Happy PI Day!

Good Morning SUFA!  As we continue on our journey we call life, I can’t help but be concerned as to the health and wellbeing of our friend Life of Illusion.  I will try and contact him today.  On an other note, it seems that Russia is getting ready for some big announcement.  The Flag over the Kremlin is oddly missing for the second straight day.  What many people think is that Putin’s newly born child will become very famous this weekend.  Considering what is being constructed for this announcement,  this must be one really big baby, LOL.  I hope everyone enjoys the weekend!

Propaganda Age

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. Black Flag® says:

    .

  3. Anyone think this picture desecrates the Flag? I do not-I think it conveys a beautiful message.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/navy-veteran-defends-picture-baby-u-s-flag-article-1.2147166

  4. I’m not convinced that the minimum wage should completely go away. I find it personally ridiculous that a waiter or waitress can literally work hours for almost nothing if their customers happen to be cheap or they simply can barely afford to pay for the dinner so they skip leaving a tip. But it is ridiculous to think one can almost double the minimum wage just because, and believe it’s not gonna hurt more than it helps.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/14/seattle-eateries-closing-as-15-minimum-wage-approaches/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Liberals are blinded by their ideology to understand economics. Now, if it becomes legal for those who lose out to whoop some politician ass over this nonsense, it would be fitting.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Did you know that most states exempt food servers from the Minimum wage laws? They have to count “tips” towards the min. wage, thus the employer does not have to pay the wage required of other businesses.

      ELIMINATE minimum wage laws ……………..WHY?……………….It is IMMORAL to FORCE OTHERS to pay wages not agreed to by the employer and employee but DICTATED by others.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        I forgot one important part. The MINIMUM applies if the combined wage + tips does not equal the Legal Minimum. So the non tipping customer is not affecting the minimum wage. They are affecting something ABOVE minimum wage.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        OH, and you can blame the IRS for some employers confiscating tips or not allowing tips any longer. The IRS decided to tax people based on tips, including FICA to employers, based on their own internal “formulas” if they felt the “reported” tips were not high enough.

        • Employer’s can confiscate tips-I knew they had a voice in how tips were allocated between other employees like bus boys and bartenders. But taking the tips that is a new one. I want to know more-my policy on tipping may need to change!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            Some employers take the tips and then redistribute to everyone, others have taken them as “revenue” while paying flat wages to employees. Which is what a minimum wage should do.

            You need to pay attention to the Company policy regarding tipping. “Legends” was one that was called out for “confiscating” tips.

            I do not frequent places with “mandatory” tips. If tipping is allowed, then I will decide what the tip is going to be.

      • I was aware that they were exempt from the minimum wage. Which was kinda the point-we have it-but this group of people don’t-and see how they are treated.

        But to your other post-I wasn’t aware that the employers had to make up for anything below minimum wage if their tips didn’t get them there.

      • Now to your point about something being immoral 🙂 All you have to do is look at our own Countries history to know that there are times that an employer was free to be as immoral as he wanted to be. I agree that it is harder now to do so-but I’m not at all sure that having a reasonable minimum wage is a bad idea based on human nature alone. Since I know your gonna bring it up 🙂 No, I do not know how to figure out what a reasonable minimum wage should be-which I also know opens the door to craziness -like a $15.00 an hr minimum wage. But those battles make it hard not wrong.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          When you “do not know how to figure out” that should be a prime clue that what you want is wrong.

          We should never base our policies on what we perceive were injustices of a hundred years ago.

          In fact, the wage levels of the olden days was not the true injustice. It was using Govt. thugs to enforce their practices against people trying to organize unions to get better pay or safer work conditions. Just as the Union’s use of violence against other workers was IMMORAL.

          When you allow these “exceptions” to exist you effectively destroy the principles you strive to save.

          • I’m not convinced-Just because I can’t figure it out doesn’t mean people with more knowledge of current wages in the market couldn’t come up with a reasonable minimum wage as long as they weren’t using a living wage as their guide.

            I do agree that we shouldn’t be trying to fix problems of the past, if the problem has been fixed, but I do believe we should learn from the past. I’m simply not sure that the problem was fixed or simply prevented from occurring because of minimum wage laws.

            Besides the problem with unions, I believe there was a problem we all call “The Company Store” which was nothing but immoral.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H.

              The Company Store was not immoral nor was it the only thing available. More myth than truth.

              It is true that companies in remote areas established such stores. But lets not forget that those stores were providing goods and services not otherwise available. And at costs that were higher than other locations.

              It is an outright fabrication that the workers in these situations “had no other choice”. Our ancestors WALKED across this country for crying out loud, with all their possessions on a horse or in a small wagon. Yet we are to believe people in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were “trapped” by their economic condition.

              Much of our understanding of historical labor relations, and thus exploitation, has been tainted by a distinct “socialist/communist” bias of the story tellers.

              We cannot help but judge these arrangements in the past by our current standards. It is hard for us to fathom living in conditions which were pure and simple, just staying alive.

              And no economist or group of economists can tell me what a laborer is worth to me, or to tell me what a particular job is worth to me. All they can do is create equations that tell you what people are already paying.

              Your personal desire for compassion is destroying the very freedom you wish to preserve.

              • I acknowledge that I am afraid you might be right but at the same time I am not completely convinced. I find the idea that the company store issue might be more propaganda than truth interesting-researching this might be fun-now where to start.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Then there are the days the real JAC returns

              • Black Flag® says:

                V.H.
                Start with economics. Unless you understand the basics of economics, you will be easy prey to propaganda. Propaganda exploits your ignorance.

            • Not in the mood to do big battle here but I “get it”. Either a whole lot of people I have a great deal of faith in lied outright to me or there were instances of taking advantage of as in, “The Coal Companies who owned the stores and houses and hospitals took advantage” of their workers.”

              I cannot for the life of me understand how it is that there is this tremendous faith on the part of some really smart people here to not understand that some folks are real bastards. They will put you in an early grave to improve their economic position.

              You need to look no farther than slavery to prove the point. Sharecropping or legal slavery is no fun be you white or black. It is certainly true that people could up and leave if they thought themselves exploited but that assumes they felt they had the option. Maybe they did, probably was better to starve along the trail West than die of black lung.

              The other option, other than “up and leave” was stay and fight which led to a couple of follow up generations that then had the option to leave (like my old man).

              Don’t see the kids of the owners of the Pennsylvania RR’s kids in this photo do you? Perhaps they should have been, would have built character.

              http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/hn07.htm

              • Just A Citizen says:

                S.K.

                The only valid point is they did have the choice. Not whether they felt like they did.

                Their feeling is irrelevant to factual statements and to discussions of moral/ethical principles.

                Did some take advantage? Yes they did. But those who were taken let it happen. So why is it ONLY portrayed as “victimhood” and thus “necessary for Govt intervention”??

                If you find yourself in such a situation it is up to you to decide whether to tolerate it or to escape it. It is not my concern nor should you use Govt to make it my concern.

                Not once in any of these discussions has anyone dismissed the reality that bad people exist. It is the WHAT YA GOIN TO DO ABOUT IT that we disagree.

                Historians consistently portray all “company stores” as some egregious or unethical theft. Yet the fact is that at least part and in many cases all of the value of the goods in those stores represented the value of those good at that time and place.

                If the prices were so outrageous then why did not COMPETITION show up?

                In some cases the bad guys used force to prevent it. That is a violation of the principle and deserving of retaliation. But in other cases it was because there was not enough value to be gained by opening a competing “store”.

                Same goes for company towns. Did not the housing have a value?

                If the same people wrote the history of the Fur Trapping trade in the West we would have come to view that period as Gross Exploitation of Labor, instead of a period of Freemen exercising their Natural Rights while frolicking with the “natives”.

              • Imagine if the economy turned, to twice as bad as the Great Depression. Our demographics are turned upside down compared to then. It wouldn’t take all that much to have this happen.

              • Competition was not allowed. A lot can be said about the company creating the store for the benefit of the workers and providing basic housing for said workers but do not confuse today with then. Options were limited on purpose. I find it interesting in the Coal Region of NE Pennsylvania that you actually can find industrialists like Asa Packer who did look out for the welfare of their workers but would refuse those workers the right to organize while they and other mine owners/railroad owners/bankers woudl gather together and price fix!

                It was a very different time with very different sensibilities and cannot be judged by modern standards.

                I love the concept of unions as much as I love the concepts that founded this country. I however am caught (as always it seems) between the rock and the hard place. Saying, unions have become their own worst enemy puts me at odds with friends who are avid unionists who can see no wrong while saying that unions are vitally necessary to temper the baser instincts of those who would be our bosses (in all things) brings down the wrath of libertarians. Since I was a kid, I always felt that if everybody disagreed with me, I must be on the right track. So, merrily I go along, preaching my own brand of universal heresy!

              • Black Flag® says:

                SK,
                To measure such action, you have to ask “compared to what?

                You ply “those evil coal companies selling goods…” so you have to consider “those evil coal companies who sold nothing”. You think the latter would be a better situation for the workers???, that is, instead of something they got nothing???

                That’s the problem. Most people, like you, have a failure of comparison. You compare your current lifestyle to their lifestyle where you sit with a flourishing market that provides you nearly anything you want at your finger tips.

                You do not understand that back then, there was no flourishing market. There was nothing there. The company provided an alternative to nothing – they provided something.

                The people then still had these choices: have nothing (and nothing provided by the company) or have something (provide by the company) or have nothing (and not take what the company provided).

                You argue the company should have done nothing. Well, “nothing” still existed as a choice for the people even if the company did something…. don’t buy.

                So you are up in arms against improving the choices of the workers. Can you be more bizarre?

              • Black Flag® says:

                “Competition was not allowed”

                Of course it was. There is nothing a company could do to prevent it. Given the company commanded its own property, so it determined what or what not would happen on its own property, it had no command upon other people’s property. Anyone could open a store down the road and sell.

                So why didn’t they? Because the company could provide those goods cheaper then the guy down the road. It costs a ton of money to ship to remote locations, and the company to operate built its own infrastructure for its own production, an infrastructure equally capable of carrying goods IN.

                The cost for this infrastructure was all paid for GOODS GOING OUT. The rail cars arrived empty to be loaded to be shipped out. Since the cars were already paid for coming in, adding goods into these empty cars was a no-brainer.

                Again, because of a lack of economic understanding, you (as well as the majority) are easy prey to the propaganda of the situation.

              • Black Flag® says:

                “Breaker boys”
                No, you don’t see the owners kids, because the owners didn’t need the kids income.

                Those kids did need the income.
                Again, compared to what?. You’d rather these kids starve then earn.

              • Flag, I love you. If we had the Mr. Peabody waybackmachine I’d love to send you back as a non-english speaker to the coal region circa 1890 and see how fast you would work your way out. No doubt you eventually might if you found the time to work 12 hours a day, go to school, raise a family and send part of your income “home” to bring over your family.

                Maybe I have you wrong here what I am saying and all I am saying is that those workers, those parents of breaker boys had the right to organize and improve their lot. That’s all. You might note that they did those things and a couple of generations rose out of the muck and the mire and became me and people like me.

              • SK,
                Not at all. Again, you have at best a superficial understanding of the situation.

                Worker’s benefits improve because of Competition, not “unions”.
                When the economy expanded, the pull on the worker pool increased. Companies had to do more things to keep workers when there are more companies these workers can go to with their labor.

                In a new economy, there were few companies to work for. As the productive capacity expanded, new industries appeared. One industry begets another. New industries created new companies, all vying for the same workers. Companies needed to provide higher wages and better conditions to keep those workers.

                Today, with the vast competition, companies like mine provide a bounty of benefits; and no one here is “unionized”. The competition for the labor talent keeps companies constantly revamping their wages and benefits, such as for me. New truck, more holidays, work-from-home… all additional benefits to keep me from going across the company across the street.

              • Facetious argument on shipping goods to remote locations. If they could ship coal by barge and rail they could ship goods. Certainly in Eastern Pennsylvania and probably western PA too.

                It is better to keep people dependent on you. When you own all the real estate in an area, you can decide if you will allow the 19th century equivalent of a Walmart to open. That’s not to mention you own the mayor, the council and the cops too.

                I’ve done a good amount of research into where my forebears settled and it is fascinating history. There has always been friction in my family between us and the Irish. Didn’t know why, neither did my Dad until I realized that we (Slavs) were brought in as scabs and union busters just about the time the Irish had finally gotten some traction on unions organization. We worked cheap and did not speak the language.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                SK….
                From personal family history, when one of my Great Grandfather’s emmigrated from Prussia at the later part of the 19th century, and came into Ellis Island, the first work was digging potatoes and cutting cabbage out on Long Island. One question asked was where could you make more money? The answer was in the Anthracite mines in the Scranton, PA area. Off they went. During the WWI timeframe they were well enough secure to found a church that was a little more inclusive of the ethnic groups in the neighborhood, hence the name “Peace”. Right after the war, they purchased a large farm north of Scranton, pushing 900 acres. Besides, a dairy, they lumbered hardwoods, and replanted for later cutting and also a slate quarry. The farm is still in the family and though the dairy is long gone due to State and FDA regulations that “LESSENED” the quality of their product, which they refused to produce and closed up shop. Today, the farm sits on a lot of natural gas. Upon his death in 1949, each son and daughter received an equal share of the estate. 3 sons and their Mother combined got 4 shares and that kept the farm intact. The other 8 children all settled locally except the oldest daughter, my grand mother who never moved into the country until 1932. At that time, my Great Grandfather bought my mother’s family a home out of Scranton, with land so they could produce food. Between all the family they produced all they needed to eat and sell extra for additional income. Key was NO mortgages and debt. Anyway, all throughout the depression, everyone still kept jobs and an income. It may not have been what they started with but always brought home outside pay. One of my Grandfather’s was a banker, but at that job going by the wayside, he started working for the railroad until retirement in the 60’s……but there is one note my Great Grandmother alway said about the emmigration, especially during WWI, we are American’s now, not German-American, Polish, etc, that’s our past. She always had an accent, but I never heard her speak a word of German. The kids never spoke German primarily due to the prejudice experienced during the war. You could tell which kids were in school during the great war, because they “Anglesized” their names… bottom line, where there is a will there is a way.

              • My grandfather died in ’32 of black lung at age 42. Other grandfather died in ’45 same deal but he made it to 55. The next generation on Dad’s side never went into the mines. My father, as “the man of the house at 15” made sure of that. On Mom’s they did until after the war when they had other options.

                Grandparents came here circa 1905. Dad’s family settled in Frackville, Mom’s in Coaldale, a small town about four miles from today’s Jim Thorpe (formerly Mauch Chunk). Uncle Pete was the first college guy around ’55 on the GI bill but almost all the grand kids made it to college.

                I’m reading “A Company of Hero’s” about the post war lives of the Easy Company vets. It is amazing how their early lives paralleled and how many lost their own fathers at an early age in the ’20’s and ’30’s. That late 1800’s and early 1900’s immigrant generation certainly demonstrated the American dream.

                During the “Roots” phenomena when everybody wanted to know their family background. I remember asking Dad about what he knew. Basically it was nothing. Andrew Troyanovskii when asked by his children said. “The place (Europe) was horrible, I left it behind, don’t want to remember it and you are all Americans”. Only other comment dad ever got was after the Klan did something particularly nasty to a black family when Grandpa said to his son, “This is the way it was in Russia, It’s wrong, that’s why I left”.

                Addressing the Knights of Columbus in New York City on 12 October 1915, Former President Theodore Roosevelt said: “When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans…. a hyphenated American is not an American at all…. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else”

              • Has anyone ever given thought to the possibility that you are all right to a certain degree-all the economic theory or laws can be dead on right-doesn’t mean that there aren’t times and places where people have enough money and power to overcome them-maybe not forever but enough to hurt an awful lot of people.

              • No, V.H. Economic theory always and absolutely applies

                Methinks you misunderstand economics.

                Economics is NOT a means to tell you what to do.

                Economics tells you “what happens” if you do “this”.

                It is called a neutral or “value free” science. It is not a tool to judge action. It is a tool to understand the consequences of an action.

                If, for example, you want to create a monopoly on selling shoes. Economics does not say this policy is good or bad. It says that the prices of shoes provided by the monopoly will go up and the quality of the shoes produced will go down.

                Now, you can judge whether the consequences are acceptable in contrast to the policy you wish to enact. Just know the consequences and say “Yes, even with those consequences I accept, I still want a monopoly on shoes”.

                But if you deny those consequences in your argument for the monopoly, you are economically illiterate or intellectually dishonest. Saying “nah, the quality will still be high and prices will go lower with a monopoly” is an economic LIE. People who do this denial of economics do so to LIE TO YOU about the consequences of the policy so that you accept the policy.

                This is when economics becomes judgmental in calling those people “LIARS” or “Economically ignorant” etc…. the denial of consequences that economics demonstrates.

              • V.H.
                Another example.

                You want a min. wage rate.
                Economics will tell you the consequence: higher cost of goods, more business closures, higher unemployment and radically high unemployment upon the poorest of society, those who are unskilled.

                Now you can say “Well, even with all of those things I sill want min. wage” and accept the consequences, then economics simply “shrugs”. You will get those consequences to your policy, but you accept them and will have to deal with them by other means.

                But if you deny the fact that min. wage increases unemployment, increases costs, increases business failures, and makes more desperate the situation for the unskilled workers, then you are economically illiterate or a liar.

              • V.H.
                This is why I spit at Buck so often. He is a liar.

                He will promote and posit certain policies, while denying the economic consequences to those policies. He tries to pretend those consequences do not exist.

                He is not stupid. He knows these consequences do exist and are enough to undermine the support of his errant policies that he supports.

                He cannot stand the heat, so he denies endlessly the consequences, pretending that these things will not happen, and try to reverse the tables on those that describe the consequences to be the ones “out of touch”.

                This is why the left tends to be economically ignorant on purpose. It gives them “plausible deniability”… “I didn’t know…”. But willful ignorance is not the same as simple “not knowing”. They can know the consequences, it is not a mystery science. Willful ignorance is lying to one’s self and lying to others.

              • Well that’s all interesting but if the government can effect the free market so can rich and powerful people with or without government. What are the economic consequences on employee’s if there boss keeps wages artificially low because he has the ability to stop competition or to in essence create a monopoly.

              • V.H.
                Everyone effects the market – your choices of purchase and labor absolutely has impacts.

                How can a boss keep wages “artificially” low?
                How can a boss stop competition?
                How can someone create a monopoly?

              • Not sure how your last two posts are positioned before mine they weren’t there when I posted it. First you shouldn’t spit at Buck. I feel that I could use the same argument against you at times. You say that economics simply tell you what will happen if you do certain things but you ignore that economics has many parts and the rich and powerful can manipulate those consequences.

                I do not deny the possible ramifications of a minimum wage. I simply question whether or not a reasonable minimum wage would cause these ill effects or would simply stop people from taking advantage.

              • “You say that economics simply tell you what will happen if you do certain things but you ignore that economics has many parts and the rich and powerful can manipulate those consequences.”

                Uggg…..
                You still do not understand economics at all.
                Economics ALWAYS tells you what will happen.
                It also will tell you what will happen when you try to avoid the consequences of your previous action.

                ” I simply question whether or not a reasonable minimum wage would cause these ill effects or would simply stop people from taking advantage.”

                Do you listen to yourself?
                “Min. wage causes consequences but I wonder if a “reasonable” min wage would avoid the consequences of a min wage.”

                Egads…. min. wage creates consequences. You cannot avoid these consequences no matter how dumb you want to try to avoid them.

                There is no such thing as a “reasonable” min wage like there is no such thing as a “reasonable” amount of theft or a “reasonable” amount of murder. You cannot avoid the consequences

                You can steal a lot – creates consequences.
                You can steal a little – creates other consequences.
                But the consequences of theft exist

                You can kill a lot of people – creates consequences.
                You can kill a few people – creates other consequences.
                But the consequences of murder exist.

                All you are doing is rationalizing the consequences. You are merely saying “I accept that with min. wage, that policy will hurt this group of people over here and I am fine with hurting those people

              • Well if that is what I’m doing so are you-you acknowledge that there are jerks in the world that will take advantage of people, JAC acknowledged that yes some people did bad things-but your fine with that group of people being hurt. Even the idea that there actually might be a compromise that incorporates these two possible outcomes and works to protect everyone is impossible.

              • “Well if that is what I’m doing so are you-you acknowledge that there are jerks in the world that will take advantage of people”,

                Look, dear, there will always be people who are rotten and no policy imposing upon everyone will fix the problem of some bad people.
                We have a policy against murder – people still murder.

                You pretend your policy will fix bad people by hurting other people who are innocent.

                What is the compromise between harming innocent people and not harming them????

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Clinton’s campaign slogan against Bush 1…”it’s the economy stupid”. I met a young lady from Poland after the communist government fell. She aptly stated it’s all governed by economics. However, socialism will lower standards eventually to the lowest common denominator for social justice.

                As I said in my previous post…my uncles who had continued to run the family farm, to stay in business would have been forced to produce a lesser quality produce. Here was a case where the company was the only producer of “milking” parlors which had tubes running from the milkers to bulk storage tanks pushed through legistlation requiring farmers to upgrade to meet the “new” standard. It was impossible to completely sterilize the system and milk was stored in excess of a week before pickup by tankers. Not only was the milk aged, but carried more bacteria and mixed in with others in the tanker. My uncles challenged the law, by getting the bottlers etc to confess that their milk was the best brought in all ways. They delivered 2X per day after each milking and each can was tested before moved into the bottlers storage. However, they lost with the old standby excuse. IT’S the LAW”,. They chose to shut down. They also could afford to. Coincidently laws were passed to keep people from selling raw milk.

                That said, Harris Teeter an NC a moderately upscale market had their own labeled organic milk products, from whole milk to colored water. The milk was very good and priced much lower than the NAMED organic producers. Several months ago they changed the containers and probably the producer as well. I bought a 1/2 gallon and thought the milk was bad. Hey it happens. I chucked it. Waited a week or so and bought another container. It also had that funky taste. I talked to the milk guys at the store, complained actually, and the guy went on to say that he’d been in the milk business his whole career and it was the freshness due to the new containers cutting down on the reaction of light on the milk. I basically said bullshit, and started buying the top brand. The next time I went into the store ALL those organic H/T milk products were removed from the dairy case. They are still missing after 4 months. The milk had been so good they couldn’t keep it stocked fully. Now there is NONE.

                Arrigio Cipprioni from Harry’s Bar in Venice complains on the continued degradation for food being produced, coincidentally since the EU was putting universal “standards” in place, eliminating little niche producers who can not afford to deal with the bureaucratic rules in place, and conversely the STATE says they do not have the time to inspect these individuals. It’s a sad state of affairs.

              • Taking this to the bottom 🙂

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      How many people here on SUFA remember “automats” Quick way to get in and out for lunch and back to work. Last one I ate at was in DC 35 years ago. The only person you used to see was the cashier, but with debit cards, they’d be gone to. At a sushi bar in Amsterdam you ate at a race track shaped bar. There was a conveyer belt with the plates on them. The depending on the ingredients and complexity of the sushi they were placed on different colored plates. You grabbed what you wanted. When done, you just indicated that you were done, they counted the colors which had a certain price and that was the tab. Only contact with a person directly was a service person who came around for drinks and counted the plates. You did see the sushi/sashimi makers in the center working so at least you did have some attachment to the food on the belt.

      I do not go out to dinner to get better food than I can produce at home myself. I go out for human contact. To maintain prices here, the portions are getting smaller, not that they were large to begin with. Modified or eliminated recipes, workers never working full time.

      • I’d say Hospital Cafeteria’s fit your definition of automats-and your right I wouldn’t ever eat there if I didn’t have too.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          The latest ice cream related deaths came from food specifically made for hospitals and ingested by patients at the hospitals for other illnesses.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Dale

        There is a Sushi bar like that in Beaverton. My daughter and I ate there several times. She called it a “conveyer Sushi bar”. She said she first saw them while in Japan.

        It certainly was convenient and allowed you to change your menu at a whim.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          I thought it was very good. Alway fresh. The chefs were making the sushi as fast as they could and placing it on the conveyer belt. You saw it, liked it’s looks, grab it.

          Southern tradition…Bert’s Sushi and Bait shop.

      • Remember them well., Had two by me in Upper Manhattan till the late ’50’s. Just talking about the stories of the “Automat” during the depression the other day with my kids (passing on family lore) where the gainfully unemployed would go in, buy a cup of coffee for a nickle, get a bowl, fill it with hot water (free) pour in catsup (also free) and add crackers (free too) for a 1930’s repast. Spend the day too if it weren’t too crowded.

    • Black Flag® says:

      Economic ignorance, V.H.
      If *you believe* you should pay more for a service, then *you pay more*.
      I don’t see you doing that, are you?

      • Sorry, I don’t understand the question.

        • Black Flag® says:

          You claim certain services should have higher pay (via min. wage). You seem to believe that forcing people to pay more for their goods is a good thing.

          So why don’t you prove it? Every time that feeling that certain people should get higher pay, YOU GO AND GIVE THEM MONEY OUT OF YOUR OWN WALLET.

          Doubt you will do that.

          • Actually, I do that every time I give someone a tip for doing their job.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H.

              Not really, but it could be explained that way in part. You cannot be compensating them for what you view their Labor worth without knowing what they are actually making from other sources for the same hours you share.

              You are actually tipping them for what you perceive as “special treatment”. Well at least that is why you should be tipping them.

            • Black Flag® says:

              Do you tip a percentage of the bill or the wage?

  5. Dale A Albrecht says:

    With the initial discovery of the tax fraud being aided and abetted by the big banks in Switzerland, during the Bush administration, where has been the outing of those tax evaders by the IRS and the DOJ of the evaders. You keep reading how this and that bank made a deal and paid a fine, such as UBS or Credit Suisse just last week $2,000,000,000 and the CEO resigning. BOA with the housing meltdown paying $15,000,000,000 yet no criminal prosecutions. If there was NO wrongdoing, why are they paying the money??? My bet is that the list included some very big DNC contributers. They agree to avoid prosecution, to strike a deal and play dunce to new Obama policies for social justice. I always thought the DOJ started at the bottom and worked their way up the chain to the big dogs.

    • My view of the MO of this administration is that they extort money from these corporations in lieu of prosecution. The money than can be used as a slush fund to “correct” whatever ill the corporations caused. One example is the mortgage assistant programs that were so prominently advertised over the last few years. Another would be the “assistance” given to “victims” of the Gulf oil spill. Thus we have another form of vote buying. My guess is the money gets placed in a private trust fund to be doled out from there. This way the money never makes it into the Treasury and hence under congressional control. So corporate management is buying penance with the stock holder’s money.

    • Black Flag® says:

      Explain why a company obeying the laws of its own country is “doing wrong” if those laws are contrary to the laws of another country?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Because the other country has more guns and says so………….ROTFLMAO.

        Good day to you my pirate friend. I assume you are inside and braving the lousy weather.

        • Black Flag® says:

          Warm here now.
          Been transferred to Conventional Oil and out of the Mine, office now close to home and wife.

          Got a new company truck for business and private use.

          Nice truck! Fully laid out with in-truck WiFi, laptop stand, GPS, cell booster, two-way radio. Nice benefit (free gas). Lots of driving… supporting 300 oil and gas sites over 180,000 sq. mi. area.

          Extra week and half vacation, so now 6 1/2 weeks a year.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Good. I expect to see you on my doorstep then.

            Hoping to get your way this late summer or early fall.

            Raining hard here last two days. Given the jet stream I expect those north and east of us to get some MORE SNOW later this week. Unless the warm air gets sucked up with it.

            Glad to hear you will have a little more normal arrangement for awhile.

  6. had contact with Life of illusion and he is fine. Work has been taking up all of his time. He’ll be back in the future, until then I’ll try and keep SUFA running as smoothly as possible. I may even write an article or two, never know who I can piss off when that happens 😀

  7. We were just discussing the importance of States Rights-Now look at this poll-it’s just a small poll but it is on a libertarian blog.

    http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=355525

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    A Democrat apologist who is going to wish she hadn’t hit the “send” button.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-an-open-letter-to-hdr22clintonemailcom.html?_r=0

  9. The Great Obama’s Third term Conspiracy Theory (in jest of course). Step one, Throw Hillary under the bus and drive back and forth over her until the Presidential run ends. CHECK: http://weaselzippers.us/217207-breaking-valerie-jarrett-behind-leak-of-hillary-clintons-email-scandal/

  10. BY throwing Clinton under the bus…(six seperate investigations going on by the Obama Administration )….who is waiting in the wings very quietly?……………………..Elizabeth Warren or Valerie watever her name is Jarrett?

    • I’m telling youse guys, keep your eyes on Cuomo! Thought he was cooked when he disbanded the Moreland Commission whom he appointed to investigate State corruption (got wayyyyy too close) but the sacrificial offering of Shelley Silver, the formerly most powerful democrat in NY, to Federal Prosecutors has shined the light elsewhere.

      Cuomo makes all those nice anti-union noises against the teachers but has huge Wall Street backing from the “Charter” Industrial Educational Complex. He positions himself as a “moderate” but as I said before is the Anti-Christ to Obama’s John the Baptist!

      • Cuomo is too anti-gun to be elected President, unless the elections are fixed.

        • Anti- Gun? According to the media he believes in REASONABLE gun control. That’s the narrative they will run with.

          • According to most people who profess to be pro-2nd Amendment, there is no such thing as “reasonable” gun control coming from anyone with a Left Wing mindset. Gun “CONTROL” is just that, there are no flowery words that can be put in front of it to change the last word. I might as well say “Reasonable” Liberal/progressive control. 😀 It will still mean the same, control. Cuomo has no prayer of being elected President.

            • I honestly, truly and prayerfully hope you are right but six years ago, the “organizer” from nowhere did not have prayer and twenty two years ago, the rapist from next to nowhere didn’t have a prayer either. These were the candidates we were “given” by the press and elected by that same press.

              • And both were after Republican President’s. HW Bush screwed himself up because he lied about taxes and only served one term. Obama’s legacy, at this point is a poor economy and he lied about taxes (Obamacare). Cuomo is disliked as much as Obama when it comes to gun control. He can’t survive his actions in NY, when many Southern NYers want to succeed to Pa because he banned fracking. His SAFE Act is well known in gun owner crowds. 80 million strong would be hard to over come there.

                I’m still concerned about just having an election for now. Hillary is done, Obama and Jarrett are going to take turns driving the bus over her. I still wouldn’t be all that surprised to see a Warren/Obama ticket) 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              In order for Cuomo to win he only needs to win over the same places Obama won.

              I do not see some form of “gun regulations” costing a Democrat any of those states which have been BLUE for the last 8 years.

              There is only one thing that is going to threaten the success of the Dem POTUS candidate, at this point in time. The fact that they are WHITE. Black turnout is critical to Dems winning certain states, like Ohio.

              They know this and they know they cannot depend on it. That is why the immigration amnesty is so important to them. They need to replace the Black voters with a new “loyal ethnic group”.

              • Watching the nonsense in Furgeson the other day and trying to figure out exactly when Blacks in this country will become irrelevant. Down from 14 1/2 percent of the population to 12, being replaced by Hispanics who do not carry the same baggage, pretty soon, they will make noise but be ignored.

                Surprised by comments from the heir the other day in discussing “Charter” schools and their selectivity. They can protest all day but they do cherry pick. He now “gets” the fact that the better students are peeled out of the bulk and taken through the “better” education with the assumption that they will return and be the leaders of their communities. Junior sees this as sinister since he now seems to realize at 38 that they are not there to lead but to become the new house slaves of the master keeping the lid on and the field hands happy.

              • Blacks will become irrelevant when they can stop killing each other and become productive members of society (I do not mean all of them, just those who chose to not be the best of people). I know lots of black men and women who are outstanding people. I also know a few are not deserving of being called anything other than parasites. If we want peace in our country, maybe we need to take a longer look at who holds the political power in the worst places. We need to end the generational welfare class, aka , Democrat strongholds. Even JAC can see this.

  11. Another interesting fact……I am checking it out but I alsready know the answer to one….since Obama has taken ofice and changed the rules of engagement, American military deaths has inceased threefold, American wounded have increase by 10 times, Afghan civilian casualties have tripled……

    And you wonder whay the military despises Obama…..it was asked on here some time ago about how is Obama deliberatley hurting the US…well, there is one asnwer. This is done intentionally….and the military knows it as well as the lackey generals overseeing the changes.

    Oh, another factoid for you…..the generals that have been quietly fired and removed,….18 of them now….are all tacticial and logistics experts. The ones in place……butt lickers playing the game.

    • Oh, if I am not sufficiently clear….YES…I am sayiing that Obama is deliberatley hurting the United States and is directly responsible for the increase noted above…..but, hell, don’t believe me…..look up the casualties yourself.

      • I agree with you, the question bares, what is the end game?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Elimination of the USA as a Global Hegemonic Power.

          That is the end game, pure and simple. It has always been the end game of the “socialist” movement. The only exception to this was the Fascist form of socialism. Which of course the socialists deny as socialism at all.

          Now you must ask yourself. If as a Libertarian minded person you agree that the USA should stop messing around in others business, then why on earth do you oppose and criticize Mr. Obama’s actions??

          • Obama hasn’t stopped interfering with other nations at all. Can you restate your question?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              gman

              He has and he has not. You need to think about the outcome of what you see as interference.

              So why do you oppose his actions if it results in the same goal you have?

              • What actions are you speaking of? I have been very vocal in opposition of his actions in Libya, Syria and Ukraine, not to mention his killing innocent American civilians with drone strikes. I have opposed the ACA, the NDAA, the Food Safety Act of 2010. I can’t remember one thing he has done that I agree with. Maybe you consider getting all of our troops out of Iraq as agreement, but that’s not inclusive to the rest of the world, so I wouldn’t claim that as agreement.

                So help me out here on what Obama has done that I agree with?

              • YOu have confused me, which is easy to do……what is Obama doing that I agree with? And wash yer mouth out if that Libertarian comment was aimed my direction.

              • D13, JAC has me equally confused.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              gman

              Obama announced pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq and you complained about that.

              He pulled our support for Ghadafi, and you complained, he then helped the rebels and you complained. He did noting to stop Libya going to shit, and you complain.

              He drew a line in the sand with Syria and then did nothing. Yet you complained about his lack of courage to enforce his line.

              He has withdrawn the knee jerk support for Israel, treating that nation as no better than the others. You complain about how he treats Israel and its leader.

              You want the USA to withdraw from the world. Obama’s policies are destroying our status as a Hegemonic power. But you complain about the details and ignore the affect.

              You are free to criticize the methods but you do not recognize that he is pushing towards the very thing you say you want. So is your compliant with his methods or his goal.

              Or, you want something different than you claim.

              • I think you are confusing me with someone else. You need to support your claims here Pal. I’ve never had an opinion on Libya except for disdain for Obama bombing them without cause. We are still in Afghanistan, so that sort of throws that BS out. I have maintained no opinion on Israel, but have mentioned the seemingly unending hatred of Jews everywhere. What the hell are you talking about?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        No Sir, the Libertarian was not aimed at you but Gman, who is often claiming to be of that tribe. Or of the anarchist tribe.

  12. Colonel, gonna make your day! Great “universal soldier” shot of some Aussies in France 1916. Enjoy!

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Why is State Sovereignty important? ONLY because it is one step closer to Individual Sovereignty.

    • Black Flag® says:

      For the nation against the world impositions
      For the State against national impositions
      For the Counties and Cities against State impositions
      For the Wards and Communities against City impositions
      For the Individual against all impositions.

    • My take. Hillary is an old school McGovernite. Now, back in ’72 McGovern was very cutting edge as a left wing icon. What he brought to the table was an acceptance and acknowledgement of the counter culture that started in the late ’60’s. He also was a genuine WW 2 hero type that still appealed to many older democrats.

      The McGovern wing of course replaced the traditional left wing of the Dem party and traditional liberals like JFK, John Connolly, Hubert Humphery and even LBJ. But, that was then.

      The party has continued to evolve (some would say devolve). Today Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama are what democrats are. Hillary, for all her looniness is old, out of touch and way, way too moderate for the modern party.

      I would think that when the modern progressives in the party sit around and look at the Clinton presidency and Hillary’s role in it, they are appalled that the Clintons backed down in the face of the ’94 Republican victory. Hillary is cooked, just as she was in 2008.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I wonder if the “LACK” of state dept documents from Hillary to whomever, ever crossed Issa’s mind and those investigating events., such as Benghazi

  14. This Bash woman’s reasoning is just nuts. I mean,hey the democrats don’t want this language in the bill so you should just take it out because you know, the democrats can’t win if they actually have to vote on the issue-so hell, just be bi-partisan and take it out. Cause the republicans votes really shouldn’t count because well I, Ms. Bash don’t want them too-so to hell with all the people who actually voted for these republicans..

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2015/03/15/cnns-dana-bash-presses-mcconnell-concede-democrats-abortion-language

    • I wish I could draw-I can just see so clearly in my mind-this woman standing with her arm raised and her hand clinched, screaming DEMOCRAT POWER!

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Notice how the literature and politics goes to examples like the “breaker boys” while ignoring what those boys were doing before. Oh my lord, children working in the 1800’s. Following are children picking spuds in PA, late 1800’s.

    • I saw “Little House on the Prairie ” too. To this day you have kids working in the fields. Hell, Ed Murrow made a big part of his reputation with, “Harvest of Shame”. I think the issue was not so much the working but the danger of the work and the necessity of work just to have the family survive. As Mr. Flag pointed out, when there is a shortage of skilled labor wages rise. But, the converse is also true. When you have an overabundance of labor willing to work for anything, wages go down.

      In the coal region, wages would go up and down based on a number of factors labor availability being one of them. There was also sometimes the overabundance of product as we now see with the oil glut. The difference between then and now was there was not even a glimmer of a safety net in those days nor enough wages even in good times to allow one to save for the bad times. Perhaps those dummies like my own grandparents had way too many kids, nine on one side, seven on the other but those kids were the ones who fought the Second World War and gave us the prosperity and infrastructure we have today.

      As I have said, then is then, now is now, you cannot mix the two. Don’t know your feelings on the Post WW 2 GI Bill. Certainly there was a lot of argument against it at the time but one thing is absolutely sure. It turned out to be the equivalent of buying Apple stock when first issued at $ 2.00 per share. Perhaps risky but nevertheless, a great investment in America’s future.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    “I am a revolutionary so my son can be a farmer so his son can be a poet.”

    John Adams

    Based on the teachings of our modern Universities in both politics and economics, the revolutionary may have been tolerated but they would demand the Farmer be a poet by Decree. After all, the Farmer was often not even making a “livable wage”.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H., et al;

    More on why the Letter of the 47 was a Good thing.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/why_the_senators_letter_to_iran_was_both_necessary_and_appropriate.html

    Pretty much says the same thing I did, but with better “legal” wording.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      This is exactly why the UN “Small Arm Treaty” is a threat. The Senate has NOT pushed back prior to or after the signing. Therefore tacit approval. Granted Reid would never have scheduled it in his agenda. Now it very well be to late.

      • YOu do know that anything about the UN is inenforceable…..even world courts cannot make anyone do anything. There will be no UN troops on American soil. It will not be tolerated. Any arms trety through the UN is hogwash……who is the enforcement arm? There is none….so treaty schmeaty….who gives a crap.

    • This issue with the Senators sending this letter has had some interesting effects. I was, literally, attacked by one of my “friends” on Facebook, because he was screaming for war over it and I asked why it was such a bad thing. It just went downhill from there, but the bottom line for me was that far to many people are just simply brainwashed by propaganda. They lack the basic understanding of how their actions will have a reaction, that they may not like too much. They don’t care. Just do as my people demand, or lets have war, this person said. I wonder how you can look at a person and figure out what political view he/she has? I didn’t bother to ask that simple question, as there is no logical answer. Sad days ahead I feel, very sad.

    • I’ve come to agree with you-if the President isn’t following the guidelines, plainly written in the Constitution, has made it clear that he is going to try to bind us by force if not law-than Congress has every right and using this logic the duty to try and stop him.

      Also with further thought-this letter said nothing about the agreement or what would be acceptable to Congress it simply pointed out the fact that it would not be binding without the approval of Congress.

      I found it funny that Iran’s official were so quick with their response-makes someone think that over riding Congress was a part of the talks.

  18. Colonel, A Maxim crew circa 1814-15 right before they changed to the coal scuttle helmet.

  19. How things have changed over the years! Remembering my young teenage days, I actually had a business going on, beginning around age 12 and it continued until I joined the military.. It was a simple business, I had regular customers, mostly the elderly. I would cut and trim grass, trim hedges, cleans leaves, clear snow and take care of the majority of outdoor work that there was a market for, including washing and cleaning cars. I did this, at my own free will and was not forced to do anything. I set my prices, with my customers.

    Today, thanks to government mandate, those days couldn’t happen where I grew up, because laws have been passed that have made it illegal. Instead, companies have risen, paying minimum wage, that are now the only option, at a much, much higher price. Although many of the workers are still teens, I could out earn them in a weeks time, back in the early 80’s, versus today. Sadly, many adults are now doing what I did as an early teen.

    I have read many stories of police shutting down lemonade stands, stopping teens from shoveling snow, etc. Because of high taxes, far too many regulations and Trade agreements, this nation has allowed the government to screw the people. Now, even under Obama, the wage gap has widened, because the little guy can get past the government BS, which means the 1% just makes even more money. Too bad the Liberals who support the current puppet are to economically illiterate to understand this. There are some very bad times coming to this country. The reasons are mostly obvious, if one opens their eyes.

    • It seems like it was the Income tax that really hurt freedom in this Country-although it’s more than just that-people simply didn’t apply all this crap to children trying to make a little money. When did that change and WHY?

      • In mid-Jersey we had an incident where teenage boys were told by the cops they needed a permit to knock on doors and offer to shovel snow. I think part of the problem is the cops are being overzealous in terms of “law” enforcement. There is that spirit of the law thing.

        As usual, we are now in this ridiculous position of the “meaning” of words. Because a town or city council tries to discourage fly by night grifters requiring “home improvement” contractors to register and get a permit, kids can no longer shovel snow or do lawn work without being incorporated. No doubt the town “attorneys” have something to say fearing lawsuits from the grifters or from the guy in the ice cream truck if they allow kids to set up a lemonade stand.

        I seem to remember from last year that there were even incidents with girl scout cookie sales.

    • I believe this is a result of NAFTA. When 41000 companies leave for foreign shores, those workers left behind, need jobs. We are no longer an industrial empire, we are a ghost of what a prosperous society can be. Looking at the pictures of the past, it was kids who worked hard and were, by government edict, sent home. Today, our kids play video games and get fat. Government’s have taken the teens out of the work force, by force in some cases. This cannot end well.

      • Gman, “….We are no longer an industrial empire, we are a ghost of what a prosperous society can be…..”

        Do not fret about the industrial empire. You do not want an industrial empire, you want a services empire.

        The progress of societies is:
        -from gatherer to agriculture = increase in prosperity
        This era was the US from 1600 to 1800
        -from agriculture to industry = increase in prosperity
        This era was the US from 1800 to 1960
        -from industry to service = increase in prosperity.
        This era is the US since 1960

        You do not want to go backwards.

        The rise of China is due to its advance from agrarian society to industrial society. They remain far behind the US in prosperity

        Each advance does have its challenges. Farmers had to learn to work in a factory. Today, factory works need to learn how to work in an office.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I just gave a hard time thinking that 100 million people not working as being a good direction to be heading.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      The government says they have to continue or raise taxes to deliver the services they’ve decided to do instead of the peoples self determination. Suppose one got to keep the 33% of your salary, generally that is what I shelled out annually. Anyway, as a kid I never worked in a “traditional” kids job, like bussing tables, bagging groceries, getting all pimply working at a burger joint, but like G, worked my own jobs. Predominately landscaping. I generally lined up real estate offices to let me take care of yards where the people have already moved and the house was for sale still. Flat fee, $100.00 a month. Usually turned into 1 hour per week per house to maintain. Then I did some original landscaping. We were living in LA in an area where the houses were placed in orchards. Oranges, grapefruit, polmegranets, walnuts etc. Usually there were about 20 trees left on each lot. Now Sunkist would buy the fruit at 80 lbs/$1.00. that is one large crate, regardless of the fruit. Now they would also put their ladders on the back sides of your trees if you did not want to sell and steal 1/2 a tree’s worth all along the property line if you didn’t keep watch. I would buy neighbors produce in it’s entirety except what they wanted for their personal consumption. I’d pay $1.00/40lbs. I’d wash and rebag the fruit and sell it for 20lbs/$1.00. I’d also tend and trim the trees so they produced the most fruit. By law in CA I could not sell to stores, but I could sell privately. I had a customer list. Need $50.00 for a date. 1 hours work. By the time I quit doing this at 17 years old and heading to college, I was clearing approx $2,000/month in ’69…..part time at all times..beach time was important. Prior to living at that location, our neighbor had 22 horses. They needed tending. Early paying job before and after school. Talk about shoveling shit…started that at 8 years old.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    They are getting bolder, moving around in the full daylight now.

    A call to arms, along with the usual dog whistles. You just have to love the notion that the “liberals” need “radicals” to protect the Constitution. Wonder how many of those radical liberals will agree that the Affordable Care Act was UNCONSITUTIONAL, or that the Iranian negotiations REQUIRE the Senate approve the agreement?

    Regardless, you should read this as it provides great insight into the future objectives, rhetoric and even tactics.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/the-dance-of-liberals-and-radicals_b_6876874.html

    Oh, and the primary premise is true. RADICALS generally create the change. But not all radicals are built the same. 😉

    • I would of course notice this one little part-but did you notice the comment about the repubs learning to be radicals by protesting loudly at abortion clinics-did you hear any condemnation of those actions in this article-I sure didn’t. I guess a lot of faux outrage goes on at least with these proud radicals.

  21. If they get their revolution, they will be no happier with the result than the radical blacks will be with theirs. These guys can only win with the courts never in the court of public opinion. Liked the line about the cops shooting down them youths again.

  22. I have no problem admitting that there are problems with the police departments-I don’t have a problem admitting that it effects minorities the most-What I have a problem with is people wanting to lay the blame at the feet of racism and only racism-and more importantly will want to fix the problems under the premise of racism-the problems that exist should be addressed but they should be addressed for the good of all the citizens not just for the benefit of minority citizens-this mindframe will only lead to more injustices and to the tying of the hands of law enforcement anytime they encounter an incident with a minority.

    http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/15/many-conservatives-blowing-it-ferguson-doj-report/

    • None of this should come as a surprise. It also works both ways, especially where I grew up. When a black Mayor was elected years ago, with in a short period, few white people worked for the city, including long time employees. I don’t see this as racism, but just simple corruption.

      The police should NEVER be a revenue generating agency. This is not uncommon either. Just look at NYC and the Eric Garner issue. This most certainly should be stopped.

      While I’m not going to say racism doesn’t exist within police departments (because it’s likely worse in many cases), all the numbers painted a picture than anyone can argue it’s not racism. There are more cops in high crime areas than in low crime areas. Low crime areas are mostly white neighborhoods. The law of averages isn’t hard at all to see. If 80% of the police are in and around the high crime black neighborhoods, then it’s a given that blacks will get the majority of citations.

      None of this excuses actual racism. It does not excuse police brutality. It doesn’t excuse the police being revenue generators. It doesn’t excuse blacks for having the high crime neighborhoods that leads the type of police presence it gets.

      IMHO, racism is not as much about skin color as it is about character. Nobody wants to address the later, because it would likely put to rest a vast majority of the “racist” BS we hear everyday. This is actually easily proven.

      • So in GWorld, the speeders get thrown in jail, where WE have to pay? Just curious how you’re going to square that up?

        • I’m baaack! 😉

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Have you read the DOJ report? I believe it is correct in that the poor blacks are disproportionately under attack to produce revenue. They are less able to pay fines, which produces a warrant, which lands many in jail . Debtors prison if you ask me,

          The practice of police being revenue agents needs to end , I’m sure you agree. 🙂

          • Nope, I disagree. Fines help support budgets, or do YOU want to pay more out of pocket for their budgets. Your complaint may well be true in black areas, but what about other areas? What would the consequence be instead of fines?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I’m not concerned about such matters where I live. If you think cops should be revenue getters, then you can expect more of the same. Instead of needing more revenue and have to pay more people to get it, maybe we could have smaller governments with smaller budgets,

              • That’s where the disconnect lies. You live in a small community where you can police your own, so you think your way can work everywhere. It doesn’t work that way in the concrete jungle. Have you heard the outcry where police layoffs are threatened. People are way too uptight for that to happen any time soon. I still haven’t heard an alternative to fines in the real world.

            • Anita,
              Your analysis fails the smell test. Thinking cap time.

              Fines should NEVER apply to policing revenue.
              If there is an increase in monies derived by fines, this is a signal that either the law is out of step with the population in that area OR there is an increased need for further enforcement.

              If there is a decrease in monies by fines, this is a signal that the law is in step with the population of that area AND there is no need for any increase in enforcement (less cops).

              Note the difference: the former has an OR and the latter has an AND in the condition.

              However, once you attribute fines to BUDGETS, the situation becomes perverse.
              If there is a need for an increased budget, MORE LAWS that are out of step with the population are introduced, which requires MORE enforcement (cops) which pull on the budget. This creates a positive feedback loop of continuing perverse introduction of pointless laws and more cops creating a police state

              • Anita,
                You can see the effect I described by the “red light camera” issue that is systemic throughout many cities.

                As the revenue from these cameras were added to BUDGETS, the cities, to increase the revenue for their budgets went about reducing the time space for yellow lights, which increased the number of red light tickets AND increased the number of traffic accidents at intersections as drivers who would have cleared the intersection under the normal “yellow” condition now slam on their brakes to avoid the red light.

                Since the city does not pay the damage of accidents, they cared less about the consequences.

              • Continuing, red light cameras

                As the revenue increased due to the increase in the number of red light infractions, the cities exploited the argument of the increase in the infractions to further introduce more red light cameras and further shorten yellow light time…. the positive feedback loop.

              • Ok. I may be out of line connecting fines to budgets, but then where is the balance? How are you going to deter speeding if not by fines? And how, if not by fines, do you run the department? More money from you and me. I’d rather the speeder pay more. You two won’t answer those questions from the real world.

              • Anita,
                There is no “balance” to achieve.

                Fines are a measure, not a goal.

                If on a particular road, there is an abnormally high rate of infractions vs other roads…..

                This is a MEASURE that the speed limit on this road is out of step in terms of the population.

                Look, the vast most drivers on a road travel at a level of personal safety that is comfortable to them. There have been hundreds of studies that showed that people do not generally drive over their competency under normal conditions.

                They increased the speed limit on certain roads as a test and found that even though the public could go faster, they did not exceed their own competency, even if legally they could drive faster. They generally tended to drive that road at the same speed they did before the increase in the limit.

                This makes sense because people naturally do not want to have an accident. This is an example of the natural, self-organizing mechanism of human action, avoidance of harm. The drivers self-organized, without central control or direction, to a behaviour that saved themselves …. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”.

                If in one area there are few infractions, and in another there is a large amount and the driving community is the same, how is it the former road speed being obeyed and the latter not being obeyed?

                It shows the former has the limit set correctly and the latter is out of step to the mindset of the driving public.

                Speed limits do exist to deter those that are reckless, and no one has a problem with that. Fines are a methodology that generally works to accomplish this.

                Speed limits do exist to inform drivers of the acceptable level of risk of road for drivers who are unaware, like a driver from out of city about the road condition they are now on.

                But do not confuse fines into budgets. There are a measure of adequacy of risk. To misuse this as a means to fund government only leads to trouble.

                What happens is the driving public no longer trusts speed limits as a measure of risk and that they are merely artificial, ending up with drivers assuming the limit no longer measures risk, and the driver then making his own decision about the quality of that risk in general ignorance.

                If every speed limit you see means to you it is government revenue AND NOT SAFETY, when that driver has an open chance, he will drive at HIS RATE OF SPEED, even when the limit was for his safety and not government revenue. He will make a sweeping assumption, increasing risk to safety.

                You cannot lie to the people without consequences.

              • Anita,
                Consider this example.

                On a particular road, the limit suddenly drops from 50 to 20 in an area.
                Why? As a driver, you assume there is an increase risk to safety somewhere, even though you do not immediately know why. You slow down, and oh! it’s a school zone with kids running around.

                But your government has been manipulating speed limits to increase revenue.
                A sudden drop from 50 to 20, and a speed trap. You get a ticket.
                You look around, and its an open country road, the same that you just drove over the last 20 miles.

                Now, you go further and another drop of 50 to 20…. you think “yeah, learned that lesson” and .. carry on and “boom”, run over a kid in a play ground zone, or its a blind driveway and someone backs out in your way, or…. some other reason of safety.

                Improperly set speed limits confuses the driving public, increasing the danger and the risk.

                Dad was a traffic cop, and he did a lot of work studying the incidents of traffic fines over his highways doing such analysis. Sometimes, even though there were a lot of tickets written in an area, the area did warrant that limit because the risk was hidden from the natural viewpoint of the driving public. Sometimes, though, he petitioned (and got) an increase in the limit because the driving public was indirectly informing him the limit was wrong.

                Yes, he was the last of his breed, the “Peace keeper”, not “law enforcer”.

              • Can’t argue with any of that. But the question or problem remains. If the speeder doesn’t pay, then you and I pay more. Is that fair? And just for kicks..say there is no traffic control..then mini me gets run over in a school zone…lawyers are going to love that…which ever public department gets sued…the take comes from me and you. Is that fair?

              • “But the question or problem remains. If the speeder doesn’t pay,”

                Your question is pointless and irrelevant.
                No one says that speeders SHOULDN’T PAY.

                You are making up a pointless case.
                The question is whether fines are to be included in budgets or not

              • Further about Dad.

                We all have experienced coming up “Construction Zone” signs, dropping from highway speed to a crawl. And we all have experienced that after crawling along for miles, and seeing no construction, the frustration of being forced to drive slow where it wasn’t warranted.

                Dad would ticket the construction crews for abusing the public peace when he found they left up their signs without their crews being present on construction, unlike today, where cops set up speed traps.

              • Anita, I think Flag explained it pretty well. But I would like to add to this a little, because of experience. A new Mayor was elected in my old hometown. Upon taking office, he fired all the leaders of the various departments and hired his friends and family, giving them 6 figure salaries. He couldn’t raise taxes, so he sent out the cops to get the revenue to pay for his actions. People started complaining about suddenly being pulled over for stupid stuff, like 2 miles over the speed limit. Despite all the lies coming from the Mayors office and the Chief of Police, someone noticed the Mayors secretary getting into her bright shiny new Rolls Royce. When it was made public, that the Mayors secretary (and wife) was making 150K a year, the shit hit the fan. The practice ended.

                These are just some examples of wrongdoing by governments. If a local government needs revenue via police enforcement, there is likely a problem within the government itself. Ferguson and the Eric Garner case are just examples of “revenue” making by police. It rarely ends well and you will begin to see more cities and towns called out on this issue. NYC needs to have an investigation on this type of police work. Basically, it’s nothing more than a mafia shakedown done by virtue of law. Like Flag said, It’s a police state, not a free state.

              • But the question or problem remains. If the speeder doesn’t pay, then you and I pay more. Is that fair?

                If a community is relying on fines to fund the local government, there is a problem with the government. I concept of fines for speeding is to enforce the limit’s, not to provide revenue. When it’s turned upside down, the people have already lost.

          • The Son, back from Command and Staff at Ft. Leavenworth was explaining to me last summer that Missouri Police Forces are apparently on their own when it comes to generating revenue getting very little other than mandates from the state. He, the government wonk, is always interested in stuff like that and noted that the small towns on the other side of the state, near KC, routinely pull over and fine drivers for very minor infractions.

            Having been caught more than once in the net himself, he cautioned me about the speed limit and signalling before turning as well as full stops rather than rolling stops at stop signs.

            So it stands to reason that Furgeson, like the other towns pulls a lot of people over. Since the town is majority black, it stands to reason that the pull overs are mostly black too. Could only make a real judgement though by doing a statistical analysis among similar towns throughout eh state.

            • SK,
              Such studies have been done, and it is systemic throughout the nation that police focus is on the visible minorities (blacks/Hispanics) in orders of magnitude greater then “white”.

              • So the next logical question is Why?

              • The why’s.

                Minorities are visible, easy to observe and identify.

                The current societal mindset is that minorities commit “most of the crime”, so justification is naturally inferred.

                They are a minority. Much easier to inflict police statism upon a small group then a large group.

                The minority have minimal political power. The ability to resist the imposition by political means does not exist.

                Positive-feed back loop to fund increase in police wages and personal. Without political resistance, minorities fall back to violent resistance, reinforcing police arguments that the issue is real and getting worse, requiring even more overt enforcement on the same suffering minority.

              • I remember the day’s when police were friendly and cared about the community, like your father. Today, things have changed, especially in the higher populated areas.

  23. Kathy, Anita, where the heck are you guys?

    • They are hanging out with me at the topless beaches of Laguna Madre, drinking wine and eating shrimp.

      • I wasn’t invited 😦

      • Hanging out and eating shrimp is all you get from me, colonel, but I’m there.

        I am just today coming back to the land of the living. Been battling the nasty flu bug for several days. Didn’t know my body was still capable of such force! YUK! Now I’m sore as hell. Couldn’t even watch Sparty lose to the Badgers Sunday. But I’m back! 🙂 Don’t know where Kathy is. She never even text me about her Badgers winning!

        • Ouch-Glad your feeling better-Glad your back 🙂

          Now we just need to find Kathy.

          • Last I saw her…..she was skipping down the beach humming a merry tune….with a glass of wine in one hand and a shrimp in the other….

            And, VH, you are always invited…..Me, you can trust…I am an afficer and gentleman ( by act of Congress )…..I would NEVER take advantage of wine and shrimp, beach…….(cough cough)……………..

            • Hmmmm….I wonder what an afficer is……?Well, if the WH can misspeak, so can I…..please change to OFFICER and GENTLEMAN………Harrumph…….I need a Harumph……

            • I would expect nothing less from you, Colonel but just for clarification the cough cough isn’t mandatory.

    • Reporting for duty! Where do you need me VH? I was still dancing around celebrating our overtime win over Sparty!

      • Revenge in the championship game…follow the brackets. 😉

      • Thank you, mam-no where in particular at this present time. Just needed to check in on my fellow woman on SUFA-our numbers are dwindling. 🙂

  24. Main problem seemed to be not feeling like she could talk about needing a father-like the natural desire to want a father was some how wrong-gay community needs to listen to these heart felt pleadings.

    I can’t imagine how much it would hurt to hear this from your child-but this woman didn’t plan it this way-probably wasn’t aware of how it was effecting her child-but what can other couples possibly say to their children when they purposely arrange it so that their children don’t have a mother or a father.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

    • I hear a bunch of me, me, me in the comments. They always say they were born that way. If the mom was born that way, why did she choose to marry a man and have a child with him first. Was it a set up all along? Kind of the ends justify the means. It’s sad.

      • Hard to know why people make the choices they do. Old Scott whatever in the comments really irritated me-proved the point that gays try to stop this kind of truthful talking. If gays are going to insist that they have the right to have children by IVF, surrogacy, and adoption they really need to stop trying to claim that it is not any different or by some accounts even better than children being raised by their biological parents. They want to be parents then they should listen to the concerns of their children and care more about addressing those problems than pushing their own agenda.

  25. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/15/chaos-climate-part-1-linearity/

    This is absolutely fascinating, especially the comments by rgbatduke (Professor R.G. Brown at Duke University). If you have any sort of stomach for chaos theory, especially relating to natural systems, as the late Leonard Nimoy would say, “fascinating”.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Peter

      Great post. While the heavy science was over my head the Concepts were very familiar. IN fact, I was reminded of what I have learned and since stashed away in the closed files. As the saying goes, “I have forgotten more than what most people will ever know”.

      Now to one key point. An argument I had with BF some time back about the dynamics of natural system. Namely that they are always “negative feedback loops”. My argument was that nature is dynamic and that “new equilibriums” can be reached, until the next event creates another new “equilibrium”. Thus it is possible that a negative feedback to global warming will result in a new state that is relatively stable, over some time frame, but which is very “undesirable” for humans.

      So Professor Brown’s following comment struck my eye. Because it supports my argument. Wouldn’t copy something that did not, :).

      “That’s the interesting thing about adding CO_2. Are we adding an anti-psychotic drug to a system that is already crazy, stabilizing it before it might have plunged over the threshold into the next glacial episode, or is it more like LSD, something that destabilizes to where anything could happen — warming, cooling, nothing, both, wild oscillations between the two? According to the best evidence, the climate is already pretty psychotic, as likely to produce 200 to 300 year droughts across the entire Pacific coast as not if you look back over the last 2000 years instead of the last 150 years of comparatively adequate rainfall, and that’s without CO_2. With CO_2 does this become more or less likely?

      This is hardly a silly question. Chaotic (simple) systems, chaotic (complex) systems, self-organized systems, have a variety of “critical points” where things can rapidly switch around, but they also have regimes where they do not switch around, where they are comparatively stable. At this point in time we have no idea at all whether adding anthropogenic CO_2 to the atmosphere has been the best possible accident, one that acts like a stabilizing agent so that global climate finally becomes as stable and predictable as climate scientists would have us believe that it would be without it, or is the trigger to a disaster. We don’t even know the sign of the temperature change in the disaster in the event that it turns out to be a disaster. We are decades of very hard work away from being likely to offer even marginally plausible answers to any of these questions — at this point in time we cannot even measure the state of the Earth’s climate system precisely enough to know what a single projection of it (e.g. “global average temperature”) is to within a whole degree Centigrade, and of course we probably don’t know the temperature in our own backyard or in a single cubic kilometer of ocean or atmosphere to that precision either.”

      • “Now to one key point. An argument I had with BF some time back about the dynamics of natural system. Namely that they are always “negative feedback loops”. My argument was that nature is dynamic and that “new equilibriums” can be reached, until the next event creates another new “equilibrium”. Thus it is possible that a negative feedback to global warming will result in a new state that is relatively stable, over some time frame, but which is very “undesirable” for humans.”

        “Undesirable” is an empty value. What does that mean?

        On earth already we have temperatures that range from -60 to +130, and humans live in both places and all in between.

        The earth certainly could be hit by an asteroid or a burst of cosmic rays or the sun getting larger or some COSMIC event that changes the dynamics on earth, but man has no such power.

        Man is incredibly adaptable. Not infinitely adaptable, but enough so far that from ice age to global warming (which we have enjoyed for the last 10,000 years), we’re doing fine.

        So before you leap on Brown’s comment, you first must come forward with the science to explain how?
        It is wholly intellectually empty to posit a whole mess of fairy tales made up in your mind, and then insist on others to somehow prove or disprove imaginary consequences.

        We have geological fact that Co2 has been in larger concentrations, and the earth flourished.
        We have biological fact that the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere RIGHT NOW is barely above the necessity of life on earth. Fractionally smaller concentration and plant life would end.
        We have a fact of physics that explains the irrelevance of CO2 to but a fraction of a fraction increase in temperature above current concentrations.

        So where in the heck do you think you can posit your calamity myth?

        The article is not positing that chaos theory holds a chance that the earth spins out of control due to Co2. The opposite

        The article is about how we are unable to make claim ABOUT such calamity based on modelling.

        The models currently express an out-of-control temp. rise based on linear thinking.

        The article shows that the system is not linear, but a self-regulating NEGATIVE feedback loop that defies modelling.

        The take away is not to make a further claim of “ok, so now its is out-of-control temp. because we cannot model the earth”

        The take away is that claims of calamity has no foundation.

        • https://sites.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/djb-group/ecosystem-co2-starvation/joe-quirk

          Atmospheric Co2 levels and plant starvation.

          “… that maintain the atmospheric CO2 in matched growth chambers at low (200 ppm), ambient (~450 ppm) and high (1200 ppm) levels.”

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          You are misunderstanding my point. I am not arguing about CO2, AGW, etc, etc, in any particulars.

          I am arguing against what appeared to be your point about “negative feedback loops”. In all our prior discussions you seemed to be arguing that negative feedback loos return us to “the prior state”. That may not have been your intent but did appear so.

          My claim then and now, and as the good Professor shows, is that Earths record is not linear, nor is it a predicable periodic, non linear movement either. The closer reality is that it involves periods of great change between which exist the “appearance of stability”.

          Thus a negative feedback can, and does, appear but that feedback does not necessarily result in the PRIOR norm. It can in fact result in a NEW norm.

          Now this of course involves “time”. The time frames selected for any discussion change the magnitude of periodic changes as well as the appearance of equilibrium. As one macro climate scientist once explained to me, in 1982, the climate of the past few hundred years was abnormally “stable” when looking at the longer record. Notwithstanding the longer term “periodic” fluctuations, like the onset of an ice age. So within the post ice age period, the weather of the past few hundred years was “abnormally” stable (his words). His prediction was that weather would soon become less predictable, less stable in terms of its range of affects. Thus we could see more monsoon seasons and more sever droughts, and everything in between.

          But this new abnormal actually represents a new relatively stable norm. A period of “average” where the averages are significantly different than the prior period. Or one were “averages” are similar but the range of data is much greater.

          Which leads us to “what is good for humans”. I don’t view simply existing at the extremes as necessarily good for humans. Perhaps I should use “flourishing”. In either case the measure is certainly subjective, but I think most of us would agree that living in the Sahara or on the Arctic Circle is not conducive to “human flourishing”. At least most of us. 🙂

          I find the claim that humans cannot affect climate as equally fallacious as claiming that such affects not only are obvious but are precisely predictable.

          • Ok then.

            “I am arguing against what appeared to be your point about “negative feedback loops”. In all our prior discussions you seemed to be arguing that negative feedback loos return us to “the prior state”. That may not have been your intent but did appear so.”

            That is what they do, and have been doing for, oh, a few million years, ever since life appeared on Earth.

            ” Earths record is not linear, nor is it a predicable periodic, non linear movement either.”

            It is not linear, it is not predictable, but it is periodic.
            Do not muddle what Chaos theory states.
            It is not Confusion theory.

            As exampled by the picture ( a two-state equilibrium), that over time that states moves from one to the other periodically. It is not “infinite number of states”. What cannot be discerned is “when” does it shift from one state to the other.

            Glaciation is an example.
            We move from glaciation to inter-glacial periods. We can review history and see this is periodical. One to the other back again, over and over.
            What we cannot discern is “when will we fall into glaciation from our interglacial state?”
            Could be next year or next 10,000 years…. who can tell?

            “Thus a negative feedback can, and does, appear but that feedback does not necessarily result in the PRIOR norm. It can in fact result in a NEW norm.”

            Well, sorta but not quite.
            The negative feedback maintains this norm, but like a marble in a bowl, a certain cosmic event can turn upside down the bowl, such as pointed out above.
            But here is an important point: the same negative feedback loops continue to operate, however, manifest a wholly different environmental effect.

            The same loop that keeps us ice free will be the same loop that will keep us ice-bound.

            • The “bowl” analogy.

              The marble walks back and forth in the bowl, held inside the bowl by its sides – the higher up the side of the bowl, the steeper the wall, and more force is applied to the marble to walk it back down.

              Comic event flips the bowl.

              Upside down, the same effect (the walls keep the marble down inside) but the conditions of the bowl are different, or opposite of previous. The feedback loop (the walls) are the same, how they keep the marble in the bowl the same, but the condition of the bowl is different.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Except that we have not remained ice bound nor ice free.

              Nor have all the ice free or ice bound periods been the same.

              Different periodic states. Perhaps not infinite but certainly more than two choices.

              You keep claiming I am somehow mistaken yet you keep making the same argument as I.

              I notice you now place a few million year time frame on your theory of Static Periodic Change. Which was another of my points. TIME has to be part of any discussion about feedback loops and any particular state of equilibrium.

              In the extreme Earth is completely stable. It began as cosmic dust and will eventually return to cosmic dust The PERIOD of earth’s existence would thus be considered predictable, stable, etc. As would the entire Ice Age, or the latest “inter glacial” period.

              One thing I do not understand in your claims is your assumption that we are still in the Ice vs. Ice Free period. Which of course would be considered a stable period in millions of years, beginning with the first ice age.

              Since we have not precisely identified the cause of ice ages, how do we know for certain we are still in that cycle or in a new cycle?

              If we are contributing to warming could we have broken from that cycle and entered another? Something the alarmists fail to recognize as a positive of their “global warming”.

              • “Except that we have not remained ice bound nor ice free.”

                Uh, yes we have.
                Do note the lack of 10km of ice over your head.

                No time did glaciation cover the WHOLE globe. The equator region will always be ice free
                No time were the poles ICE free. The pole regions will always have ice.
                Both have physical science as to explain why.

                “Nor have all the ice free or ice bound periods been the same.”
                True, cosmic events are, themselves, chaotic.

                “Different periodic states. Perhaps not infinite but certainly more than two choices.”
                Oh? Pray tell, what other state has existed other then two do you know of?
                We are either in a period of glaciation or a period of inter-glaciation.
                Those are the conditions of the last few million years.

                You keep claiming I am somehow mistaken yet you keep making the same argument as I.

                “TIME has to be part of any discussion about feedback loops and any particular state of equilibrium.”

                No. Time has no effect on the feedback loops of the Earth. They operate constantly and consistently.
                Cosmic events are chaotic as well as wholly random. Cosmic events are not bound by feedback loops. There is no feedback loop regarding the orbits of asteroids, there is probability.

                Cosmic rays are another matter – they are constant, BUT the cosmic rays that hit the earth appear periodical and maybe predictable.

                The source of the cosmic rays is the center of our galaxy. These have been constant for as long as we can understand.

                The sun’s solar winds deflect these rays, and the solar wind changes based on sun spots.
                We have a good understanding of the periodical nature of sunspots – Maunder’s Min and Max, which seems to correlate very well with warming periods and “mini-ice ages”.

                Further, the solar system itself is orbiting in space, through the gaseous remains of our Sun’s parents, which stretch out like fingers from a hand. We are inside one such formation now, but according to the probes, we are moving toward the edge.

                It is postulated that these gaseous remains also deflect cosmic rays, so while inside, the rate of cosmic rays is reduced. When we are in between these fingers, the cosmic rays hitting the earth increase. The solar system’s transit time in and out of these fingers seems to correlate with the interglacial and glacial time periods.

                This is the hypothesis that I believe is correct, though much of it proven, including the effects of cosmic rays on climate, it is certainly not yet to the degree one can claim “theory”.

                “If we are contributing to warming could we have broken from that cycle and entered another?”

                UG! More fantasy stories appearing to be a valid question….

                No.

                First start with how such contribution COULD cause such a warming before the fantasy.

                Show the science for this utterly extraordinary cause/effect.

                Geological history shows Co2 does not cause this. We have had a lot more Co2, and it did not cause geological climatic change.

                Geological history shows that increase in warming does not cause this. We have had long periods of even greater warming then now, and it did not cause geological climate change.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          I do not have to provide any cause/effect to discuss the concept of periodicity and static vs dynamic equilibriums in the environment.

          And TIME absolutely matters when making claims about such things. Especially when discussing Global Climate.

          We do not understand the why of various major changes in earth’s climate. But we are pretty darn certain that it has undergone periods of NO ICE and periods MOSTLY ICE. One such period is even believed to have covered most of the earth in ice.

          It is believed that 20% of earths history involves these periods of “ice”, which includes our current “interglacial” period. The other 80% is believed to have been ice free, as in NO GLACIERS or ICE SHEETS on earth.

          So the time frame you choose to evaluate some environmental parameter is not selected carefully, you can reach the wrong conclusions.

          Like the AGW crowd who want to ignore the last Glacial period itself, or the various wild swings in temp., and CO2, since the last ice age.

          So yes my friend, the TIME PERIOD absolutely matters to understanding or at least considering whether an observed state is static or dynamic.

          The other key factor is SPATIAL. Something entirely ignored by those trying to sell a “mean global temperature”.

          Lets take the change in North Africa from a Savannah to a Desert (Saharah). If one does not look back far enough you would think the desert a Static condition. We now know it had two states. I am pretty sure it was even “tropical” at one time, that would be a third state.

          Two of these conditions have occurred during the longer “ice period” of earth, and the other during the more prevalent “green house period”. Within the “ice period” there are thousands and thousands of years where the earth is mostly ice sheets and others where ice is limited, today for example (outside the northeast).

          Your claim of a feedback loop that results in TWO STATES alone is really pretty meaningless to the discussion of how this could affect “our world” we “live in”.

          Unless you are going to argue that humans will flourish in a planet that is mostly ice.

          The feedback loops that you always talk about make good arguments during the shorter time frames, even if measured in thousands of years. Maybe millions but not much more than that.

          In summary, the environmental conditions on earth go through periods that appear static, these will change to some other condition which will then appear static. The fact that the status changes shows they are dynamic in the long run.

          If you reduce the scale of your look, you will see that many systems are actually dynamic during those periods they appear static at the larger scale.

          The best example I can think of is the presence of the Boreal or Conifer forests. Over thousands of years and at large scale they have been static. At a much larger scale, spatial and temporal, they are the remnant of a long decline of conifers in favor of the more complex deciduous species. But at the closer, shorter, time frame and region one can see the conifer changing constantly from Burned Black to Old Growth. But here is a very important point. When the new forest appears it is not the SAME as the old forest. There are processes that can cause it to return and others that could delay it for hundreds if not thousands of year. A negative feedback loop is not an absolute in this case.

          By the way, I do not disagree with your Cosmic dust theory. I happen to believe that vulcanization has more to do with many of the major shifts. I also happen to believe, no proof, that we are experiencing an increased period of “Vulcan” activity on earth (snickering to self). Scientists only recently admitted they did not know about some deep see trenches spewing “hot water” and “green house gases”. This would also better explain the “hot spot” in Antarctica that was detected by satellite imagery a few years back.

          It is also a pretty good bet that our “wobble” plays a great part. And which, by the way, some think has been affected by the massive “reservoirs” built in the northern hemisphere. If true then man has in fact affected climate, by changing the earth’s wobble.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            There has been a lot of research on the Sahara lately. By geologist, paleontologists, marine scientists, horticulturists etc. Space photo’s of the region have indicated several swings, 3 that have visible evidence, between desert and fairly lush esturarial landscape. The indication is the swings occur over a period of 7-9 thousand years. Their research shows that region is in one of the drying out phases, and at some time in the future the pendulum will swing back.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              The Sahel region of Africa has been “greening up” quite nicely over the past 20 years or so. Some scientists postulate that this has been due to increased atmospheric CO2.

  26. To Anita and V.H. and their “fear” of terrorists and terror…. though I know you won’t read it.

    Our Fear of Fear

    So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933

    Perhaps the most truthful words ever spoken by FDR.

    Feardom: How Politicians Exploit Your Emotions and What You Can Do to Stop Them, by Connor Boyack.

    The Enemy Within, The Weapon, Witch Hunt, and Freeze, lyrics by Neil Peart (my choice for the musically most beautiful and creative of these, Freeze, is here; the story behind this four-part trilogy is also worth a read.

    And the things that we fear are a weapon to be held against us…

    Connor Boyack’s book describes fear: the fear that drives us, the fear that politicians exploit to control us, the fear that causes us to rabidly support all manners of abuse and exploitation – abuse and exploitation both of us and of others.

    Things crawl in the darkness
    That imagination spins

    .
    From Boyack, citing H.L. Mencken: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

    From the earliest days of the republic to today, the value of fear for establishing control has been well known:

    As John Adams himself once wrote, “Fear is the foundation of most governments.”

    Rahm Emanuel, then White House Chief of Staff, stated in a 2008 interview, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

    Creating fear isn’t an accident:

    As the sociologist David Altheide has explained, “Fear does not just happen; it is socially constructed and then manipulated by those who seek to benefit.”

    In short, anybody seeking power over another person finds fear a useful tool, and it is for that very reason that politicians stand to gain so much through its use.

    Boyack lists a few of the more infamous episodes of irrational hysteria: swine flu – with 26 dead (25 of which in Mexico and the 26th a person who recently travelled from Mexico), when compared to about 36,000 deaths annually from the flu; Y2K – coming and going with no major incident.

    The occasional deadly attack in a school by someone using a gun is always an opportunity to press for further restrictions on gun ownership. Such news is widely reported – with live coverage by every major news network. But what of the news that virtually every day “millions of gun owners around the country carried their firearms all day today, and nobody got hurt!”

    I recall a most recent example, the hysteria regarding the Ebola virus. Even some of the most jaded political observers fell victim to the fear mongering, calling for government to do something, anything. I was run over with the certainty of a hundred thousand cases on US shores within months. We are still waiting.

    With an iron fist in a velvet glove
    We are sheltered under the gun
    .

    The killer app for this generation was, of course, 911:

    Since that fateful day, Americans have been scared incessantly by those in power, who have dominated the airwaves to repeatedly suggest the impending threat of more terrorism.

    Citing Glenn Greenwald: “Our very survival is at risk, we are told. We face an enemy unlike any we have seen before, more powerful than anything we have previously encountered…We have to invade and occupy Iraq because the terrorists will kill us all if we do not.”

    Greenwald goes on, but you get the point.

    That those who know what’s best for us
    Must rise and save us from ourselves

    .
    Fear leads to enslavement, and as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Fear always springs from ignorance.”

    Cheney, when called to explain the government’s eavesdropping program in 2006, spent his time explaining the continuing risk:

    “I think there will be another attack,” he said. “And the next time, I think it’s going to be far deadlier than the last one. Imagine what would happen if somebody could smuggle a nuclear device, put it on a shipping container, and drive it down the beltway outside Washington, D.C.”

    A scary proposition, however I must invoke my Miranda Rights and not make any comment regarding this possibility. But I can imagine!

    You’ll note, of course, that he did not respond to the criticisms against the eavesdropping program, nor did he provide any rational basis for its use. All he did was play on the fears of Americans to justify the violation of the law.

    We’ve got nothing to fear…but fear itself?
    Not the faulty units in this mad machinery?

    .
    Speaking of faulty units, Condoleezza Rice was not one to be outdone, on the subject of invading Iraq in 2003:

    “There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [they] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”.

    The righteous rise
    With burning eyes
    Of hatred and ill-will
    Madmen fed on fear and lies
    To beat and burn and kill

    .
    George Bush added his weight to the message:

    “What this government has done is to take steps necessary to protect you and your family… We’re at war. This is people that want to come and kill your families… This isn’t make-believe.”

    Quick to judge
    Quick to anger
    Slow to understand
    Ignorance and prejudice
    And fear walk hand in hand…

    .
    Virtually none of this fear is based on personal experience:

    Christopher Guzelian, a legal theorist, posits that politicians are so successful in their use of fear because of “risk information (whether correct or false) that is communicated to society.” In other words, we fear the hobgoblin we can’t see solely on the basis that we’re told he exists and is coming after us. Guzelian concludes that it is “risk communication, not personal experience, [that] causes most fear these days.”

    Often, it is not that we are sold a lie; it is that we are not told the truth:

    Aldous Huxley, a writer best known for his dystopian novel Brave New World, once wrote that “The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.” Ignorance, then, is fear’s greatest catalyst; politicians prefer a blindfolded people who can neither see nor respond to what’s actually around them.

    Coiled for the spring
    Or caught like a creature in the headlights
    Into a desperate panic
    Or a tempest of blind fury

    .
    One can consider this constant fear-mongering a form of terrorism:

    It would be more accurate to say that terrorism includes not only the use of violence to instil fear in people, but also the reference to threats of potential violent acts.

    Maybe the politicians are right – the people of the United States have reason to be fearful of a terrorist attack every day, brought to you by CNN and MSNBC (and Fox and CNBC and the NY Times)!

    Fear is a tool of control, according to one of the more popular pioneers of propaganda, Edward Bernays – who called his work “engineering consent”:

    “Is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.”

    If Bernays, confidant of Woodrow Wilson, felt somehow limited, I don’t know what more he might have wanted to gain than throwing the United States into the Great War.

    We are not created to cower; instead we are called to live:

    “A ship in harbor is safe,” wrote the American author John Shed, “but that is not what ships are built for.”

    Where is the context to these supposed risks? Boyack, citing a political commentator for the National Review who identifies the risk to each American if we had a 911-level attack, with 3,000 deaths, every year: “Each person reading this would face a probability of death from this source of about 0.001% each year.” Those who beg to be kept safe from such minuscule, if not non-existent, threats are “weak and pathetic. It is the demand of spoiled children, or the cosseted residents of the imperial city.”

    In 2011, 17 US citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism, this compared to 4600 who were killed while working at their jobs, 6000 who died by falling down, 7600 from HIV, over 32,000 from motor vehicle accidents, 80,000 from excessive use of alcohol, hundreds of thousands from complications due to obesity, and an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 who die due to avoidable medical errors.

    According to the National Counterterrorism Center in a 2011 Report on Terrorism:

    Americans are statistically just as likely to be “crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year” as they are to be killed by a terrorist.

    Blood running cold
    Mind going down into a dark night
    Of a desperate panic
    Or a tempest of blind fury

    .
    We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark, but the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

    Yet, it is from a children’s tale that one can learn the true nature of the monster on the other side of the hill.

    And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them…

    We are constantly hammered with the false tradeoff: the need to balance freedom against security. Roderick Long addresses this quite succinctly:

    In the wake of the recent NSA revelations, there’s increased talk about the need to “balance” freedom against security. I even see people recycling Larry Niven’s law that freedom + security = a constant.

    Nonsense. What we want is not to be attacked or coercively interfered with – by anyone, be they our own government, other nations’ governments, or private actors. Would you call that freedom? or would you call it security?

    You can’t trade off freedom against security because they’re exactly the same thing.

    What does Boyack suggest is to be done about this? Focus on yourself:
    Develop a healthy skepticism of those in power.
    Extend trust cautiously, only to those who have proven themselves worthy of it.
    Consume a large amount of information.
    Tell others.
    Internalize the golden rule (although I prefer the silver rule).
    I’m not giving in to security under pressure
    I’m not missing out on the promise of adventure

    .
    “We need not be ignorant of real threats to our safety,” wrote former Congressman Ron Paul, “against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.”

    Roosevelt was right – not entirely, as he was speaking of the fear of even more government interventions; behind his words were a desire for even more aggressive government action.

    Applied to each of us as individuals, however, Roosevelt never spoke truer words.

    • What do you think Anita-Should we boycott BF? 🙂

      • To do so will only aggravate ignorance.

      • Nah, let’s keep him around. Gives us something to argue about. I just WISH he would acknowledge that there is a jihad in action and we are a target. All those other examples he put up, I can get around. I can’t get around a random jihadi.

        • That’s not gonna happen 🙂

          BF-I read your 101 ways to produce irrational fear-your warnings are duly noted and accepted with one qualifier-not all warnings are fear mongering-some of them are simply Warnings and fear can be as much a positive as a negative-when it leads to reasonable and constructive precautions.

          • Almost every fear you have is unfounded. Very, very few things you fear are real.

            To evaluate any fear, one must evaluate the risk. That is the point of the post.

            If one magnifies an incredibly low risk to be utterly existential risk, then you will by such promotion increase this risk. You will end up creating the very demon you fear.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Threats to the USA and thus citizens is real.

      Those threats are unknown precisely, but statistically small in chance of happening to any one person. They could be small in chance of occurrence but potentially large in magnitude (9/11). They can also be larger in frequency and small in magnitude (mall shooting). But the chances of any one of us being a victim is small.

      I would suggest, however, that the chances are increased if you frequent places that are favorite targets. Like the financial centers of NYC. That is until the bad guys decide to change tactics. But they are still small in comparison to other life threats.

      Fear is a great motivator of positive human action. If REASON is used to address he fear (building outside the flood zone). Fear is only a problem when it evokes a purely emotional response (Patriot Act).

      Actual threats can be reduced by action. However, we know this action can and most often will exceed what is REASONABLE.

      I believe that some bad actors, Bin Laden in particular, understood this. The real goal of 9/11 was not to just take down the icons of capitalism. It was to get the predictable response of “overkill”. To get the USA to undermine its own values and bankrupt its economy by trying to re-establish the “sense” of safety that people think existed prior to that time.

      Mission accomplished, we have incurred an additional 7 trillion in debt which can be linked to our “reaction” to 9/11.

      I am fearful but not afraid. I fear for our future, including attacks. I try to deal with that fear in a rational manner. This allows me to recognize risks without “living in fear” all the time.

      I am not afraid that Sharia is going to be imposed upon the USA nor that the Muslim world wants to take over America. At the same time there are Muslims who do think that way. It is rational to recognize they exist, identify them and counter act them. It is not rational to engage the entire Muslim world instead of the bad actors that actually pose a threat.

      And of course, the same can be said of every crazy group in the world.

      • Fear is a self destruction emotion, if not contained and applied properly. I use an example of being in a treestand, with a small floor to which to stand on to shoot. A smart hunter will use a safety harness in the event he/she would lose balance and fall. The harness reduces and controls the level of fear of falling, therefore providing confidence (in opposition of fear).

        Fear, therefore can be controlled and reversed. The chances of being killed by an evil terrorist is seriously low. We are 58 times more likely to be killed by a cop than by a modern day terrorist. If one, who is in fear of a terrorist attack should study their tactics and who they attack. Simply avoid those situations that would have a higher likelihood of an evil terrorist attack.

        Me, I strap on my sidearm and go live life. My military training keeps me vigilant and aware. It’s natural for me. My suggestion on the matter is to move away from urban areas. Terrorist’s are cowards. 😀

  27. @Anita, What happens to a town that derives their revenue through fines when the people figure this out and stop committing infractions? Do the police make up false accusations? Are new laws passed that nobody could ever be able to abide by? Does the government who’s funding derives from said revenue reduce their spending and size?

  28. Interesting perspective and thought provoking.

    Location of the super rich.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      You wouldn’t be trying to point out that the greatest density of superrich occurs in places with the greatest degree of State Control, ie. Socialism, would you?

  29. Later tonight I will put up a new page. Not sure if I will write a short article or not, time will tell. Hey ladies, isn’t it nice to have Black Flag around to aggravate you again 🙂

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    New thought.

    It will be very interesting to see if Netanyahu wins his election by swinging towards the hardliners opposed to a Two State solution.

    Obviously his polling showed he would lose without this move. And that the number gained might exceed the number lost, to create a win.

    Very interesting.

  31. Listen here BF. 😉 You’re moving the goal posts on me. I already conceeded the fines to budgets part. At the same time you agreed that speeders should pay. So we’re on the same page. And your dad was one of the good ol’ boys. The kind I remember when the county sheriffs used to patrol my city back in the day Now my city PD has all kinds of corruption…The chief and multiple officers just went down in a big sting operation.

    Now G! Didn’t read your link above yet, but.you’re getting crazy now. When people quit making infractions? Seriously? You’ve been in the woods too long and forget how people will get away with whatever they can get away with. Including me and you. Hence the need for LEOs to begin with. Now..how do you fund them? It either comes from my pocket or the offenders pocket, which do you prefer?

    • aw hell! I can see BF’s is going to pounce on me again, since it sounds like I’m relating fines to budgets again. I’m just not saying something right.

      • You saying something wrong, by accident I believe. Here’s the poop, LOL. The local government has a budget derived from the tax dollars allocated to them by the people. All the extra revenue, from fines, is not part of that funding. It may be used in many ways, but, when a local government demands this kind of activity, it goes beyond the agreement between the people and the government. It is simply, MORE THEFT. I’m not talking about a community where a ticket or two is given out correctly, I’m talking about PUSHING the police to write these tickets. There is a difference.

    • How do we fund what? Are you insinuating that the funding from the revenue’s collected by cops is “REQUIRED” to keep police operational? If so, you are seriously mistaken. Revenue collection is not need to fund anything, it is nothing more than a police state shake down, not any different that “organized crime” of the past. We have none of that around here, at least to my knowledge. If I do find it is occurring, I will stand up and fight it.

      Leo’s are not funded through tickets and fines, so I’m not sure what your thinking is here, can you clarify?

      • Maybe I should just ask you what you mean by revenue generating. Give me some examples of what you mean.

        • When cops are pushed to write tickets and make arrests, over small things, for the purpose of collecting money in the form of fines, that is “revenue generation” outside of normal taxation. It should be illegal.

          • Who gets to be the arbiter of small things? You either gives cops the ability to do their job or not. You’re gonna have cops who will ticket you for 2mph over no matter what. Sounds like you want to handcuff the cops..kinda like what their doing in Ferguson. So now tell me how I want a police state so bad. that sounded mean..not intended to be.

            • Black Flag® says:

              “Who gets to be the arbiter”
              The court and society at large.

              “You either gives cops the ability to do their job or not. You’re gonna have cops who will ticket you for 2mph over no matter what.”

              What occurs is such matters are declared “trivial and unreasonable, and a waste of the court’s time”. The cop is censored and reprimanded.

              Cops need to be handcuffed.
              Their measure of action must be held to a much higher order of reason, not lower, since they have the legal use of force including lethal force in all matters of the law, which you do not.

              You want it easy for cops. It MUST BE HARDER, not easier, for them to exercise violence given they have the legal opportunity to use MORE up and including killing.

            • If you haven’t read the DOJ report on Ferguson, you cannot understand the scope of this discussion. I suggest you do so. 🙂

              • Let’s set aside the idea that your comment was condescending. I told you from the jump that I hadn’t read the report. I was commenting on police departments in general. I still haven’t read the actual report but I have spent quite of bit of time reading the RedState article/summary/comments of the report. I have a few thoughts after having read it. I totally get the new buzzword now: revenue generation. Is this a new thing? No. They are called fines. There are fines in my city, too, for simple things. Are they stupid fines? Yes. Is that the cop’s fault? No. It’s my fault for not cutting my grass or for not having insurance when they pull me over for a broken tail light. That’s oppressive, you say? Then direct your attention to the council or mayor. There is one sure way to fix that. But to call out the cops for revenue generating is unfair. Ask them if they think a long grass ticket is stupid, they would probably agree. My point is that the problem is not on them. In the end the problem lies with us for not electing people with integrity. I jumped into the discussion focusing on revenue generation, so that kinda wraps up my thoughts about that. Other areas of the report leave me skeptical. All these percentages they’re throwing out there. I’m not all that interested in percentages when their population is a whopping 21000 and many examples listed involved cases numbering teens..or a couple dozen…instances…over a couple year period. Is that a fair , what’s the word…test sample?..to judge weather a dept is overly brutal? I wouldn’t say so. You would need to consider each individual interaction. The guy probably deserved it. Don’t resist, don’t talk back, don’t agravate and chances are you won’t get brutalized. I’m not so naive as to think it doesn’t exist, I just think its overblown. You need to consider that we are not Mayberry. The bad guys are way ahead…in weapons and attitude. The proof is right on COPS every day. I certainly wouldn’t want to be a cop these days. I’m a conservative. I should be against an overbearing government, and I am. I’ve been a ‘victim’ myself. But I also think that cops are necessary and I’m willing to give them benefit of the doubt, especially when “their lives matter”. I’m just going to stop here.

              • Cops are NOT necessary
                Security of Persons is valuable

                Cops exist to enforce government law. They are not there to protect you
                If you are attacked, there is no cop that will help you.
                They attend after the attack.

                The Supreme Court has ruled there is no duty for a cop to protect the people
                Their sole duty is to enforce government law as they see fit do so.

                You hold a very superficial and errant view of police vs personal security.

    • ” Hence the need for LEOs to begin with. Now..how do you fund them? It either comes from my pocket or the offenders pocket, which do you prefer?”

      Out of your pocket, and never from fines.
      There is a budget established for police independent of any revenue from fines.
      It comes out of your taxes.
      If your taxes are too high, that is motivation for you to figure out why. Otherwise, you fall back into your “sheep” sleep.

      Fines go to special social projects, like playgrounds or swimming pools and the like. Things that are nice to have but otherwise unnecessary for public expenditures from taxes.

      • Ok this I can understand. Although I haven’t heard of any swimming pools or parks funded by fines.

        • It can also be used to pay for overpaying select members of the Government, as I mentioned above. When a secretary is getting a 6 figure salary, this is what happens.

        • Black Flag® says:

          No, you asked about what to do with the monies raised by fines.

          Today, whatever government collects is fungible – all the money goes into a pool called a budget.

          The problem is, once a budget gets approved, if the monies gained by fines drop, the government does not reduce their budget. They go about finding more money instead, and tend to go to where the funding dropped and demand it go up. Hence the problem.

          • Hey BF. I see you’re up late too. I slept for about 4 days with the flu…now I’m hit with insomnia.

            I read a comment today suggesting that all fines go to victim restitution. I know you’ve suggested that yourself in the past. Bet that would put a lot of shinanigans to rest.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Anita

              Now return to your original point about speeding. WHO is the victim??

              No harm no foul, no FINE/Penalty.

              If a person is caught speeding several times, in ways that are in fact careless, then revoke their license. Driving without one gets you jail time. It could get you fired from your job.

              OR……..publish names in the paper.

  32. Yes, that works for me too.
    As long as the fines, fees etc. do not go to budgets.

%d bloggers like this: