discipline their children (involving spanking for rebellion and disobedience) are child abusers!

    Recent studies in the U.S. and Sweden prove that sparing the rod does spoil the child. Sweet little Johnny, without discipline, will become Big Bad John. Another study published in the Akron Law Review a couple years ago examined criminal records and found that children raised without spanking are much more likely to be involved in crime.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47100

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Given the little I know of this case….good for the judge. You don’t get to hide behind ‘religious beliefs’ to advocate for beating children. You just don’t.

      What’s next? Hiding behind your religious cloak to rape young boys? Oh wait…

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Not to mention the article seems to ignore the fact that it was a jury that found the pastor guilty…

      • Of what? Preaching? When does “discipline their children” become child abuse? Did he beat any children? If he preaches all homosexuals should march off a cliff, does that make him a murderer? And does the judge and jury now get to decide what is child abuse for every parent? My wife was bitten by one of our children when he was a baby demanding his way, she bit him back, gently but firmly. Guess that should cost her five to seven????
        But I guess it’s time we turn raising all kids over to the government. After all, they have done such an excellent job on everything else, like schools, energy….

        • Buck the Wala says:

          As I prefaced earlier…”Based upon the LITTLE I know about this case”. From what I’ve heard this went a bit beyond merely preaching some discipline.

          And yes, the jury does get to decide what is child abuse — that’s precisely how our legal system works. A jury also gets to decide whether your actions constitute theft, murder, assault, rape, and so on.

          • “The preacher was not guilty of abusing a child; he was sent to prison for teaching parents to discipline their children!”

            What happened to the 1st Amendment? I don’t agree with some churches on homosexuals, but think they have a right to speak their beliefs, especially in a church the members choose to attend. And even if he goes to the public square with a bullhorn, it’s still his right. I can ignore him. Nothing in the article said he had ever abused a child, only that he spoke about the need for parents to DISCIPLINE their children.

            • Mathius says:

              Haven’t been following along on this, but maybe it crosses a clear & present danger-type threshold?

              How do you feel about the ‘preacher’ the other day was on youtube for preaching that we ought to round up all the homosexuals and put them in an electrified pen and wait for them to die out? Seems to me, that the First Amendment does have some limits… incitement to violence is one of them.

              • I know attorneys who would argue its just fine to yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Then they could sue the management for attendant injuries.

              • I think he doesn’t read the New Testament enough and is an idiot. Homosexuals do not produce offspring, so will not “die out”. I think anyone who does as he directs will be committing several crimes. If any do as he directs, he will then be open to being charged for the same crimes. Inciting riot does not excuse riot, but both are offenses. BUT, I do not see a crime until someone commits violence. Sticks and stones, not words…

            • Buck the Wala says:

              A very fair distinction…and the reason why I am against ‘hate crime’ laws.

              But….what exactly was said? what actions, if any, had he taken? how far did it go? how is the law in question (child abuse) written? Again, I am not familiar with all the specifics here, but he was charged with child abuse and there was seemingly sufficient evidence for him to have been found guilty by the jury. This is not an example of some runaway judge convicting priests and depriving them of their religious freedom. There was a trial, evidence was presented, and a JURY convicted him.

              • Sorry Buck, can’t find any info except this CFP article. If it is accurate, he being sent to prison for preaching only, but convicted of child abuse without laying a hand or anything else on a child or any person or animal…. And if so, then yes, this is a case of a runaway judge, jury and prosecutor!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So we definitely need more of the facts here….

              • Mathius says:

                I couldn’t help but notice that, other than being a page-long screed against the judge, the article offers virtually nothing in terms of what the prosecution actually alleged, what they argued, what happened / didn’t happen, etc.

                Kindof odd, no?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Just another attempt to paint the entire judiciary as filled with nothing more than left-wing activists who are looking for an excuse to deprive you of your religious beliefs…

              • It boils down too this man told his congregation to use wooden spoons and wooden dowels to hit their children, as young as 2 months old, if they were bad. I would not go to this man’s church. I have read many things about this case. That he demonstrated on his self how to use these instruments & told the parents to use them on themselves to make sure they weren’t use them too harshly — To this was a small group of mostly the same family that met in their homes and already believed they should use this type of punishment.

                Personally, I suspect these people are nuts.

  73. gmanfortruth says:

    OMG! Buck, Mathuius and Charlie. Guess what men, life ain’t fair. As part of the animal kingdom, we are not intended to be equal. Some are stronger physically and some mentally, it’s just the way it is and you(s) can’t change nature by whining about it or trying to fix it through government edict. Besides that, why do feel you have the right to intervene in anyone else’s business? The rich, the poor, all of them and their issues are none of your damn business. 👿

    • Gman … a FAR more intelligent human than you once said: “Manking is my business … the common welfare, etc., etc. He was speaking to the greater good, Mr. Dickens was. Learn from his charity, my militia friend. Accept your brothers and sisters as equals quit all the warring (with yourself) … join the human race …

    • Mathius says:

      life ain’t fair

      Wouldya lookit that!

      Gman’s coming around!

      Life ain’t fair. The deck is stacked.

  74. @Buck … Methinks this is the reason Charlie keeps trotting out that old fog horn though…

    Glad to see somebody is paying attention …:)

  75. @ Jon:

    I daresay Charlie would still have a problem with it, he would come up with something else the have nots dont have and say it was important, but the real issue is with the haves.

    Careful, Jon, you’re in danger of the foghorn here.

    It is about fairness and unfairness and right and wrong and that’s all it is about. Some of you cannot go near those terms and are forced to resort to nonsense. That’s your problem, fellas. This so called free market (that is conveniently not a free market for your argument, yet was born of a free market) [about here my heads spins like the kid in the exorcist] … is about as fair as the banana republic’s it enjoys exploiting (although that is getting more and more difficult these days, isn’t it)?

    We’re effectively a third world country because of this so-called free market system (that requires the government owned by the 1% to enforce its will). No government and like Mr. Noam Chomsky says, “Capitalism falls apart.”

  76. BF, you are one funny man (sometimes);

    They (the Poor) don’t stop there either. They always want more.

    How dare they? Can you imagine?

    And the wealthy? Do they not want more? Somehow it’s okay for them to make it off the backs of the poor (see middle class in American).

    Someone disconnect the hot air tube from BF’s belly … hurry!

    • Charlie

      ; They (the Poor) don’t stop there either. They always want more. How dare they? Can you imagine? And the wealthy? Do they not want more? Somehow it’s okay for them to make it off the backs of the poor (see middle class in American). Someone disconnect the hot air tube from BF’s belly … hurry!

      I am glad you agree, but I also know you will continue your irrational mindset and not understand anything.

      They demand more, but are not willing to provide effort for it.

      They are punished if they provide effort – their “free money” is withdrawn the moment they actually earn that money. So they do not earn. This is called “Dependency”

      But they – as you agree – are greedy. They want more today then they had yesterday.

      So, punished if they earn, plus the want of more – they merely demand more from their provider – who, to maintain their dependency, gives it to them – by stealing even more production from the earning class.

      This is why your Socialist ideals – while being immoral because it utilizes theft as a means – always ends in collapse.

  77. gmanfortruth says:

    @ Charlie- I’m part of the human race that believes in minding my own business. What other people have or don’t have is not of my concern. I would likely help someone that needs food if the times were that tough, but they aren’t as of yet.

    @Mathius- Yes, the deck is stacked, some folks are really smart, some are dumber than a bag of hammers. Some are very motivated, some would rather sit in front of the TV and collect their govt cookies. Yes, nature has stacked the deck against many people, but they can change their direction if they chose too!

    Other peoples stuff (money ect.) is still none of your business.

  78. Big day in WI tomorrow. Can use all your positive thoughts headed our way to ensure the steps already taken in our state continue. Go Walker!

    Good envy discussion above. I agree with BF wholeheartedly. It is all about envy. Not surprised by the sharp reaction and denial from Buck et al, as no one wants to think of themselves as that, but when you are merely judging someone by the size of their wealth, there can be no further explanation. Either own up to it or change your thinking.

  79. I’m part of the human race that believes in minding my own business. What other people have or don’t have is not of my concern. I would likely help someone that needs food if the times were that tough, but they aren’t as of yet.

    You’re the salt of the earth, Gman.

    Minding one’s own business is akin to looking the other way (to some). Times aren’t that tough yet … see the poverty statistics in the US. See how many go to bed hungry in the “greatest and most properous country in the world” …

    There’s a great line in Godfather III (really bad movie) but when even the mob won’t share, one guy says he’ll take what they won’t give. And he had money. Imagine those who have nothing and how much they’ll take if pushed to the wall?

    Something tells me you’ll be in for one long night behind the barracade, brother …

  80. They demand more, but are not willing to provide effort for it.

    They are punished if they provide effort – their “free money” is withdrawn the moment they actually earn that money. So they do not earn.

    Sometimes, BF, I think you’re just misguided … and then there are times when I think you are nuts.

    This is one of those times.

    Trust me (try to), most people (not all) aren’t looking to sit on their asses and do nothing with themselves. But accepting that would kind of destroy your entire hypothesis and all those absurd assumptions you make.

    But that lets you sleep better at night … so, nighty night.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Stop being so envious of the rich. It’s unseemly.

      • Good Grief-in this instance he’s not even talking about whether we should or shouldn’t give people welfare-he is stating that the rules attached to welfare discourage getting off welfare-hell it even discourages people from getting married and raising their families together. I don’t know of the number of young mothers who live with the father instead of getting married because they would Lose benefits.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I thought it all went back to envy? No?

          • Buck,

            It does – for you and Charlie.

            You envy the rich, so you need to justify stealing from them.

            The poor are a great justification.
            You don’t give a rat’s ass about the poor – they are merely a handy emotional tag to hang your needs on.

            You and your ilk justify stealing for the poor – but you and your ilk are the biggest takers of the stolen loot.

            You pay the poor just enough to be dependent – enough that the penalty of working is so high they will not leave.

            That makes them an annual “plea” for extending your thievery of the productive class
            “See! There are more of them every year – we need more of your loot!”

        • I don’t know of the number of young mothers who live with the father instead of getting married because they would Lose benefits.

          And maybe, just maybe, they have to move in with their dads because there are zero economic opportunities for them. Maybe they prefer having heat to no heat.

          Remove education opportunities from the poor and then complain they go on welfare and stay there. Where would you propose they go without educations in a depressed job market?

          • Charlie,

            What are you talking about “removing education opportunities?”
            Where? By who? When?

            You have no data.
            You make up stories.

            Depressed job market?

            Yet, if they go to N.Dakota, a burger-flipper is making $25 an hour.

            But they do not want to move. They do not want to work in the freezing winter of ND for $25 an hr.

            They would rather stay where they are – and get money for doing nothing at all.

            • Charlie,
              You are daft.

              A family from, say, Appalachia is going to up and move to Fargo, ND just like that.

              WHY NOT?

              You proclaim “nah, they won’t do that” – and you are right, they don’t.

              But you do not say why.

              You complain “oh they are poor with no jobs”

              Yet, there are rich jobs – everywhere.

              You say “oh they won’t go” – and you are right.

              But you still complain that theft is necessary to feed and cloth people who will not go to a job

              You are daft.

        • V.H.

          Single motherhood is an epidemic in the poor class for that reason – they are paid money for having kids without having an income.

          With no surprise, more than 40% of mothers judged to be poor are single, never married and do not live with the father(s).

          USToday
          In 2009, 41% of children born in the USA were born to unmarried mothers (up from 5% a half-century ago). That includes 73% of non-Hispanic black children, 53% of Hispanic children and 29% of non-Hispanic white children. Those are not misprints.

          But Charlie don’t care about incentives – he is a ego-centric irrational man.

          He wants to steal.
          He wants to justify it.

          The best way to do that is by claiming his theft is to help the poor.

          But Charlie couldn’t give a rats ass about the poor. If he did, he would not subject them to such a terrible consequence as dependency.

    • Charlie

      , most people (not all) aren’t looking to sit on their asses and do nothing with themselves.

      They are out spending their money that they did not earn.

      However, you expose your common fault – ignorance.

      You know incentives matter – but you cannot assign them because it would show your pogram to be so dangerously bad.

      You ignore study after study, the stats and facts about incentives and the dependency of welfare and why. We have generational welfare now, where now generations of welfare recipients who have never worked in their lives – from birth to death.

      But accepting that would kind of destroy your entire hypothesis and all those absurd assumptions you make.

    • Charlie,

      Please provide your social theory explaining how if I gave you something for free for doing nothing, promise it indefinitely, but take it away if you if you started to work… that you would go out and find work!

      You know you would not.

      If your wife said “I will pay you to stay home, and I’ll provide your wants and needs – but as soon as you find a job, I’ll stop paying you” – you know you’d pretty much stay home.

      But I am waiting for your social theory that shows something else.

  81. gmanfortruth says:

    Kathy, Walker in a landslide! 🙂 It’s time to nail the coffin shut on unions, they are outdated.

    Charlie, if it gets real bad, they will demand the government save them. They won’t make it this far out. Let’s face it, I’m not a bleeding heart liberal, if your poor and hungry, well, it sucks to be you. If your rich and happy, be nice and donate to the local soup kitchen.

  82. Actually, I do hope Walker wins tomorrow and speeds up the cause for some kind of political backlash against Bush III … Obama has completely turned his back on unions and it’s about time the morons insisting on supporting him find reason not to support him.

    As for walker … the sooner the wingnuts get their way, the sooner socialism will come to pass … it’s always darkest before the dawn, ya’ll

  83. The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.” — Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor from 121–180 A.D. and Stoic philosopher

  84. A while ago I posted that it would take a billion dollars to elect a President.

    Guess what… it does.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/the-billion-dollar-mitt-machine-20120530

  85. Buck,

    Come on, let’s hear your social theory, then. Put up or shut up, as they say.

    Do you believe in motivation and incentives?

    Do you believe that receiving a reward for something tends to create more of that same behavior?

    Do you believe that receiving a cost for something tends to dissuade more of that same behavior?

    These are basic posits of any social theory – but are they of yours?

    If not, please explain your theory of reward/punishment.

  86. Thinking of Buck and Charlie, some Mises wisdom:

    What assigns economics its peculiar and unique position in the orbit both of pure knowledge and of the practical utilization of knowledge is the fact that its particular theorems are not open to any verification or falsification on the ground of experience.

    Of course, a measure suggested by sound economic reasoning results in producing the effects aimed at, and a measure suggested by faulty economic reasoning fails to produce the ends sought.

    <b.But such experience is always still historical experience, i.e., the experience of complex phenomena.

    The application of spurious economic theorems results in undesired consequences.

    But these effects never have that undisputable power of conviction which the experimental facts in the field of the natural sciences provide.

    Therefore, the ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem’s correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience.

    The ominous import of this state of affairs is that it prevents the naïve mind from recognizing the reality of the things economics deals with.

    “Real” is, in the eyes of man, all that he cannot alter and to whose existence he must adjust his actions if he wants to attain his ends. The cognizance of reality is a sad experience. It teaches the limits on the satisfaction of one’s wishes.

    Only reluctantly does man resign himself to the insight that there are things, viz., the whole complex of all causal relations between events, which wishful thinking cannot alter. Yet sense experience speaks an easily perceptible language. There is no use arguing about experiments. The reality of experimentally established facts cannot be contested.

    But in the field of praxeological knowledge neither success nor failure speaks a distinct language audible to everybody.

    The experience derived exclusively from complex phenomena does not bar escape into interpretations based on wishful thinking. The naïve man’s propensity to ascribe omnipotence to his thoughts, however confused and contradictory, is never manifestly and unambiguously falsified by experience.

    The economist can never refute the economic cranks and quacks in the way in which the doctor refutes the medicine man and the charlatan.

    History speaks only to those people who know how to interpret it on the ground of correct theories.
    —————

    And that is how it is with the likes of Charlie, Buck and Mathius – if they willing abandon reasoning, and proclaim that their thoughts are omnipotent even in the face of their own contradictions, they point to their experience in away that -to them- confirms them.

    Thus, they -to themselves- remain un-refuted, and their crackpot economic theories continue to be spewed and seized upon by others -like them- are naive, unreasoned and confused.

  87. To Buck, 1+1

    The inequality of incomes and wealth is an inherent feature of the market economy. Its elimination would entirely destroy the market economy.

    What those people who ask for equality have in mind is always an increase in their own power to consume.

    In endorsing the principle of equality as a political postulate nobody wants to share his own income with those who have less.

    When the American wage earner refers to equality, he means that the dividends of the stockholders should be given to him. He does not suggest a curtailment of his own income for the benefit of those 95 percent of the earth’s population whose income is lower than his.

    Exactly.

    Buck demands the rich share with him and his ilk.

    It never crosses his mind that he should sell his computer and car, etc. and gift it to starving Africans.

    The common mantra of Buck’s ilk:

    Freedom (and other’s wealth) for me, but not for you

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Sigh. Charlie, you got that fog horn handy??

      BF, where have I ever argued for the elimination of all inequalities in income and/or wealth? You continue to put words in our mouths to make your own point. Usually your arguments are much better than that, whether or not I agree with you.

      • Buck

        I am allowed to put words into your mouth because you have absolutely refused to place your principles and theories up for review here

        You are moot.

        You have nothing.

        You spew crap.

        You complain.

        Yet you do not supply the source by which you measure your opinion and that of others

        And until the day you do, you will have words put into your mouth, because that is all the rest of us can surmise from you.

  88. BF, Daft this (you moron).

    Maybe they (the family from Appalachia or South Central, etc.) don’t have a dime to make the move. Maybe there’s no guarantee for that burger job (you idiot). Maybe hearing there are jobs in another state far from where they live isn’t exactly an affordable move.

    And, of course, maybe they didn’t hear it (because they don’t have an arrogant pissant like yourself blowing smoke in their ears)?

    An absolute moron sometimes (you).

    But I still love you, brother. There’s always one like yourself in a crowd … and they’re always funny.

    • Charlie,

      But you lie.

      In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term.

      The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”

      The typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning.

      For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation

      You prescribe a condition to a group that is very very small – the really poor, but you assign your solution to a huge, huge group that is not.

      That is your problem with your position, Charlie.

      You lie.

      They CAN go to the jobs – they have a car, and lots of toys to take with them.

  89. gmanfortruth says:

    @Charlie, There are thousands of good people who leave their families behind for lengthy periods to make things better. Military service often requires this, as well as many moves. Fishermen, Oil rig workers, are just a few who will leave for a long time to make a good living for their family. Too bad you can’t see that it is more than possible for someone to chase work, but then again, why bother, they can just collect their government cookies and stay poor.

  90. gmanfortruth says:

    @ Flag, Watching you argue with Abbott and Costello is humorous, but a quick change of subject. It looks as commodities will be dropping most of the summer before they explode this fall. What is your opinion on the next 6 months or so economically? How will Greece affect us?

    • Greece is only the first domino.

      Here is the problem

      Here are the only two scenarios:
      1) Germany will bail out Greece.
      What does this mean?
      It means that Greece can do whatever it wants, spend however it wants, and Europe will pay for it. Nothing will change for Greece.
      …and Spain and Italy and Portugal and Ireland will all learn that lesson.
      Consequence:
      Their debts will get deeper, the economics will get worse and the situation will become more desperate …. and be exactly at the same place here right now…

      So no matter what, the second scenario is inevitable, when, finally 2) Germany finally says “enough”

      Then Greece will leave the Eur and abandon its obligations in that currency.
      What are the European bankers going to do about that?
      Answer: nothing except bite the bullet.

      So what lesson with the rest of the PIIGS learn?
      Do the same thing.

      The Euro will be finished – the EU will be finished. Good riddance.

      The European banks will be crushed.
      They have insurance.
      They are insured by American banks.
      The Europeans will demand compensation.

      The American banks will not be able to pay.

      Now what?

  91. How California Unions Hijacked the Golden State
    By LIZ PEEK, The Fiscal Times

    Very interesting read….some facts from the article:

    1) Earlier this week, Governor Jerry Brown announced that the state’s budget deficit will approach $16 billion this year, up from $9.2 billion projected just a few months ago. Years of misguided financial policies have led to this: stifling taxes and savage cuts to public services – including Medicaid, childcare and welfare programs.

    2) A state with 12 percent of the country’s population and one third of its welfare recipients. A state with the nation’s lowest bond ratings, the second-highest marginal income tax rate and the third highest unemployment rate. Most important – a state that CEOs rank the worst in the country for doing business. Dead last! For the eighth year in a row.

    3) The upshot? Businesses are leaving California. Spectrum Location Solutions reports that 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state in 2011, an increase of 26 percent over the previous year and five times as many as in 2009. According to the Labor Department, California’s private employment actually shrank 1.4 percent over the past decade, while Texas added 1.15 million jobs.

    4) What makes California so special? A profound antipathy to private enterprise and simultaneous embrace of public employee unions.

    5) While state and local obligations have soared, California has steadily hiked taxes and enacted regulations that make it difficult to do business in the state, leading to shrinkage of the tax base. What to do? California needs to enter the jobs sweepstakes, and staunch the exodus. This will require addressing the complaints of large and small companies that have been wooed by Texas, Arizona and other states.

    6) Unfortunately, Joseph Vranich, a corporate relocation coach who chronicles his state’s decline, says, “There is no evidence that California’s hostility to business has changed one iota.”

    7) The Milken Institute says operating a business in California costs 23 percent more than the national average. Permitting is expensive and time consuming; restaurant permits available in other states within a couple of months can take 2 years. On his blog, Vranich says a company leaving the city of Los Angeles for another state can save up to 40 percent.

    8) Business people complain of California’s cumbersome environmental codes and the high cost of energy – handicaps that are self-induced and about to get worse. Having adopted the nation’s most aggressive “renewable portfolio standards” – along the lines of those proposed by President Obama for the entire country, California’s utilities are loading up on renewable energy sources that cost 50 percent more than plentiful natural gas.

    9) Moreover, Cap and Trade rules are set to go into effect next January – rules that will add an extra burden on top of the state’s already high power costs. Firms are dealing not only with escalating fines and costs, but also with uncertainty. “No one really knows how it’s going to work,” says Mr. Vranich.

    10) This isn’t rocket science. Governments can’t continue to load higher costs onto a shrinking taxpayer base. In tough times, half of the state’s income tax is shouldered by one percent of filers. This is an unhealthy situation, especially since the number of tax returns in the state reporting income above $500,000 dropped by one third between 2007 and 2009 as the economy softened and people left the state.

    D13: Nothing else needs to be said.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Colonel, Don’t worry, the Democrats will eventually blame somebody. Ronald Regan is a good target, he can’t defend himself. Somehow though I think Bush I might get the nod. We could make it like a beauty contest and have all those who could be at fault (no Democrats of course) get on stage in drag and see who the winner is 😆

  92. @Charlie,
    Ok, I find the foghorn thing quite funny, very witty of you. 🙂
    Still, I have to push you a little based on your answer. So its not envy, it is about fairness. What is fairness? What makes it right or wrong? Don’t get me wrong, I find exploitation wrong. I find the use of power or taking advantage of bad circumstances to be wrong. To have transactions that are only agreed to because of fear or desperation is not really a “voluntary” transaction is it? But let’s say that, as you often point out, not all are motivated by money, not all have that as a goal. So someone motivated by art or music spends all they earn on those things. Their taste is not mainstream, so the art they acquire is not highly valuable. No matter, they bought it for their own enjoyment and to support the artists. Another who was motivated by money put their earnings into businesses and other investments. He retires very rich, the other retires with only their most basics covered. Is that fair? Why or why not? If it is unfair, is it wrong? No exploitation occurred. Please explain….

    @Buck
    Copout answer. Do what you ask and then you will tell me if its enough? Whatever, I asked a theoretical question. IF all those things were done, would it still matter that some were super-wealthy and others were not? Why or why not? Is it envy if you still care that some have more than they “need” or more than you? If it is fairness as Charlie claims, how is that defined? What is fair? Why is it fair? Why is fairness right? What makes it right? How do you define your moral code and what right do you have to make me follow it? What if my definition of fair is different? Am I immoral? What makes it ok for you to force your idea of morality on others by government action? How is that different than a theocracy?

    • He retires very rich, the other retires with only their most basics covered. Is that fair? Why or why not? If it is unfair, is it wrong? No exploitation occurred. Please explain….

      I’ll answer this one first. I have no problem with either scenario, Jon, but I’m not talking about the inequities between someone who retires with 1 or 5 or 10 million because they earned and saved it. Nor would I make a case for an artist who chose to live borderline poverty (or in poverty). My problem is with those who have no shot (or one so small it is nearly non-existent) vs. those who walk into the game unchallenged (whether through inheritance, trust funds, etc.); the idea that those with so much get to protect themselves with the government they own (now we’re talking the 1%, not some guy who saved $10 million because $10 million isn’t a drop to the 1%).

      Now, I also don’t happen to believe one man can be worth $100 million and another minimum wage but that’s another argument for another day (dealing with market values, etc.); a part of Marxism I happen to believe.

      Now, part 2 … To have transactions that are only agreed to because of fear or desperation is not really a “voluntary” transaction is it?

      No, it isn’t. And the same way not everybody can just pick up and move to North Dakota and for very valid reasons (North Dakota is where I happened to live when I first went to college and while I’m at it, most of my next book takes place—Rough Riders, July 2012) … there are those who live in constant fear of losing their jobs (especially in this economy). BF sees those who do lose their job and then collect unemployment or in other cases welfare as stealing from others. That’s just stupid (not another word for it). I won’t get into what you do with all those laid off over the last 4 years if there wasn’t unemployment (I think you can figure that out for yourself), but the power employers have over those who work for them is every bit as violent as a gun; it ultimately decides whether or not they eat. When people are about to starve, I suspect they’ll do whatever they need to do. I would. BF wouldn’t because in his 2,400 sq. ft. world, he believes he is God.

      He is also out of his friggin’ mind (and I think he’s proved it today more than ever) but again, that means bringing back the foghorn and I’d just wake up my wife if I do that again.

      Peace, brother … 🙂

      • Charlie, I know you are not talking about that per se, but it goes to the root of your thinking. If you do not have a problem with one retiring a billionaire and the other nearly penniless, so long as those were the results of their choices, then that is good. However, if that is true, then you have to accept that, at least in some cases, there are very rich among us and very poor among us that got their of their own accord. Perhaps you know this, but the concern is that if you lump all together by government action or other means of “equalizing”, how do you determine who deserves to have wealth taken and who deserves to have it given to them? What decides? Who decides? Does socialism distinguish such things? From what I have seen it does not.

        Now as for the advantages of some, I get that it is unfair, but I do not see that it is wrong. There are physical and mental advantages as well, are those wrong? Is it wrong that I am too short and too lousy a jumper to pursue basketball? Is it wrong that I, who love science, do not have the talent and the mind to become as known or as brilliant as Einstein? Is it wrong that I, as a male, can never carry and birth a child, even if I want to? No, it is not wrong, it is life. We do not always get what we want, and we do not have equal ability and talent. Granted, wealth is not a genetic quality, but there are advantages and disadvantages in every life, some material, some physical, some social, some cultural. It is how we use them that matters in the end.

        Now, on the second part, I get that some decisions feel forced. In some cases it is perception, it is risk aversion rather than an actual inability to make a choice. I know that there are times people stay in a job because they fear losing it, and they put up with exploitation or abuses because of this. I do not condone the abuses, they are vile and evil. I would like to say, however, that just because one is afraid does not mean the threat is real, or that they have no choice. Fear drives much evil in this world, and permits even more evil to remain when it could be stopped by simple, tho difficult, chouces. This may not always be the case, but it is often the case.

        Another anecdote, and perhaps another part of my distrust for government. My most difficult time financially was caused and perpetuated by government regulation. I had issues relating to costs of vehicle registration and inspections that I violated because I could not afford them. then the ensuing tickets made the situation worse. The more I drove seeking or engaging in work, the more it cost me. I had to get help to pay the county off so that I could work, then I was able to pay back my friend who helped me. Were it not for government restrictions and regulations, I would never have struggled so long. Now, my initial struggles were caused by overextending myself, but nothing in the private market stopped my recovery, only the government stood in the way of that. Still, it demonstrates how financial hardship can make certain choices impossible or riskier than they would otherwise be. I also know, however, that much of the government stuff that is supposed to be a benefit is a restriction to the poorest. Much of what keeps them down is not exploitation, but the unbending nature of law.

        • If you do not have a problem with one retiring a billionaire and the other nearly penniless,

          I do have a problem with a gap that wide … probably because I cannot accept that one person could earn a billion dollars on their own (that does go to some of my Marxist belief but we’d never agree there, I don’t think). The idea that it is impossible for anyone to have solo success; others in society had to have played a role but their investment (i.e., teachers) are ignored (they get a salary, some benefits [unless they live in WI–thank you, Barrack Obama, for all your help there] and are forgotten). A CEO who can bankrupt a company can walk away with $20 million in bonus. That is obscene and immoral (to me).

          I think my example was 1 or 5 or 10 million (as an example). Billionaires while families have to live on minimum wage 40 hour week seems absurd to me. Nobody “Needs” a billion dollars, yet there are people who go to bed hungry; others who are nailed down in poverty. Can’t the billionaire live with a couple of million … even 10 million (just an example) … since he can’t possibly earn a billion (not to my mind, not by himself), why does have to have a billion? His billion ultimately permits him to corrupt a government, etc.

          I’ll get to more as I can during the day (may have to wait until night) … but thanks for keeping it civil, Jon.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Jon,

      Didn’t mean that last answer to come across as a dodge or cop out. If we truly provided everyone with food, shelter, health care, education and a living wage, I sincerely doubt you would still see an ever-increasing income/wealth gap. Now would there still be the poor and the rich? Of course, and such is life. But there would be a growing middle class, as opposed to the shrinking middle class today.

  93. @Matthius …

    Well, I looked up suicide rates by profession and didn’t see much about hedge fund managers … so literarlly, it appears as though you might be out of your mind.

    Then there was this: http://blog.acpinternist.org/2012/04/high-risk-profession-suicide-rate-of-us.html

    I don’t doubt you work hard, my friend. I seriously doubt you kill yourself (figuratively, of course) … working hard and killing oneself are two different things.

    And as I’ve said before … for someone killing themselves (figuratively), you’re on here an awful lot during the course of a day. Not a knock, just a fact. I doubt RN’s, Doctors, EMS people, etc., have the same downtime … and I suspect the times they have to be “on” are probably much more stressful than yours.

    So it goes.

    • Tch Tch…..my Plutonian Canoli friend…..do you know how stressful it is to deal with you? However, I have your number and understand your Marxist stance and your answers are going to be down the line Marxist….and that is ok by me. You have every right to be wrong….(you have to be wrong because only one of us can be correct and since I am Colonel, it is written that I cannot be wrong.) 🙂

      • Colonel … at least YOU make sense. I can accept that you can’t be wrong because you’re the colonel way sooooner than I can accept the hot air balloon … and having Gman join his chorus is like having the cake to eat with it too … 🙂

  94. @ Gman……you did not ask me but what the hell……Re: Greece. I do not see Greece per se having an effect on us as long as the rest of Europe does not fall in the same manner. Greece will go back to being Greece…….

    If the stack of dominoes tips and there are several countries that fall, the world banking system could take a hit but the only effect it will have on the United States is in the loan business and whether or not we dumped some money into those countries. It is possible that a severe inflationary time will come but we are already in that…this administration has done that and it will be worse next year. But, there is no real protection in hyper inflation….in actual terms. In individual still cannot walk into the local store with a handful of gold and buy toilet paper. Those of us who planned wisely, will be able to weather the storm….those that spent unwisely will have a harder time. All of these policies that Obama has put in are hurting the very people he claims to be worried about. I cannot wait until January 1, 2013. The middle class and the poor are going to be so slammed and then they are going to sit around and wonder what happened to the great Messiah.

    Germany will come out of it in good position but the Denmarks and Norways and Austrias will not weather so well. It will spread like wildfire to the Syrias, and Ethiopias and African countries. There is no world power nor United Nations that can save anything and there is no military power out there, save ours, that has the strength to confiscate anything. And even if you do confiscate things…..what then. There is no market.

    The strength will come in the trade between peoples without government interference. And the trade will be……whatever someone needs at the time. It could be coconuts.

    Some of America’s pensions will be hurt if they are invested in Europe (which is very stupid but worse things have been done). I do think that the dollar will survive over all other currencies. I also see the government trade and commodity issues dying on the vine. Government debt could be eliminated simply by default and that could happen very easily. Since we are the borrower greater than that of lender………we come out reasonably well. I see the commodities market going bust and I see venture capital drying up. Buying up futures will solve no problems and is a false dichotomy. The treasury can always print money but the more it prints, the more worthless it becomes.

    I am not worried about the riots and things as I have protected myself from that. People can get mad and burn down buildings and rob each other but to what end? Frustration? Burning down a building may make you feel better but it does not feed you or your family and no one owes anyone anything.

    Marxists and Socialist all seem to think that people will just honestly band together for the common good and split everything equally. However, history has proven that theory all wrong and the Socialists and Marxists still used violence to force equality. When that happens, there is still a 1% and there is still violence and force…so they cannot argue about force in capitalism without arguing the use of force in socialism.

    If it all collapses, there will be war among Nations….and again…..the strongest will survive. We will be ok, weaker, but a survivor.

  95. This is the CEO of Pimco – the largest bond fund.

    QE 1 2 and 3 are not working.
    There must be fundamental reforms.
    But there won’t be.
    Keynesianism is not working, and Keynesianism is all the policy-makers know. Like Charlie and Buck, all they know is Socialism, but it will not work, but that is all they will ever have and that is all they can give.

    Greece is not going to solve its problems, he says.
    He hopes that Germany, France, Italy, and Spain will come up with a solution.
    He isn’t sure.

    Greece will exit the eurozone.
    How disorderly will this be?
    We don’t know, he says.

    What about bank runs in Spain — contagion?
    It’s a real risk, he says.
    There are no firewalls. He’s right.
    He hopes there will be some soon. I ask: Like what?
    If the idiots who designed this monstrosity did not impose any firewalls in 1990-1999, why should we think they can impose some over the weekend?
    They did not see this coming.

    He worries about a replay of 2008.
    He thinks investors should go to safety.

    The interviewing talking heads are worried. The CEO has no answers.

    Nobody knows.

    How should we act? He has no specifics.

    This is why the interview is worth watching: the absence of solutions from the establishment economist, politicians, policy makers. They are all blindsided because they are not Austrian economists.

    Keynesianism has plated out.
    There is no fall-back theory.
    So, there is no fall-back scenario.
    But he says we need one.
    Like what?

    He does not say. He does not know.

    But many of you who have read my posts do know.

  96. A LAWYER WITH A BRIEFCASE CAN STEAL
    MORE THAN A THOUSAND MEN WITH GUNS.

    This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way.

    The Lawyers’ Party, By Bruce Walker

    The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers Party.

    Barack Obama is a lawyer. Michelle Obama is a lawyer.

    Hillary Clinton is a lawyer. Bill Clinton is a lawyer.

    John Edwards is a lawyer. Elizabeth Edwards was a lawyer.

    Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).

    Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.

    Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:

    Harry Reid is a lawyer. Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.

    The Republican Party is different.

    President Bush is a businessman.

    Vice President Cheney is a businessman.

    The leaders of the Republican Revolution:

    Newt Gingrich was a history professor.

    Tom Delay was an exterminator. Dick Armey was an economist.

    House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.

    The former Senate Majority Leader Bill First is a heart surgeon.

    Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.

    The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.

    The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like First, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich. The Lawyers Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America .. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers Party, grow.

    Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail?….Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation. This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

    Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become adverse parties of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

    Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.

    When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

    Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

    The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association go to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Yup, it’s all the fault of those dang lawyers!

      No way to run a country? Care to compare the records of Clinton (lawyer) and Dubya (businessman)?

  97. Naten53 says:

    Wish I had time tonight to watch the transit of Venus. Have a perfet box to make a pinhole camera out of, but have an appointment tonight after work that prevents it.
    http://news.yahoo.com/safely-watch-transit-venus-tuesday-121913419.html

%d bloggers like this: