Penn State Proud…

OK. So several of you asked for my thoughts on the sanctions levied against the Penn State University Football program last week. I initially thought that it would be unwise for me to weigh in. It is certainly a subject that I am passionate about. One that I am emotionally attached to. My concern was that those who oppose my point of view would remain as callous as they have been in the past, that logic and thought would not be applied to the subject, and thus I would be doing nothing but setting myself up to get angry and to hold a grudge against some folks. I have given myself a week to settle down, really think about what has transpired, and try to look at different points of view. So I will offer my thoughts. Realistically, I don’t much care who does or doesn’t agree with me. These are, after all, only my opinions and thoughts. Take them for what they are worth…

So to re-visit what actually happened. All I can say is that I am extremely disappointed in the senior members of the university that actively worked to cover up what was happening. This includes the three we all have discussed before: President Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Tim Curley. My disappointment also extends to Joe Paterno. While I don’t necessarily accept every part of the Freeh report (because it jumps to a lot of conclusions, failed to address inconsistencies in its conclusions, and failed to interview some very key people), the report does make it clear that to some degree all four men are responsible for Jerry Sandusky continuing to have the opportunity to molest innocent boys.

I say to some degree, not because I blindly don’t want to accept facts, but because there are inconsistencies, there are assumptions made, and because I am not willing to accept that all are either 100% guilty or 100% not guilty. I don’t think anyone but those four men know just how it all went down. As for Paterno, it is easy to attack a dead man. It is clear that he didn’t do enough, and therefore I am fine with his being removed as the Penn State coach. But I am still not sold on him being the monster that some want him made out to be. What he did do is unclear. But what he didn’t do is less unclear. He failed to properly follow up on the allegations. His inaction put young boys at risk. His reputation is ruined, despite the plethora of good things that he did. This one act has tarnished his legend forever. That is a sad reality.

Despite that fact, we will never know why he acted as he did. There are those who assume it was to “protect the football program from embarrassment.” But you don’t know that. Allow me to offer an alternative theory: Paterno was an old-school Italian. Italians of that generation were very loyal. Perhaps he did what he did out of some sort of misguided loyalty to a former friend, an attempt to stop the bad acts while getting his friend help. I am NOT saying that this is the answer. I am only saying that it is a possibility. One of several I have thought of. As I said, we may never know the reason why he acted as he did. But the point is that everyone needs to accept the fact that they also don’t know and there are many possibilities. Protecting the football program is a logical reason, and maybe the actual reason, but you don’t know that. Neither do I. We never will. That should be kept in mind as you pass judgement and scream for punishment.

I am acutely aware that there are some who have decided that you know everything about what happened, and with your all knowing abilities you have reserved the right to pass judgement. Consequently you will claim that some blind loyalty to Paterno or an unwillingness to face the facts has clouded my judgement and won’t allow me to admit that Paterno was a dirtbag who did X, Y, and Z. To you I say save your breath. Your close-mindedness and rush to judgement without facts are a key shortcoming that you have to deal with.

As for the sanctions levied against Penn State by the NCAA. I certainly think that they were beyond harsh.But I also think they are beyond what the NCAA had the right to impose and that they were done for entirely the wrong reasons. Further, the statements made my NCAA President Emmert were short-sighted, self-serving, and factually incorrect. Let me start with what was actually said during the announcement that I patently disagree with….

Our goal is not to just to be punitive, but to make sure the University establishes an athletic culture and daily mindset in which football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing, and protecting young people.

First of all, the goal was just to be punitive. Nothing more and nothing less. These sanction were unnecessary if the intent was to “change the culture.” The scandal itself changed the culture. Not a single person impacted by the sanctions levied by the NCAA are among those guilty of the horrific things that happened. In fact it can be argued that NONE of the people who are guilty were impacted by this at all and 100% of those impacted had nothing to do with it. Great job, NCAA, you punished EVERYONE ELSE except the guilty parties. You even punished at least one of the victims, who after the announcement issued a press release stating he disagreed with the penalties and noting that as a die-hard PSU football fan, he is now being punished for the crimes committed against him.

Additionally, here is where I have a serious issue with what the NCAA’s carefully crafted message is implying. Football was placed ahead of educating young people? How exactly is that the case? How fitting that after making such a ridiculous statement, Penn State was again the NUMBER ONE major football school on the list of academic achievement. They graduate a higher percentage of their student athletes than ANY OTHER MAJOR FOOTBALL PROGRAM (link will take you to article). If you want to attempt to claim that football was placed ahead of protecting young people, that is one thing. But to add educating into the statement, you are flat out lying.

And that brings to mind another point I want to make about what is being said out there lately. I have read dozens of articles where the statement has been made that this scandal ends the “grand experiment” of Joe Paterno and proves it to ultimately be a failure. WHAT?!?!?!? This scandal had nothing to do with the “grand experiment.” For those who don’t know what I am talking about. Paterno’s grand experiment was to prove that a college can remain successful in major football while still adhering to the primary purpose of attending college: getting a good education. This scandal had nothing to do with that. The grand experiment was a resounding success. They are the best football program in the country in terms of academic achievement. Anyone claiming the experiment was a failure on the heels of this scandal is clearly one of those close-minded folks who lack critical thinking ability that I mentioned previously.

More than 100 years ago, the NCAA was created to assure that sports are fully integrated into our colleges and universities and that athletic programs wholly embrace the values of a higher education.

As far as this statement goes, as I mentioned above, this scandal had nothing to do with the “values of a higher education.” Trying to consistently link this scandal to some sort of academic failure at Penn State University is misleading and flat out wrong….

And for those of you who are saying that these were just statements and didn’t really mean anything, how about the following “sanctions” imposed by the NCAA:

Fifth, the University’s athletic program will serve a five-year period of probation, during which it must work with an Academic Integrity monitor of the Association’s choosing.

and

In closing, let me say that this case involves tragic and tragically unnecessary circumstances.  One of the grave dangers stemming from our love of sports is that the sports themselves can become “too big to fail,” or even too big to challenge.

The result can be an erosion of academic values that are replaced by the value of hero worship and winning at all costs.  All involved in intercollegiate athletics must be watchful that programs and individuals do not overwhelm the values of a higher education.

It is clear that the NCAA is positing that Penn State, in addition to the ethical issues (which were clearly present), was plagued with some sort of academic integrity issues (which clearly were NOT present). They were so bad that the school was placed on an academic probation that is significantly longer than schools which were actually guilty of academic impropriety. USC received 3 years probation for their cheating scandal. Boise State got three years. North Carolina got two years. Penn State got 5 years, and they didn’t even have any academic issues.

As for the actual football penalties imposed…

First, the NCAA is imposing a fine of $60 million upon the University with the funds to be used to establish an endowment to support programs around the nation that serve the victims of child sexual abuse and seek to prevent such abuse from happening.  This amount is the equivalent to one year’s gross revenue by the football team.

OK, I can live with this. It continues the effect of punishing those who were innocent, though. For those who don’t know how major university athletic programs work, the big money sports like football and basketball help to fund all the other sports that don’t make money (volleyball, wrestling, field hockey, track, etc). So all PSU athletes will suffer from the fine (not to mention that the financial impact to PSU will be far greater than this as most estimates put the total $ that Penn State will ultimately lose via repercussions from the sanctions and lawsuits will top a quarter of a billion dollars).

Second, Penn State football will be banned from bowl games and any other post-season play for four years.

Completely punitive in nature. Punishing those who had nothing to do with this and having zero impact on changing the culture at Penn State. But I don’t care as much about this. You are just punishing the Penn State fans and the bowls themselves as PSU fans generally sell out bowl games no matter where they are. With the other penalties, they wouldn’t have gone to a good bowl anyway. So some crappy bowl that doesn’t normally draw a PSU size crowd just lost lost the opportunity to make more money.

Third, the Penn State football team will have its initial scholarships reduced from 25 to 15 for a period of four years.

Oh good, on top of hurting the university, they have merely ensured that 60 more high school kids in America won’t be afforded the opportunity to attend an institution of higher learning. Overall, no matter how you play it out, there are 60 less scholarships out there to be had. A small number for sure in a country of 300 million, but I thought education was important. Plus, given the high academic standards in the Penn State football program, 60 more athletes will be be denied the chance to get a great education in a top ten public university in America.

In order to minimize the negative impact on student-athletes, the NCAA will allow any entering or returning football student-athletes to transfer and immediately compete at the transfer university, provided he is otherwise eligible.

Even better, create a situation where other major football schools look to actively benefit from this tragedy. How fitting that USC, fresh off their own post-season bans and reductions in scholarships, was the first school to start contacting Penn State stars. What a great way to handle things, in addition to hurting the football program as a whole, you tell all these student athletes that they have the option to leave all their friends, relationships, academic achievements and just go to another school. And here is the best part, you think they should thank you for giving them the option to give up all they have built to start over somewhere else.

Fourth, the NCAA vacates all wins of the Penn State football team from 1998 to 2011 and the records will reflect these changes.

Again…. Nothing but vindictiveness and pettiness. Those wins were not the result of cheating or academic fraud. The only person the record mattered to was Paterno, who is now dead, and the players, who had nothing to do with this. So what reason was there to vacate 112 wins? Those games were won on the field by players who worked their asses off and did nothing wrong. The only reason was to be petty. Pound of flesh and all…

And here is one of my favorite comments from the press conference. When discussing why they didn’t instead impose the “death penalty” by shutting down the program completely for a number of years, they offered this gem:

Suspension of the football program would bring with it significant unintended harm to many who had nothing to do with this case.  The sanctions we have crafted are more focused and impactful than a blanket penalty.

How exactly did the sanctions imposed in some way eliminate the problem of causing significant harm to many who had nothing to do with this case? As I noted above, the “many who had nothing to do with this case” are the ONLY ones harmed by the penalties handed down.

And this is a big part of what upsets me about all the sanctions imposed. They only harm people who didn’t have anything to do with it. And I am tired of hearing from everyone that “yeah, but that is how it always works out. Every program that gets in trouble for whatever reason ends up with the innocent paying the price for the sins of the past.” That doesn’t make it right, people. It is dead wrong, not just in this case, but in EVERY case. If your penalty punishes others rather than the guilty, then you better find a different punishment.

How anyone can think it justifiable that the Penn State fans, the Penn State players, or anyone else has to pay the price for the actions they didn’t commit is beyond me. I have long believed that this is a fatal flaw in the NCAA punishment system. Until this is fixed, we will continue to somehow justify making innocent people suffer the punishment for crimes and acts committed by others. This is true now at Penn State, just as it was true at USC, Georgia Tech, Boise State, North Carolina, SMU, Indiana, and every other school handled this way by the NCAA.

I would like to add another thought about the “holier than thou” stance from hypocrites like Mark Emmert and the rest of the NCAA. I would like for them to admit their dramatic role in creating the very problem they claim to be working to overcome. If there is a mentality of football (or basketball or whatever other sport) is bigger than academics, bigger than ethics, bigger than whatever, then that mentality was created, nurtured, and condoned by the NCAA. THEY created that mentality by making the sport what it is. Creation of the BCS was the latest debacle from the NCAA that has been geared toward one thing and one thing only…. making money.

In making college sports a big time money maker, the NCAA is the primary offender in creating any type of culture that places sports programs (and the money they make) ahead of academics or ethics in many schools. In the end I believe that in the Penn State case, the ultimate reason for the cover-up was to protect the football program. But it wasn’t because they were worried that the reputation would be impacted negatively, it was because they were worried that the revenue stream would be impacted negatively.

I would just once like to hear the NCAA admit that they are just as much to blame for any “football is god” culture that exists on today’s campuses. But you can bet that we won’t hear that. Because the NCAA is too busy playing judge, jury, and executioner when kids who make them millions step out of line or when a program acts in exactly the manner that should be expected in the environment created by the NCAA.

Further, I would like to add that I think it is absolutely despicable that it has now come out the Penn State’s current President signed an agreement accepting the penalties that the NCAA gave to the university, but did so under threat. He was told that he could accept these punishments or the NCAA would instead give the university a 4 year death penalty and a $500 million fine. That amounts to signing a contract under duress and thus makes the contract null and void, in my opinion. The board should refuse to accept these penalties and take the NCAA to court questioning their right to take actions that are not in line with the scope and jurisdiction of the NCAA charter.

And for all of you applauding the demise of Penn State football. Rejoice. Soak it in. You demanded your pound of flesh for what happened there. You got your vindictive wish because the NCAA did what every corporation you detest does: They extracted your pound of flesh in order to protect their revenue stream. Problem is that they took their pound of flesh from innocent people, myself included.

These Current Players Make me Proud

Criminal actions were taken by a small group of men in the Penn State leadership. And criminal courts will punish them for what they did, exactly as should happen. Lacking the ability to take credit for what the criminal courts did, the NCAA merely found a way to punish someone, anyone, in order to cater to public pressure.

In the end, I certainly hope that these ridiculous penalties will not hurt the program as deeply as the initial speculations have discussed. A big step towards that came today when many of the great 2013 recruiting class at Penn State (#1 HS QB, #1 HS TE, #2 HS OG, #8 HS DT, among others) reaffirmed their commitment to come play football at Penn State University. I am quite proud that they are doing so. I am equally proud of the vast majority of current players who together made the decision that they are not leaving Penn State for another football school. That is Penn State pride. Despite the NCAA’s attempt to call the integrity and quality of the university’s football program, these young men still see the value of a Penn State education (one of the top ten public universities in America) and a tradition rich football program that they are proud to be a part of.

On September 1, 2012, the Penn State football team begins their quest to tell the NCAA to kiss their ass. I will be there with them. I will always proudly be Penn State…

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USW, Much of what you say I agree with, the wrong people are being punished because of a very small few pathetic people. While this event pales in comparison to the Catholic Church stuff, It still is wrong in it’s intent. The NCAA has always been ignorant to what the fans want, maybe the fans should just stop supporting their pathetic Bowl Games. THose who acted wrongly should pay the price, not innocent people who had nothing to do with it, I see a law suit coming! The future students of Penn State should not be affected at all. But thats what happens when Liberals run the show! 🙄

  2. Most of it is just strange.

    1) I laugh on how a University believes it can alter fact. They won “X” football games, no matter if Penn itself now thinks they didn’t. Rarely have I seen has such a bizarre act.

    2) Punish the kids because of one man. Is there anything more stupid? Oh, yeah – forgot that is what all governments practice. So, this merely a real life example of real life, kids!

    3) The man hasn’t even been tried yet. More real life, kids! You are punished before you are guilty, and if you’re innocent and after your guilty or proven innocent.

    The whole thing is laughable and not worthy of one second of thought by any reasoning person.

    If you went to school there, there is nothing to be ashamed – now, then, or in the future.
    And to waste a tear on a school – an inhuman institution – is just as pointless.

    • Loyalty is very powerful Flagster! Sometimes it can be very misguided, other times, it is very appropriate. I believe that folks who have a sense of loyalty are strong willed, even if that loyalty is misguided. In USW’s case, his loyalty harms nobody, therefore, it’s a good thing! 🙂

    • USWeapon says:

      @Flag…

      1) I laugh on how a University believes it can alter fact. They won “X” football games, no matter if Penn itself now thinks they didn’t. Rarely have I seen has such a bizarre act.

      It really is kind of bizarre. It is like the ministry of truth in “1984”. They actually think they have the power to re-write history…

      2) Punish the kids because of one man. Is there anything more stupid? Oh, yeah – forgot that is what all governments practice. So, this merely a real life example of real life, kids!

      Exactly my point. I am glad you agree.

      3) The man hasn’t even been tried yet. More real life, kids! You are punished before you are guilty, and if you’re innocent and after your guilty or proven innocent.

      I assume you mean the University personnel that did the covering up. Sandusky has been tried and convicted for what he did to the boys. But you are correct. None of the Penn State leadership has been convicted in any court at this point. Perhaps it would have been more prudent to wait until the criminal courts have had their say before you punish the university for their actions…

      If you went to school there, there is nothing to be ashamed – now, then, or in the future.

      I agree. I am in no way ashamed of the quality education that I received.

      And to waste a tear on a school – an inhuman institution – is just as pointless.

      I am not shedding any tears. But the baseless claims I outlined above that have been leveled at the university simply piss me off. I am “loyal” to Penn State, but not in the way you may think. It is merely pride in part of my history.

    • Behold the mighty Free Market at work in all it’s glory and efficiency!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Did you miss the part where the NCAA is a GOVT protected monopoly?

        Once again you swing for the fences and get nothing but air.

        • JAC, did you miss the part where the individual programs bring in the big bucks (what owns the government)?

          Once again, the bat falls from your hands and you’re left looking foolish.

          • Charlie,

            Without out government, the institution as it exists could not exist.
            Because it exists, and it benefits the ruling class, the ruling class provides extra funding on programs it wishes to enhance.

            But this could not happen if the prior system of government-education did not exist.

            If you do not like the ruling elite, stop supporting them by your demands to increase government.

            • The ruling elite created the government, my man. Take the power (money) from the ruling elite and maybe the government will work … it sure hasn’t with the ruling elite running the show … let’s try something different. I’m glad to see you’re opening that constipated mind of yours, BF 🙂

              • Charlie,

                Violent theives created government, who then became the ruling elite.

                Money is not their power. That is like saying “Apples” is their power.

                Violence is where they derive their power.
                Mao was correct is saying Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

                Money can buy those government guns, but votes buys those government guns just as easily. It is the existence of government and its guns that are for sale.

                Eliminate the government guns, and there is nothing to buy with either money (that you hate) or votes.

                But that’s the rub.
                You need government guns to promote your immoral system.

                You cannot advocate for its dismissal because you need them

                So you merely try advocating the purchases of government guns with money, but you are very happy to have those guns purchased by votes.

              • Should read
                “So you merely try advocating the elimination of purchases of government guns with money, but you are very happy to have those guns purchased by votes.

              • Government can never work. It starts off Ok but then gets perverted. The ruling elite and the government are one and the same. Look at who comes and goes from academia to government to business or is it from business to academia to government then again it may be from government to business then academia. Get real Charlie.

                Academia needs the government even more than business. Since they invented Student Loans and Government Grants went far beyond scientific R & D, the government is the only thing holding up those massive salaries for professors who do not teach and building all new and better buildings that College and University presidents can point to as their legacy.

      • Mathius,

        After you got a kid, your brain has melted.

        You believe an institution, funded by government, controlled by government, providing government-controlled cartel, is … a Free market.

  3. USW…..Hang in there, compadre’. I have your 6.

    Now, an interesting tidbit for you. I have a very good friend (yes, even Colonel’s have friends) that sits on the Board of Directors for TCU. She and I had a very interesting discussion concerning the “death penalty” for Penn State. Ok, you got some guys that made bad decisions and those decisions led to some very bad things that happened to kids. Ok…Joe Paterno’s legacy has been destroyed, the school is maligned, the living’s reputations have been destroyed, and the fines are hefty. It is over and that is all that should happen in my view.

    We, the lady and I, discussed this in length because they ( the board and every other college major board ) heard from the NCAA before the penalty was announced. The NCAA is being as hypocritical as national politics. The gist of the conference call was that Penn State was going to be used as an example…..because the first example of the death penalty to SMU did not work on a national scale and scared no one. How right you are that the NCAA has created the monster that it wants to kill now. Mentioned were the following:

    1) The paying and financial incentives to athletes that never would have qualified for college to begin with.
    2) The awarding of scholarships to athletes who were shown discriminatory preference over students with higher grade point averages.
    3) The creation of bogus college majors to ensure that the athletes will be able to remain college. (ex: a major in Ebonics, a major in Cultural Studies, a major in cooking (not to be confused with Chef school), a major in sports activities, a major in ergonomics, a major in internet studies)
    4) The creation of separate grading system in sports affiliations with the purpose of creating an easier road to keeping athletes in college.

    Accordingly, she (my friend) said that they expect a list of “new rules” soon from the NCAA and that the NCAA will be enforcing these rules using the same sanctions as levied against Penn State. This is designed to make the NCAA look good in the wake of the Penn State discoveries so that the NCAA does not get a black eye for creating the monster to begin with. The Board of the NCAA is on the hook unless it does something dramatic. Penn State gave them their way out. She said that new guidelines were going to be given to the extent that exceptional athletes were going to be scrutinized….for example: if a college quarterback is suddenly driving a brand new Porche and he has no job and his parents do not have the financial ability to afford such a thing, will be subject to dismissal and the application of the death penalty….and that will include an alumni “loaning his car or renting one to let someone drive”, sudden new clothes, an apartment in the most affluent part of town…..the buying of and “gifting” cars, homes, or any other type of incentive. The awarding of sports scholarships to individuals who were high school dropouts and GED recipients over that of more qualified students. The amount of scholarships is going to be closely watched and administered……not by the school itself, but the NCAA and that includes private colleges as TCU.

    Whether or not any of this will pass legal scrutiny has yet to be determined, but the general thought is that the NCAA can make and enforce any rule it wants if a college wishes to remain….in the NCAA.

    I do not know any more particulars, but it appears that Penn State will be the scape goat to clean up what the NCAA created. This, in no way, means that Penn State was not guilty of several things….but I wonder how many schools have “overlooked” rapes, sexual harassment, etc…..in favor of the money of college sports.

  4. USWeapon,
    I understand your feelings. I agree the NCAA statement was off-base in many areas, especially the ‘Academic’ parts. One of my first thoughts was “this seems like a warning to all other schools,” which I’m sure was part of their intentions.

    I also agree the NCAA created the “monster” of college sports being bigger than academics at many major universities. Anytime there’s this much money involved, there’s a strong motive to protect the program, whether at the school or NCAA level.

    Out of the 3 big sports in this country – football, basketball, and baseball, why are football and basketball such big college sports, and baseball is not? Is it because of the age-old baseball farm system, giving baseball players a route to the major leagues other than college? Maybe football and basketball need that type of system. Of course it will never happen – too much money in college sports. That “revenue stream” you mentioned.

    It’s also important to remember this is not a criminal judgment or penalty. Penn State joined the NCAA and agree to follow their rules. The NCAA has determined their rules were violated and determined the punishment. If you don’t want to follow the NCAA rules, then leave the NCAA.

    The thing that bothers me the most is that it seems Sandusky was never confronted about this. From the emails, the president, vice president, and athletic director, and most likely Paterno, discussed the situation and decided “to offer Sandusky professional help.” But I’ve seen nothing that indicated they actually did this. That is the failing that allowed the abuse to continue.

    As far as the actual punishment – this was a problem within the football program. How can you punish the football program without impacting fans and players not involved in the scandal?

    What punishment would you feel is appropriate that punishes only those involved?

    • Todd, it is interesting that even you are saying “most likely Paterno”, So you too have some reasonable doubt. So why did not the NCAA follow their own procedures and hold a proper inquiry? Instead, they used blackmail to get PSU to submit to the sanctions. Unfortunately, the PSU administration wants all of this to go away so badly, they will agree to anything. The BoT has approved the sanctions after meeting with President Erickson. As USW, said, the only ones showing any class in this are the current players who are guilty of nothing.

      • T-Ray,

        So you too have some reasonable doubt.

        No, “most likely” is not “some reasonable doubt”. I was trying to be diplomatic. I have not seen an email that Paterno wrote acknowledging this. But at this level, those types are comments are pretty rock solid. You can bet there were conversations to verify everyone’s agreement with the course of action.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      You have raised a key question that I also have been waiting an answer to. What happened with followup on getting Sandusky proff. help?

      It occurred to me that Paterno’s support of counseling instead of criminal reporting was consistent with his treatment of problem athletes. Many over the years were suspended but allowed to come back if they cleaned up. This leads me to think it was more about compassion and forgiving than protecting the program. This may be misguided but it is not as callous as football over all else.

      As is usually the case we should remember that human tragedy involves humans. Thus the reasons or explanations can be as complicated and convoluted as human nature itself.

      As for your baseball question…….. it is all about TV and timing. Baseball starts before the college basketball season ends. It also runs beyond the end of school. And of course, to many it is boring to watch, whether on TV or in person.

      Another interesting note on baseball. The sport does not get enough allocated scholarships to cover an entire team. Football gets 80, for example. Programs also use baseball to recruit higher academic achievers which help the “Athletic Program” maintain a higher GPA than if only the Football and Basketball teams were included in the data set.

      I agree with your premise that the farm system has had some affect. However, many of the good players are now electing college.

      One more note on the subject. It used to be if you signed with a baseball team out of high school you couldn’t play college sports of any kind. The NCAA changed this rule to allow professional athletes to go back to school and play a different sport. So in reality, how is this placing academics over athletics?

      • As is usually the case we should remember that human tragedy involves humans. Thus the reasons or explanations can be as complicated and convoluted as human nature itself.

        My Lord, JAC … you mean it isn’t black and white?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          We are not discussing ethics or morality here, but the rational humans use in making decisions. So YES, their reasoning can be muddled, especially given the lack of rational thinking in our country today. Black and White Charlie, NOT gray at all.

          • So YES, their reasoning can be muddled, especially given the lack of rational thinking in our country today. Black and White Charlie, NOT gray at all.

            You know what this reminds me of, JAC? I voted against it before I voted for it …

            WTF? Yes, but no? “especially given the lack …”

            Sweet Jesus, which side of the mouth are you speaking from, man?

            Yes, it’s muddled (gray) but black and white, not gray at all.

            All righty then …

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              Principles are black and white. That is the usual reference when arguments on color have occurred here at SUFA.

              A person’s thinking can be irrational or rational. That is NOT an area of gray, black or white, except that their thinking is either rational (white) or not rational (black) in the general sense. But the actual notions, reasons, excuses are not a matter for black and white determinations. Oh but wait, they are either true or false……… white or black!

      • JAC,

        It occurred to me that Paterno’s support of counseling instead of criminal reporting was consistent with his treatment of problem athletes. Many over the years were suspended but allowed to come back if they cleaned up. This leads me to think it was more about compassion and forgiving than protecting the program. This may be misguided but it is not as callous as football over all else.

        I agree. And if they had pursued “professional help,” I’d be Ok with that, as long as Sandusky is monitored, the behavior stops, and they get the victims professional help too. But when that didn’t occur, it became criminal, and part of the football program.

        As is usually the case we should remember that human tragedy involves humans. Thus the reasons or explanations can be as complicated and convoluted as human nature itself.

        Just remember this the next time you claim you jump on liberals for our plans to control the entire world!! 😉

        As for your baseball question…

        I agree there are many reasons. But the farm system gives young players a path to MLB that does not include college. That alternate path does not exist for football and basketball.

        One more note on the subject. It used to be if you signed with a baseball team out of high school you couldn’t play college sports of any kind. The NCAA changed this rule to allow professional athletes to go back to school and play a different sport.

        Yes, I’m aware of this. Don’t agree with it.

        So in reality, how is this placing academics over athletics?

        Do you mean placing athletics over athletics?

        Either way, I don’t understand your question or point…can you clarify?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          re; your question.

          It was in the right order, that is “academics over athletics”.

          My point was that the NCAA “claims” to be there to make sure academics have priority over athletics. If this is true then how does the changing of eligibility for pro athletes meet this stated mission.

          Obviously it does not. It is further proof to me that athletics is the primary and the rest is just about power and maintaining some phony front. In fact it seems to me the NCAA is more about trying to impose uniform rules of “conformity” in some attempt to create parity among schools. Quite “Progressive” in its actual mission I think. 🙂

          Re: The complexity of human nature. Don’t worry, I understand there are almost an infinite number of rationalizations and excuses the left uses to try and take over the world. Conformity with truth is not determined by the volume of reasons but by the use of REASON itself. 🙂 🙂

          • My point was that the NCAA “claims” to be there to make sure academics have priority over athletics. If this is true then how does the changing of eligibility for pro athletes meet this stated mission.

            Obviously it does not. It is further proof to me that athletics is the primary and the rest is just about power and maintaining some phony front.

            Well duh…I don’t know why I couldn’t see this last night…must have been ‘thunkin too hard.

            Quite “Progressive” in its actual mission I think.

            I agree!! 😉

            Conformity with truth is not determined by the volume of reasons but by the use of REASON itself.

            I agree with this too!! Wow, what a day! 😉

    • USWeapon says:

      @Todd…. Thanks for your reply. I will do my best to comment objectively…

      One of my first thoughts was “this seems like a warning to all other schools,” which I’m sure was part of their intentions.

      Do you think it is fair, for whatever reason, including as a warning to other schools, to levy sanctions against Penn State regarding academics when zero academic infractions occurred? That amounts to putting a man found innocent of murder in jail anyway as a warning to potential murderers out there….

      I also agree the NCAA created the “monster” of college sports being bigger than academics at many major universities. Anytime there’s this much money involved, there’s a strong motive to protect the program, whether at the school or NCAA level.

      I am glad to see that no one is disagreeing with this sentiment from me. It is one of the biggest issues that I have. The NCAA created this monster and now claims to be outraged that it exists.

      Out of the 3 big sports in this country – football, basketball, and baseball, why are football and basketball such big college sports, and baseball is not? Is it because of the age-old baseball farm system, giving baseball players a route to the major leagues other than college? Maybe football and basketball need that type of system. Of course it will never happen – too much money in college sports. That “revenue stream” you mentioned.

      That is an interesting concept that you have put forward. Does the farm system play into it? Perhaps it does, but I am not sure. JAC added some poignant thoughts on it already, but I can see where you are coming from. I am honestly not sure where I stand on that question at the moment. I will have to give it some thought.

      It’s also important to remember this is not a criminal judgment or penalty. Penn State joined the NCAA and agree to follow their rules. The NCAA has determined their rules were violated and determined the punishment. If you don’t want to follow the NCAA rules, then leave the NCAA.

      That is part of the problem. According to the charter, the NCAA does not have the right to do what they have done. They knew this and they knew that a subsequent lawsuit or challenge would expose that fact. In my opinion this is why they secured a written consent to the penalties prior to announcing them. They did so under a threat, but it was the only way to ensure that the challenge didn’t come and expose the fact that under the charter, they don’t have the right to intervene in this situation.

      The thing that bothers me the most is that it seems Sandusky was never confronted about this. From the emails, the president, vice president, and athletic director, and most likely Paterno, discussed the situation and decided “to offer Sandusky professional help.” But I’ve seen nothing that indicated they actually did this. That is the failing that allowed the abuse to continue.

      There were a lot of failures involved, although I agree with your thoughts here. I don’t know if Sandusky was or was not confronted or offered help. All we really know is that if he was, it wasn’t documented. That is one of the biggest problems with the Freeh report: They never talked to Paterno, Schultz, Curley, or Spanier. Doesn’t anyone think that is odd? That the NCAA acted based on a report that never spoke to any of the people accused and got their side of the story? How bizarre that people miss that little fact about this whole thing. And further they never gave Penn State the opportunity to appeal or question the NCAA’s decree….

      As far as the actual punishment – this was a problem within the football program. How can you punish the football program without impacting fans and players not involved in the scandal?

      Well the first question I have to ask is whether the football program is to blame? If a player at any school rapes another student, does that make it a football problem? Because one of the four men happened to be the football coach doesn’t necessarily make it a football problem. That the football program was part of the backdrop and is therefore assumed to be the reason (although as I said this was about money, not football), that doesn’t mean that there was a problem with the football program.

      When players get to get good grades without earning them or when coaches cheat to keep players eligible to play football, THAT is a problem within the football program. It is a fundamental problem with how the football program is run. This scandal had nothing to do with how the football program was run, how the players performed, or anything else to do with the football program. I understand the link you and many others are drawing to football at Penn State, but there is a big difference, in my opinion, between this being a problem with ethics for a few members of leadership at the university and this being a problem with the football program. The maximum link you can make to the football program at Penn State is the stand along decision of one man, who was fired and is now dead. How you link that to being a problem with the entire football program doesn’t add up for me.

      What punishment would you feel is appropriate that punishes only those involved?

      Prison. This is a criminal matter and the criminal courts will handle it. Charge all involved as accessories to child molestation and put them away. But when you punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty while having no impact on the guilty, you have gone astray in your sense of what justice is….

      • USWeapon,

        Do you think it is fair, for whatever reason, including as a warning to other schools, to levy sanctions against Penn State regarding academics when zero academic infractions occurred? That amounts to putting a man found innocent of murder in jail anyway as a warning to potential murderers out there….

        What is “fair”? That word is usually “not liked” around here. What’s fair to you may not be fair to me. Most punishment includes a component warning others – this is what will happen to you if you do something similar.

        Academics were mentioned in the statement, but I don’t think there are sanctions against Penn State regarding academics.

        And I wouldn’t compare this to “putting a man found innocent of murder in jail anyway as a warning to potential murderers out there.”

        According to the charter, the NCAA does not have the right to do what they have done.

        I didn’t know the NCAA does not have the right to levy sanctions. How are they able to do this then?

        That is one of the biggest problems with the Freeh report: They never talked to Paterno, Schultz, Curley, or Spanier. Doesn’t anyone think that is odd?

        Not really. He relied on documents and emails. They painted a pretty clear picture.

        Well the first question I have to ask is whether the football program is to blame?

        Sandusky was a football coach when this started. He used that position to gain access and confidence. Paterno, Schultz, Curley, and Spanier where the ones in charge of that program.

        If a player at any school rapes another student, does that make it a football problem?

        If the program covers it up – YES.

        Because one of the four men happened to be the football coach doesn’t necessarily make it a football problem.

        One was the coach. The other 3 were his superiors. The four of them are the football program.

        When players get to get good grades without earning them or when coaches cheat to keep players eligible to play football, THAT is a problem within the football program.

        Yes.

        The maximum link you can make to the football program at Penn State is the stand along decision of one man, who was fired and is now dead. How you link that to being a problem with the entire football program doesn’t add up for me.

        How is this “the stand along decision of one man?” Are you now saying this was all Paterno’s fault?

        The four men involved in the cover-up are the football program.

        Prison. This is a criminal matter and the criminal courts will handle it. Charge all involved as accessories to child molestation and put them away. But when you punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty while having no impact on the guilty, you have gone astray in your sense of what justice is….

        Yes, and that is in progress. But a football program that allows this to happen needs to be punished too. The “innocents” you constantly refer to are only being “punished” because they consider the football program a major part of the university.

        In closing, let me say that this case involves tragic and tragically unnecessary circumstances. One of the grave dangers stemming from our love of sports is that the sports themselves can become “too big to fail,” or even too big to challenge.

        The result can be an erosion of academic values that are replaced by the value of hero worship and winning at all costs. All involved in intercollegiate athletics must be watchful that programs and individuals do not overwhelm the values of a higher education.

        I agree with this statement, if you emphasis the “can be”. You seem to feel the football program should not be penalized, even though this situation is a football coach abusing children, being protected by the four men in-charge of the football program.

        You seem to be getting a little caught up in the “hero worship” of the football program?

  5. USW, Thanks for posting your thoughts. Again you have done an excellent task of presenting the case. The truly guilty party has been convicted. It is just unfortunate that so many opportunities to stop him years ago were missed. For outsiders, when you hear alum talking about the State Penn in Happy Valley, they mean just that as Rockville State Prison is just up the road. I hope Sandusky is sent there as that is what he deserves. (As a side note, I once broke in.)

    Like you I am frustrated with the administration that capitulated to blackmail. At least they should have held out for a one year review to be conducted after the trails to see if the punishment fit the crimes. The Freeh report is an indictment, hence one sided. It is also full of speculation. The facts presented in it are quite sparse and can be interpreted many ways. The defense has yet to speak.

    In the readings I have done, there is contradictory information. The physician friend of McQueary’s father who was present at the first report, asked three times if he witnessed a sexual act. Three times McQueary said. “No.” As a physician, he would be aware of the reporting laws, thus the specific question. The result of this conversation was that McQueary was advised to see Joe not the police. I bring this up because it is an example of how these things can go down. The topic is taboo to most people, hence they will soften the facts in subsequent conversations. If the right trigger words are not used, then it becomes unclear what the reaction should be. It also points out why a trained investigator should be asking the questions.

    Something went wrong during the 10 days following the 2001 incident. I am willing to wait for the trials to learn what that was as should everyone at this point in time. From the PSU underground, I hear that there a lot of facts not yet presented. This could fall either way. In any case, all parties are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. I am patient and will await the results. I fully expect appropriate punishment to meted out to any guilty parties.

    USW, I too was a bit puzzled by the NCAA implying that athletics at PSU came before acedemics when in my over 40 year experience with PSU this is so blatantly incorrect. I can only conclude that the corporate mentallity of the NCAA and its members is that they were and are so jealous of Joe Paterno’s stance on acedemics ahead of sports that they would do anything to undercut his legacy to college sports. I would also like to know if they will be men enough to reinstate his wins should it be proven in subsequent trails that he did not actively participate in any cover up. One can argue that his participation was inactive since he did not report directly to the State College police. However, I think he considered Schultz to be the proper legal authority.

    One wonders why Schultz an administrator over the campus police did not involve his chief in the interview of McQueary. This is another missed opportunity.

    Having lived through Watergate, Irangate, Cigargate, the Catholic Church issues, etc. one learns that coverups are far worse than the original crime. I fail to see how anyone could fail to recognize that covering Sandusky’s crimes up would be beneficial to the football program. Corporations/institutions are very cautious in this area as they can be sued by all parties. False accusations can lead to defamation of character law suits just as easily as failure to report. I also wonder about any legal counsil that the administrators were getting if any. Counsel should have spelled out the reporting requirements clearly. In the end I am left with more questions than answer, hence I will await the up coming criminal and civil trials before making final judgement.

    Again, thanks USW for your comments. We will receive the flak jointly on this one.

  6. Rest easy Weapon. Sparty is neutral and will still whoop the Nittany Lions this fall. 😉

  7. Is it any wonder that a person who is responsible for this mess has found a new job? Of course, it’s easy to guess who he works for 😆 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/graham-spaniers-gig-as-a-federal-worker-is-a-mystery/2012/07/26/gJQAbAx5BX_blog.html

    • Hey, they all protect their own. I find it funny that they blame cops for the “blue wall of silence” but ignore the fact that every other profession does the same. Just how many totally disgraced politicians are searching for their next meal behind McDonalds in the dumpster or Bank Presidents or university administrators, or CEO’s who tanked their companies?

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    The NCAA has, ironically, proved that football is more important. They did this by allowing players to transfer to another school and play the first year. This assumes that the student athletes selection of Penn State was based on football alone. It also presumes that the location has nothing to do with anything but football. The NCAA needs to go the way of the Dodo!

    Now for a related question. WHY should there be any restrictions on athletic scholarships and sports programs other than those applied to the academic side? All other students on scholarships are allowed cushy side jobs, free stuff or whatever.

    The ONLY rules should deal with academic fraud. Phony courses, cheating on grades, doctoring up high school records, etc..

    • USWeapon says:

      @JAC… Interesting thoughts.

      Not only have they proven that football is more important, they have ENSURED that the Penn State football team will be in the news every single week regardless of whether they win or lose. As for why the players chose to go there, it is clear that more than football mattered to all the players that have chosen to stay and to the recruits that re-committed to come next year.

      As to your other question, I agree. Academic fraud should be the only issue that the NCAA deals with. This idea that student athletes should be the only people with such restrictions placed on them is ridiculous.

  9. Surely, you couldn’t wait for this, USW … 🙂

    You make some valid points, but the alternatives to punishment is to do nothing. I suspect, for Paterno, it was the integrity of the program that was being protected (you can kid yourself all you want about his involvement in the cover-up, but it couldn’t be more clear to those using “reason”). For the school officials, it was indeed the dollar stream; Paterno had the power at Penn State because he had the breadwinner program.

    Was the NCAA grandstanding? You bet your ass they were, and probably for being called spineless for all the other infractions they ignored (or treated much less harshly). There’s no doubt the severity of the sanctions had much more to do with the public outcry and their own image than any actual NCAA infraction, but this is America, my friend … the land where public outcry is as powerful/manipulative as the day is long (see Kennedy-Johnson forays into Vietnam, Bush’s war with Iraq, etc.). The NCAA officials were indeed being sanctimonious and most people don’t care because the feeling is “about friggin’ time” they did SOMETHING.

    I am curious to how you’d answer Todd’s question, though. What would you have done?

    The problem with the monster the NCAA built (big time programs) is they are indeed Too Big To Fail. Maybe it’s about time they’re knocked a peg or ten down? School officials didn’t protect innocents and some may pay for it criminally (not Joe, though, he’s out of the loop now–so the attacks on a dead man work in his favor here).

    And there was one person who “tried” to fight Paterno after a few of his players beat up some other PS students and NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT. I tend to think the luster of Penn State’s graduation status for the football program may not be what we’ve been lead to believe (much like the luster of Saint Jo Pa).

    See this link: http://www.nj.com/collegefootball/index.ssf/2012/07/politi_meet_vicky_triponey_the.html

    The bottom line is the dollar stream was being protected. The alternative to punishments that would always hurt the innocent is to do nothing. Or maybe you think it should be handled by fine only $60 million, the same way BP was “handled”? Pay your way, so to speak. That would certainly not affect the incoming student-athletes, nor the program or Jo Pa’s illustrious wins record … except it kind of sends a worse message to all those irrational/emotional folks out there who watch big money do whatever it wants whenever it wants and get away with it (i.e., too big to fail), while simultaneously reinforcing the reality that big athletic programs run the show and everyone else should just keep off the grass.

    The problem with doing nothing is far worse (as regards the culture of collegiate sports in America we already know to be corrupt–unless you’re wearing blinders) than doing something and sanctioning a school. I love what the NCAA did, even if it was for the wrong reasons. It’s like OJ getting sentenced for 10 or 20 years for whatever dumb shit he did in a Vegas hotel room rather than the two murders he got away with … who cares why the NCAA did what they did? Finally, a corrupt institution/program paid the price for being corrupt. It was an example set (for whatever bogus reason) that will surely make other institutions think twice should something like this ever occur again.

    Will it make them think twice if they have a stud running back who can barely read pass his English tests with C’s? Nope, not until the gelt is removed from the formula (not in a million years) …

    Will it make them think twice if they have a stud Linebacker who assaults some kid on campus and should miss his next two games (“apparently” not, even at Penn State) … nope, that probably won’t happen either.

    Will it make them think twice about covering up one of their student athletes and/or coaches (or anyone else affiliated with their program) doing something of a sexual nature? I feel pretty certain the powers that be will point to PS and do the right thing (but, no, there’s no guarantee).

    The only guarantee is that if no sanctions are issued and/or if weak ones are issued, the culture that allowed PS officials to TOTALLY DISREGARD YOUNG BOYS BEING RAPED ON THEIR CAMPUS (AND WITH THEIR INDIFFERENT BLESSING) will only strengthen its hold over the rest of the institutions they represent.

    Why hold bankers on Wall Street responsible when it will only affect all the other innocents surrounding them? Hell, give them $750 billion, no strings attached; let them fire the peons in the mail room and secretaries, and reward themselves with multi-million dollar bonuses (for bankrupting their companies).

    Why give back the land to native Americans when it wasn’t us who took it? (Interesting how that BF’s under no conditions should violence be used to take something from another gets top billing now that the spoils have gone to the victor via violence). Why compensate the families of slaves? Why should we have to take responsibility for anything we directly didn’t partake in?

    Because sometimes it’s just the right thing to do.

    Or you can just turn your head the other way and let might make right again and again and defend the big over the small it in the name of “liberty” … a total crock of shit.

    As to the lost victories … a perfect sanction. The kids who played and won those games know they played and won those games, so it won’t make much of a difference to them (and if it does, big deal). The record should be tainted because Jo Pa and the other three clowns should’ve been fired the same season they learned about Sandusky and ignored it for their own purposes.

    Now, about all that grand standing loyalty. I’m surprised BF applauds your devotion to an “inhuman institution” … but I like your loyalty, USW. I even like Penn State and will be rooting for their team and coach even harder than I rooted for Paterno and his teams.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      They could have imposed lifetime bans on participation in college sports for those ACTUALLY involved in the coverup.

      Your assumption that the only options were the overkill or do nothing is flawed.

      • JAC,

        Your assumption that Jo Pa might’ve been more concerned about counseling, in light of Triponey, is flawed.

        USW: I do agree the 15 lost scholarships was wrong (not regarding PS) but the NCAA could have reassigned those 15 to other non-PS conference students (maybe to programs at the bottom of the standings). At least so they weren’t lost. But PS losing them was the right thing to do. They’re program should suffer; aside from Sandusky (especially considering they couldn’t reduced the number of victims) was the main culprit.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          So given your logic it is completely OK for Society to suffer the results of bad decisions by a few super rich bankers. After all, it is the PROGRAM that should suffer.

          • Given my logic, those bankers should be in jail, the banks bailed out with stipulations that outsourcing end, salaries of top management are reduced, no bonuses for those left standing and whoever was outsourced, gets an offer to return. But that’s just me.

            And if they didn’t like the deal, I’d nationalize them.

            Now I have to go someplace and can’t play anymore this afternoon. Calm yourself down, JAC … if the country could swallow the bailout without batting an eye, it’ll swallow PS sanctions even easier.

            It’s a damn shame, but that’s the reality of it. As you said (ignoring your contradicting yourself), all those flawed thinking individuals out there …

            • Why compensate the families of slaves? This is a great question Charlie. Using your logic, the ancestors of people who owned or supported slavery should pay the ancestors of slaves. In return for their freedom, the ancestors of slaves who are paid by the ancestors of slave owners, should forward those payments to the ancestors of those who fought against slavery (like my family). So, ancestors of slave owners pay the ancestors of slaves, who in turn pay the ancestors of those folks who fought against slavery (me in the case) because they are now free! Sounds like a great idea Charlie 🙄

              • Actually, G, I used that as an example but didn’t say I was for or againt it. In some cases, make no mistake, I’d be for it.

                I am certainly in favor of returning land to native Americans, even though that will never happen … short of that, financial compensation that permits them to become the new ruling class (.1%) seems like one form of justice …

        • USWeapon says:

          Better than that Charlie… Why doesn’t the NCAA simply say that Penn State has to give those scholarships to academic achievers and they simply cannot be used for football? Perhaps they forfeit the scholarships to the physics department or are forced to give them to students who have been abused as children. It is a top ten university, so why take the opportunity to attend a top ten university away from 60 people?

          • Now, that is a logical thing to do but logic is in short supply. Re, the fine leveled on the university and for that matter the fine recently leveled on Glaxo Smith Klein, Fines are absurd. The profit making entity will merely pass on the cost to the customer and that includes Universities. So, the innocent, not even customers (students) when the event was adjudicated get to pay and all the administrators, CEO’s, CFO’s go home happy and I’m sure with bonuses.

            It’s places like this where I tend to see eye to eye with Charlie though I think for different reasons. I just have always had this old fashioned hankering for justice. I have been accused of being a vengeful bastard but sometimes vengeance is a subsidiary of justice. You allow the molestation of children, you play fast and loose with the numbers in the economy and you wreck untold havoc on not just thousands but millions of innocent bystanders. Justice cries out for jail time at least but where is it?

          • That’s a great idea, USW. A agree. Give the scholarships to kids who deserve it part of the school other than football. Great idea. I’m all for it.

            • Charlie,

              But you are a man who believes that people should get what they want without “deserving” it.

              Why do you change your tune here?

              • If it’s a scholarship, you brickhead 🙂 … than I have to assume it would be because they deserve it (academics, athletics, whatever …) Oy vey.

              • Charlie,

                Based on what? Marks? It has been shown that better schools train kids to get better marks – but that is no measure of “worthy” of academic achievement or a precursor to innovation or discovery.

                You are the one who discounts value and worth, yet that is all you have to offer as a measure.

                You are a very strange man who argues with himself often.

    • USWeapon says:

      @ Charlie… I offer my rebuttals

      You make some valid points, but the alternatives to punishment is to do nothing.

      No, the alternative was to punish the guilty with prison sentences and lifetime bans from college leadership.

      I suspect, for Paterno, it was the integrity of the program that was being protected (you can kid yourself all you want about his involvement in the cover-up, but it couldn’t be more clear to those using “reason”).

      You SUSPECT, but you don’t know. And I don’t kid myself about his involvement. I just don’t jump to the conclusions that you are willing to jump to without some sort of proof. I have condemned his inaction. I have yet to see anything showing that Paterno desired or ordered a cover-up. The Freeh report certainly doesn’t offer any proof. If you have some that no one else has seen, I am interested in seeing it. Until then, your speculation and continued claim that I lack reason in my judgement is silly.

      The NCAA officials were indeed being sanctimonious and most people don’t care because the feeling is “about friggin’ time” they did SOMETHING.

      And you are OK with that. I simply don’t understand how you can be so callous towards others while simultaneously admitting that it is unreasonable to do so.

      I am curious to how you’d answer Todd’s question, though. What would you have done?

      And I did answer his question…

      School officials didn’t protect innocents and some may pay for it criminally (not Joe, though, he’s out of the loop now–so the attacks on a dead man work in his favor here).

      But that isn’t enough for you is it? You want the innocent to pay too. That makes you feel like justice is being served?

      And there was one person who “tried” to fight Paterno after a few of his players beat up some other PS students and NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT. I tend to think the luster of Penn State’s graduation status for the football program may not be what we’ve been lead to believe (much like the luster of Saint Jo Pa)

      I don’t need to read the link. I know the story. I followed it when it was happening. Just so you know the whole story and not just what that article claimed….

      The main player involved was Anthony Scirrotto. He and his girlfriend were accosted, assaulted and battered by two Penn State students after a confrontation with them and a third man on a State College street on March 31, 2007 (the two PSU students were convicted of the assault and burglary for the record). An hour later he and some other Penn State players confronted the guilty students at an off campus party. Things escalated and punches were thrown. Typical college kids fighting over dumb shit, not some criminal conspiracy as you would lead us to believe.

      Scirrotto and three other players were expelled from the university for the summer term and allowed to return for the fall term. All players involved were placed on probation by the university (a normal response to a first offense at most universities for any student, not just athletes). What Paterno asked for was a say in the decisons, not to have no punishment given. It should be noted that several of the people who worked in the same office as Triponey claim that she is not being honest about what happened. They have also said that while Paterno often offered his thoughts and suggestions, that the decisions of the student affairs office were never affected by Paterno.

      In addition to this, the police charges against the players were dropped after the court determined that the state had no evidence that crimes were committed other than trespassing, which the players plead guilty to. Despite this, Paterno made the entire team perform community service and donate time to the Special Olympics so that they would “see how lucky they are.”

      It is easy to buy into every negative thing you hear, especially when, as is the case for you, you are predisposed to jump to a “Paterno is guilty” verdict despite what facts you do or don’t have. Triponey claiming she was fired because of this is the same as any other person fired from a job. How many fired people do you know that don’t have a sordid story that exonerates them from any fault in their termination?

      The bottom line is the dollar stream was being protected.

      Probably True…

      The alternative to punishments that would always hurt the innocent is to do nothing.

      we already addressed that above. Criminal charges for those involved. Stop punishing the innocent and claiming that it was the only alternative.

      I love what the NCAA did, even if it was for the wrong reasons.

      That is just a bizarre statement, Charlie.

      As to the lost victories … a perfect sanction. The kids who played and won those games know they played and won those games, so it won’t make much of a difference to them (and if it does, big deal). The record should be tainted because Jo Pa and the other three clowns should’ve been fired the same season they learned about Sandusky and ignored it for their own purposes.

      So why not just remove the wins from Paterno’s record. Remove Paterno from the record books if you like. But to punish the players too (and to just big deal if it bothers them) just shows you are looking at this the entirely wrong way. Those players earned those victories. You want to punish Paterno, then punish him, not them. You can remove him from the record books without taking the wins away from the team.

      I appreciate your passion Charlie. I really do. But your move to blindly assault the innocent because you want revenge is troubling. What makes it worse is that you know it’s wrong, but condone it anyway. You are OK with whatever satisfies your bloodlust over this situation and you don’t care what is fair or not fair.

      I appreciate that you will support the new coach and team. They deserve that.

      • No, the alternative was to punish the guilty with prison sentences and lifetime bans from college leadership.

        No, because it was the football program that was sacrosanct. It WAS Penn State (the method by which they fund themselves to a very significant degree). To ignore the program (sanctioning it) and sticking with just criminal charges outside the institution sends an incredibly horrible message (i.e., We are Penn State and we do whatever the fuck we want because we’re too big to be punished.)

        You SUSPECT, but you don’t know. And I don’t kid myself about his involvement. I just don’t jump to the conclusions that you are willing to jump to without some sort of proof. I have condemned his inaction. I have yet to see anything showing that Paterno desired or ordered a cover-up. The Freeh report certainly doesn’t offer any proof. If you have some that no one else has seen, I am interested in seeing it. Until then, your speculation and continued claim that I lack reason in my judgement is silly.

        Nope, to assume Paterno didn’t know what was going on when we already have admissions (in court) that he knew as early as 1998 (never mind McQreary in 2001) http://deadspin.com/5912516/new-details-raise-new-questions-about-what-joe-paterno-might-have-known-about-jerry-sandusky-in-1998
        Like this article says, to assume he didn’t know isn’t silly, it’s laughable.

        And you are OK with that. I simply don’t understand how you can be so callous towards others while simultaneously admitting that it is unreasonable to do so.

        Yes. Callous is a strong word, but if that’s the one you need (for emotion?), that’s fine too. I have no problem with PS taking it on the chin, no matter who is involved as the sanctions have been levied. Except for the scholarships you suggest be handed out to other PS students (which is a great idea), PS officials were responsible for protecting the program and the dollar stream. It has to suffer … or you might as well reward it.

        But that isn’t enough for you is it? You want the innocent to pay too. That makes you feel like justice is being served?

        You’re harping on “innocents” is getting old. The institution was at fault. Do you feel the same way about all those who lost their jobs AFTER the banks were bailed out on Wall Street? All those jobs lost to outsourcing, for instance? Do nothing and you get the same result (JPMorgan “losing” track of 6 billion a few years AFTER the bailout).

        What Paterno asked for was a say in the decisons, not to have no punishment given. It should be noted that several of the people who worked in the same office as Triponey claim that she is not being honest about what happened. They have also said that while Paterno often offered his thoughts and suggestions, that the decisions of the student affairs office were never affected by Paterno.

        Wait, Paterno asked for there not to be punishment? Wow, what a news flash. Come on, USW, this only smells a little worse. And how is Triponey suddenly the one who isn’t being truthful when we already know Jo Pa lied through his sainted teeth (about when he knew about Sandusky)?

        That is just a bizarre statement, Charlie.

        Not if you’re interested in PS getting sanctioned (which I am 100%).

        So why not just remove the wins from Paterno’s record. Remove Paterno from the record books if you like.

        No problem. Maybe they should.

        to punish the players too (and to just big deal if it bothers them) just shows you are looking at this the entirely wrong way.

        Actually, no, USW. It shows you are looking at it the wrong way. Who cares about wins and losses? The kids know they played and won those games. It’s a bunch of football games, nothing more/nothing less.

        I appreciate your passion Charlie. I really do. But your move to blindly assault the innocent because you want revenge is troubling. What makes it worse is that you know it’s wrong, but condone it anyway. You are OK with whatever satisfies your bloodlust over this situation and you don’t care what is fair or not fair.

        I look at the overall picture, USW. The innocents in this case would be collateral damage, but justice would still be served on the culprit (the institution itself), which is what is most important in this case. Otherwise, as I said, why not reward them. Give them positive reinforcement to show how much concern we have for the innocents. Give them an extra 10 scholarships, remove the fine and donate $60 million to PS’s coffers, let the statue stay and the wins.

        Why don’t they do that? Because it’s absurd … as is doing absolutely nothing (which is what the institution did while kids were being groomed and then raped with their blind indifference blessings).

        • Charlie, Good morning Captain Canolli 🙂 I am just wondering why you insist on punishing innocent people for the actions of a few? Punish the program? Do you really think the program has feelings and cares? Punish the school? well, a hefty fine, firing the guilty and or criminal charges is a good idea, beyond that, they are punishing innocents! The futrure students and football players should not be in the crosshairs of the actions of the NCAA, If you can justify that, please type away 🙂

          • I guess that just like when you have 2 kids who denied leaving a mess. They both say they didn’t do it so you punish them both. Same thing on sports teams. One guy screws up..everyone has to run laps. Not saying it’s right but I’ve been on both ends of the problem.

            • Thank you, Anita. I’m a grandpa this fine day (my oldest son’s wife is pregnant–1st grandchild) … but that same kid (my son) and his brother were once told by their father (captain cannoli) after learning one of them had lost his key (AGAIN!!!!!), that if the guilty party didn’t own up, they could both take a walk around the block in their T-shirts and sweatpants (it was January and very cold outside) until they figured out which one did lose his key. They lasted about 3 trips around the block before they marched in and the guilty party fessed up (or maybe he took the hit for the other party) … that was the end of the punishment … but then again, they didn’t cover up the rape of a boatload of kids for the sake of protecting the integrity of the program and/or the money it brought to the college. 🙂

  10. What we have here USW is simply the desire for a public hanging . . . or maybe even a draw and quarter.

    And while it could’ve been more targeted, more ethically vetted and sensible, more rigorous in its fit of “punishment” and “crime,” more cognizant of its impacts on non-offenders, and so on, society–the same society the NCAA and all of its schools draw their cash from–demanded swift, brutal, broadstroke justice. Was it entirely fair to those affected? Probably not. Should it have been cleaner? Probably so. Does it matter? Not nearly as much as the appearance to the population at large that it was vicious, harsh, and thorough.

    The epic nature of Sandusky’s crimes was . . . well, epic. Anything that appeared too far off from shuttering the doors at Penn State forever, revoking everybody’s degrees, and forfeiting Penn State’s entire endowment would’ve been viewed as a joke, an insult to the victims, and the ongoing elevation of football over everything else. It HAD to be the equivalent of a double-barrelled shotgun blast that most would PERCEIVE as all that could be done to “right the wrong.”

    Whether it actually DID what the perception had to be, for better or worse, is a little beside the point. All of that is collateral damage to the overarching importance of APPEARING to right the wrong in the public’s eye. Like the trials of dictators, Nazis, and the Colorado shooter, the result was and will be a forgone conclusion that is demanded by the population. There will be “justice”–as defined by those on the outside looking in. Whether it actually fits perfectly or not is of no bother. (Not exactly in line with my libertarian social ideals, but there you have it.)

    For what it’s worth, in the long term, I think this is actually the practical choice, even for those at Penn State and for Penn State’s fans. By the time the 5 years goes by, the tragedy will be in the rear view mirror, the public will view Penn State as having “paid its dues,” and Penn State can get back to working its way toward the top. The students, coaches, and administrators responsible for accomplishing a resurgence of Penn State over the next decade or so will be viewed as heros, unencumbered by the millstone of a public perception that Penn State “got off easy.” Check back on how the public views Casey Anthony in about three or four years to see how the alternative shakes out.

    Sandusky’s crimes were so reprehensible and the “willful blindness” (or whatever you want to call it) of those senior officials around him facilitated such evil, that there simply HAD TO BE a graphic, public execution if Penn State ever wanted to be associated with anything other than this scandal during the lifetime of those who were around to see it unveiled.

    In my view, Penn State’s “smart” choice here is to accept the punishment, thank the NCAA for it, provide copious lip service pledging to route out all the evils it can think of, fire a whole lot of people, and in general grovel and take a beating. Then lawyer up, quietly defend (SETTLE) the lawsuits, and come out on the other side with a new image and a “let’s get down to business” attitude. That’s the fastest way to get past all of this, and–ultimately–that’s what’s in the best interest of (most of) those affiliated with Penn State.

    • Mike,

      A well thought out response. Makes a lot of sense, but reminds me of something. Ever hear of someone pleading guilty to a crime where they plea bargain it down from life in prison or death penalty, to a few years served and get back to their life? I’m not a big sports fan, as I’d rather be out doing something instead of watching anybody do anything. But I have no problem giving respect where deserved. I have heard people talk about what a skated or diver should have done, and I ask, can you skate? Ever dove(not jumped) off a 10 meter board? Paterno earned what he and his team won. Above that, he earned his reputation, good and bad. I don’t think anybody can fault his ethics, period. He did as required by law, reporting to his superiors which included the man over their campus police force. He met all legal requirements.

      Morals. I think his standards on academic’s show winning at any cost was not his mantra. History shows he was steadfast in trying to do the right thing. To be frank, I care nothing about him or Penn State, the injustice is what irks me. He/they earned what they won. This has nothing to do with that, just tar and feather the most prominate and ignore who, what , where… The administration and those protecting their positions and revenue stream, what’s the cost to them? The innocent have been plea-bargained without their consent to a guilty verdict
      (“ain’t that America”) the guilty (except for the actual perp) fade away letting someone else take the fall. It may be the fastest way for the NCAA to get past this, and even Penn State, but the innocent paid the price for the guilty.

      • No doubt. I’m not suggesting that it’s RIGHT, merely that it is more or less REQUIRED by society of entities (both the NCAA and Penn State) that make their living off of public perception and interest. What’s more, if the goal of Penn State and its fans is to “get past” all of this, they should embrace the tarring and feathering, because it provides the “free pass” to move forward. Rejecting, rebuking, or arguing with any of it will–in the court of public opinion–be perceived terribly and only drag the matter on longer.

        In other words, my post avoided “right” or “wrong” largely because I don’t think that’s really being factored into the equation by ANY of the decisionmakers on EITHER side, which is why it can be thoroughly picked apart as done by USW. What matters to both the NCAA and Penn State is that some sort of punishment be dealt, the public perceive that punishment as harsh and profound, the whole matter goes quiet for a few years, and everybody moves on. Whether it’s ethically sound, clearly targeted, or would be wise for an “average joe” considering an analogous plea bargain in a matter of no public interest is all notable but not really pertinent to the NCAA’s decision to “punish” nor Penn State’s decision to fall on whatever sword it’s handed.

        I guess my bigger point is that right or wrong isn’t really part of the calculus, and that’s why some of it seems so incongruent.

  11. Mathius says:

    Black Flag / Charlie,

    10 Mathius Points if you can tell me who said this without looking it up:

    “The rich should contribute to the public expense [taxes] not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

    (contest is open to all Sufa-ites)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Thomas Paine and John Locke

      • Mathius says:

        Nope.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Actually, they did but not in the exact words you provided. Although I recall Paine used the quote or paraphrased it. But you are correct in that the EXACT quote is taken from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

          Now, let me offer you something on the quote so that we do not take it out of context. You fellas on the left should appreciate that…. 🙂

          “Comment
          The quotation from Adam Smith is from the Oxford University Press, ‘Glasgow Edition’ of Wealth Of Nations is on page 842, not page 840 and is found at: WN V.ii.e.6.

          For accuracy, the context in which Adam Smith is making this wholly acceptable assertion is in his discussion of house rents, which is a commodity widely differentiated by quality, convenience and splendour, and it begins:

          “A tax upon house-rents, therefore would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable.” Professor Reich’s quotation follows: “The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” [WN V.ii.e.6: p 842]

          When quoting from Adam Smith, as many do, it is incumbent on the writers to make clear the context otherwise a particular statement by Adam Smith can be given a general meaning, in this case for all forms of taxation, when Adam Smith may have intended to refer to a particular case.

          Smith preferred that taxation should fall, where possible, on luxuries rather than basic necessities. Housing is a necessity but housing came in all levels of opulence and was therefore treatable as a luxury for some taxpayers, who in consequence should may more tax on their houses and palaces. “

          • Mathius says:

            Well done.

            Ten points to you… as soon as you sign an affidavit that you did not cheat. 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Affidavit duly signed. Copy of Wealth of Nations sits behind me on my book shelf.

              Besides, I have had to respond to other “lefty” attempts to use this quote in the past to rationalize their view point. Such as Robert Reich’s attempt in the article I pilfered from above.

    • I don’t know but they were mistaken … because of the assumption that the rich are so because of “their” individual efforts.

      I listened to Rush Limbaugh for 5 minutes this afternoon … now I know why the kid on The Newsroom punched the laptop screen …

      • “The Newsroom”. I watched it the other day, a liberal’s wet dream. They get to say all kinds of fun things from their most interesting world view. I think it’s possible that they are all trapped in an episode of “The Twilight Zone”.

        • Come on, Steven … it’s a funny show … and it’s not like they’re making up the facts (Koch brothers, tea party connection) … it’s a beautiful thing.

    • Smith was a visionary, but that does not make everything he wrote correct.

      Another example, he posited that value is objective, that is, there was inherent value.

      However, he could not explain why diamonds were more valuable then a glass of water, when we need water to live, but we never need diamonds.

      This question hounded him for the rest of his life, and it wasn’t answered until Carl Menger wrote on the theory of “Marginal Utility”, which refuted “inherent value” theory and instead demonstrated “imputed value” as the necessary condition.

      You forgot the era that Smith lived was pre-Industrial with mere beginnings of a virtually Free market system.

      There was nothing in his past that possibly could offer any details of the incredible power of free men and the incredible waste of government as a contrast. It has always been merely “government” and without a contrast – the single color of gray that plagues the likes of you and Charlie – there was nothing to measure the waste.

      By the turn of the 19th century, it became obvious.

      • Interesting … Noam Chomsky proves Smith was captured by free market theorists the way the GOP captured the Tea Party (basically turning what he said to pure bullshit by ignoring what he “really” said).

        But BF says Chomsky is an idiot …

        • As we’ve already pointed out, you and Chomsky have bizarre definitions of a Free market and Capitalism. Your bizarre definitions are necessary for you, because you need to create strawmen to attack so to advance your immoral social concepts.

          • And he’s written about … 20 books on capitalism … how many did you write? How many of yours are considered scholarship? Oh, we don’t know who you are, do we?

            🙂

            • And Ptolemy wrote a few hundred scripts on the motion of the planets – and his premise was wrong 100 times too.

              Charlie, I’ve probably read more Chomsky then you. I agree with him on some things and disagree with him on a lot of things.

              I know his crisis of premise – I’m not the only one who has pointed this out and others have done so directly to him. He refuses to acknowledge it …. just like you!

              He is human like you, with similar failings. He became married to something that was then shown to be wrong – he couldn’t divorce himself from it because he fell in love with it.

              • YOu haven’t come close to reading as much chomsky as me … even admitted back a few months you didn’t know who he was.

                Keep on typing, brother …

              • What utter nonsense and the stories you make up!

                I said no such thing “a few months back”.
                I’ve been following Chomsky since 1970 and his book “American Power”

  12. MSNBC FINALLY showing something worth watching … Olympic weightlifting … friggin’ amazing!

    • Did ya ever see that cartoon showing a weightlifter straining, struggling, and finally lifting a record setting weight, then his n#ts pop out, roll accross the floor?

  13. @BF You are a very strange man who argues with himself often.

    And you, sir, are as boring and full of shit as the day is long … 🙂

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Govt THEFT taken to a new high, er maybe that should be low:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312666/dea-gone-wild-kevin-d-williamson

  15. The ruling elite and the government are one and the same. Look at who comes and goes from academia to government to business or is it from business to academia to government then again it may be from government to business then academia. Get real Charlie

    The ruling elite and the government are one and the same. EXACTLY … so who needs to get real here? Was it a bunch of poor people who formed the U.S. government or the elite?

    Case closed … but only if you open your eyes …:)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      Actually it was quite a mix of people who created the United States. They were not all elite by any means, especially as you use the term.

      In fact most were selected to represent their neighbors due to their reputations as honest and forthright men. Something that has been lost in our modern Political Selection Criteria.

      What you seem to miss in your dilemma is that whom so ever holds the reigns of Govt power becomes the “ruling elite”. Because it is ONLY Govt that allows them to become ELITE over the rest of the citizens.

    • It was originally a bunch of very talented practical mostly self made men who created the government. They probably could have done much better for themselves by sticking with the status quo. The English class system still surprisingly strong today has only ever been challenged by being held up for comparison against the American merit system. Had those gents just gone along with the program, no doubt they could have feathered their nests much better than they did with far fewer headaches. Now, as I pointed out the system, like all systems was was perverted over time something both Franklin, “We gave you a Republic if you can keep it” and Jefferson “The tree of liberty must be nourished with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time” knew was going to happen. Practical, practical men.

      I always get to the point with you, Buck and Matt to ask, just who are to be the Commissars in your brave new world. Who will make the decisions, academics?.

      Eyes wide open and wide awake and NEVER afraid to point out the Emperor is lacking clothes.

      • Just to sweeten the pot, 10 Mathius points to anyone who can identify; “I’d rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston telephone book than by the faculty of Harvard”. No cheating!

        • Mathius says:

          No cheating necessary. That was a Buckley quote.. but I thought I don’t think that’s 100% word-for-word… I’d rather entrust the government.. something like that… Anyway, here’s Buckley debating with Chomsky:

          • charlieopera says:

            I love Buckley, but he got his conservative ass kicked …

            Chomsky is an idiot?

            BF, you truly are a fool.

            • Charlie,

              You do not understand the debate at all.

              You like but do not understand Chomsky because you believe he holds your views on Capitalism.

              Because you define Capitalism as a perversion of free men, you accept Chomsky argument about Mercantilism to prove that.

              But go to 3:25 mark of the debate as a example – the difference between using government intervention to solve suffering OR use government intervention to force a Coca-Cola factory into a country.

              Note that this is a discussion of the use of government – the “thing” you want to use all the time to solve these problems.

              The point Chomsky makes is that he has found no case of colonialism where the government was not a predator – that it did not enter the nation to persevere some moral ideal but did so to promote its own IMPERIAL self-interests.

              This is nothing to do with Free market, Capitalism or Free men.

              You are so desperate in your philosophy and its total irrationality, you are willing to lie, falsify, and distort anything to try to make it “fit in”.

          • Please award yourself ten points and thanks for the link. I used to watch “Firing Line” fairly regularly and had worked on the Buckley for Mayor campaign in college. I had the opportunity to meet the man more than once and was always in awe.

            Thanks too Charlie for your comments. Of course I don’t agree with them. I see the interview as informative of world view rather than a contest. It also explains to me why you are who you are. I had figured before that you were the kind of guy that was always looking for the “equivalency” in making a political argument. Chomsky is the same. No matter what Buckley said, Chomsky came back to US Imperialism and even compared out actions in the Caribbean and Latin America to the Soviet Unions post WW 2 actions in Eastern Europe. So even if I agree that the US should have stayed out of Banana Republic policy, I can still distinguish between body counts. As always any loss of life is appalling, more so if it is done to settle old scores with weapons and training that we provided but can you seriously compare these vendettas in Greece or Central America to the systematic murders of hundreds of thousands as state policy?

            Another issue Chomsky seems to ignore especially on the Greek Civil War or Vietnam is that there were sides, I take his comments to mean that the entire struggle in both countries was caused by US Imperialism and there was no popular support for the US position either within the affected countries or for that matter here among the American population. Like you, Chomsky sees the US Government as a terrorist institution, equal to the USSR, unrestrained by the American people.

            I think he selectively used Bernard Fall’s comments in his books on Vietnam to push his point about our South Vietnamese allies, initiating cross border operations against the North. There was a definite implication that North Vietnamese aggression was a result of these acts that we initiated. An interesting take!

            I know Greeks who are refugees in this country because of the Civil War. Chomsky destroys himself when he describes the Communist involvement as “so called”. Yes, we sent advisers, the precursors of Special Forces. Yes, we provided guns but to deny Soviet and Yugoslav involvement and gun running and probable advisers to back up Soviet trained rebels is absurd. You really have to study the history of Greece and Yugoslavia in the periods immediately before, during and after WW 2. You learn things that are usually swept under the rug. The Allied backing of Tito and the Communist insurgents over Michaelovich and the Royalists is quite instructive and acknowledged, far too late as a mistake by Churchill. .

            Chomsky is good at interrupting Buckley when he was forming a question and turns that around claiming Buckley interrupts him. Point being that he never (Chomsky) allows one to really dig into his positions and their absurdity. His routine answer of “I don’t believe it” is right up there with the current “whatever”. He questions the Truman Doctrine and even the Marshall Plan. If I felt him an isolationist impartial observer I might even theoretically agree but I see him as an apologist perhaps a deluded apologist but an apologist. One of the things that I think Buckley kept trying to get across and Chomsky obfuscated on was the issue of support for US policy within the countries that we were supposedly doing bad things to. He would not let Buckley follow up on that, not at all. Buckley was ready to pounce on the difference in popular support of US actions vs Soviet actions in the affected countries.

            Buckley’s weakness was in using Latin America, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic as examples. Chomsky was quite right about our intervention in those places though I disagree that the Monroe Doctrine was exclusively for the benefit of American Imperialism. For example, wasn’t there that German move during TR’s presidency against Venezuela when they defaulted on their debt? If we were imperialists, we were pretty poor at it.

            So, for a follow-up, I come back to Niall Fergueson’s “Civilization” as a primer in the good, bad and ugly of western Colonialism among other things. Even Chomsky conceded that with the exception of perhaps the Belgians in the Congo, most Imperialist powers also tried to bring the benefits of Western Civilization to their colonies although he’s far too smug in the beginning of the debate about “Christian values”. I guess local values including head hunting, cannibalism and human sacrifice trump the Christian ones. The concept of the “noble savage”, really bears a lot more examination by people to tend to think it existed.

            • SKT,

              . Chomsky is the same. No matter what Buckley said, Chomsky came back to US Imperialism and even compared out actions in the Caribbean and Latin America to the Soviet Unions post WW 2 actions in Eastern Europe. So even if I agree that the US should have stayed out of Banana Republic policy, I can still distinguish between body counts.

              But that’s Chomsky’s point – it is the American mental disease that claims “if we kill less in our imperial expansion then, say, the Russians we have a right and are right in imperialism and the Russians are wrong

              Chomsky is arguing a point of principle.

              You want to argue on body counts.

              Chomsky says killing someone in another country so to further your nation’s self-designed “self interests” is immorally wrong.

              Most Americans argue “we are making them better by forcing our interests on them”.

              Another issue Chomsky seems to ignore especially on the Greek Civil War or Vietnam is that there were sides, I take his comments to mean that the entire struggle in both countries was caused by US Imperialism and there was no popular support for the US position either within the affected countries or for that matter here among the American population.

              That is self-evident.
              Puppet dictators live very well off American money. Of course these dictators support the US position!

              Of course there are those that benefit from Imperialism – in and outside of the nations so under foot.

              This is why the argument cannot be made on body counts or “popular” support one way or the other.

              The argument must be made on moral grounds and on points of principle.

              “Does a people in a nation have a right to determine their own politics free from the machinations of other nations”

              • No, No, No. I can merely ask you guys to read Niall Fergueson’s book, “Civilization”. Not much I disagree with there. He does a much better job of explaining my position than I do. Your assumption is that I welcomed body counts. That I think our efforts to thwart Communism which incidentally resulted in deaths was something that US policy eagerly looked for. I am not saying that the events didn’t happen but that but they were a reaction to what the other side did.

                One of Buckley’s early points which he sought to draw Chomsky out on was that such intervention is only justified when it will prevent a future event where bloodshed will be even greater. I always hate to have to go back to the Nazi’s for examples but they really were so instructive. Had they been slapped down hard, with attendant violence after marching into the Rhineland or later during the Czech crisis, what would have been the result? You so often claim that the dropping of the Atomic bombs was not necessary. I submit to you that there is at least the same support in certain quarters for the theory that a slapped down Hitler would have been run out of power in Germany and the 2nd World War might not have happened. Then of course, no Atomic bombs would have been dropped on anybody.

                History now shows us that despite the carnage inflicted in both World wars, Germany was in fact the only European country positioned to eventually rule/guide the continent with the English going their own way. Had Bismark, Kaiser Bill or even Hitler been able to see modern European headlines, they would have thought that their various military machinations had succeeded and succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. None of what happened in the Franco-Prussian, World War I or World War II was ever necessary. This statement, Flag, is a tribute to you and your way of looking at things. That hegemony though was achieved without violence a very hard learned lesson for the Germans.

                What are the points of principle I ask in standing by and watching a Jewish, Cambodian, Rwandan or any other genocide. Backing it up into mezo-America a bit. What is the point of standing by and watching a genocide perpetrated by Aztecs or Mayans. When judging bloodletting, as cold as it may sound, there is a difference between it being Company policy which you can lay at the feet of the entire society or being perpetrated by individuals, acting on their own for implied or misguided reasons. To have kept my hands “clean” on principle between 1940 and 1945 and not engaged in violence and by doing so to have guaranteed millions upon millions of more deaths is a crime itself. Do not bother me with the little details that say if we only had done Blah, blah, blah before the war nothing would have happened. The reality was those things were not done, the result was the various genocides perpetrated by the Germans and Japanese and there was no other way of ending them other than by beating them. Cooperate with the Nazi’s, Jews die, don’t cooperate with them, Jews die, turn the other cheek, Jews die. In principle, I guess one can somehow feel better that one did not raise a hand in violence. Matt, the New Testament also says, “Greater Love hath no man than to lay down his life for his brother”. If we could resurrect Gandhi I’d like to take him on a tour of American Military cemeteries in Europe and let him blather on about Jesus and his followers.

            • SKT

              I guess local values including head hunting, cannibalism and human sacrifice trump the Christian ones.

              The disconnect:
              You believe such violence is immoral.
              So you are more the willing to bring your own form of slaughter of innocent people to them, so they can become civilized.

              When asked what he thought about modern civilization, Gandhi quipped:
              That would be a good idea

              • Mathius™ says:

                He also said: I like your Jesus. It is a shame that he is so unlike your Christians.

                .. or something to that effect.

            • steven: Chomsky is good at interrupting Buckley when he was forming a question

              Tell me you’re kidding! Buckly (who I really do adore … I wrote him a letter before he died for a novel he’d written that was absolutely wonderful and his sister wrote me back–i guess she handled his affairs–I treasure that hand written letter) … Buckley continually interrupted Chomsky (I thought: So this is where Hannity, Levin, et al get it from …:)

      • Practical, practical men.

        And at least one, a slave owner … how convenient.

  16. Thank you US women’s volley ball team for not giving in to the pressure of changing from your bikinis. Even though there is pressure to change to shorts and long sleeve tops to appease those who think too much body showing on women is against their religion…you have elected to keep on wearing what you want. Thank you for not succumbing to the political correctness.

  17. An Indiana company’s decision to scrap expansion plans due to a looming tax on medical devices has renewed pressure on the Senate to consider a House-passed bill repealing the tax.

    House Speaker John Boehner, in a written statement, urged the Senate to take up the bill “as soon as possible.”

    Companies in the medical device industry for months have been calling on Congress to strip the provision. Amid the complaints, though, several firms have already taken steps to cut back U.S. investment out of concern for the tax’s impact.

    Cook Medical, an Indiana-based medical equipment manufacturer, last week said it’s nixing plans to open five new plants in the next five years — claiming the tax will cost between $15 million and $30 million a year, cutting into money that would otherwise go toward expanding into new facilities in the Midwest.

    “Unfortunately, we have had to shelve these expansion plans and look overseas for that,” Allison Giles, vice president for federal affairs with the company, told FoxNews.com. “It’s a huge amount for us.”

    She urged the Senate to take up the repeal bill, even if it has to wait for the post-election lame-duck session.

    “We’re hoping that members will look at this, not so much as a health care provision, but as a jobs provision,” she said.

    The Affordable Care Act imposed the 2.3 percent tax on medical devices beginning in 2013. It is projected to raise nearly $30 billion over the next decade — the House voted to repeal it last month.

    The Obama administration argues that claims the tax will shift jobs overseas are overblown. The tax, after all, would still be imposed on equipment produced overseas and imported into the U.S. — though it wouldn’t apply to equipment produced and sold overseas.

    According to the Treasury Department, the medical device companies actually stand to benefit from the law. Though the 2.3 percent tax hits the industry, the department argues that the millions of new health care customers insured as a result of the law will increase the demand in hospitals to order more equipment — in turn boosting medical device companies’ profits.

    The White House, in threatening last month to veto the bill, also complained that the House-passed repeal bill would offset the lost revenue from the tax by cutting down on subsidies for some families.

    This, the White House said, would effectively “raise taxes on middle-class and low-income families.”

    Giles, though, said the Senate could always negotiate a different way to pay for the repeal.

    Cook Medical also argues that the impact is greater than just a 2.3 percent uptick in taxes, and that the impact on actual earnings is closer to 15 percent.

    Hundreds of representatives from the device industry sent a letter to congressional leaders last year arguing for repeal, and citing the impact on jobs. “It will increase the effective tax rate for many medical technology companies, thereby reducing financial resources that should be used for R&D, clinical trials and investments in manufacturing,” they wrote.

    The repeal bill passed the House in June with bipartisan support.

    Republican leaders in both chambers are now calling for the Senate to give the bill a vote.

    “The medical device tax repeal not only stops a devastating new tax that is already forcing American job creators to ship work overseas, it makes common-sense reforms to help reduce health care costs for families and allow them to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I hope the Senate takes it up as soon as possible,” Boehner said in a statement.

    A Senate Republican Policy Committee report last month said companies are already “shrinking their payrolls” in advance of the tax, pointing to the announcement last November by medical device firm Stryker Corp. to lay off 5 percent of its workforce in advance of the tax.

    A spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans in the chamber want to have the vote, but are being “blocked” by Democrats.

    A representative with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid’s office has not returned a request for comment.

    Device companies aren’t the only ones concerned about the looming tax.

    Kevin Kuhlman , legislative affairs manager with the National Federation of Independent Business, said the cost of the device tax could, in some cases, be felt by employers in the form of higher premiums. And that could affect job creation.

    “More resources will have to be devoted toward increased cost of benefits,” he said.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/30/company-decision-to-nix-expansion-over-obamacare-tax-renews-pressure-on/#ixzz22ALcVp97

    I don’t get it. What is this administration doing? Even Canada just recently dropped their corporates rates to 15%. Doesn’t Washington get it….raise taxes=lose investments.

  18. Singer said that most of the same Pennsylvania government agencies that were outraged over the PSU scandal — Child Protective Services, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, and the Pennsylvania State Police — all ignored and buried his report of child molestation.

    In 1986, Singer was working as a psychologist at the DuBois Regional Medical Center in DuBois, Pa. During a session with a female teenage patient, Singer said the patient revealed to him that she was being sexually abused by her father. Upon having two more medical professionals confirm this, Singer said that he reported the abuse to the state’s Child Protective Services agency.

    TheDC has exclusively acquired a letter from one of the two medical professionals, Dr. Albert Varacallo, vouching for the veracity of Singer’s claims.

    “If all this seems hard to believe,” Varacallo wrote to then-Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey, Sr. in 1991, “I agree with you … the events of the past three years have proven to me that this nightmare is indeed a reality and not just Mr. Singer’s imagination from the stand point of any health professional, once he knew all the facts.”

    “While the state is supposed to provide immunity for reporters,” Varacallo wrote, “it actually prosecutes those who seek to protect the rights of children.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/30/former-pennsylvania-psychologist-says-he-reported-child-molestation-lost-license/#ixzz22Cd4L2MM

    • The Twisted Agenda

      The truth is, in March of 2002, Graham Spanier didn’t have time to investigate charges of sexual abuse among his faculty because he was too busy promoting it on campus. I was there. That very month, Penn State hosted a “Women’s Health Conference” and a “Sex Faire.” These events are not to be confused with the “C*nt Fest” and the “Tent of Consent,” from a few months prior, but Spanier wanted to make sure his twisted sexual agenda was as clear as possible.

      Penn State knew what agenda they were getting. When they hired him in 1995, the student body president at the University of Nebraska (which Spanier had headed) warned Penn State, saying, “Watch out for his social agenda and make sure he doesn’t make it a priority over academics.” The warning was prescient.

      The keynote speaker at the Sex Faire and “Women’s Health Conference” in 2002 was a person named Pat Califia, who has authored dozens of books and essays about sexual pervserion including S&M and pedophilia. Califia is quoted on the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) website with the following:

      Boy-lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers are the only people offering a hand to help young women and men cross the difficult terrain between straight society and the gay community. They are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their stale morality onto the young people in their custody. Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them.

      Jerry Sandusky couldn’t have said it better himself. Califia’s words came from an interview in 1980, at a time when Spanier was one of the most prominent sociologists in the world, specializing in sexuality. It is impossible to imagine him being unaware of who Califia was. Penn State paid Califia with state-subsidized money within a month of President Spanier hearing of two seperate child rape allegations against his staff and actively covering them up.

      The 2002 Sex Faire and related festivities were not an isolated incident. We had one the previous year as well, including a presentation of “The Vagina Monologues,” a pornographic play. The Pennsylvania state legislature called Spanier to a hearing for using taxpayer subsidies to pay for it. At the hearing, when he was pressed on the question of whether the sex faire was wrong, Spanier reached into his Ph.D. bag of tricks and responded, “I don’t understand what you mean by ‘wrong.'”

      Indeed.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_climategate_and_jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html#ixzz22Cz3UdLz

  19. Illegal immigrants often returning to jail after release, study shows

    Published July 31, 2012

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/31/recidivism-rate-for-illegal-immigrants-nearly-20-percent-dhs-records-show-as/?intcmp=trending#ixzz22CifUpxd

    These numbers are flawed, as often as all media numbers…..the actual numbers are 1 in 4 and not 1 in 6.

    • Hello Col.,

      I guess my first question would be, what are the recidivism rates for non-illegal immigrants in the USA? I am willing to bet we’d be looking at between 5-7 out of 10. Recidivism rates doesn’t really provide a full picture of all the aspects of the correctional systems in the country.

      I could easily ask other comparative questions, but I think it best to stop here at this point.

  20. Canine Weapon says:
  21. Mathius™ says:

    I agree with Bloomberg a lot.

    But sometimes, I think he might just be a stark raving lunatic and borderline fascist. Even when I agree with his goals and/or thought processes, it’s occasionally impossible to escape the conclusion that he might need serious professional help: Link.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      And that is similar to what you can expect when Mr. Obama is elected to a second term. He and his minions will have nothing to stop them from following the crazy mayor into the abyss.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Well I don’t think Mitt’s going to stop him, so it should be interesting.

        Everyone has these theories about what Obama will do once reelected. The NRA thinks he’s going to come after their guns. You think he’s going to do.. who knows what. My coworker thinks he’s going to start banning soft drinks nationally.

        I think you’re all nuts.

        But we’ll see, won’t we?

        • charlieopera says:

          I’d like to see him do one fucking thing for labor besides making promises he keeps breaking.

          Which is why I’d like to see him lose, but that isn’t going to happen (you’re right).

          Should he lose and Mitt take charge, the corps holding onto their trillions will let some of it go and minimum wage jobs will appear everywhere (like it or lump it) … and the revolution will get that much closer to happening. Gotta get worse before it can get better and all the GOP can ever do is make it worse …

        • Obama will be stopped the same way Carter was. I don’t believe the polls. For a variety of reasons, a good chunk of the supposed pro-Obama vote is lying. See the Dinkens re-election race with Giuliani. Rudy was not supposed to win. Not by a long shot. Folks are so PC conscious these days that they would never say they would vote against him for fear they would be deemed racist even if only in their own heads. In the privacy of the booth, he will get what Dinkens got for his incompetence and what Carter got from union voters, bupkis.

          Hope I didn’t burst any balloons.

      • Any evidence of that patently ridiculous claim??

        • Mathius™ says:

          Evidence? Since when is evidence required in order to make outlandish claims about President Obama and/or his agenda?

    • Wow-Matt-you just described my exact thoughts about the democrat party. 🙂

  22. SKT,

    “Civilization”.

    As a story of how we are where we are, I’m sure it is fine.

    But as a story to say we are better today because of that pathway – I cannot agree.

    If, for example, Carthage defeated Rome – would it be better or worse for us today?

    That I think our efforts to thwart Communism which incidentally resulted in deaths was something that US policy eagerly looked for. I am not saying that the events didn’t happen but that but they were a reaction to what the other side did.

    But that belies a superficial view point.

    Vietnam was a Imperialist colony.
    The French abandoned them to the Japanese.
    During the war, the French promised the Vietnamese independence in return for resisting the Japanese.
    After the war, the French reneged.
    The Vietnamese revolted – and defeated the French.
    The Americans decided to help the French.

    So… where in your story do you believe this was some “anti-communism” crusade … let alone providing some argument that such a crusade was necessary or moral in the first place?

    One of Buckley’s early points which he sought to draw Chomsky out on was that such intervention is only justified when it will prevent a future event where bloodshed will be even greater.

    So when did God grant you or anyone else with precognition?
    When do you believe you have a right to attack someone and shed the blood of others so to prevent some unspecified event that you pretend you know will lead to bloodshed.

    “I must kill so to prevent a killing that has yet to occur” is a bizarre and evil belief.

    I always hate to have to go back to the Nazi’s for examples but they really were so instructive. Had they been slapped down hard, with attendant violence after marching into the Rhineland or later during the Czech crisis, what would have been the result?

    Had the Americans not entered WW1, what would have been the result? (Answer: No Nazis)

    No matter what event – it is merely a consequence of a preceding one. You just want to conveniently step into the middle and declare your intrusion and act of good and plead to everyone else to ignore all your previous interventions which created the event in the first place (see Iran for another example).

    This is always the problem of interventionist policies – they are NEVER instituted for the betterment of the other fellow in a different country – they are ALWAYS an extension of some imperialist policy set in play perhaps decades before.

    That was Chomsky’s point, and in this, he is absolutely accurate.

    If we could resurrect Gandhi I’d like to take him on a tour of American Military cemeteries in Europe and let him blather on about Jesus and his followers.

    I think you forget Gandhi was alive during WW2. He was absolutely aware of the human cost of violence.

    Why do you think he so strongly held his belief?

    • Ferguson makes the argument that we are better off and why it is so. He argues the good outweighs the bad and I happen to like him because I have seen him take an oppositional viewpoint to his beliefs and argue it very well.

      Smarter guys than I believed the domino theory and the thunderclap for me was the 10th anniversary of the communist victory when ABC’s Nightline spent a week in Vietnam and environs interviewing everybody. It was the Malaysian Prime Minister who, on the last show thanked the Americans for “holding the line” and giving his and other countries in the area time to develop. I wish that every Vietnam vet had an opportunity to see that show.

      As wonderful as the North Vietnamese thought their victory was, I have often wondered if they ever think that had they exercised patience for peace, (they certainly had it for war) how different things might have been. Perhaps a peaceful re-unification and economic growth exponential to what they now have. There is also the little matter of two or so million dead Vietnamese.

      I have always admired how people will lionize Gandhi and rightly so and then defend “Wars of National Liberation” that need not have happened. the French are and were a lot of things but Gandhi’s methods would probably have worked just swell there. There is this incredible human weakness that seems to think that spilling blood is always the answer. prove them wrong and you wind up like Gandhi, King and Malcolm.

    • BF, That was Chomsky’s point, and in this, he is absolutely accurate.

      That and his theory on capitalism … that it doesn’t work. 🙂

      • I always find that funny, “It doesn’t work”. Every time we have an economic downturn, severe recession or depression, if “proves” that capitalism does not work. Forget the 90 out of 100 years, forget that the current mess was caused by do-gooders in the housing market as much as speculators. Forget progress. Forget every single instance of where we are vs. where we were 100 years ago, it just doesn’t work according to Charlie, you and Norm. Every single advance those leftest Euros have made has been under the protection of the US. We do not have unbridled capitalism in this country nor probably should we. we control it and for every control we put on, the bad guys find a way around. That’s what they are good at. As for the identity of the bad guys, it’s Acorn as much as it’s Citibank. Just a difference in degree and, that’s changing. An awful lot of do-gooders at Fannie and Freddie made out pretty darn well destroying the system. The Fannie/Freddie CEO’s did not do too badly at all nor did the board members and I don’t rally think you could call those capitalist programs. they were designed to ‘level” the playing field.

        • Forget the 90 out of 100 years, forget that the current mess was caused by do-gooders in the housing market as much as speculators.

          Worked for who, Steven? This is what amazes me about defenders of capitalism; ignoring those it didn’t “help”. The relative handful of peoples (as compared to those who didn’t prosper) who were lifted out of poverty are supposed to represent the greatness of capitalism. That or pointing to the poor of other countries and claiming “Looking how much better our poor are” (Chomsky particularly chops that argument to pieces).

          Bottom line: we’re fast becoming a two class system … because whether you want to blame the government (as so many here do) or the people who formed and continue to run the show (as I do), it doesn’t worked (and never really has). Less than 100 years ago … blacks fought in world wars and had to wait until 1965 for a voting rights act. Somehow that equates to capitalism “working.”

          Okay, BF … type away … 🙂

          • Charlie,
            As usual, you cannot discern between what is economics and what is politics.

            Capitalism is why the Blacks or any minority can aspire to whatever achievement. Money and Capital is color blind. In Capitalism money tends to flow towards Merit and away from violence

            Politics is why the Blacks were held down, Charlie.
            In politics money follows towards violence and away from merit.

            You hate Capitalism because you believe you have little merit but a lot of violence, so political solutions tend to find favor with you.

          • Charlie, that’s BS. I guess your definition of being not poor includes a Newport Mansion. So, until everyone lives in a Newport Mansion or a one room dirt floor hovel, things are not right?

            And what exactly does the 1965 voting rights act have to do with capitalism anyway? I might just remind you as a fellow New Yorker, that things were pretty square around here long before 1965.Not perfect mind you but pretty fair.

            • Charlie, that’s BS. I guess your definition of being not poor includes a Newport Mansion. So, until everyone lives in a Newport Mansion or a one room dirt floor hovel, things are not right?

              Did I even suggest that? Maybe my idea of being poor has to do with the absolute disadvantage of the poor. see further below

              And what exactly does the 1965 voting rights act have to do with capitalism anyway? I might just remind you as a fellow New Yorker, that things were pretty square around here long before 1965.Not perfect mind you but pretty fair.

              Capitalism, in spite of BF’s utopian non-reality, is the reason there are so many poor vs. so few rich. The voting rights act has to do with the fact that people of color fought (and died) for a system by which they had no say. As regards New York and things being pretty square … surely you’re not serious (if you’re comparing the advantage of being white vs. black/Hispanic in the 1960’s in NY as regards education and/or employment). Surely …

              • The greatest lie Charlie tells:
                ” Capitalism, in spite of BF’s utopian non-reality, is the reason there are so many poor vs. so few rich”

                No, Charlie, before Capitalism most of human lived on the edge of starvation and desperation.

                It was Capitalism that created the greatest expansion of human prosperity in history. It has made the poor of America richer then the King Henry VIII.

                I know you have to lie about this, but facts are facts.

              • Flag is right on this stuff. CCNY, the great hope of everyone was open to all folks based on performance. I’m unhappy with this talk of “disadvantages”. Everybody here, not too many generations back was REALLY poor and disadvantaged. If you were the “newest” ethnic group in town you were screwed, Irish, Italian, Slovak, Greek, Hunky, Polak whatever and yet they persevered. Hey, I went to High School and college in the 1960’s and went with many people of color. What we had in common was our parents kicking our asses to make sure we performed. Even my friends from broken marriages had the benefit of both Mom and Dad separately kicking their asses. What’s missing from the equation today is the parents and the family and that’s by design. looking for a conspiracy, start there.

                Get real with this stuff. Things have gotten progressively better over time and that probably would have continued had not the government been so damned interested in “helping” out thereby making housing, medicine, education unaffordable to the average working stiff. That in turn begat a “need” for even more government help. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi would have loved it.

      • Charlie,

        No, Charlie, Chomsky arguments do not even talk about Capitalism – he, like you, merely mis-define it to be mercantilism. You do that because you have learning issues.

        Chomsky does that because he has a fundamental crisis in his premise.

        Chomsky holds a premise that government is immutable. Though it is a fact that government is a very recent creation of man, only about 10,000 years old at best – he ignores this totally.

        As government is immutable – he argues on the edges of how to control that evil. He wants to control the evil, but he only has one lever.

        But there are two levers – legitimacy and loot.

        Government sells its violence to the highest bidder.
        Chomsky does not like this because he is never the highest bidder. So this is the one he attacks.
        He will not attack free men directly – he would lose votes; so he redefines his attack to be on “Capitalists” after he defines Capitalists to be the very opposite – Mercantilists.

        Government needs legitimacy, so it sells its violence for votes.
        Chomsky likes this one, because votes can be manipulated by sweet con men, and he with his rhetoric and argument, has a chance.

        But no matter what, Chomsky loves government – he loves the violence when it is in his hands, and hates it when it is bought by others.

        The problem is not the voters or the money – it is the government and its violence.

        But you need that violence, too, Charlie. It is your own lever, too.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    SK

    Re: Intervening in other affairs to stop evil, ala Hitler, etc, etc.

    As a pretty good historian you should be aware of falling into the trap of perfect hindsight.

    Very few were predicting or could rationally predict the eventual genocide of Hitler.

    His desire for conquest was evident, however. So is the threat of conquest enough to step in and become the aggressor?

    We should also ponder the question, what would the world be like if there had not been a WWII?

    Would the world powers have learned their lessons about Imperialism via military conquest? Would the animosity of WWI been stopped or depleted?

    This of course is very relevant given so many think we need to “intervene” in Iran. We only know what we think to be true about their potential behavior. But we DO NOT know FOR SURE. So do we act per our fear of another Hitler, before we have proof of such behavior? How much proof do we need?

    I fully understand the desire to prevent such atrocities by stepping in to help. But it seems history shows us that there is a great price for intervening prematurely. Perhaps that cost is greater than doing nothing.

    • I do not particularly disagree. It has been a long, long time since I read “Mien Kampf” but things were pretty clear there. Under treaties signed and the Versailles treaty itself, Britain and France had the right to intervene. Churchill thought it would work. The numbers were on their side vis a vis weapons and men yet they chose to “wait and see” and put a lot of stock in wishful thinking. After all, Chamberlain was sure that Herr Hitler desired peace as much as he did.

      As I pointed out above, the Germans have ultimately achieved their goals bloodlessly. They say war is politics practiced at another level the Germans have demonstrated that economics is war and politics demonstrated at an even greater level. Interesting to say the least and a re-enforcement of Flag’s traditional argument.

      As a high schooler I saw (unfortunately) the US as being the heir to the Pax Romana. Would that there could have been some body that could stop the Hitlers. Certainly the UN and League of Nations are failures. If I could create such a perfect world there would be some kind of “Justice League” out there who would make it very clear that you, by all means have the right as a nation state to screw with your own folks. Eradicate all blue eyed blonds if you like but translate that idea across an international border and you are dust. No appeals, no second chances and screw the warnings, dust.

      The Iranians may be all BS. And certainly the government, I think, does not represent the majority of their people nor did Saddam but I fear they are a very real threat not excluding their own population. One nuke over Tel Aviv equals several over Tehran. After the fires are out the world may have fun again trying to pin the blame on the “Jews”. But it will be a blame we all share. The answer? How the hell do I know. Arguing with a suicider who is doing it for the greater glory, blah, blah, blah isn’t going to accomplish much. Somehow, if push comes to shove, the Iranian people have to stand up and revolt. Highly unlikely despite the fact that most are not religious fanatics. I don’t know, maybe we just airdrop weapons with a load of Special Forces manuals and hope for the best. Despite the fact that it will create one nasty precedent, a well placed EMP might not be a bad idea either.

      • SKT

        Would that there could have been some body that could stop the Hitlers.

        You often use this rational, but it is utterly incorrect.

        I know its not your fault, either – it is repeated and repeated – constantly since 1948, when the first justifications for wiping out hundreds of thousands of unarmed women and children.

        “We entered the war to stop Hitler”

        No, the US did not.

        The US entered the war when Japan was manipulated into attacking the US.

        The war in Europe was raging for over two years already.
        The US had no intention of stopping Hitler, or it would have entered the war on moral grounds of stopping tyranny years before.

        It did not do so.

        The US entered the war solely , SOLELY to advance its own imperialism – to continue the advancing of American interests that started back in 1914.

        With Russia on the verge of obliteration, her navy trapped, Britain hanging on by threads and her Pacific Navy sunk and routed and Germany approaching exhaustion – stretched thin over 8,000 miles of battle front in Europe, Russia and Africa and the Japanese bogged down in China and Korea – threatened and threatening the Collapsing Bear in the Far East.

        The US saw the perfect opportunity to advance its own interests and hegemony with essentially a free hand in any theater it wished to operate.

        And that, and only that, was the reason the US entered the war.

        So, do please stop saying the US entered the war to stop Hitler.

        It did not.

        • Ahhhh, BF….you and I must spar on this one,my friend. Especially the “manipulation” of Japan. I will agree with you, that the entrance into the war with Germany was for more than political reasons….(ie: stopping Hitler, because you are quite right in that we maintained a “neutral stance” on Europe until it was in our best interest. As you said, Hitler was doing things far before our entrance into the war and the US did not take a moral stance then)…but that interest was not solely on hegemonic design although I will agree that it was one of the reasons.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            I have always been curious about this thing Progressives had against Germany when so many Americans ancestors came from Germany.

            from Wiki per 2000 Census data:

            Major components of the European segment of the United States population are descended from immigrants from Germany (19.2%), Ireland (10.8%), England (7.7%), Scotland (5.8%), Italy (5.6%), Scandinavia (3.7%) and Poland (3.2%) with many immigrants also coming from other Slavic countries. Other significant European immigrant populations came from eastern and southern Europe and French Canada; few immigrants came directly from France. Since French, French-Canadian and Acadian ancestries are overlapping, the number of counties with “French” as the main ancestry would also be larger if these three labels are added together.

          • Definitely need to keep that ‘neutral stance’ prior to our formal entrance in quotation marks…but agreed that we most certainly did not enter WWII on moral grounds to stop Hitler.

  24. Triponey (the woman told to resign by Penn State) interviewed this weekend on Outside the Lines on ESPN … should be interesting, but only if you listen to what she says objectively … and without emotion …:)

    • USWeapon says:

      Which you have shown no ability to do in this Penn State situation 🙂

      You have already accepted Triponey’s story without bothering to find out any of the other facts that have been presented around this case.

      • charlieopera says:

        Let’s see … the rest of the world, including a former FBI head (and I was originally VERY suspicious of PS hiring anyone to perform an “internal” investigation) comes up with evidence that pretty much the rest of the reasonable thinking world can see for what it is/was … a woman who was taunted and given death threats for going up against a coach who had more power than the President of the University gets some press because of what PS and JO PA were revealed to have done (unless you want to ignore that too) and bada-boom, bada-bing, she’s the liar? The good old boys school vs. a whistle blower … imagine taking sides with the whistle blower? And she wasn’t even that; she walked away in frustration until PS shot itself in the foot and revealed (again, to reasonably thinking folks), how corrupt the four most responsible for the cover-up acted (or didn’t act) … now she’s piling on, I suppose. Loyality is one thing … blind faith is an entire other enchilada.

        Revis has a bad hamstring … Go Bills! 🙂

  25. charlieopera says:

    Unless, of course, we don’t have a video tape of all four PS officials and Sandusky wasn’t really allowed to use the campus and PS facilities and money to help him groom for rape the victims. That’s possibly too, right? It’s just one big coincidence … the 1998 report, Sandusky suddenly retiring in 1999, PS officials not knowing any better, allowing him to continue to use the facilities …even in 2001, when the punk McQreary witnessed Sandusky raping someone and went and told Jo Pa (after seeking Daddy’s help because he sure didn’t want to blow his chances of becoming a coach there someday), even that was just coincidence … who could have believed Joe Pa knew anything more about Sandusky than that? Why should he report the guy to the police. Legally he didn’t have to (which makes his fugazy “lets’ just pray for the victims” speech outside his home before he died all the more putrid) … let’s exonerate him, give the football program some sympathy money and scholarships (positive reinforcement, because after all, they’re all innocent) … and Triponey? Ha, just another disgruntled employer (always protect management!) …

    Right, that’s probably how it went down. I can’t imagine what all the fuss is about … 🙂

  26. Morning folks…..sitting here eating my Chic-fil-a spicy chicked sandwich…..( No, my Plutonian friend, it has nothing to do with not liking alternative lifestyles, it has everything to do with the hypocrisy of the movement ) …..back to where I was headed……Texas voted down a Rhino establishment conservative, that we hope sent a message to the Rhinos still thinking they are entrenched. Dewhurst outspends Cruz by 24 mil and lost. What beat Dewhurst,,,,,I am glad that you asked…………………………………………….(1) Negative ads run by the super Pacs…and (2) he is a Rhino. THAT is what beat him. Nothing more……nothing less. SO…..the message from Texas to other states…. you can do it…we just showed you how. ( Now, let’s hope that Cruz does not catch Potomac Fever)( Not to mention the enormous veterans groups that have formed their alliances as one bloc ). Chic fil a better send us some coupons…..we have 1,884 veterans going to their stores today in four cities. (Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio).

    Note to Buck: We have some 107 degree weather in case you are interested….Mathius has already ordered some. (Oh, and what is with this New York thing of telling mothers how to feed their own children? What is next?)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good morning Colonel.

      A big and hearty WELL DONE to Texas. But haven’t you heard? The Tea Party movement is dead, dying, the tide is reseeding….etc, etc.

      We are about to get our FIRST 90 degree plus day of the year. It will be suffocating with the humidity and long period of cool. But some drying out is needed badly.

      Hope all is well with you and yours.
      JAC

      • Howdy, JAC….good morning to ya……We are doing well….(Despite Mathius’ best efforts to have me picked off with a head shot by USW. He is still upset because I took the cheerleaders away….)

        Heat index today? A mere 112….we will pay a little attention to it….but we need rain desperately. The other day there was a rain cloud…thunder, lightning, wind……no water. The air was so dry that the rain never made it to the ground. It was one of those 10 inch rains….you know the type…..ten inches between drops. Anyway, things are interesting here.

        By the way, I know our gunboats on the Rio made local and Fox news…..did you happen to see it? The splash downs***** have been all but eliminated.

        ***** Splash downs = the tactic used by drug cartels that when a vehicle is intercepted in Texas and does not stop and reverses its course and drives back to the river and then plunges into the river, the Federal response was not to chase any further and the cartels would send boats to the splash down area and rescue the driver and the drugs, knowing that the Feds would do nothing. That has now been eliminated because our gunboats…..operated by the Texas Department of Public Safety on state funds….machine gun the cars, drugs, and cartel boats.

    • And they just get STUPIDER:

      Another protest is coming on Friday, when Equality Illinois is urging gay and lesbian couples to go to their local Chick-Fil-A restaurants for a “kiss-in” campaign, which the group is promoting along with other gay rights organizations nationwide.

      At the “kiss-in,” Equality Illinois says, “LGBT supporters will show their disdain for Chick-Fil-A’s policies with public displays of affection in front of their restaurants.”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        My suggestion to the owner of Chick-Fil-A.

        Shut er down pard. Close the doors and tell ALL YOUR EMPLOYEES that they can thank the GLBT folks for being unemployed.

        Take yer millions and enjoy the rest of yer life.

        • Seriously considering a roadtrip to Toledo this evening for some chicken! It would be worth the $50 in gas!

      • Ah…the free market at work!

        • Sure enough. The record crowds at Chick today will be able to see just how stupid some folks can be. Emanuel and Moreno have created a bigger mess than they bargained for. Schadenfreud!!

        • Buck,, This is not the free market at work. This is the liberal media making up bullshit and sold it to their sheeple! The Owner NEVER even mentioned gay marriage and the company does NOT have any policies that discriminates against gays. Once again, the Lame stream liberal lying media has stirred up a bunch of brain dead morons. That’s is what is at work here! 😦

          • Umm…no, this is the free market at work.

            You have people upset by the owner of Chick-Fil-A’s stance on an issue. Those who are upset are organizing a protest in front of one of many locations in an (however misguided) attempt at raising awareness of their issue, Chick-Fil-A’s stance on said issue, and hopefully urging people to spend their money elsewhere.

            • What stance Buck, the manufactured media lie or the real words from the owners mouth? Are you just another member of the Liberal sheeple Corps? 😆

            • Uh, this is has nothing to do with “Free Markets”, Buck.

              Man, you really do become confused between political action and economic action. To you they are one and the same.

              This is political action – a demonstration on freedom – the right of association, so exercised by both sides of the debate.

              A person has the right to associate with any other person they chose – or not!

              The gays hold this right.
              The business holds this right.

              They may disagree with each other – but both are in their rights and both have a right to act in that right as long as they do not violate the rights of others.

              None of this has anything to do with economics, Buck.

              • The right to associate and protest is a political action, true. But couldn’t it also be said that a free market requires this right — for both consumers and businesses? In that sense, this is the free market at work — people are unhappy with a business, they protest in hopes that this protest spreads and impacts the business’ bottom line. Capiche?

              • Buck

                The right to associate and protest is a political action, true. But couldn’t it also be said that a free market requires this right — for both consumers and businesses?

                “Free market” … note the first word.

                Free market is merely voluntary trade. Period.
                It is really that simple, Buck.

                You trade or not for whatever reason you want.

                No need to invoke any other “right” at all to justify anything at all.

                Now, if you destroy the “voluntary” component, it is no longer a Free market, but a “something other than free” market.

                In that sense, this is the free market at work — people are unhappy with a business, they protest in hopes that this protest spreads and impacts the business’ bottom line. Capiche?

                It is the free market. Period.
                You are trying to apply a justification for the people to chose to trade or not trade – one of an expression of a set of rights.
                The point: free market requires NO justification to do or do not.

                This protest and counter-protest is 100% political – each side justifying its actions upon the same principle – the right of association

              • Buck,

                Here is how you can measure this.

                It is confusing because one of the participants is a corporation, whose existence is to garner economic profit. But this is irrelevant to the question.

                So remove the corporation and put Mathius in its place and re-run the scenario.

                Mathius says he does not want gay people in his living room, but will entertain anyone else.

                Buck calls Mathius a name and says Mathius is biased and organizes a protest against Mathius saying hoping to convince other people not to go to Mathius house.

                A bunch of people believe like Mathius, and a bunch of people believe like Buck – so each side wages a campaign of ethical one-upmanship.

                So where is any of this economics?

              • Now why would I protest against Mathius?? You just aren’t making any sense here BF!

                In all seriousness, I’m following you on this one. But I still see a clear interaction between the political and economic. People are exercising their political rights (in banding together) and making an economic decision not to buy (or to buy, as the case may be) from Chick-Fil-A. The free market allows people to make that choice, correct? (In other words, no one is being forced to buy/not buy from CFA). They are using their political right of association towards garnering additional support for their economic decision.

              • Buck

                But I still see a clear interaction between the political and economic. People are exercising their political rights (in banding together) and making an economic decision not to buy (or to buy, as the case may be) from Chick-Fil-A.

                Correct, but this has nothing to do with economics.

                The pivotal point: economics is judgement free.

                It does not make a claim that this or that decision by a person is “right” or “wrong”.

                Economics is a tool to determine consequences of human action.

                It says “If you do this, expect that”

                The only time economics might say “you’re wrong” is when you say “I want this”, but do things that give you something else. Then economics says “you want this, but act in manner that prevents you from obtaining that, you are in contradiction. You really do not want that, even if you say you do”.

                “Economic decision” is nothing more than a person measuring values. Each person has different values – and imputes that value on objects. How a person makes that value or why or why not is irrelevant to economics. Economics merely recognizes that a person does that.

                The free market allows people to make that choice, correct?

                Free market does not “allow” anything – that is the point of freedom, no one is granting anyone anything.
                The people make their choices based on whatever reason they wish in a free market.

                They are using their political right of association towards garnering additional support for their economic decision.

                They are using their wealth as a tool to punish or reward behavior. This is political.
                Economics will tell you what will be the consequences.

    • Colonel:

      1) Keep your 107 degrees. I know you need (and enjoy) it much more than I do!

      2) Breastfeeding/Formula — Bloomberg is a bit nuts. What else can I say?

    • Mathius™ says:

      We have some 107 degree weather in case you are interested….Mathius has already ordered some. Don’t forget to hold the humidity. If you could, I’d like it on Saturday/Sunday so I can enjoy it out of the office.

      (Oh, and what is with this New York thing of telling mothers how to feed their own children? What is next?)
      Bloomberg is a bit nuts. What else can I say?

      Though.. to be fair, full disclosure is in order. Bbg isn’t banning formula, he’s saying that it can’t be given out in goodie bags at hospitals and that the hospital has to record use of formula and state a reason. This is an effort to manipulate people into using breast milk instead of formula. While this is an admirable goal, I don’t think it’s necessarily something the government should be getting involved in. That said, he’s not banning or prohibiting formula or it’s use. Under his proposed plan (which won’t go anywhere), you would still be able to use formula if that is your choice.

      The problem I have here is that formula / milk is a personal medical decision. While, generally, it’s considered better to breast feed for a number of reasons, there are some legitimate drawbacks. First, it can be physically painful for the mother, it doesn’t provide all the necessary vitamins (we are using vitamin supplements), it tethers the mother to the child so she cannot easily go back to work. On the flip side, it burns 300-500 calories a day for very little effort. It can also be donated to local hospitals and is often in desperate shortage (unfortunately, no tax deductions for this). So, rambling aside, the fact is that while I would opine that one is (generally) BETTER than the other, both are viable options. In the end, it’s no one’s business but the parents.

      I think about this much the way I think about the abortion debate. There is a “better” option (the analogue in abortion debate is giving the kid up for adoption) and a “worse” option (abortion). But that doesn’t make it my place to get involved. Similarly, busybody politicians who can’t seem to find the political will to outright ban the worse option, try to get around that by making the ‘worse’ option more difficult/cumbersome/etc. Making you jump through hoops to make a legal choice (and a deeply personal one, at that) is just a way of manipulating you in an effort to effectively ban something they can’t outright ban.

      Does this make sense? I agree with “where his heart is” but think he needs to butt out. He can advise and attempt to educate the populace, but he doesn’t have the right to manipulate and inconvenience in order to get a back-door into a law he wants but can’t pass.

      PS: If you’re thinking about asking a followup question that involves the 2nd Amendment in any way, shut up shut up shut up shut up ::finger in ears:: la la la la la la I can’t hear you!

      • No second amendment rights stuff……..it smacks of nanny state…..that is all.

        (are you still mad at me for moving naked Cowboy Cheerleader tryouts from my front lawn or did the missus give you a warning?)

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    We “converts” are always the most firm in our convictions. Belated Happy Birthday to Milton Friedman.

    The great Thomas Sowell writes a tribute published in IBD:

    If Milton Friedman were alive today — and there was never a time when he was more needed — he would be 100 years old. He was born on July 31, 1912. But Professor Friedman’s death at age 94 deprived the nation of one of those rare thinkers who had both genius and common sense.

    Most people would not be able to understand the complex economic analysis that won him a Nobel Prize, but people with no knowledge of economics had no trouble understanding his popular books like “Free to Choose” or the TV series of the same name.

    In being able to express himself at both the highest level of his profession and also at a level that the average person could readily understand, Milton Friedman was like the economist whose theories and persona were most different from his own — John Maynard Keynes.

    Like many, if not most, people who became prominent as opponents of the left, Professor Friedman began on the left. Decades later, looking back at a statement of his own from his early years, he said: “The most striking feature of this statement is how thoroughly Keynesian it is.”

    No one converted Milton Friedman, either in economics or in his views on social policy. His own research, analysis and experience converted him.

    As a professor, he did not attempt to convert students to his political views. I made no secret of the fact that I was a Marxist when I was a student in Professor Friedman’s course, but he made no effort to change my views. He once said that anybody who was easily converted was not worth converting.

    I was still a Marxist after taking Professor Friedman’s class. Working as an economist in the government converted me.

  28. For the SEC fans

    T’was A Month Before Football
    http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2012/sec-football-poem/

  29. Gore Vidal vs. Buckley on Vietnam

  30. To the voting Cattle

    • “Your God said “Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill”
      but your State said “it is good to steal by tax, and kill by war”
      – so we know which is your God and which is not”

  31. @Buck,

    Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy has been taking heat from the left for some comments he made presumably about homosexual marriage. The thing is, he didn’t actually say anything about homosexual marriage. Cathy only stated his beliefs about traditional family and marriage. Leave it to the media to try to make a story out of nothing.

    The original interview that the media quote as being responsible for all these attacks and boycotts by the left was given by Ken Coleman on Ken’s radio show that aired on Father’s Day. The context of the infamous quote by Mr. Cathy in which he states that our culture is “inviting God’s judgment” wasn’t even about homosexual marriage. In fact, the subject of homosexual marriage never even came up during the entire interview. Ken’s question to Dan was regarding the growing problem of “fatherlessness” in our society today.

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6385/liberal-media-fabricate-another-scandal/#ixzz22Jh55PLU

    Maybe the Liberal Media should get their crap straight!

    • That is besides the point to this discussion. It doesn’t matter if people are right or wrong in their view of Cathy’s remarks. What is important is they are demonstrating the might of the free market by deciding not to purchase CFA and try to get other people to do the same.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        It is NOT the “might of the free market”.

        It is the “might” of a well organized and well healed minority of people acting in a “political” manner.

  32. @ BF…..but, my friend, you and I agree that reform must start at the local level….I wish it could be KEPT at the local level but…alas. We made a start…we started a grass roots local level push that grew. We fought against the entrenched. We are putting, what we hope, to be good people in local positions. It is these that helped get Cruz elected….We were outspent by 24 mil and still won…but it was local level organization that did it. So………despite it all, and the reality of it……I hope Potomac Fever does not get him. We shall see…..we still have an election in November where he is pitted against another entrenched political foe…on the democrat side. We shall see.

    By the way….I was remiss again…..how is the arm my friend….is it permanent damage now or still getting better? How is the range of motion…all ok?

  33. @ Buck….a caveat for you…………if someone chooses to not buy something…that is choice and that is free market. To buy or not buy, to sell or not sell, to trade or not trade free from interference. BUT, if the exercise of 2nd amendment rights of free speech impedes or interferes with the exercise of free market…( a kiss in that impedes or otherwise prevents the exercise of free market) then I say that is not a free market choice but is violence upon the establishment. Would you agree? ***note***

    *** The use of the term free market, in this sense, does not purely define it in economic sense but is intended to expand the definition of free market in the exercise of individual choice.

    • I fear you are confusing the 1st and 2d Amendments….

      Is it ‘free market’ for someone to physically stop me (or threaten violence to stop me) from making an economic decision to purchase a good — NO. But in terms of people protesting outside an establishment to try to convince others to make the same economic decision?? YES. That is fine.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      It is much more basic and easier to understand than all this “free market” stuff.

      NO MAN HAS A RIGHT TO IMPOSE HIS WILL UPON OTHERS.

      This is the CORE tenant of a FREE PEOPLE.

      The use of organized boycotts is a direct attempt at IMPOSING the will of one group against another. There is a name for holding another persons income “hostage” to getting something in return. EXTORTION.

      Buck: A Free Market is the summary of all trade among FREE PEOPLE. The MARKET can not be used against Free People. Individuals can obviously try to harm others economically, but that is not “using” the Free Market. That is simply another form of coercion.

      • What is the difference between organized boycotts and shunning?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Boycotts are a deliberate attempt to harm the financial well being of others. They quickly devolve into mob rule as many in the mob “fear” not participating.

          Shunning is the simply ignoring of another. Turning your back on the offender. But note, shunning has historically involved “offenses” against some “rule” or “standard” that is accepted by the broader community.

          So in this case, those who do not like the company can certainly not do business there. But their efforts are now going beyond a simply “shunning”. They are an organized and media driven effort to do actual “damage” to this business.

          They are thus threatening not just the owner, but everyone who works for the company.

          Kind of like bombing Mexico because we have problems with their President. 🙂

          • Mathius™ says:

            Boycotts are a deliberate attempt to harm the financial well being of others. They quickly devolve into mob rule as many in the mob “fear” not participating.

            Mr. Flag likes to envision a world in which sunning is a mechanism for enforcement of proper behavior. How would this work if it were not organized and if it does not wield economic might? That is, if I catch my neighbor driving drunk, and I decide that this is unacceptable, I would have no legal framework for ‘coercing’ him into proper behavior. As such, I could, of course, shun him. However, I am just one person and, without my business, his store hardly suffers – and without my friendship, his life goes on. So I call up Buck and say, ‘hey buck, don’t shop there.’ But that’s just two people. And meanwhile, he is not feeling any ill effects. It’s not until Buck and I make a concerted effort to get people to avoid his store in an organized boycott that he feels any real pressure. Now we’re getting somewhere.

            Once he feels his livelihood is threatened, he’ll capitulate and behave properly. Or that’s the theory anyway, at least as I understand it.

            So explain to me – how does this work if it’s not organized and wielding the power of economic pressure? What does he care if he’s shunned by people he doesn’t care about?

            Boycotts are nothing more than amplified shunning.

            Shunning is the simply ignoring of another. Turning your back on the offender. But note, shunning has historically involved “offenses” against some “rule” or “standard” that is accepted by the broader community.

            Like, say, public exhibitions of blatant bigotry?

            • “Boycotts are nothing more than amplified shunning.” Very well said. I fail to see the distinction here. What makes one ok and the other not? Neither depend on violence nor the threat of violence. So what’s the problem?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Violence is NOT my standard. It is the use of FORCE and that includes COERCION.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Shunning is a PASSIVE activity. You simply do nothing.

                Boycotts are ACTIVE. You must organize and convince others to join you. You must act against the individual not just ignore them.

                Boycotts are NOT simply amplified shunning. They are an active form of IMPOSING YOUR WILL UPON OTHERS.

              • Boycotts and protests are not imposing your will upon others, they are attempts to get other people to shun a given establishment along with you. I fail to see how this is either force or coercion, unless the boycott/protest in question crosses some line and is actively stopping others from entering the establishment.

              • Buck,
                Mark this in your calender.

                I agree with your assessment. Shunning and boycotts are essentially the same concept, using different methodologies.

                I believe it is not coercion as there is no violence.

                It is using the force of one’s rights to enforce one’s morals.

              • Mathius™ says:

                JAC,

                Explain to me where I crossed the line.

                1. I shun you.
                2. I call up Buck and suggest that he shun you as well.
                3. I call up three other friends (woops.. that’s all the friends I have)
                4. I stand outside your store and tell people what you did that caused me to shun you.
                4b. I suggest that they go elsewhere.
                5. I call up the media and make my case to the public.
                6. I throw a brick through your windshield and burn down your store.

                Which one, and more importantly, why?

              • Calendar officially marked!

        • Same basic concepts, merely different mechanism

  34. I will answer the protests of Chik Fil A locally by inviting the local Boy Scout Troops to eat there, marching in with the American Flag , singing God Bless America and the National Anthem loud and proud!. As paying customers, we will take over and send the Liberal Sheeple Corps out the door! That, my Friends is engaging in the Free Market!

    • But yet somehow my doing the opposite is not….go figure. I’d be curious as to your answer to Mathius’ question to JAC above.

    • Mathius™ says:

      So your plan is to politicize the Boy Scouts?

      And to use them to (indirectly) make a statement about homosexuality and gay marriage – something you and others have specifically pointed to as a subject which should be militantly avoided by the boy scouts.. I see…

      • Mathius, The Boy Scouts have stayed with their Christian beliefs and you hate that as a Liberal! So yes, I will bring them along to stand tall on thier beliefs, why not? It’s called free speech, and yous liberals hate it when it’s used against you and your ideaology that you (not you directly) have been shoving down everyones throats for years now! NO MORE my liberal friend! Not in my neck of the woods, and we are quietly making it known that Liberals are not welcome around here, and neither is the government. 🙂

        • The Boy Scouts have stayed with their Christian beliefs

          That homosexuality is a sin against God … which God? Oh, right, that Christian, all forgiving, God. Or maybe it was the constitution you confused … that bit about all men being created equal.

          Why not just get rid of the screen moniker or send us a picture of you wearing your hood, my man …:)

  35. charlieopera says:

    Over here with your free market …

  36. I’ve watched as those on the left have goose stepped behind the liberal media and their lies for a long time. The Arizona shootings, the Zimmerman/Martin lies, and now this mess witgh the owner of Chik Fil A. Seriously, it’s much easier to deal with the medicated mentally ill than it is with stupid people who continuously follow the idiot lying media. Will any of you ever learn on your own? Can you think without the media helping you? are you really so brainwashed that you need government to survive? UHG!

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    You crossed the line when you “asked” Buck to join you. This assumes you were “harmed” but Buck was not.

    You have no right to impose your will upon me. My behavior is not an issue if it does not cause you harm.

    Boycott is a form of extortion and attempt to FORCE others to conform. It can be appropriate as a retaliatory method when you are harmed. Remember the plant polluting the water example? Boycott is OK there.

    This is not like that. YOU are not harmed and neither is Buck. While you are free to avoid the chicken when you start “asking” or “encouraging” others you are moving to an area where coercive affects happen on others. Including those who participate. Fear of being excluded from the “group” for NOT participating is also coercive.

    You argue that demanding sex for promotion is Coercion but demanding a business to do what you want or destroy their livelihood is not. Both have the same ingredients. A voluntary relationship is being disrupted under threat. One is by the boss demanding sex, the other is by you demanding nobody buy chicken UNLESS Mr. Chicken does what you want.

    And by the way, what would that be anyway?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Here is an excerpt from a story on how gay employees are being affected. See COERCION yet???

      One gay employee who works at Chick-fil-A headquarters in Atlanta, Ga., and asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing his job, says he is getting it from both sides. On the one hand, there is the customer who came in and said he supported Dan Cathy and then “continues to say something truly homophobic, e.g. ‘I’m so glad you don’t support the queers, I can eat in peace,'” the employee, who is 23 and has worked for Chick-fil-A since he was 16, wrote in an email. On the other hand, he continued, “I was yelled at for being a god loving, conservative, homophobic Christian while walking some food out to a guest in a mall dining room.”

      He disagrees with Cathy’s views, but the reaction from the public has been just as hard to swallow.

      “It seems like very few people have stopped to think about who actually works for Chick-fil-A and what those people’s opinions are,” he wrote. “They are putting us in a pot and coming to support us or hate us based on something they heard and assume we agree with.”

      Pay special attention to that last line. That is what boycotts do……….enflame people to act against others so YOU can force your will upon the target.

      Boycotts are a lot like Govt. They look good in theory …………………… if they exist within a MORAL and ethical Society of Free People. But as we know, not everyone is moral and ethical.

    • JAC,

      Please explain exactly how Mathius is imposing upon me when he asks me to stop frequenting an establishment because of X, Y or Z.

      Thank you.

      Oh, and a nice big top o’ the morning to ya!

    • Mathius™ says:

      Fear of being excluded from the “group” for NOT participating is also coercive.

      Wow…

      According to you, a request to a friend is coercion because he might feel some peer pressure.

      According to Flag, a boss demanding sex and threatening pink slips is not coercion because there’s no threat of physical violence.

      I think you two need to get together over some beers and talk this out.

      Mathius: Hey, Buck, can you give me a hand this weekend moving some furniture?
      Buck: STOP COERCING ME!

      One is by the boss demanding sex, the other is by you demanding nobody buy chicken UNLESS Mr. Chicken does what you want.

      No. One is the boss demanding sex.

      The other is me and my friends refusing to buy chicken. At no point are we demanding that nobody buy chicken. That would (depending on how we ‘demanded’) be crossing the line.

      (Side note, I say ‘me and my friends,’ but I’m not actually involved in the boycott and, frankly, couldn’t care less)

  38. Someone from the left please explain to me why ” I support the Traditional marriage” is a bigoted statement. I just saw the whole interview for the first time….CFA does not discriminate in hiring, serves everyone that walks through the door and the President supports traditional marriage…..and this is somehow bigotry.

    Are not the real bigots those who wish to boycott? Isn’t it bigotry to be against someone for their beliefs? I am confused….but then again, I am a bigot….I ate TWO CFA meals today….WITH DR PEPPER.

    • Someone from the left please explain to me why ” I support the Traditional marriage”

      Buon Parmariggio, Colonel!

      From Pluto, we say (answering your question), because “traditional marriage” is fugazy in the first place … totally man made; therefore totally subject to man remaking. The fact supporting traditional marriage while opposing gay marriages is ipso facto discriminatory is another good enough reason (i.e., close enough for jazz) to qualify it as bigotted.

      Now, if you support traditional marriage but don’t deny gays marry the same way, then you’re just stating your opinion while respecting another opinion (fine with most of the world, I’d think).

      • Therein lies my point……there was no hint of being against same sex marriage from CFA…….they support traditional marriage as defined. That is all. Just wondering why that is a bigoted statement….

        Ok….back to sniffing your Plutonian dust, sir….and hope you have a great evening.

  39. @ Mathius……..I demand you stop eating N and Out Burgers

    Major corporations like Tyson Foods, Interstate Batteries and Hobby Lobby were either founded or are now led by outspoken and deeply religious bosses. While some of the companies distinguish between their corporate identities and their leaders’ faith, others embrace it.

    —Norm Miller, chairman of Interstate Batteries, discusses his faith and salvation at length on the company’s website, even inviting people to write him for advice on prayer;

    —Tyson Foods, the Arkansas food processing giant, offers chaplains to counsel its employees on life issues like deaths or family emergencies;

    —In-N-Out Burger, the popular California-based hamburger chain, prints “John 3:16” on the bottom of its cups;

    —Hobby Lobby, the Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts store chain, cites its commitment to “honoring the Lord” on its website and closes its 500-plus nationwide locations on Sundays, as does Chick-fil-A.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/01/chick-fil-not-alone-in-touting-religion-alongside-products/#ixzz22LT00WKM

    • Now you have done it Colonel! THe entire Huffington Post staff are heading to the hospital with faux heart problems! Great job!

    • Mathius™ says:

      I am well aware of In ‘n’ Out’s religious leanings, as well as the scripture on their cups.

      However, I couldn’t care less because it is SO UNBELIEVABLY AMAZINGLY DELICIOUS.

      That said, I, personally, am not boycotting Chick Fil-A either. I, personally, think that as long as you’re not actually discriminating against customers/employees, that a business owner can have whatever bigoted opinions he wants, and is free to publicly state them. My understanding is that he said he is against gay marriage, but that he has not done anything like firing gay employees, so I don’t see the issue. I’ve never been to a Chick Fil-A and don’t have any clue where the nearest one is, so my non-participation in the boycott is probably irrelevant.

      That said, I wholly support the right of others to boycott in response as they see fit. I think that economic pressure is a tremendous tool for social change. I think bigotry should be confronted and condemned, but I don’t know that it’s worth the collateral damage (harm to employees, etc) just to punish an off-hand statement of an owner when he hasn’t acted in any way I object to… that I know of, anyway.

      • The nearest location is not that near to you. But definitely not worth the trip — not because of the owner’s remarks, but because it just isn’t all that good!

        • Kristian says:

          That is blasphemy Buck, they have the best chicken nuggets it’s ever been my pleasure to consume!!! You take that back….LOL!!!!

          • Mathius™ says:

            Chicken nuggets aren’t really worth (::some quick googling::) a 30 mile trip.. each direction.

            But a good burger… well now, that’s well worth it…

            • As you learned not too long ago…

              And sorry Kristian, I guess I’m just not a fan of CFA. No offense!!

              • Kristian says:

                I’ll let it slide, this time…lol! It isn’t for everyone. I guess that’s really the point of this whole thing though, isn’t it? Gay marriage isn’t for everyone and traditional marriage isn’t for everyone. If you have an opinion about it, great. If not, that’s fine too. It’s when you put action behind that opinion to force your will on others that is wrong. Mr. Cathy expressed an opinion and nothing more, and the opinion that he expressed had nothing to do with gay marriage. He simply stated that he supports traditional marriage. Gay marriage was never mentioned in this interview so I’m trying to figure out how you got bigotry out of him expressing support for that. Do you suppose he would have gotten the same treatment had he expressed support of gay marriage?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Mr. Cathy expressed an opinion and nothing more, and the opinion that he expressed had nothing to do with gay marriage. He simply stated that he supports traditional marriage.

                It also turns out that he donates financially to organizations which actively fight against gay-rights, as well as being anti-feminist. I am quite happy to deny those organizations funding and just fine with boycotting upstream sources of their funding in order to do so.

                ————-

                Anyway, found this.. let me know how it turns out:

                http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/07/the-food-lab-how-to-make-a-chick-fil-a-sandwich-at-home.html

                Now, let’s all move along, shall we?

              • “It’s when you put action behind that opinion…” I have absolutely no problem with people who decided to buy or not to buy (…that is the question…) due to the owner’s views. I have no problem with supporters of the owner lining up at CFA in droves to buy some CFA nuggets. I have no problem with opponents spreading the word and organizing a boycott of CFA.

                I’m still having a hard time understanding how or why a boycott is so wrong….isn’t it the capitalists that always say “Vote with your wallet”?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        So now it is the use of “pressure” but not force?

        You don’t like collateral damage, which is inevitable with boycotts, you explain correctly this is wrong, but condone others doing wrong.

        This is the problem with relativistic ethics Matt.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I believe a lot of things are balancing acts.

          If the harm is sufficient that some collateral damage may be tolerated.. then so be it. If not, then not. In THIS case, it seems to be not worth it – in MY opinion. In the opinion of many others, it is worth it. Unlike many people here, I do not believe in an either-or black-and-white interpretation of (most) moral issues. Most things are a sliding scale.

          I don’t see that the C-F-A guy did enough harm (or, in fact, any harm) to merit the reaction he’s receiving. In MY opinion, he deserves some condemnation for his bigotry, but that’s about it.

          However, I’m not the one calling the shots on this.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Exactly, and you are no different that most in this country.. and that is why we flounder.

            You think morality is gray, that “things are a sliding scale” then turn around and argue that it is OK for you or others to initiate Boycott against someone to make them conform to YOUR gray/sliding scale.

            • Mathius™ says:

              The fun thing is that our gray-scale system allows us to meddle in your lives.

              But, conversely, your black-and-white system does NOT allow you to meddle in our lives.

              How cool is that?

  40. @BF No, Charlie, before Capitalism most of human lived on the edge of starvation and desperation.

    And what’s crazy is you actually believe this bullshit. :)i

    • As I and almost everyone here has said, Charlie, your biggest fault is that you deny facts.

      Jeffrey Sachs’ book, The End of Poverty.

      There was no discernible rise in living standards on a global scale from 0 A.D. through 1000 A.D. as population rose from 230m to 270m

      There was approx. 50% increase in per capita income between 1000 A.D. thr 1800 A.D. as population rose from 270m to 900m

      Since 1800, global population has risen 6-fold to 6.1b while per capita income rose 9-fold with USA per capita income rising 25-fold and European 15-fold

      • As I and almost everyone here has said, Charlie, your biggest fault is that you deny facts.

        Oh, is that what it is this week, windbag?

        Thanks for clearing that up …

  41. @BF … lies my ass. It’s EXACTLY what you said.

    Keep typing, my man… keep typing.

  42. @ STephen:

    Hey, I went to High School and college in the 1960′s and went with many people of color

    Many defined by what percentage? 10, 15, 20? 3?

    I need to get real with this stuff? You have to be kidding … I lived in Canarsie, my friend. There are studies about the racism that went on there (burning real estate agent offices when they sold to blacks) … race riots at the high school every year I attended (70-73) … but let’s not get caught up in that nonsense, look to law firms today, my man. I’ve worked in at least 8 of the biggest in NY and now work in Jersey … you have a clue how many blacks are attorneys in them? How many are partners? I guess blacks just aren’t as good, huh?

    It goes on today, my friend. Never mind in the 60’s (you have to be on acid to think it didn’t back then). BF’s FACTS are cherry picked and total bullshit (like most of the wind he cuts loose). He talks to the universe … maybe he should interract with actual people instead of a keyboard on SUFA. You think?

    You’re going to argue blacks had it “pretty square” in the 60’s & 70’s … you’re going to argue with yourself over that one.

    • Oh Charlie……come on now………I went to high school and college in the same time period of the 60’s…and you have seen me say that I witnessed riding in the back of the bus and separate counters and restrooms and that it was wrong….I have seen all that and it went away in the 60’s.

      BUT….you seem to be one of the “statistical” crowd that assumes…..if a law firm has NO blacks or Hispanics or One eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eaters….as senior partners or any other position, that the fact that there are none MUST mean discrimination. Do you still believe in this statistical clap trap that was the demise of the affirmative action program that did not work? Tell me you do not still believe in the “if the population is 50% black that there must be 50% black employees or partners or whatever”.

      If you do, I submit that the combination of Plutonian Dust mites and the purveyance of modern chemistry is still with you…..I think that I know you to be passionate (in the greater good issue) and I understand that…but please……tell me that you do not believe this.

      • Colonel, discrimination in large law firms particularly is nothing new and pretty well documented. It is a serious problem.

        Note: This is not saying that if a group represents 50% of the population, then that group should be represented at or about 50% everywhere else.

        • Buck….where would the litmus test be then? How do you prove discrimination unless you are part of the problem (the term You is categorical and not personal, I think you know that) with a stated unwritten policy. The Affirmative Action program of the 70’s proved to be non responsive as the statistics proved nothing…so, I wonder,,,,where is the test?

          • I don’t have an answer to that question.

            But when you look at the number of black law students graduating, with top grades, getting the top jobs, and moving forward with their careers…And then you look at the number of black partners at these firms…there is clearly a problem here.

            The same is true for women partners.

        • Thank you, Buck.

          Tell me you do not still believe in the “if the population is 50% black that there must be 50% black employees or partners or whatever”.

          No, Colonel, that’s not my line. I also believe in merit (believe it or not), but merit cannot be obtained when peoples are purposely kept out of the running and that is a fact of the legal profession with big law firms (the biggest) … it’s just a fact … or, dare I say it, an inconvenient truth.

    • I can’t help what happened in Canarsie. I can’t help blockbusting that went on in Flatbush and East Flatbush. What I can say is that it was not Selma Alabama. I went to a academically tough Catholic High School and everybody who made it through did so, black, white, hispanic because their parents kicked their asses. that my friend is the issue TODAY. Ain’t no ass kicking going on. El Jefe at 1600 Pennsylvania has just (July 26th) issued another edict saying some crap that the numbers of expelled blacks and the numbers of expelled whites are grossly divergent! Something must be done! So, either spitballs among whites will be elevated to the same level as 9MM’s among blacks or we are just going to look the other way. I wonder if he is looking for percentage parity or what.

      Regarding blacks in law firms, I don’t know period. Maybe they are not that good. maybe statistically, the number of black candidates is a minute fraction. If blacks constitute 12 % of the population, at best, then they would be theoretically eligible for 12% of the partnerships BUT, BUT, what is the percentage of black lawyers. Is it 12 % of the legal profession? Methinks not. Therefore, any logical person would have to assume that with such a limited number of candidates, any representation will not reflect the general population breakdown. What about women, what about gays, what about gay women. As a matter of fact, what is the ethnic break-down in legal partnerships of the top 100 law firms in the country, how many Poles, Catholics, Irish, Italians. I bet we are still not equal there.

      How about Jews? Are they over represented more than any other group in the legal profession vis a vis their percentage of population? If they are it must mean that the Nazi’s were right, that the Jews control everything (those Elders of Zion guys again). And lets hear it for all those over represented Asians in the Sciences. Are there not quotas in California schools designed to keep them out? Why by God,, when I need a bypass I will demand, just to make Charley, Matt and Buck happy that I have an EO surgeon. Even better, I will demand that they have an EO surgeon.

      Just because someone has a race riot does not mean the riot was justified. I remember the ’70’s quite well, I remember being in the transition in the Army in ’69 and ’70 where being white was dangerous on some parts of some posts and only because you were white. There was the “black power” period which I thought was encouraged by the radical white power structure developing in this country as a mechanism to “use” blacks as sacrificial foot soldiers and divert attention from what was really going on.

  43. Good Morning All 🙂

    I awoke to a pleasant surprise concerning our discussion from yesterday about Chik Fil A. It seems that I’m not alone in telling the Liberals to stick it (especially the two idiot Mayors). The Liberal Media may have just shown the election results as well (if it occurs 🙂 ). http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/08/01/americans_turn_out_in_droves_to_support_chickfila

  44. @ the Walla Man…….g’ morning, Buckmeister…..how goes it. Last night, I had dinner with several lawyers (and did not get massive amounts of indigestion)….

    Two interesting topics came up. But first, I must set the stage. Picture this…….two lady barristers (ass’t DA’s), one gentleman counselor of estate planning, 2 gentlemen tax lawyers, 1 constitutional mouthpiece, and 1 criminal lawyer all sitting at a round table (convention like) with their Perrier and wine glasses and one Marguerita….the rest of us had water. D13 is the only non lawyer at the table. (Still no digestive problems)…..

    Topic one…..Senator Reid’s comment on national media that he received an anonymous call from “someone” who said that Romney’s father told him (the someone) that his son should be ashamed as he has “paid no taxes for over 10 years”….Reid went on to say that this is unconfirmed of course as I cannot prove anything but it could all be answered if Romney just releases his tax returns not ten years back but 15 years back now. When questioned who made the call, Reid responded, “I don’t know who it was, just a phone call.” So here is the issue that was discussed…..Since Reid made an unsubstantiated claim from an anonymous source on national media during an election campaign……is there libel here. The discussion centered around the fact that since high public offices have a greater amount of standard, could this be libel or at least slander. Can a public official make a bogus claim and then say that the person to whom the claim was made has the responsibility to put the rumor to rest….or should there be libel suit or slander suit filed and they have to prove the statement. My question to you before I reveal all the answers….is (drum roll please)……Is Reid’s statement protected speech and not libel or slander, in your most humble and OBJECTIVE opinion. ( I made a bet on your answer ).

    Topic 2….On the subject of the judge’s ruling on Hercules in Colorado, where they were granted an opt out on the health coverage mandate because of moral convictions and whether this signals the death knell of the mandate portion of the universal health care. At issue in the ruling, was the argument from the Government that claims that the mandate is necessary to the health care program for proper funding, and therefore, an integral part of the survival of the Affordable Care Act. The defense was, if the mandate was necessary and needed for the implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act, then why were certain political organizations, unions, Federal Employees, and other large donor employers exempted from the mandate. In particular, why were there over 15 exemptions from Nancy Pelosi’s district alone, including Pelosi’s own companies…therefore, the proof that the Affordable Care Act is dependent upon the mandate is laughable at best and NOT dependent upon “everybody” being in the mandate. Given that reasoning, how can the government now say, you cannot be exempt on the basis of moral conviction? The Federal judge apparently agreed with the Hercules argument.

    Two very interesting topics…

    • Caveat to Buckster………..have your coffee first, sir.

      • Had a cup before leaving for work this morning…now just waiting on the secretary to put up a fresh pot…shouldn’t be long now…

    • ….constitutional mouthpiece…. — love it!

      Topic 1) Defamation. It all turns on actual malice — did Reid have either (i) actual knowledge the statement was false or (ii) demonstrate reckless disregard of its veracity? I would argue no to both counts. Actual knowledge is pretty clear. Reckless disregard turns more on whether Reid had actual doubt of the truth of the remarks. It is insufficient merely that he didn’t engage in fact checking. Given the context, and the fact that Reid was republishing a statement told to him I would say a defamation action brought against Reid would fail. Though, to make matters worse for Mitt, as you well know, the truth is a defense….hehehe

      Topic 2) Interesting topic indeed and something I just don’t know enough about to comment on. I do agree that all the exemptions being granted are ridiculous. But I do believe that gov’t would have some leeway in providing guidelines (which must be equally applied to all) in granting the exemptions and ‘moral conviction’ could legitimately be deemed not sufficient.

      I’m surprised you got through that meal absent any digestive problems…

      • Now Now, my friend…..Topic one: I submit, as you have stated many times (don’t you hate it when that happens), that public officials SHOULD BE HELD to higher standards. Everyone at the table agreed to your statement of malice…and so do I. (No shock, please). Reckless disregard actually came up..and all agreed that Reid should have been held to a higher standard than simply repeating a rumor. An example was used by the estate guru, that if he said I was told that Romney was a murderer…I have no proof of course and do not know, but this is what I was told…then that would be reckless disregard and libel. I do not see the difference…but anyway, at the end of the conversation, it was very interesting to note….that the three Republican voting lawyers (yes, Buck, in Texas we have conservative thinking lawyers) walked in lock step as did the four Democrat lawyer types.

        Topic 2……They all said the same thing that you did about the guidelines to be applied to all….but the fact that labor unions, donors, and Federal Workers are exempt do not make the guidelines fair to all….and moral convictions would be no less important than being in a labor union. They all think that the Affordable Health Care Act will be challenged in small segments and will be effectively dismantled.

        Hope your day goes well, sir………………………….it will be a mere 107 today with some cheesy 112 heat indexes……not hot yet….but getting there.

        • Topic 1) Well the fact that all the attorneys at the table walked in lock step according to their political philosophy, is a problem. I think that Reid would be protected even if he repeated the murder rumor, but there would obviously be much more political fallout for him had he parroted a line like that. What was the rationale the conservative lawyers used in deciding Reid would lose a libel case? Not that Mitt would ever bring one — after all, he would have to produce his tax returns in the process!

          Topic 2) The fact that labor unions, donors and federal works are exempt does not make the guidelines unfair or even unfairly applied. The question here is: What are the guidelines? Then and only then can we look at the application of those guidelines to see if it is being done in a neutral manner. I think the ACA will survive; there will be a few challenges here and there, a few changes over time — some changes possible through the courts, others through subsequent legislation. But I don’t believe there will be a dismantling of the ACA. Though I guess time will tell.

          • Buck….interesting question……..how would YOU justify an exemption to a 54000 member union and not a moral exemption on religious grounds?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              d13

              Colonel, you reveal your lack of understanding of the Progressive mind. To them Unions are a religion.

            • I’m not familiar enough with the particulars of the union’s request for an exemption. My only point is that the government can establish guidelines in granting exemptions and, in crafting those guidelines, could legitimately exempt ‘religious conviction’. The issue here is (i) what are the guidelines? and (ii) are they being uniformly applied?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                No Buck, that is NOT the real issue here.

                The real issue is that the mandate exists at all.

              • Can we move past that now? You may not like the mandate, but its there and its constitutional. The Colonel is asking my thoughts about the exemptions being granted, to which I raised the above questions. Do you know the answer?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13 and Buck

      It is not that politicians should be held to a “higher” standard, but held to the same standard. It is OUR STANDARD that has failed.

      And of course politicians who feel it unnecessary to live according to the rules the rest of us must comply with.

      As for Reid, he knows full well he is not liable unless someone could prove he did not get this mysterious phone call. It is a ploy Mr. Reid has used in the past. He is a SNAKE, a prime example of the evil that lurks in our Govt.

      • JAC, D13, and Buck,
        Does any of this apply to the “right” constantly attacking Obama on Birtherism, Socialism, et al?

        It is OUR STANDARD that has failed.

        Let’s make sure we remember who lowered the standard…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          The LEFT lowered the Standard. Pure and simple.

          And YES it applies to BOTH political parties, as BOTH are on the LEFT.

          Now the Socialism claim is valid so I am curious why you lump it with the ridiculous “Birtherism” as you call it.

          Mr. O is another Fascist Progressive in a long line of the same. They all are cut from the same Ethical Cloth on which Socialism stands.

          • I won’t speak for Todd, but perhaps he lumps it together because Obama is no socialist….have you ever asked a socialist what they think of Obama?? (Charlie…paging Charlie….)

            • Charlie’s opinion on anything other than football is highly suspect and probably irrational – hence not worth a wooden nickel.

            • Obama is a socialist and I”m a very thin man.
              Maybe in BF’s universe that applies … but in the REAL WORLD (where people have to organize to co-exist), Obama is no socialist. He’s not remotely close to one. Obama is as much a socialist as Sarah Palin is a geographical genius.

              Not to worry, though … the socialists are coming … sooner or later, to a theatre near you, like it or not …:)

              • Mathius™ says:

                Obama is as much a socialist as Sarah Palin is a geographical genius.

                All I can say is: wow.

              • Obama is absolutely a socialist – government mandated economics.

                So is Romney, by the way.

              • The problem with Charlie is he has no definition of anything – his labels are meaningless.

                He doesn’t know what a Socialist is – couldn’t identify one or the other – except himself.
                He knows he is one, so he tries to measure everyone else compared to himself- and if they are exactly like him, they aren’t a “Socialist”.

  45. 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      Singing in the Rain?

      Man, we’re going waaaay back today, aren’t we?

    • That’s waaaay to happy and active for first thing in the mornin!

      • Are we not a morning person 🙂 What can I say, it popped into my head and I couldn’t quite singing it-so I decided to share and say Good Morning at the same time. 🙂

        • I get up early every morning..no problem. Just don’t look at me or speak to me for about an hour! 🙂

          • I used to be like that, but now I allow people to talk as long as they aren’t asking me to do something or saying anything which requires me to have to think. 🙂

  46. Ann Coulter on Obama’s campaign strategy over the years. Relevant to D13 and Buck’s discussion above.
    http://www.anncoulter.com/

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    RE Your comments above:

    1. According to you, a request to a friend is coercion because he might feel some peer pressure. According to Flag, a boss demanding sex and threatening pink slips is not coercion because there’s no threat of physical violence. I think you two need to get together over some beers and talk this out.

    WHY? I AM NOT BLACK FLAG. WE DO NOT AGREE ON ALL THINGS. MY STANDARD IS THE USE OF FORCE NOT VIOLENCE ALONE. COERCION IS ONE FORM OF FORCE WHEN “INITIATED” TO MAKE PEOPLE COMPLY TO YOUR WILL.

    2. Mathius: Hey, Buck, can you give me a hand this weekend moving some furniture? Buck: STOP COERCING ME!

    ASKING SOMEONE TO MOVE FURNITURE IS NOT THE SAME ETHICAL QUESTION AS ASKING THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR USE OF FORCE AGAINST ME TO MAKE ME COMPLY WITH YOUR WILL.

    3. “One is by the boss demanding sex, the other is by you demanding nobody buy chicken UNLESS Mr. Chicken does what you want.” No. One is the boss demanding sex. The other is me and my friends refusing to buy chicken. At no point are we demanding that nobody buy chicken.

    HOW RIDICULOUS A CLAIM. OF COURSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DEMANDING VIA BOYCOTT. WHEN DID A BOYCOTT BECOME NOTHING BUT AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN? AND OF COURSE, WHEN DID 100% BECOME THE STANDARD FOR EVIL? EVERYONE MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE EXTORTION OR IT IS NOT EXTORTION?

    SO LETS USE YOUR OWN WORDS IN RESPONSE: “I think that economic pressure is a tremendous tool for social change.”

    NOW HOW I WONDER CAN ECONOMIC “PRESSURE” MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN CAUSE ECONOMIC HARM?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Should have edited before posting:

      “COERCION IS ONE FORM OF FORCE WHEN “INITIATED” TO MAKE PEOPLE COMPLY TO YOUR WILL.” Should read:

      COERCION IS ONE FORM OF FORCE, AND IS IMMORAL WHEN “INITIATED” TO MAKE PEOPLE COMPLY TO YOUR WILL.

      NOTE: The moral/ethical prime for freedom is that people do not have a right to “initiate” the use of force against others. That standard is what keeps us from devolving into a world of man eat man just because “I feel like it”.

    • JAC,
      Are you saying that any type of organized protest is FORCE?

      If so, does that mean the person being protested against can use FORCE against the protesters?

      Could the Chick-Fil-A owner shoot the protesters? The protestors are using FORCE to cause him ECONOMIC HARM…

      Could a gay person, who wants to get married, shoot the Chick-Fil-A owner, if they feel his comments have hurt their access to marriage?

      Can I shoot you? There have been a few times on this blog where you twisted my words and pointed out to everyone on this blog how wrong I was. That seems like you were trying to COERCE others on this blog against me…

      Does this apply to protests against the government too?

      Or, since the government already uses force/evil/violence/theft, that would justify the use of FORCE against the government in the form of a protest?

      So what ‘power’ does the average person have?
      Or is ‘power’ reserved for companies, corporations, and the wealthy?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        “Are you saying that any type of organized protest is FORCE?” NO. I am saying that a Boycott is Coercive Force. I am saying it should not be used as an “initiation” of force. It can be used in retaliation against force. Such as the plant polluting your towns water supply.

        So using chicken, if the owner has done nothing more than reported he has not used Force against anyone. Words are not force. It is taking ACTION against someone. Now if the owner is lobbying Congress to pass laws banning marriage then he is working to use Govt force against particular people. They are entitled to retaliate in kind.

        But does a boycott limit its damage to the owner? NO. So the force is causing HARM to innocent people. The corresponding ethical thing to do would be to spend money lobbying Congress to NOT pass such legislation or to perhaps TAX Mr. Chicken’s personal income at a 90% rate.

        Shooting vs. use of words? Really Todd?

        Yes, protests and boycott of Govt IS appropriate. If the Govt kills innocent people then yes, shooting those Govt people who killed innocent people would be appropriate. If Govt becomes too oppressive then Armed Revolt against Govt is also appropriate. Oppression here means that it is inflicting harm against those who have not harmed others.

        The avg person has the power and responsibility to THINK and ACT rationally. Organizing advertising campaigns or demonstrating against someone or a company is appropriate. That is part of dialogue or debate if you will. But demonstrating to provide INFORMATION is not the same as organizing BOYCOTTS by customers and clients of a business.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Words are not force. It is taking ACTION against someone.

          But- but-

          But I was just using words when I called Buck up to ask him if he’s join me in shunning C-F-A…

          ::scratches head::

          Now if the owner is lobbying Congress to pass laws banning marriage then he is working to use Govt force against particular people. They are entitled to retaliate in kind.

          But- but-

          But the owner is actively funding groups doing exactly this. He may not be directly lobbying, but he’s paying other people to lobby on his behalf…

        • JAC,

          So the force is causing HARM to innocent people.

          Who are these innocent people? Employees that help earn him money and let him spread his message? Customers who pay for the chicken and provide the revenue for his profits? No one is totally innocent…

          or to perhaps TAX Mr. Chicken’s personal income at a 90% rate

          So a boycott hurts him, but using government force/evil/violence/theft is ok??

          Geez – who are you and where is the REAL JAC???

          But demonstrating to provide INFORMATION is not the same as organizing BOYCOTTS by customers and clients of a business.

          What if I demonstrate to provide INFORMATION that includes INFORMATION on where to find better chicken at a lower price?

          This just all seems ridicules JAC. You’re trying to create definitions that are minutely different to distinguish between FORCE and non-force.

          You also seem to think that a boycott can only be accomplished thru COERCION or FORCE. That is not the case – I can simply discuss a situation with someone, make my case, and encourage them to join. They can then decide to join or not to join.

          I also noticed you skipped a lot of my questions… 😉

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            Are you sure you really want to go down this path?

            “Who are these innocent people? Employees that help earn him money and let him spread his message? Customers who pay for the chicken and provide the revenue for his profits? No one is totally innocent…”

            We are talking Core ethical principles here. So this principle you express here is applicable to ALL situations. Is that your view?

            • JAC,
              We’re talking about chicken. Get off your-high-Rafalca and answer the questions…

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Todd

                What questions have I not answered?

                Nobody should IMPOSE there will upon others.

                Force is to ONLY be used to defend oneself against FORCE by others. Retaliation can be a form of defense when used to stop future attacks.

                Boycotts are a form of coercion (extortion) and thus force. The goal is to FORCE someone to act according to another person’s will, that is to IMPOSE their will upon them.

                The ethical defense against someone who lobbies for anti gay legislation is to lobby for gay legislation. The proper response to someone who runs advertising against gays to to run advertising for gays.

  48. Journalism is out. The modern media is too lazy and cheap to actually work on investigative reporting and when they do take the time, it leads to some ridiculous personal eyewitness account of nothing in particular. Coming up with an actual scandal takes work, but why bother when you can just spin the actual news in the worst possible way and manufacture a gaffe narrative.

    Manufacturing gaffes is a lot easier than manufacturing jobs which is why the media has switched from fake optimism about the economy to fake pessimism about Romney’s competence. While it takes a lot of work to open a factory that manufactures shoes or microprocessors, manufacturing a gaffe factory is very easy.

    Step 1. Call something that a candidate has done a gaffe.

    Step 2. Report on the gaffe claim that your media outlet just made. Do not call it a claim, treat it as a verified fact that everyone has already acknowledged.

    Step 3. Turn the gaffe reporting into the major issue by talking about it all the time. Interview experts who are willing to back up your gaffe claim.

    Step 4. Fire constant questions at the candidate to force him to acknowledge the gaffe. If he discusses the issue in any way, describe him as apologizing or walking back his previous statements. Print essays that accuse him of being an incompetent flip-flopping wimp. If he refuses to discuss it, accuse him of stonewalling and print essays that accuse him of living in denial because he refuses to admit what “everyone” already knows. Either way you’ve proven that he’s a bad person.

    Step 5. Repeat step 1 several times. Then begin reporting on a “Pattern of Gaffes”, a “Pattern of Stonewalling” and a “Pattern of Flip-Flopping”.

    We got a preview of the media’s gaffe manufacturing process during Romney’s international trip. There are currently more media stories on Romney’s gaffe than there are on the latest bad news for the economy. The narrative is being set through constant repetition.

    • Great article! I think we could insert Chick-Fil-A in and get the same basic story.

      http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48499

    • LOI,

      We got a preview of the media’s gaffe manufacturing process during Romney’s international trip. There are currently more media stories on Romney’s gaffe than there are on the latest bad news for the economy. The narrative is being set through constant repetition.

      Or Romney could quite making gaffes…quite pander to the right…quite making stupid gaffes while pandering to the right…then the media would have nothing to talk about.

      Or he could actually talk about something of substance…just a thought…

      • Well let’s be realistic here — one of the reasons for these constant stories (besides Romney’s constant gaffes and pandering) is his refusal to speak to the press. I think I read that it was a grand total of 3 questions he took while on his foreign trip. The press don’t take kindly to that.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Well now.. you must be crazy to suggest that when you piss off the press you get negative coverage.. it must be that left-wing-bias we’re always hearing about..

          • Lets be honest, the press is pissed because he has a shot and he’s not liberal enough. They threw Hillary under the bus because BHO made her look like a RINO…..

            It appears as though Andrea Mitchell has joined the chorus of “journalists” on MSNBC attacking Mitt Romney for his comments in Israel over the weekend.

            On Wednesday’s Morning Joe, Mitchell tried to scold Dan Senor, senior advisor to Mitt Romney, over what she described as Mitt’s ‘deeply offensive’ comments on the relationship between culture and economic success in Israel.

            Senor, who himself is Jewish, felt it appropriate to give Mitchell and the entire Morning Joe panel a lesson in Israeli politics and foreign policy to dispel Andrea’s ridiculous criticism of Mitt Romney. Dan pointed out that Mitt Romney’s argument was that:

            The cultural choices that a society makes, the choices that it makes about its culture, about its political culture, its economic culture are big factors in determining its economic vitality…and in the case of Israel, there’s no doubt the fact that there’s this enormous respect for rule of law, for private property, for freedom of the press, for respect for minorities and for women in Israel and this celebration of entrepreneurship and innovation.

            The comments which Mitchell found so offensive were actually cited in a United Nations development report. The UN, of course, does not have a very strong pro-Israeli record.

            Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2012/08/01/romney-advisor-slaps-down-andrea-mitchell-s-claim-romney-s-statement-#ixzz22QI1JBJt

          • YOu finally grasp it, friend Mathius…….DPM should be proud.

      • Errrr Toddster, what did Romney say that YOU think was a gaffe? The media had been hyping all the issues plaguing the Olympics….They reported the stories and offered comments based on their vast experience talking about what other people do, while they sit in front of a camera, becoming instant experts. Romney, by contrast, is credited by the same media with rescuing the Salt Lake Olympics. His comments qualify as “expert”opinion on that subject. And they label it a gaffe when he voices concern over the same things they thought were headlines….

        “Romney’s foreign trip gaffes” the Washington Post blares, “Romney’s Gaffe Track Ends” ABC News laments, “Mitt Romney in Jerusalem: Another city, another gaffe (or two)?” the Christian Science Monitor speculates. Every outlet repeats the same talking points with a slight twist. The “story” is that Romney makes gaffes.

        Once the basic narrative has been set, the media begins its secondary “reporting” in which it treats its manufactured story as a real story and begins embedding it into the real world. This takes the form of analysis pieces on the consequences of the fake story.

        “Romney suffers gaffes, but will it hurt his campaign?” asks AFP. “Mideast gaffe could cost Mitt Romney” suggests the New York Daily News.”‎‎Romney aide’s gaffe exposes rift” offers Politico.

        Any response from the candidate is treated as a denial. The reporting puts the gaffe narrative front and center to keep it alive for as long as possible. The rejection of the gaffe narrative is treated as a shameless and irresponsible lie. “Foreign gaffes won’t matter, Romney strategist says”, offers the Los Angeles Times. “Mitt Romney Blames Press for Foreign Tour Gaffes,” broadcasts ABC News.

        Finally, if the Romney campaign is not paying enough attention to the media’s manufactured gaffe narrative, there’s an answer for that. “Romney tries to move beyond Britain gaffes” says Reuters, still keeping the manufactured narrative in the context.

        With all the gaffes flying around, you would think that there would be a lot of material to cover. But all the “gaffe” stories go to great lengths to avoid discussing the actual gaffes. Instead what they do is discuss the media coverage of their own narrative in other media outlets. They discuss what their own experts think about the story that they manufactured. They pull reactions off the street. And when they do mention the “gaffes”, they avoid quoting Romney as much as possible. Mostly what they do is summarize events in their own words leaning heavily on the reaction to it, rather than the actual event—always a trademark of a manufactured story.

        If you have to read to paragraph six of a news story to find out what actually happened, then the odds are good that you are either reading a sloppily written news story or a news story that doesn’t want you to know what actually happened.

        We now have 500 news stories that describe Romney’s trip as “gaffe-filled”. What makes a trip “gaffe-filled”? The definition of “gaffe-filled”, even by the media’s standards, are three gaffes.

        In the UK, Romney commented on the stories in the media about the trouble with the Olympics. The media then screamed that he had committed a gaffe by saying that the stories that he was seeing in the media were “disconcerting”.

        In behavioral terms, this is known as acting as a contrary conversationalist. In media terms it’s known as, “Everything that you say is wrong even though you’re saying exactly what I just said… but it’s wrong because you said it.”

        So Romney’s first “gaffe”, in the trip that the media called “gaffe-filled”, was repeating what the media was saying. And while arguably repeating things that the media says may be legitimately considered a gaffe for the reasons this article lays out, I doubt that the media really wants to make the argument that repeating anything they say counts as a gaffe because the media are a bunch of worthless liars.

        • LOI,

          what did Romney say that YOU think was a gaffe?

          Romney went on this little tour to spout off his foreign-policy cred. Insulting your host in public is not good manners or good diplomacy.

          You worship of Romney and his “expert opinion” does not make it such.

          The rest of your comments are just the result of the 24 hour cable/internet news. They have to talk about something – it’s probably best to make sure it’s not YOUR stupid comments they’re talking about…

              • Buck, from your post:

                “Mitt Romney may become our next president. Will he continue to espouse one-factor explanations for multicausal problems, and fail to understand history and the modern world? If so, he will preside over a declining nation squandering its advantages of location and history. ”

                Maybe the author Romney quoted should run for pres? Be interesting how he would give a speech, make it interesting but not put people to sleep, like reading a book sometimes does… Was Romney right or wrong to note the difference a culture can make? i have read accounts of when Israel turned settlements over to the Palestinians, they destroyed much that had been built there. A greenhouse built by Jews would be razed as unclean…OK, but they didn’t build a new one to replace it… Your author talked about iron ore not being a factor, that it’s common everywhere. So why does one mine and use that ore and the other ignore it and what can be done? One culture recognizes women as being a productive part of their society, one treats them as slaves. Guess which one receives more economic return on their female population?

                And I don’t think Romney has or acted like he has all the answers, he gave a speech and threw out some talking points. So do you fault what he said, or what he didn’t say? Did he not say enough? I would have used Haiti & the Dominican Republic as an example, but that would have just offended another group.

          • Todd, wow!

            “You worship of Romney and his “expert opinion” does not make it such.”

            I only worship God & Jesus. Kinda a big deal to me. I see a lot to admire in Romney. I also see a lot that causes me concern. He has proven himself to be one of the most moral and ethical men in modern times to run for president. No tramps have crawled out of closets to claim any affairs. (could make the same statement about Obama) But give credit where due, Mitt has led a very moral life, public and private. Obama won his early elections Chicago style, digging and dealing dirt on his opponents. ( Also question that church he attended)

            “Romney went on this little tour to spout off his foreign-policy cred.” You and the liberal press are entitled to your opinions. I think Romney would express it differently….spout off? No, I think he might say show his understanding of foreign bla, bla..

            “Insulting your host in public is not good manners or good diplomacy.” True! It might have been better to avoid anything negative, but was it accurate? Another side is you don’t live by only saying what is PC, sometimes you will offend. I kinda like his offensive comments. To me, he is too liberal, too easy going. It seems everything he proposes is designed to offend or alarm the fewest voters. The left will be offended by whatever he say’s or by his silence. The independents are fed an appealing message of slow spending reform. The right is stuck with, he’s sooo much better than Obama…..

      • Strain on Olympic security means ’50/50 chance’ of bomb getting in

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/26/strain-on-olympic-security-means-5050-chance-of-bomb-getting-in/#ixzz22QLH7IfK

  49. It’s comforting reading comments on other sites about Chick fil A. I like this one in particular:

    Just had some Chick-Fil-A tenders with a side of waffle fries and some “Sit Down and STFU” sauce! I don’t need any lecturing from sanctimonious liberals who unleash government bureaucracy jihad on chicken sandwiches while going billions of dollars in debt. Rahm Emmanuel ought to spend his time trying to get his city’s balance sheet to look like Chick-Fil-a’s does. You know, in the black.

    Hey Kathy! A commenter had a great suggestion for those of us not close to a Chick location.. grab some merchandise online to show your support.:
    http://www.shopchick-fil-a.com/default.aspx/MenuItemID/177/MenuSubID/11/MenuGroup/Home.htm

    • Anita, stop imposing on Kathy and using coercive measures! How dare you suggest she join you in purchasing merchandise from CFA!!

      Didn’t you learn anything from Mathius being told that asking me to support his stance is coercive? Geez!

      JAC – did I get that right? 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        NO! You fail once again.

        The question from Mathius was where did he cross the line. I simply said when he starts trying to get others to participate in the boycott.

        Boycott DOES NOT EQUAL going shopping together.

        You equate buying with causing economic harm.

        • So, to clarify:

          1) Mathius asking me to refuse to purchase from CFA = BAD
          2) Mathius asking me to purchase from CFA = OKIE DOKIE

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            YES!

            Mathius asking you to purchase from CFA “for the purpose of harming KFC” = BAD.

            Get it now?

            • Mathius™ says:

              Nope.. I don’t get it.

              How does shunning work as an enforcement mechanism against unacceptable behavior if I can’t recruit others? If I determine that you are a in violation of societal norms, but can only opt to shun you by myself without others, you only lose my business/friendship and that’s not particularly detrimental.

              So, for C-F-A, the guy said something bigoted.. so what? People say bigoted things all the time. But upon further review, it turns out that he spends a small fortune supporting activist groups to lobby against gay rights. Ok, now I think this is a problem. So I refuse to go to a store that I wasn’t going to go to anyway… and what? You think he cares? Nope! So my “voice” meaningless unless I can get others to join me.

  50. Just a quick comparison:

    Republican House Tax Bill:
    * slashes the Earned Income Tax Credit, which supplements wages of low-income workers
    * slashes the Child Tax Credit, which provides up to $1,000 financial support per child for poor working families
    * extend Bush-era tax cuts for the highest income earners: individuals earning over $200,000 a year and families earning over $250,000.

    Democrat Senate Tax Bill:
    * let expire tax cuts for families making $250,000 and over, or individuals making $200,000 and over
    * extend tax breaks for middle-class taxpayers

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/christian-leaders-blast-gop-tax-bill_n_1730884.html#s308815&title=Luke_62021

    A report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney’s tax cuts would:
    * boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year
    * reduce after-tax income by an average of 1.2 percent for those earning less than $200,000

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/mitt-romney-tax-plan_n_1727909.html?ref=topbar

    So who’s on who’s side???

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      They are both on their OWN sides.

      Cookies for Power for Cookies for Power and around and around.

    • Hi Todd…just points out to me the simplification of a flat tax……not a progressive one. Then you would not have to worry about deductions and tax credits. Everyone contributes….EVERYONE which is fair.

      I like 15%. Everybody pays 15%. No deductions, no credits….no nothing. The more you make, the more you pay. To me, it is so simple and the government would be awash with money. Of course, Buck would be out of a job……………unless he changed specialties. Accountants would be out of a job…..most of the IRS would be out of a job, the Cayman accounts would dry up as there would be no need, off shore accounts in Europe would not be needed….do the same to the corporate tax. Everybody likes Canada for some reason so copy their new corporate tax rates…..15% maximum corporate rates, if I heard correctly….no deductions for anything and companies like GM would have to pay instead of paying nothing. Mom and pop business’ would have their tax rates reduced and middle class business people will flourish. More jobs would be created. Tax all entitlements the same as income at 15% and have the Federal Employees do the same….including our politicians.

      Yep…..I like it. It sure would stop all the arguing over fair taxation…..the rich pay their fair share, the middle class pays their fair share. and the poor pays their fair share…..no more arguments over the 1% and no more arguments over the 48% that pay no income tax…..it does away with refunds and the tax code would no longer need a 12 story building to house the paperwork. We save trees and things that the environuts like to do….that is cool. The more trees we have, the better the atmosphere and more places for the little birdies and squirrels to hide in…this would force the environmentalists would have to find a new thing to yell about…like melting ice glaciers….no, can’t do that..they aren’t melting….but they would find something.

      Yep. I like it. A good start.

      • “Of course, Buck would be out of a job……………unless he changed specialties. Accountants would be out of a job…..most of the IRS would be out of a job,”

        Why are you so keen on adding to the unemployment lines??

    • Urgent Need for a New Narrative

      The fact of the matter is that this is a patently false narrative based on a superficial and highly misleading comparison of eight awful years of Bush versus only three heroic “hope and change” years of Obama. We need a truthful new counter-narrative, designed to compare instead:

      (a) George W. Bush’s first six years in office — called “Bush Country” for short — when he had a solid, pro-growth Republican Congress to work with, versus

      (b) the next six years of what we should call the current “OPRAH Land” Economy, which we are now enduring and which will almost surely get “Progressively Worse” if Obama and his “green jobs economy” entourage are re-elected.

      See also http://captainscomments.com/comment/812.

      By this correct depiction of Bush Country versus the OPRAH Land Plantation, the disastrous history of the latter — i.e., the tax-and-spend “Age of Obama”– began not three and a half years ago, but fully five and a half long years ago, in January 2007. Thus the six-versus-six comparison set forth above.

      This was when the very aggressive “vampire taxation” and highly partisan Pelosi-Reid Congress (with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as by far the two most “Progressive” senators often leading the charge) were very effectively relegating an outgoing President Bush to the status of a de facto “lame duck.”

      It was from this two-year Congress of Bigger Government, with its accompanying expectations and scary prospects of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House for the next four years, that a steadily improving Bush economy of 2006 began to stagnate and then fall apart in 2007.

      Capital formation was put on hold. New hiring dried up. Nonsensical “cap and trade” energy policies seemed almost inevitable. The Democrat-inspired Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “housing bubble” burst. Consumer and business confidence began to collapse — and by early 2008, the entire U.S. economy was plunging headlong into the unmitigated disaster that Obama inherited in January 2009 — not from George W. Bush, but from a “Progressively Worse” Pelosi-Reid Congress.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/six_years_of_bush_country_six_years_of_oprah_land.html#ixzz22QNy50pB
      Great chart at link!

  51. Mathius™ says:

    Today is a sad day in America, as Rafalca, known as The People’s Horse, placed 13th in the Olympics.

  52. Just A Citizen says:
  53. Black Flag,

    Why is a wooden nickel or US dollars fiat, and gold is not?

    What makes gold so much better than US dollars?

    Is it the perceived value, beauty, and rarity of gold that creates demand?

    Because all that is just human emotion.

    Gold is no different than US dollars. People perceive value (for whatever reason). That value rises and falls.

    Both are just economic goods…

    • Todd

      Black Flag, Why is a wooden nickel or US dollars fiat, and gold is not?

      Fiat money is money that derives its value from government regulation or law: the initial value of fiat money is established by government decree.

      So a “wooden” nickel – a piece of wood is decreed to be worth “5c”.

      Gold is not. There is no government decree that states gold is worth $1650/oz.

      Further, unlike wooden nickels or paper currency, gold cannot be created indefinitely.

      What makes gold so much better than US dollars?

      There are physical limits to its production.

      Is it the perceived value, beauty, and rarity of gold that creates demand?

      Gold is valued by many people for many reasons.

      Gold is no different than US dollars.

      Gold is very different from US dollars – no one, including you, confuses what is gold and what is US$.

      They are both economic goods and both obey the laws of economics exactly.

      People perceive value (for whatever reason). That value rises and falls. Both are just economic goods…

      Exactly.

      • Mathius™ says:

        There are physical limits to its production.

        There are…. but those limits are actually going away.

        They’ve CREATED gold inside the LHC.. how long until someone figures out how to do commercially? 50 years? 100 tops?

        Eventually, we’re going to just start cooking up whatever molecules we feel like – made to order – and your precious gold supply is going to devalue rapidly. Conversely, Todd’s fiat dollars should but just fine… how’s that for irony?

        • Mathius
          Re: Gold creation

          You have the same, economic neophyte understanding as most people.

          You do not ask this question, which is a fundamental question of all economics.

          “At what cost?”

          Spending a billion dollars to produce 1oz of gold will not at all influence the price of gold.

          • Mathius™ says:

            And you clearly skipped the important part:

            “how long until someone figures out how to do commercially?”

            See? I recognize that spending a billion dollars to produce 10oz of gold (presently, more like a few atoms) is not going to influence the price of gold.

            But technology advances. Maybe they’ll figure out how to do it for a few million? Still not good enough, but better.

            Then a few thousand… well now.. now we’re getting somewhere..

            Eventually, they’ll just start manufacturing gold on an industrial scale. It’s not really a question of IF, but WHEN, in my estimation.

            • Mathius

              Sir, you do not understand.

              It will never be commercially viable to make lead into gold inside a reactor.

              But who am I talking to? You have already some horrific misunderstanding of the laws of Physics already…..

              Let me fill in some blanks for you.

              The main sequence of a star ends with lead – all elements heavier then lead in atomic weight cost more energy then released in fusion inside a star.

              All gold (and such heavier elements) are produced with a star goes supernova – the collapsing chromosphere super-compresses the core into all elements higher then lead in a massive explosion.

              The energy inputs to covert lead into gold is huge.
              The amount of gold produced for that incredible amount of energy is small.

              You would be far richer using that energy doing something else then wasting it making gold – no matter what.

        • For example, you say “some day it will be done commercially”

          It won’t be, because the amount of energy input is so massive. The energy will earn more money supplying that energy to something else then making gold

          You have to hold that the energy is zero cost, it isn’t.
          You have to hold that the energy produced couldn’t be sold at a greater profit, but it would be.

          You are a fool’s gold chase.

    • Great question Todd……….gold is only worth something to someone who wants gold……although we have invested quite a bit in gold in collector series issues as a supposed inflation hedge..but it is only worth something to other collectors, I guess. In Texas, water is becoming more precious and valuable than metals. So , I guess it depends upon the value placed, as you put it, by the individual. One gallon of water to someone who has no water is worth more than all the gold he might have. It can buy my water as the value would be directly proportionate to the value of the water to the recipient. If I have a gallon of water and he has a gold ingot…..and he is dying of thirst……I guess the ingot is now worth a gallon of water.

  54. Mathius™ says:

    I finally found that liberal media everyone’s going on about..

    A Republican witness at today’s House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on legislation making English the official language of the United States is from an organization with ties to racism.

    Dr. Rosalie Porter, chairwoman of the board of ProEnglish, is testifying in support of the “English Language Unity Act of 2011” before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution on Thursday morning.

    ProEnglish is headed by executive director Robert Vandervoort, who came under fire for hosting a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this year featuring Peter Brimelow of the website VDARE, an organization labeled as a white nationalist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The panel also featured a speech from then-National Review editor John Derbyshire, who would later be fired from the magazine for writing a racist article in the wake of the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

    So, the Red shirts (Steve King) had a hearing.
    At this hearing, they had several speakers.
    One of the speakers was Dr. Porter.
    Dr. Porter is the chairwoman of ProEnglish.
    ProEnglish’s executive director is Robert Vandervoort.
    Robert Vandervoor hosted a panel at CPAC.
    At this panel, they had several speakers.
    One of the speakers was Peter Brimelow.
    Peter Brimelow is a member of the website VDARE.
    VDARE is listed as a white nationalist hate group.

    Got that? Clearly Steve King is a raging racist.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Woops.. blew the formatting.. the article cuts out at “Trayvon Martin.” The rest is my evaluation of the logic used by whatever idiot wrote the article. Sorry..

  55. To SUFA:

    To prove that I am not biased on the CFA issue……the significant other and I are also going to support the LGBT crowd at CFA on Friday…..I supported CFA by eating a sandwich….now we are going to the kiss in and deliver some smackaroos to each other………equal participation. Of course by then I will be hungry, so a chicken sandwich, waffle fries, and ANOTHER dp is in order.

  56. Gay rights activists and some members of the national media delivered scathing attacks on Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, calling for homosexual activists to “infiltrate” and bully the family-owned company until they renounce their support of traditional marriage.

    Hundreds of thousands of people waited in long lines at Chick-fil-A restaurants from Paramus, New Jersey to Roseville, Calif. to show their support for the Atlanta-based company – under intense criticism after the owner announced they supported traditional marriage.

    There were some counter-protests at restaurants across the nation. Most were peaceful – with reports of Chick-fil-A employees offering free water and food to protesters. However, there were some incidents of criminal activity.

    A Chick-fil-A restaurant in Martinsburg, West Va. Was evacuated after someone called in a bomb threat. The threat was later deemed a hoax. In Greenville, South Carolina, a man was arrested after he blocked the drive-thru of a Chick-fil-A with his vehicle.

    Another protester posted video of him berating a young female cashier at an undisclosed restaurant. The video was posted on The Gateway Pundit website.

    “I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here,” he told the young lady. “I don’t understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values.”

    The man, identified as Adam Smith, said he wanted his “free water” – saying that he “felt purposeful” insulting the worker.

    “Anti-gay breakfast sandwich,” the man said. “Always tastes better when it’s full of hate.”

    The young cashier replied, “It’s my pleasure to serve you.”

    But the greatest outrage came from media coverage of the event.

    Dan Gainor, with the Media Research Center, said he was especially disturbed that CBS ignored the story altogether.

    “What’s truly amazing is when you have hundreds of thousands of people turn out for something and one of the big three broadcast networks doesn’t even acknowledge it on air,” Gainor told Fox News. “That’s worse than almost any of the awful things the leftwing groups have thrown at Chick-fil-A.”

    Gainor said ABC and NBC covered the story but emphasized the small protest groups – instead of the pro-Chick-fil-A supporters.

    “The left thought they could bully an American company and they discovered that the vast majority of Americans were willing to take extra time out of their day, embrace a long line and celebrate a company that shares their values – and supports free speech as well,” he said.”It got out there in spite of the mainstream media not being willing to talk about it much.”

    But the media outlets that did cover the protest – took a very different approach to the story:

    Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn urged homosexuals to “infiltrate” the privately owned company.

    “Make the restaurants gay hangouts of the community,” she wrote. “Gays and lesbians could start applying for jobs at Chick-fil-A. Get in there. Become managers, take over the places.”

    MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart urged protesters to bully the restaurant chain.

    “Find out who is affiliated with Chick-fil-A in any way and put pressure on those folks,” he said.

    Fort Myers News-Press reporter Mark Krzos wrote his observations about Chick-fil-A on his Facebook page, according to the media-news site JimRomenesko.com

    “Such a brave stand…eating a g**damn sandwich,” he wrote.

    “I have never felt so alien in my own country as I did today while covering the restaurant’s supporters,” he wrote. “The level of hatred, unfounded fear and misinformed people was astoundingly sad.”

    The newspaper did not return calls for comment and Krzos’ Facebook page has been taken offline.

    Gainor told Fox News it’s no surprise that members of the national media are siding with opponents of Chick-fil-A.

    “They are 99 percent pro-gay agenda,” he said. “These are the people that populate the media universe.”

    MSNBC host Thomas Roberts said any gay marriage supporter who eats at the restaurant is a “Chicken-eating Judas.”

    The Daily Show host Jon Stewart ridiculed the family-owned company.

    “Wow, open your eyes owner of Chick-fil-A,” he said. “You are being such an asshole that even Boston won’t tolerate you.”

    A columnist for the Los Angeles Times opined, “Shut up and fry” while CBS reporter Dean Reynolds reported that Chick-fil-A was serving up “a side order of bigotry.”

    “The amount of stuff columnists have said – you reach a certain point where you can’t tell the leftwing media from the mainstream media,” Gainor said.

    D13 asks: This is peaceful? But….I do want to ask the question again…to which I received no answer.

    In the statement that, I support the traditional definition of marriage……..where is the bigotry?

    • Ok Colonel, I’ll answer your question by providing a bit more context into Cathy’s statement:

      “Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn’t merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you “are inviting God’s judgment on our nation,” and that we “shake our fist at Him” when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a “deprived” mind and called it “twisted up kind of stuff.””

      • Ok…thanks….must have missed your report. Interesting….will look it up. Thanks.
        If he indeed said that it is a deprived mind….and twisted up kind of stuff….he should have kept that to himself. That is a bigoted statement in my opinion…the rest of what you posted….religious sentiment to which he is entitled. ***caveat – (I love that word)

        Caveat………….for the record,,,,D13 considers all religions to be bigots as they claim that anyone who does not follow their chosen religion is a non believer and, therefore, a bigot, by definition. My opinion, of course.

        But thanks Buck…you answered it. There is hope for you yet. 🙂

      • Buck, check very closely what he said and what others say he said.

        Chick fil a Anti Gay Statement

        “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

        “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy said.

        • After the backlash of his comments, Cathy released a statement clarifying his position. In his statement, Cathy said that the culture of Chick-Fil-A is to “treat every person with honor, dignity, and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

          He also went on to state that it is their intent to “leave the policy debate over same sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

        • Oh, LOI……..you should not print the whole story…..it takes the winds out of the sails for those that think CFA is bigoted. A religious stance is considered bigoted today……traditional marriage as defined in certain religions and is considered a bigoted statement. I consider the LGBT crowd to be bigoted…not in what they want to do but in the things that they say. It is complete and utter bullshit to make the claim that “if you do not include everybody, you are a bigot.” As I preciously stated….at least down here…..no one pays attention to or gives a rats ass about the LGBT movement. If that is what they wish to do…..cool. Force it on me through protests and stuff…..shame on you and I will be in your face. Just do it and shut up and go on with your life.

          What gets me the most on these types of movements….unless you accept them you are a redneck bigoted person. But I have found that the ones that cry bigotry the loudest….are the loudest violators of bigotry themselves.

          The CFA thing on Wednesday was not about the LGBT crowd….it was all about this man’s right to free speech and the idiotic involvement of government in a private enterprise because this business did not walk in lock step with the views of government. The LGBT crowd hijacked the issue.

          Sigh…live long and prosper, my friend.

  57. While the individual mandate tax gets most of the attention, the ObamaCare law actually contains 20 new or higher taxes on the American people. These taxes are gradually phased in over the years 2010 (with its 10 percent “tanning tax”) to 2018 (when the tax on comprehensive health
    insurance plans kicks in.)

    Six months from now, in January 2013, five major ObamaCare taxes will come into force:

    1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax

    This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven’t turned a profit yet.

    These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

    2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax

    This onerous tax provision will hit Americans facing the highest out-of-pocket medical bills. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income.

    The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

    3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap

    The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.

    The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit the options available to such families, all so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.

    The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.

    For further proof, note the ObamaCare “medicine cabinet tax” which since 2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.

    4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income

    Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.

    And, last but not least…

    5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase

    This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.

    As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It’s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply “move on” after the Supreme Court ruling.

  58. 5 PM in Fort Worth…….Lead story on Fox…….Syria. Lead Story on MSNBC by Al Sharpton….Dressage (horse ballet) and the fact that it did not win the Gold and is owned by Ann Romney.

    Sigh…..priorities.

    • I knew Fox was biased!! Why else would they fail to report on Romney’s losing horse??

      I think its time for me to get out of here…this has been a long day…

    • Mathius™ says:

      13th place, in fact.

      I’d actually be willing to place a bet that they threw the competition so that they wouldn’t have to face headlines about Romney’s Olympic medal in what is quite possibly the most elitist sport ever.

      Poor Rafalca though.. he worked so hard and dreamed of this day for so long.. oh well, off to the glue factory..

  59. Mathius™ says:

    Oy gevalt what a day!

    I’m out.. have a good one, everyone.

  60. I just want to say that I have been following the Chic-Fil-A discussion and I am somewhat confused.

    It leads me to ask, if I shun “X” for some harm I believe “X” has done to me, I would be guilty of using force against “X” if I speak to others to convince them to also shun “X”?

    It seems now just speaking out to gain support for a cause is force. I fail to grasp how anyone could then be considered to be acting in a non-forceful manner in any society?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      plainly

      Why would you try to get others to support you if they have not been harmed?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      and P.S. : I never said that just having a discussion was using FORCE. But yes, if you start organizing others to follow you, and those people have not been harmed, then you could be crossing into escalation of the force/harm.

      If you simply share your story and then they individually decide to not shop at X then that is a free choice. No peer, group or guilt pressure applied.

      I simply told Mathius he was crossing a line when he started recruiting others. I also mentioned that there is a coercive nature to recruiting people to participate in some types of organized “group” efforts like boycotts.

      I offered the reported absurd comments by customers towards employees to show this, on both sides.

      • It just seems to me that even if I told my story to someone else and they, without me asking, decide to shun “X” one could argue I initiated force against “X” because another was persuaded by my story? If we carry forward this example then all politicians are initiating force against their opponents by campaigning to gain votes.

        I feel line even the narrow line of black and white has suddenly turned black. I also find no society could exist in such a irrational ideal of force. Asking someone to support your position isn’t force, the individual(s) are free to refuse.

        *shakes head* I just find your argument insufficient to support your stance. BTW, you’re trying to persuade us to come to your conclusion – also could be argued to be using force by your own reasoning.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          plainly

          You started with the assumption that X had harmed YOU. So if you simply tell your story to others and THEY decide to not shop at X then it is there decision to make. But that would not be a “boycott” since nobody would know what others are doing. Boycotts are organized for a purpose……..extortion. If they in turn organize a Boycott then it is they who are INITIATING force, not you.

          If you organize a Boycott then you are dragging others into the use of Force, thus placing them in the position of INITIATING Force. Assuming none of them were actually harmed.

          You are falling into the same trap as Mathius and Buck, and to some extent Todd, earlier. You are misconstruing the discussion with others as opposed to “persuading” them to participate in an organized and orchestrated effort to HARM x economically or otherwise.

          Think of it in this way. The difference between telling a friend you wished someone were dead vs. conspiring with your friend to actually kill that someone.

          • I understand all you’ve said, I believe my disagreement is with the stance. Maybe we are working from different definitions of “harm” and “force?”

            If any act on my part (just telling my story) persuades “Y” to shun “X” (boycott) where I made no request for “Y” to do so, I have indirectly harmed “X” by just telling “Y”. – This is what I see as your point, and an inevitable outcome of your point if we accept your reasoning.

            It could easily become an argument anytime one felt harmed by the words of another to a third party.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              plainly

              Then you are not seeing my point.

              Go to the conspiracy to kill X as an example. If you tell your friend you wish X were dead and your friend goes off and kills X YOU DID NOT commit murder and you are not a conspirator to murder. Not from my ethical viewpoint.

              If you actively tried and then recruited your friend then you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

              Actually the greater danger to freedom is the notion that anyone who feels aggrieved has the right to organize a mob to deliberately Extort a certain behavior from others under threat of destroying their business and/or reputation.

              The affect of demonstrations and boycotts is no different than that accomplished via libel and slander.

              • I do not agree with your analogy as that is suggesting an act of violence – which is coercion.

              • So, if I understand correctly, then each member of society must make up their mind on any issue that could/would cause any type of harm without any persuasion from another in order to keep the original speaker from being guilty of harming?

                If I am correct with this then all advertising should be outlawed, all political campaigning should be outlawed, the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech clause must be rewritten grant the freedom ONLY if your speech causes no harm, etc, etc, etc….

                It is just an unworkable concept under what I see as your reasoning.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                And I do not agree with your assertion that coercion does not exist without violence. Not when Violence has been defined as “physical injury” to the person.

              • Violence is an action (or threat of action, CPD applies).
                Rhetoric is not an action.

                Coercion must contain an act – or threat of a physical act.

                Me advertising against a company is not an act against that company.
                I am not impeding it in anyway.
                It can continue to do what it does and completely ignore me.
                My advertising cannot be coercion.

  61. Uh oh…..I am guilty as charged then. I was directly responsible for getting 164 people to CFA in Fort Worth….and our veterans group sent almost our entire membership to CFA’s in three other cities. However, our intent was to support CFA for free speech and protest the bullshit of the mayoral interference. We could care less about LGBT…no one gives a rip about LGBT at all. So, I guess that I am a very violent person. Sigh….the things that I have to live with……

    I suppose I can say that an attack on free speech is potential harm. I don’t have to wait for the pain. Oh well…….god night all.

  62. It appears to many people believe “coercion” is having to adjust a tradeoff that was very favorable into one less favorable.

    By what objective measure exists between these two conditions?

    1) If in a deal, I offer X in trade for your Y and you accept. This you count -at the time- favorable, because you accepted it.

    Parallel universe where you have no information from circumstance #1.
    1) If in a deal I offer X-10 in trade for your Yx2, and you accept. This you count -at the time- favorable, because you accept it.

    But back to Universe #1
    If yesterday I offered X for your Y, but today the deal is X-10 for you Yx2 … and you accept, you say this was coercion on you, because -at this time- it was still favorable, but less so then yesterday.

    But how does that make any sense, if in Universe #2, you did not claim this was coercion – yet, it is exactly the same deal?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      That is certainly not my view so I don’t know who the “many people” are of whom you speak.

      • But that is what you said – people are demanding a different deal with this chicken place then yesterday, so now its coercion.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          That is not what I am saying at all.

          I said they have no right to IMPOSE THEIR WILL upon Mr. Chicken when Mr. Chicken has done nothing to harm them.

          Theirs is not an argument over the value of the chicken. It is DO WHAT WE WANT or we will destroy your livelihood.

          • But that is a measure of value.

            So you are saying if in a contract, I state specific actions that you are required to undertake or we do not have a deal – I’m coercing you.

            So as long as a contract has no undertakings, it is not coercion??!~?!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              You are committing the same error you always accuse others.

              There is NO CONTRACT between the public and Mr. Chicken.

              And the deal in question is not whether You and I agree but your threat to use your power to organize others to harm me if I do not comply.

              • JAC

                BF You are committing the same error you always accuse others. There is NO CONTRACT between the public and Mr. Chicken.

                You are right, there is no contract until the conditions are met.
                They have not been met.
                No contract.

                And the deal in question is not whether You and I agree but your threat to use your power to organize others to harm me if I do not comply.

                So you are saying advertising is “coercion”?

                So if a company advertises its products for sale, this is or is not “coercion”?
                If it is not, then why if a consumer anti-advertises it is coercion?

                So if a consumer creates a complaint forum, this is coercion?
                If he sends a letter of complaint to customer service?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          By the way, a question for you.

          I thought you claimed many times in the past that Taxes were a form of VIOLENCE.

          True or not true?

          • True,
            Tax is theft.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              But there is NO physical injury caused by paying your taxes.

              And there is NO physical injury from having your property confiscated to pay the tax.

              There is NO physical injury from having the Govt interrupt your ability to make a living while they garnish you paycheck.

              • JAC
                BF But there is NO physical injury caused by paying your taxes. And there is NO physical injury from having your property confiscated to pay the tax. There is NO physical injury from having the Govt interrupt your ability to make a living while they garnish you paycheck

                There is no physical injury to you if you submit to a noose around your neck either, so hanging isn’t violent, right?

                No, JAC.

                The threat is violence if you do not submit to tax.

                There is no such threat in a consumer boycott.
                If you do not join the boycott, no one attacks you.
                If you do join a boycott, no one attacks you.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      Sorry but per your own argument there is no “implied” contract. So it has nothing to do with conditions.

      I sell chicken and people buy chicken.

      Some other guy comes along and says I don’t like the way you play baseball. If you do not change I will organize a mob and interrupt your business. I will scare the crap out of people so they won’t buy your chicken anymore. Unless of course, you do what I say.

      This THREAT has an economic consequence but it is a Social Relationship that is being threatened. A far different thing than someone trying to change the deal after the fact or trying to negotiate a Free Will deal for future chicken.

      Yes the Chicken guy can refuse the threat. And have his business destroyed. But you see no “coercion” in this equation?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BF

      So you are saying advertising is “coercion”? NO! Advertising to sell my products or to tell my story is not attempting to FORCE others to comply to my will.

      So if a company advertises its products for sale, this is or is not “coercion”? NOT.
      If it is not, then why if a consumer anti-advertises it is coercion? It is NOT.

      So if a consumer creates a complaint forum, this is coercion? No! Not as long as the complaints are legitimate and the creator knows that they are.
      If he sends a letter of complaint to customer service? No.

      BUT: Organizing others, who have not been harmed, into a group making a concerted effort to impose their will upon another? COERCION.

  63. Or this weirdness.

    You really want X.
    I ask Y from you for X, you accept, because you really want X.
    I ask Y-10 from you for X, you accept, because you really want X.
    I ask Y-100 from you for X, you accept, because you really want X.

    This direction of ask/bid, you would not claim any coercion on either side, even though I am getting less and less in the deal, because the only measure made of whether or not it is coercion is on you, merely because “you really want X”.

    But if we reverse this, and say X is really valuable to me, so my price rises.

    I ask Y from you for X, you accept, because you really want X.
    I ask Y+10 from you for X, you accept, because you really want X.
    I ask Y+100 from you for X, you accept, because you really want X.

    …. you don’t care. You do not consider that my value of X can change too – just like it changes for you, but still your only measure of coercion is on you because “you really want X”, and now it is getting more expensive.

    But why is the measure of coercion only on the one side that “really really wants” without any consideration of the other side?

  64. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/02/Chick-Fil-A-Drive-Thru-Bully-Fired

    One more little twist added to the soup!
    I have been reading the last couple days. Not sure how I feel about the basic argument about-Shunning vs. boycott. But bottomline, I think we all know that the political boycotting and arm twisting and lies-has risen to the level of threat and intimidation and political correctness that simply isn’t fair or acceptable.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Exactly. That is what you get when you try to mix a VDLG concept, aka Govt laws, with an Anarchist concept, shunning only.

      What he have had all day is Govt supporters, not even VDLG people, using Anarchist arguments to support Boycotts as simply another form of Shunning.

      Here is one for you. We need a law BANNING Boycotts unless it can be proven that those participating have been “harmed”.

      Under current LEFTY law why are not Boycott Organizers prosecuted under the Sherman Anti Trust laws of the USA?

      By the way, I empathize with your sleep issues lately. Have been suffering similar malady since my travels.

      • Here is one for you. We need a law BANNING Boycotts unless it can be proven that those participating have been “harmed”.

        Then the 1st Amendment freedom of speech clause needs rewriting. There already is a remedy, if the actions constitute libel or or slander then they can sue in the court system.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BULL SHIT.

          • Okay, BS to what? Rewriting the 1st Amendment or using the courts for remedy?

            Now, if you are saying BS to both, well then you sound like Charlie sometimes in responding to BF. (Sorry Charlie)

            Banning boycotts. Hmm, tell me who is to decide whether the boycott is justified or not? If you say the courts – then you are doing no more than I suggest – allowing the courts to determine if a behavior is libel or slanderous, at which point the court can order the offender to cease and desist. The court can also impose monetary sanctions.

            • No problem, Plainly … you have my total respect, sir.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              plainly

              BS to your assertion that an amendment is needed when the ban I suggested has nothing to do with speech. Speech to sway people is not the same thing as ORGANIZING people and ORCHESTRATING an active effort to cause economic harm to someone directly. You want to speak then go ahead. Take out advertisments, write books and articles. But when you start organizing and people start participating in causing harm to someone who has not harmed them? Sorry, you have crossed the ethical boundary between mob rule and civilization.

              The other point is the meaning of the amendment itself. If has nothing to do with the speech among or between private groups. But that goes back to other issues about how its meaning has been eroded.

              Furthermore, slander and liable are entirely different animals than Boycott. Unless of course you wish to use them in your Boycott campaign. That would be THREE STRIKES though, so be careful.

  65. Just A Citizen says:

    plainly

    This has been one of those weeks when no matter how many times I say something or try to explain it, everyone just leaps to some strange extrapolation.

    “So, if I understand correctly, then each member of society must make up their mind on any issue that could/would cause any type of harm without any persuasion from another in order to keep the original speaker from being guilty of harming?” NO DAMN IT….NO.

    If I am correct with this then all advertising should be outlawed, all political campaigning should be outlawed, the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech clause must be rewritten grant the freedom ONLY if your speech causes no harm, etc, etc, etc…. NO DAMN IT…NO. You are NOT correct.

    It is just an unworkable concept under what I see as your reasoning. IT IS UNREASONABLE UNDER YOUR REASONING NOT MINE.

    YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE YOUR WILL UPON ANOTHER.

    IT IS THAT FREAKIN SIMPLE.

    BOYCOTTS ARE A MEANS OF FORCING OTHERS TO DO WHAT YOU WANT, TO IMPOSE YOUR WILL UPON ANOTHER.

    IT IS LEGITIMATE ONLY AS A DEFENSE OR RETALIATION AGAINST SOMEONE DOING THE SAME TO YOU.

    BOYCOTTS VIOLATE THIS BASIC TENANT OF A FREE SOCIETY.

    JUST LOOK WHAT YOU GET IF YOU HAVE NO STANDARD TO TRIGGER THE BOYCOTT METHOD. YOU GET EVERY GROUP THAT CAN MUSTER POWER BLACKMAILING OR EXTORTING PEOPLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT OR SUFFER FINANCIAL RUIN.

    • YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE YOUR WILL UPON ANOTHER.

      Ok JAC, I failed to see this as the imposition of will on another.

      IT IS THAT FREAKIN SIMPLE.

      Yep, it is that freakin simple

      BOYCOTTS ARE A MEANS OF FORCING OTHERS TO DO WHAT YOU WANT, TO IMPOSE YOUR WILL UPON ANOTHER.

      Nope, I do not agree. It is an expression of disagreement. If they succeed in getting patrons to change their choice in patronizing an establishment, well heck that – to me – is nothing more than individuals exercising the right of choice. No business has to do anything they don’t wish to do just because some boycott of their business. Businesses thrive or fail every day from the choices being made by the individuals who do, or do not, patronize their business.

      IT IS LEGITIMATE ONLY AS A DEFENSE OR RETALIATION AGAINST SOMEONE DOING THE SAME TO YOU.

      To you yes.

      BOYCOTTS VIOLATE THIS BASIC TENANT OF A FREE SOCIETY.

      No, I disagree again. A boycott is nothing more than a form of shunning IMO. I see no harm, so there is no foul.

      JUST LOOK WHAT YOU GET IF YOU HAVE NO STANDARD TO TRIGGER THE BOYCOTT METHOD. YOU GET EVERY GROUP THAT CAN MUSTER POWER BLACKMAILING OR EXTORTING PEOPLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT OR SUFFER FINANCIAL RUIN.

      And what IS the standard to make a boycott proper in the Chic-Fil-A argument? If this company actively supports an agenda through political or monetary support for a candidate who supports traditional marriage as the standard for society is the company harming someone? Would you then see a boycott as acceptable?

      I’m sorry that you are exasperated with my discussion. But then, no one compels you to even pay attention to my comments – sooo, you bring about your own exasperation. If you feel like you are talking to a wall, then stop talking to the wall. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        plainly

        So you condone HARMING thousands of people that have NOTHING to do with the owner’s personal views or his use of his OWN money?

        I provided earlier the proper response to his political activities that would focus on the person rather than a bunch of innocent people.

        I also explained the conditions under which Boycott would be a legitimate means of defense or retaliation.

      • Plainly is ALWAYS the voice of reason ….

        I’m sorry that you are exasperated with my discussion. But then, no one compels you to even pay attention to my comments – sooo, you bring about your own exasperation. If you feel like you are talking to a wall, then stop talking to the wall.

        I use this as often as possible when dealing with BF …:)

  66. Just A Citizen says:

    A reminder for all:

    co·erce (k-ûrs)
    tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
    1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
    2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
    3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

    Now please tell me again how Organizing a Boycott to force a business owner to behave in a manner you wish is NOT coercion.

    While your at it, explain why coercion is not a form of force, when the purpose of its use is “to force to act or think in a certain way”.

    And to head off the critique from some, I have found no evidence that this definition has been changed substantially over time nor as the result of political manipulation. It is an OLD definition.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      And the add on:

      extortion [ɪkˈstɔːʃən]
      n
      the act of securing money, favours, etc. by intimidation or violence; blackmail
      extortioner , extortionist n

      As I said, use of intimidation (coercion) to get someone to do what you want (favours).

    • Lets see, then

      Pro-life demonstrations outside of a hospital or clinic that performs abortions must be coercion and therefore should be banned?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Why do you think they are banned with x feet of the door and that they can not interfere with anyone entering?

        See how our laws on this issue are designed to prevent the ability of the demonstrators from being able to create a situation of economic extortion?

        Demonstrating is NOT boycott.

        • oh, oh, my turn – BULL SHIT.

          Pro-life demonstrations are there to persuade (coerce to you) people to not have an abortion and for the business in question to cease providing abortions.

          That meets your arguments for causing harm. Apply your standard consistently.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            plainly

            I did not say that coercion was harm in and of itself. Its purpose is to threaten harm.

            I said it is not appropriate except in response to harm by others.

            So what harm has been done to the demonstrators?

            What harm will the demonstrations cause?

            The reason there are laws prohibiting them from interfering with the business is to “prevent harm” from the demonstration.

            • I don’t believe there has to be a harm caused in order to demonstrate against a position of another individual. It is reasonable to publicly disagree through a demonstration, protest, or boycott initiative. I guess if Mr Cathy had kept his opinions to himself (he spoke out freely of his own will) then the boycott wouldn’t occur. Maybe someone (not I though) could argue that he is the cause of the harm you argue is being done. As to what harm the demonstrators undergo, they may well believe his public stance is an act of discrimination against those of the LGBT lifestyles?

              So we move the protestors 100 feet away with their activity (as some laws require of pro-life protests) and all is well in the land.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            plainly

            So there is no mistake, I think pro life demonstrations designed to interfere with a clinics business should be banned.

            The place for education and debate is with the general population.

            Not it blackmailing people who try to participate in a legal exchange.

            • I think your ideas would simply outlaw any group of people coming together in public to demonstrate, protest, or organize any stance of any kind.

              Sounds to me more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

        • Also, the if the boycott group stays “X” distance away as pro-life protestors we can call it ok?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Under today’s rules? YES.

            Under my rules? It wouldn’t happen because folks would know it was unethical and therefore wouldn’t participate.

            • Maybe, IF they agreed with your belief that it was unethical. I hope you’re not saying that this society of yours will brook no disagreement with the principles you structure it under?

            • Also, I believe we are going to have to agree to disagree. I want no part of your theoretical lock-step society.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        plainly

        Counter point.

        Two Black Panthers demonstrating in front of a polling place by holding clubs is just FREE SPEECH.

        No Coercion …………NO PROBLEM.

        • No, since the courts have long ruled that speech goes beyond that said verbally, I can say without a doubt that there is a threat being used to compel behavior acceptable to the two Black Panthers.

          So, I am afraid you struck out with that example.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            plainly

            So the only difference is that 5 people in black ropes say so?

            • In today’s society as structured their decision is the law of the land – if we were working under some different model of society, then we would have to accept the decision made under that society structure.

  67. Just A Citizen says:

    On another note:

    Obama Penn State

    WASHINGTON, Aug 2 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama said the NCAA penalties imposed on Penn State University for the school’s failure to stop football coach Jerry Sandusky’s sexual abuse of children were “appropriate” punishment.

    What did you expect from the socialist/collectivist/progressive Gutless Wonder. Get a spine you dweeb. Don’t wait for the dust to settle and the polling data to come in before speaking out.

    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    😉

    That last one was for the ladies of SUFA.

    • As usual Charlie, you hang your hat on the wind.

      Chomsky is correct twice in the first 30 sec.
      “We are not a Capitalist system”
      “We are a State-Capitalist system” … otherwise know as “Mercantilism” or “Fascism”

      He surrounds a lie, however, with these two facts – this is why he fools you. His rhetoric fools you because he give a fact, then an assertion that is false, then a fact.

      You believe because he started and ended with facts, everything in the middle is also fact.

  68. @ Plainly and JAC,

    Good Morning guys 🙂 Just my 2 cents here. This whole mess with CFA is a total fabrication of the left wing media. The owner NEVER said anything about gays in any form. This is why I’m against this form of demonstration, because it is based on lies. I am not against demonstrations for legitimate reasons. If a large group of people want to surround the Southern Poverty Law center and chant bible verses all day, go for it. As far as a organizing a boycott, that’s fine too. The entire population of liberals can boycott Gander Mountain (for selling guns) and that would be fine with me. Most Liberals think food comes from grocery stores anyway. Not to mention that most Liberals are marksmanship challenged, they shouldn’t have guns anyway 🙂

    @Charlie, It’s not a surprise you would agree with Obama, while he is no Karl Marx, he is surely a socialist pig with ears 🙂

    • I consider this progress, G … at least you didn’t call him a gorilla today.

      It’s not a surprise you agree with BF, while he proposes a world that cannot exist, he is the King of that universe (something his disciples can follow like lemmings off a cliff) 🙂

    • Hi G.,

      Hope all is well up your way? 🙂

      I don’t believe that CFA should be anymore exempt from this boycott protest than any other group/organization/government. Many see it as a bogus protest under a false flag, yet many others find it valid.

      Regardless of the reason, we should not start outlawing peaceful protests of any kind. That is a dangerous path to allow. It could easily be extended to outlawing any kind of public dissent just by ruling it being without justification.

      JAC said boycotts should have to prove they are valid before being allowed. My question would be, who makes this ruling? Whose ethical standard would be applied? JAC’s way leads to suppression of all public dissent.

      I don’t want to live in a society like that, anymore than I (or you, JAC, etc) want to live in a socialist country.

      So let them protest and boycott. It will change nothing unless CFA chooses to.

%d bloggers like this: