Thugs in the White House - Cowards in the media
For over 75 years, I've been aware of thugs among labor union spokesmen. The most recent example being when Rev. Charles Williams II, a Detroit-area pastor and liberal activist, at a pro-union rally warned Michigan Governor Rick Snyder: "Just know one thing, Rick Snyder. You sign that bill, you won't get no rest. We'll meet you on Geddes Road. We'll be at your daughter's soccer game. We'll visit you at your church. We'll be at your office."
Now a senior White House Spokesman has threatened a reporter for reporting and later commenting on a news event which we now know to be true.
"It was said very clearly, 'You will regret doing this,’” the reporter told CNN last night. This was no cub reporter at some obscure media outlet, it was Bob Woodward, a serious, veteran journalist with a major Washington newspaper, The Washington Post.
Then, to make matters worse, several notable voices in important media outlets, piled on, criticizing Woodward for daring to express disapproval of their beloved president. I find it incredulous that media luminaries would criticize a fellow journalist for reporting the truth, with no criticism of the bullying tactics from the White House!
Long ago, Claudia Alta "Lady Bird" Johnson, First Lady of the United
States during the presidency of her husband Lyndon B. Johnson, headed the first major legislative campaign launched by a first lady: the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Declaring advertising billboards to be eyesores, she sought to have them prohibited by federal law.
In radio broadcasting at the time, we broadcasters believed we could do without the competition for advertising sales posed by the billboard industry. But we believed more intensely in the First Amendment protection of free speech, and freedom from government intrusion in general. We vigorously opposed the proposed Highway Beautification Act.
How things have changed!
While past presidents have largely done their bullying below the radar of media scrutiny, they now do it openly in government email channels and are joined by media 'watchdogs'.
We are witnessing what Victor Davis Hanson, classicist and military historian, today called 'the American recessional'.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Farewell February
The months seem to fly by. Now we see another relegated to the past. Good riddance February, from a weather perspective. Winter took one last, severe swipe at America in its waning days. But there are February anniversaries I would rather forget.
One hundred years ago on February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment to The Constitution was ratified, creating income tax. The same month, The Federal Reserve was born. Thanks, President Wilson!
In the state of Oregon, the first tax on retail sale of gasoline was instituted: 1¢ a gallon! Who could object to 1¢ a gallon? Even though that may have been near 10% at the time. Today, in California, gasoline tax is about 68¢ a gallon, more like 15% of gasoline's now highly inflated price.
But, on February 3, 1870, there was a blessed event as the 15th amendment to the Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing voting rights to all citizens regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude! Can you today imagine that that prohibition ever existed? Especially in light of the 9th Amendment which sated that the inclusion of enumerated rights shall not deny or disparage other rights, and the 10 amendment which stated that powers not prohibited by The Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Constitution never prohibited voting rights based on race or color.
February also brings us Valentine's Day, an observation of the gift of personal love!
Hope your March arrives as a lamb. We'll worry about the nature of its exit next spring... in 31 days!
The months seem to fly by. Now we see another relegated to the past. Good riddance February, from a weather perspective. Winter took one last, severe swipe at America in its waning days. But there are February anniversaries I would rather forget.
One hundred years ago on February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment to The Constitution was ratified, creating income tax. The same month, The Federal Reserve was born. Thanks, President Wilson!
In the state of Oregon, the first tax on retail sale of gasoline was instituted: 1¢ a gallon! Who could object to 1¢ a gallon? Even though that may have been near 10% at the time. Today, in California, gasoline tax is about 68¢ a gallon, more like 15% of gasoline's now highly inflated price.
But, on February 3, 1870, there was a blessed event as the 15th amendment to the Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing voting rights to all citizens regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude! Can you today imagine that that prohibition ever existed? Especially in light of the 9th Amendment which sated that the inclusion of enumerated rights shall not deny or disparage other rights, and the 10 amendment which stated that powers not prohibited by The Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Constitution never prohibited voting rights based on race or color.
February also brings us Valentine's Day, an observation of the gift of personal love!
Hope your March arrives as a lamb. We'll worry about the nature of its exit next spring... in 31 days!
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Women in Combat
Women are different from men in many ways. I know that, still, I like women. As boys mature, they develop muscles, hence strength, and they search for ways to use that advantage. Women, generally of more delicate frame, usually lose out in physical encounters, so they learn to finesse the situation... as boys grow muscles, girls grow brains. Boys learn to push. Girls learn to maneuver.
I am speaking generalities, of course. There are women who can push very hard. There are women too dumb to outmaneuver a turnip. But those are exceptions.
Now there is talk of putting women in military combat roles. Some women consider that an opportunity to advance their careers. Perhaps. It is terribly unfair to deny women equality at any level. But remember, women are not always equal. Only women, throughout all of recorded history, have been targeted for sexual exploitation and abuse. Only women can develop a fetus, carry it to maturity, and give birth to our next generation. Only women have the breasts to suckle their infant. And, women add a certain quality to human life which seems to be their exclusive ability. Isn't that enough? Must we also ask them to fight for our defense?
Women already serve in many vital military roles. Until now, they have been roles a bit less likely to lead to their capture by truly evil people. They fly our aircraft, and fly on our spacecraft. They serve in many command and intelligence positions. The nearest military installation to my home, White Sands Missile Range is commanded by a Army General who is, yes, a woman. Isn't that enough? Do we have to send women crawling through the mud with rifle and bayonet?
A noted college president once explained that a man is sometimes chosen over a women to fill an important job, because the man graduated from a more prestigious university. Never mind that, at the time, women had been refused admission to that particular university. That is cheating. Declining to send women into 'boots on the ground' combat roles, is not.
Women are different from men in many ways. I know that, still, I like women. As boys mature, they develop muscles, hence strength, and they search for ways to use that advantage. Women, generally of more delicate frame, usually lose out in physical encounters, so they learn to finesse the situation... as boys grow muscles, girls grow brains. Boys learn to push. Girls learn to maneuver.
I am speaking generalities, of course. There are women who can push very hard. There are women too dumb to outmaneuver a turnip. But those are exceptions.
Now there is talk of putting women in military combat roles. Some women consider that an opportunity to advance their careers. Perhaps. It is terribly unfair to deny women equality at any level. But remember, women are not always equal. Only women, throughout all of recorded history, have been targeted for sexual exploitation and abuse. Only women can develop a fetus, carry it to maturity, and give birth to our next generation. Only women have the breasts to suckle their infant. And, women add a certain quality to human life which seems to be their exclusive ability. Isn't that enough? Must we also ask them to fight for our defense?
Women already serve in many vital military roles. Until now, they have been roles a bit less likely to lead to their capture by truly evil people. They fly our aircraft, and fly on our spacecraft. They serve in many command and intelligence positions. The nearest military installation to my home, White Sands Missile Range is commanded by a Army General who is, yes, a woman. Isn't that enough? Do we have to send women crawling through the mud with rifle and bayonet?
A noted college president once explained that a man is sometimes chosen over a women to fill an important job, because the man graduated from a more prestigious university. Never mind that, at the time, women had been refused admission to that particular university. That is cheating. Declining to send women into 'boots on the ground' combat roles, is not.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Why do Progressives win elections?
Yes, they have the majority of the black vote. They have the majority of the Hispanic vote. They have the majority of the Asian vote.
But why?
That early-on Progressive, Theodore Roosevelt, was elected as a Republican, but he was a solid Progressive. A despicable little wimp, Roosevelt first appeared in the legislature wearing a purple velvet suit which caused snickers all around. But Teddy was a smart, conniving politician, so he created a bogus macho image for himself. The public bought it. After the Filipinos successfully overthrew their Spanish conquerors, Roosevelt turned his back on them, refusing promised independence and called them "our little Pacific Negroes". Why do Hispanics vote for Liberal Progressives today?
In the 1940s, another Progressive Roosevelt, Franklin D., rounded up innocent, patriotic Japanese Americans and threw them all into 'Concentration' camps. No trial, no judge, no jury, no evidence. Just blatant discrimination. Why do Asians vote Democrat today?
In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower, fought hard to get Civil Rights legislation passed. He was only partly successful due to the vicious opposition of Democrat Senator Lyndon B. Johnson.
Yet, when Johnson himself became president, (like Teddy Roosevelt, upon the assassination of the elected president, William McKinley before Teddy, John F. Kennedy before LBJ). Johnson saw a political opportunity. A steward on Air Force One at the time, reported hearing Johnson declare "I'll have them Niggers voting Democrat for 100 years."
Now, to cut Johnson a little slack, any political observer of his Presidency will recall that dark-skinned Americans of African descent were still being called Negroes at the time. Even Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used that expression in his 'I Have A Dream' speech. Given Johnson's Texas drawl, he pronounced the word "Niggras", which could be misunderstood. Nonetheless, it was apparent to all that his great Civil Rights efforts were toward a single goal: assuring the Black vote for Democrat politicians. Why do Blacks vote Democrat today?
I believe the Progressives learned their lesson from Teddy. A New York dandy (and one-time Governor) Teddy simply became what turn-of-the-20th century Americans admired, a rugged, individualistic he-man. If you ain't got what the people want, create for yourself that image. If your opponent does have what the people admire, do whatever it takes to destroy their image.
Granted, neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney offered what Sarah Palin called "set our hair on fire" rhetoric, but either man was infinitely more qualified for the presidency than Barack Obama. But the Obama campaign succeeded in destroying the image of both opponents.
When I took Infantry training in the Army, I was taught that you have to prepare for the way your enemy is going to fight you. Marquess of Queensberry Rules do not apply in military hand-to-hand combat. Your enemy wants to kill you: know that, understand that and prepare accordingly.
The Progressive Liberal Democrats have infiltrated the news media. They have infiltrated academia. Even with those institutions solidly on their side, they will still break every rule to win. Republicans should not engage in rule-breaking, but they must understand how the Dems are going to fight, and prepare.
Yes, they have the majority of the black vote. They have the majority of the Hispanic vote. They have the majority of the Asian vote.
But why?
That early-on Progressive, Theodore Roosevelt, was elected as a Republican, but he was a solid Progressive. A despicable little wimp, Roosevelt first appeared in the legislature wearing a purple velvet suit which caused snickers all around. But Teddy was a smart, conniving politician, so he created a bogus macho image for himself. The public bought it. After the Filipinos successfully overthrew their Spanish conquerors, Roosevelt turned his back on them, refusing promised independence and called them "our little Pacific Negroes". Why do Hispanics vote for Liberal Progressives today?
In the 1940s, another Progressive Roosevelt, Franklin D., rounded up innocent, patriotic Japanese Americans and threw them all into 'Concentration' camps. No trial, no judge, no jury, no evidence. Just blatant discrimination. Why do Asians vote Democrat today?
In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower, fought hard to get Civil Rights legislation passed. He was only partly successful due to the vicious opposition of Democrat Senator Lyndon B. Johnson.
Yet, when Johnson himself became president, (like Teddy Roosevelt, upon the assassination of the elected president, William McKinley before Teddy, John F. Kennedy before LBJ). Johnson saw a political opportunity. A steward on Air Force One at the time, reported hearing Johnson declare "I'll have them Niggers voting Democrat for 100 years."
Now, to cut Johnson a little slack, any political observer of his Presidency will recall that dark-skinned Americans of African descent were still being called Negroes at the time. Even Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used that expression in his 'I Have A Dream' speech. Given Johnson's Texas drawl, he pronounced the word "Niggras", which could be misunderstood. Nonetheless, it was apparent to all that his great Civil Rights efforts were toward a single goal: assuring the Black vote for Democrat politicians. Why do Blacks vote Democrat today?
I believe the Progressives learned their lesson from Teddy. A New York dandy (and one-time Governor) Teddy simply became what turn-of-the-20th century Americans admired, a rugged, individualistic he-man. If you ain't got what the people want, create for yourself that image. If your opponent does have what the people admire, do whatever it takes to destroy their image.
Granted, neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney offered what Sarah Palin called "set our hair on fire" rhetoric, but either man was infinitely more qualified for the presidency than Barack Obama. But the Obama campaign succeeded in destroying the image of both opponents.
When I took Infantry training in the Army, I was taught that you have to prepare for the way your enemy is going to fight you. Marquess of Queensberry Rules do not apply in military hand-to-hand combat. Your enemy wants to kill you: know that, understand that and prepare accordingly.
The Progressive Liberal Democrats have infiltrated the news media. They have infiltrated academia. Even with those institutions solidly on their side, they will still break every rule to win. Republicans should not engage in rule-breaking, but they must understand how the Dems are going to fight, and prepare.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Violence,
a natural behavior.
I enjoy nature films and have seen many depicting violent behavior among wild beasts. Animals fight over food, territory and, most often, for mating rights. Humans are no different. We know the biblical story of Cain and Abel and their fatal encounter. That behavior has continued to this day.
Along the way, humans gained the ability to think and to reason. They learned ways to co-exist and developed codes of behavior. "Thou shall not kill" scorned violence. But the trait remained.
Violence and killing are okay under clearly defined circumstances, like war. Periodically, entire nations have been outraged at the behavior of citizens of other nations, sometimes for rather trivial reasons. Declaring war, they engaged in wholesale killing. The most effective killers being deemed heroes. Terrible and ever more sophisticated weapons have developed to aid in that cause - or to defend against it.
Violence in humans is often attributed to some abnormality, specifically a mental disorder. Actually, violence occurs in humans any time one or more humans abandon the ancient codes of peaceful co-existence.
They reach this point in many ways. We have seen and heard many 'experts' explain the possible reasons for individual acts of human violence. But, as Hillary Clinton famously said, "What does it matter?" Someone exceeds the bounds of acceptable human behavior and violence occurs. A victim may still be dead, regardless of what cause is finally attributed.
In my unlearned opinion, there is a way to prevent it. We must somehow strengthen those bounds. I believe it must start early in one's life. For example, I grew up with four sisters. Like all siblings, we squabbled over petty things, but, early on, I was taught that a boy does not hit a girl. Call her names, throw an earthworm in her lap, but never strike her. As an octogenarian, I am still tightly bound by that rule. I cannot conceive of a reason why I would hit a girl.
So, where do we start? My lesson about not hitting girls was learned from my family. From a loving, caring father who sought to teach me to become a man, a real man, not a grown-up boy. From a loving mother whose entire life was wrapped up in Christian principles. And, from my squabbling sisters, who may mistreat me, but were always there for me when needed.
So, family is where we start. We must end abortions and teach a deep respect for all human life. We must curtail divorce by making it harder to marry. Young people must be required to think long and hard about that life changing decision. No more rushing to the altar because hormones are popping.
Using DNA if necessary, we must always hold men responsible for the care of children they sire. No way out of it... father a child and you will support that child until adulthood, like it or not. And, somehow, we must enforce responsible parenting. Yes, that is a tough one, but we must at least create a climate that fosters loving parental care.
Strengthen the family and you may erect bounds of behavior that can withstand anger, greed, jealousy, or even some real or imaginary mental disorder.
a natural behavior.
I enjoy nature films and have seen many depicting violent behavior among wild beasts. Animals fight over food, territory and, most often, for mating rights. Humans are no different. We know the biblical story of Cain and Abel and their fatal encounter. That behavior has continued to this day.
Along the way, humans gained the ability to think and to reason. They learned ways to co-exist and developed codes of behavior. "Thou shall not kill" scorned violence. But the trait remained.
Violence and killing are okay under clearly defined circumstances, like war. Periodically, entire nations have been outraged at the behavior of citizens of other nations, sometimes for rather trivial reasons. Declaring war, they engaged in wholesale killing. The most effective killers being deemed heroes. Terrible and ever more sophisticated weapons have developed to aid in that cause - or to defend against it.
Violence in humans is often attributed to some abnormality, specifically a mental disorder. Actually, violence occurs in humans any time one or more humans abandon the ancient codes of peaceful co-existence.
They reach this point in many ways. We have seen and heard many 'experts' explain the possible reasons for individual acts of human violence. But, as Hillary Clinton famously said, "What does it matter?" Someone exceeds the bounds of acceptable human behavior and violence occurs. A victim may still be dead, regardless of what cause is finally attributed.
In my unlearned opinion, there is a way to prevent it. We must somehow strengthen those bounds. I believe it must start early in one's life. For example, I grew up with four sisters. Like all siblings, we squabbled over petty things, but, early on, I was taught that a boy does not hit a girl. Call her names, throw an earthworm in her lap, but never strike her. As an octogenarian, I am still tightly bound by that rule. I cannot conceive of a reason why I would hit a girl.
So, where do we start? My lesson about not hitting girls was learned from my family. From a loving, caring father who sought to teach me to become a man, a real man, not a grown-up boy. From a loving mother whose entire life was wrapped up in Christian principles. And, from my squabbling sisters, who may mistreat me, but were always there for me when needed.
So, family is where we start. We must end abortions and teach a deep respect for all human life. We must curtail divorce by making it harder to marry. Young people must be required to think long and hard about that life changing decision. No more rushing to the altar because hormones are popping.
Using DNA if necessary, we must always hold men responsible for the care of children they sire. No way out of it... father a child and you will support that child until adulthood, like it or not. And, somehow, we must enforce responsible parenting. Yes, that is a tough one, but we must at least create a climate that fosters loving parental care.
Strengthen the family and you may erect bounds of behavior that can withstand anger, greed, jealousy, or even some real or imaginary mental disorder.
Saturday, February 02, 2013
Thoughts
I keep hearing opinions about President Obama's approval. He is said to be likeable. Highly intelligent.
He is the former. He is not the latter. The likeable part is a hangover from his demeanor before he announced as a candidate for President.
Just a few years ago, when George W. Bush was president, the Congressional Record shows that Senator Obama said this: "I rise, today, to talk about America's debt problem. The fact that we are here to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure and our government's reckless fiscal policies."
The most ardent Conservative would like that attitude. Today, with the debt doubled, he says we do not have a debt problem. Not "no longer have a debt problem", as though the bills had been paid.
I think Barack Obama started out as a likeable guy. But his handlers, advisers, consultants - whatever you wish to call them - have completely taken over and he is now a sock puppet.
One can imagine him being told: "We got you elected and re-elected. Now shut up and read the teleprompter."
As for the intelligent part, his "misspeaks", unlike those by W. are not just mangled pronunciations, but displays of ignorance. Like, "57 states". Has he never looked at a U.S. flag?
Then the other day he said Hillary Clinton was "one of the best secretary of states we have ever had." Really? What would those states be?
I keep hearing opinions about President Obama's approval. He is said to be likeable. Highly intelligent.
He is the former. He is not the latter. The likeable part is a hangover from his demeanor before he announced as a candidate for President.
Just a few years ago, when George W. Bush was president, the Congressional Record shows that Senator Obama said this: "I rise, today, to talk about America's debt problem. The fact that we are here to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure and our government's reckless fiscal policies."
The most ardent Conservative would like that attitude. Today, with the debt doubled, he says we do not have a debt problem. Not "no longer have a debt problem", as though the bills had been paid.
I think Barack Obama started out as a likeable guy. But his handlers, advisers, consultants - whatever you wish to call them - have completely taken over and he is now a sock puppet.
One can imagine him being told: "We got you elected and re-elected. Now shut up and read the teleprompter."
As for the intelligent part, his "misspeaks", unlike those by W. are not just mangled pronunciations, but displays of ignorance. Like, "57 states". Has he never looked at a U.S. flag?
Then the other day he said Hillary Clinton was "one of the best secretary of states we have ever had." Really? What would those states be?
Thursday, January 31, 2013
At this point,
what difference does it make?
Hillary Clinton shouted at a Congressional Committee hearing on Benghazi.
In that particular case, the reference was to honesty in government.
Mark Steyn has written brilliantly on the subject. A quick read, well worth your time, here.
Steyn suggested we use Hillary's declaration in the oath sworn to by persons chosen for federal office:
"Do you solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"
"Sure. What difference, at this point, does it make?"
I've thought much about this event, and, like Steyn, considered applying it to other events. It can drive you crazy!
I remember a time when I had great respect for "the Federal government". I held the FBI and the CIA, for example, in awe. They were so competent, so smart, so skilled as to be unmatched. As a teen during WW II, if "the government" had instructed me, to paraphrase Col. Allen West, to walk through hell with a can of gasoline, I would have rushed to comply.
In the early 1950s, as a new broadcast engineer, I had great respect for the FCC Field Officers; skilled, devoted engineers, striving to keep our industry first class.
It wasn't until 1959 that my faith in the Federal Government waned. That year I participated in a hearing before an FCC examiner in Washington. There I witnessed the incompetence, the bias, the ignorance of the industry they regulated, the arbitrary nature of decisions, by FCC Washington personnel.
ABC News icon Sam Donaldson recently expressed his irritation with people saying they "wanted to take our country back." Sam doesn't understand what is meant by "our country". He is probably too young to remember when government could be trusted. When, if a candidate was elected to office, you had full confidence in that official, whether you voted for or against them in the election.
Donaldson said "It's not your country any longer", and he was right.
At this point, what difference does it make?
To those of us old people who remember when "our country" stood for truth, honesty, justice, it makes a great deal of difference and we are still determined to take our country back.
what difference does it make?
Hillary Clinton shouted at a Congressional Committee hearing on Benghazi.
In that particular case, the reference was to honesty in government.
Mark Steyn has written brilliantly on the subject. A quick read, well worth your time, here.
Steyn suggested we use Hillary's declaration in the oath sworn to by persons chosen for federal office:
"Do you solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"
"Sure. What difference, at this point, does it make?"
I've thought much about this event, and, like Steyn, considered applying it to other events. It can drive you crazy!
I remember a time when I had great respect for "the Federal government". I held the FBI and the CIA, for example, in awe. They were so competent, so smart, so skilled as to be unmatched. As a teen during WW II, if "the government" had instructed me, to paraphrase Col. Allen West, to walk through hell with a can of gasoline, I would have rushed to comply.
In the early 1950s, as a new broadcast engineer, I had great respect for the FCC Field Officers; skilled, devoted engineers, striving to keep our industry first class.
It wasn't until 1959 that my faith in the Federal Government waned. That year I participated in a hearing before an FCC examiner in Washington. There I witnessed the incompetence, the bias, the ignorance of the industry they regulated, the arbitrary nature of decisions, by FCC Washington personnel.
ABC News icon Sam Donaldson recently expressed his irritation with people saying they "wanted to take our country back." Sam doesn't understand what is meant by "our country". He is probably too young to remember when government could be trusted. When, if a candidate was elected to office, you had full confidence in that official, whether you voted for or against them in the election.
Donaldson said "It's not your country any longer", and he was right.
At this point, what difference does it make?
To those of us old people who remember when "our country" stood for truth, honesty, justice, it makes a great deal of difference and we are still determined to take our country back.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The biggest waste
of government time has to be Congressional Committee hearings. In 1959, I was a witness in a hearing before an FCC Examiner in Washington. I was on the stand for two days. (The Washington definition of a day is four hours... 10:00 am until noon and 2:00 pm until 4:00 pm.) I was grilled by lawyers, not Congressmen, and it was a tough experience.
Congressional Committee hearings do not work that way. Each committee member gets five minutes to question the witness. If they take 30 seconds for the question, the witness will ramble for 4 1/2 minutes and their turn is over. So, they take four minutes to cover all the things they would like to ask; the witness takes 30 seconds to dance around and not answer any questions, and that member's time is up.
Too bad Congress can't figure out what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, protecting the right to legal counsel. If you want answers, you better get someone who knows how to ask questions. Instead of giving each member five minutes, let them pool their time, hire an expert and give him an hour.
Yes, I know, that would keep the members from getting time before the TV cameras.
of government time has to be Congressional Committee hearings. In 1959, I was a witness in a hearing before an FCC Examiner in Washington. I was on the stand for two days. (The Washington definition of a day is four hours... 10:00 am until noon and 2:00 pm until 4:00 pm.) I was grilled by lawyers, not Congressmen, and it was a tough experience.
Congressional Committee hearings do not work that way. Each committee member gets five minutes to question the witness. If they take 30 seconds for the question, the witness will ramble for 4 1/2 minutes and their turn is over. So, they take four minutes to cover all the things they would like to ask; the witness takes 30 seconds to dance around and not answer any questions, and that member's time is up.
Too bad Congress can't figure out what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, protecting the right to legal counsel. If you want answers, you better get someone who knows how to ask questions. Instead of giving each member five minutes, let them pool their time, hire an expert and give him an hour.
Yes, I know, that would keep the members from getting time before the TV cameras.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
This past week,
as often before, the news has been loaded with some sort of transgression on the part of a sports figure. Too bad there isn't more emphasis on the cheating of politicians.
The football player is charged with some sort of emotional entanglement. Did that story gain him more coverage by sports writers? By TV cameras? Probably. Did it give him more smarts, more quickness, more strength for all those brilliant plays on the field? Get real.
The cyclist, who had best overall time in 147 days of racing in winning the Tour de France seven times has admitted to some kind of blood enhancement. Did that give him the edge? Apparently he thought so or he would not have expended the time, effort and money to do so. Without it, may he have come in second or third in one of those races? Possibly. Would it have made the difference between being a champion and a complete loser? Again, get real.
We are not very tolerant of cheating, to any degree, in our beloved athletes. Cheating has, however, become routine in politics.
Football coach Vince Lombardi said winning is the only thing. Lombardi meant to always strive for excellence. No one ever believed the great coach meant for his players to cheat.
When I ran a broadcast station, I used to tell our announcers that there is no such thing as an unimportant broadcast. Every time you throw a switch to open your microphone, it is the most important moment in your broadcast career.
When athletes have reached the professional level, it is because they have learned to be prepared, alert, and ready to respond professionally every time a ball is snapped, or thrown, or the starter's gun is fired. We don't like it when they cheat, or behave less than professionally. Not just "doping", we don't want spit balls in hands of a pitcher, or sticky gloves on the hands of a wide receiver. But we give politicians a bye.
On a news program this morning, I watched a top political adviser/consultant/whatever, dance around the answers to every question he was asked. Never directly and truthfully answering, but repeating again and again his favored talking points.
In broadcasting, we used to talk about "lite listeners", people who don't listen carefully to what is said, but believe what they thought they heard.The consultant's answers seem to have been tailored to the lite listener. Rhetoric that sounded plausible on the surface, but actually had no substance.
I kept wishing the interviewer would have said, "Sir, you have given me that response three times. Now would you kindly answer my question?"
As with some athletes, politicians now want to win at all costs. Unlike athletes, however, politicians are permitted to cheat. They endlessly stress some irrelevant incident from their opponent's past, to cast doubt about his/her credibility. Lite listeners eat it up. Newscasters refuse to challenge.
Is it any surprise that our government, at all levels, often seems broken?
as often before, the news has been loaded with some sort of transgression on the part of a sports figure. Too bad there isn't more emphasis on the cheating of politicians.
The football player is charged with some sort of emotional entanglement. Did that story gain him more coverage by sports writers? By TV cameras? Probably. Did it give him more smarts, more quickness, more strength for all those brilliant plays on the field? Get real.
The cyclist, who had best overall time in 147 days of racing in winning the Tour de France seven times has admitted to some kind of blood enhancement. Did that give him the edge? Apparently he thought so or he would not have expended the time, effort and money to do so. Without it, may he have come in second or third in one of those races? Possibly. Would it have made the difference between being a champion and a complete loser? Again, get real.
We are not very tolerant of cheating, to any degree, in our beloved athletes. Cheating has, however, become routine in politics.
Football coach Vince Lombardi said winning is the only thing. Lombardi meant to always strive for excellence. No one ever believed the great coach meant for his players to cheat.
When I ran a broadcast station, I used to tell our announcers that there is no such thing as an unimportant broadcast. Every time you throw a switch to open your microphone, it is the most important moment in your broadcast career.
When athletes have reached the professional level, it is because they have learned to be prepared, alert, and ready to respond professionally every time a ball is snapped, or thrown, or the starter's gun is fired. We don't like it when they cheat, or behave less than professionally. Not just "doping", we don't want spit balls in hands of a pitcher, or sticky gloves on the hands of a wide receiver. But we give politicians a bye.
On a news program this morning, I watched a top political adviser/consultant/whatever, dance around the answers to every question he was asked. Never directly and truthfully answering, but repeating again and again his favored talking points.
In broadcasting, we used to talk about "lite listeners", people who don't listen carefully to what is said, but believe what they thought they heard.The consultant's answers seem to have been tailored to the lite listener. Rhetoric that sounded plausible on the surface, but actually had no substance.
I kept wishing the interviewer would have said, "Sir, you have given me that response three times. Now would you kindly answer my question?"
As with some athletes, politicians now want to win at all costs. Unlike athletes, however, politicians are permitted to cheat. They endlessly stress some irrelevant incident from their opponent's past, to cast doubt about his/her credibility. Lite listeners eat it up. Newscasters refuse to challenge.
Is it any surprise that our government, at all levels, often seems broken?
Sunday, January 13, 2013
The Right To Bear Arms
I keep saying it, but no one seems to join me. The United States Constitution is a very simple legal document, fashioned in a way that every American can read and understand. Still there is widespread controversy as to the meaning of certain passages.
The Second amendment is 27 words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Only the Ten Commandments use verbiage more sparsely "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
Justice Scalia has suggested we seek to understand the framers intentions at the time of the drafting. Such good advice. But doing that requires digging through old texts to find clarifying statements. Where to start?
Happily there are people like Walter E. Williams. Dr. Williams is a member of the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. His is an amazing American story. While I was born on the eve of the Hoover Administration, Dr. Williams was born on the eve of the second Franklin Roosevelt Administration. Born in Philadelphia in those extremely difficult times, he was raised in a housing project, but literally grabbed his bootstraps and pulled himself "Up From The Projects" - which happens to be the title of his autobiography.
Dr. Williams has done the research for us, and collected the Second Amendment opinions of our most distinguished founding fathers. Find them at:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Go to the site, bookmark it, and review it often. I promise you will love reading the quotes.
For example, people often charge that the Second Amendment was intended to apply only to a "militia". Very well. Check out what George Mason said, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
For those (including the low-information governor of New York) who now clamor for the confiscation of all American's privately owned guns, Dr. Williams included this ominous quote:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
I keep saying it, but no one seems to join me. The United States Constitution is a very simple legal document, fashioned in a way that every American can read and understand. Still there is widespread controversy as to the meaning of certain passages.
The Second amendment is 27 words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Only the Ten Commandments use verbiage more sparsely "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
Justice Scalia has suggested we seek to understand the framers intentions at the time of the drafting. Such good advice. But doing that requires digging through old texts to find clarifying statements. Where to start?
Happily there are people like Walter E. Williams. Dr. Williams is a member of the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. His is an amazing American story. While I was born on the eve of the Hoover Administration, Dr. Williams was born on the eve of the second Franklin Roosevelt Administration. Born in Philadelphia in those extremely difficult times, he was raised in a housing project, but literally grabbed his bootstraps and pulled himself "Up From The Projects" - which happens to be the title of his autobiography.
Dr. Williams has done the research for us, and collected the Second Amendment opinions of our most distinguished founding fathers. Find them at:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Go to the site, bookmark it, and review it often. I promise you will love reading the quotes.
For example, people often charge that the Second Amendment was intended to apply only to a "militia". Very well. Check out what George Mason said, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
For those (including the low-information governor of New York) who now clamor for the confiscation of all American's privately owned guns, Dr. Williams included this ominous quote:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
A Forgotten Anniversary
I have not watched a lot of news this New Year's Day. What little TV I have seen, beside the Parade of Roses in Pasadena, CA, has been re-runs, substitute anchors, and a little fiscal cliff talk.
In fact, had it not been for a column by Ken Blackwell, I would have not remembered that it was exactly 150 years ago today, on January 1, 1863, that President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation! Some may argue that the important date was December 6, 1865, nearly three years later, when the 13th Amendment to The Constitution was ratified, making slavery unconstitutional.
But President Lincoln's proclamation got the ball rolling and is the event most indelible in the minds of Americans. Most people would respond with a blank look if you referenced the 13th Amendment. But, say "Emancipation Proclamation" and everyone knows what it means.
It happened on New Year's Day, 150 years ago! Could not the theme of the Parade of Roses been dedicated to the commemoration of that most significant event in American history, instead of the puzzling "Oh, The Places You'll Go!"?
Does anyone care about 'oh, the places we've been'?
I have not watched a lot of news this New Year's Day. What little TV I have seen, beside the Parade of Roses in Pasadena, CA, has been re-runs, substitute anchors, and a little fiscal cliff talk.
In fact, had it not been for a column by Ken Blackwell, I would have not remembered that it was exactly 150 years ago today, on January 1, 1863, that President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation! Some may argue that the important date was December 6, 1865, nearly three years later, when the 13th Amendment to The Constitution was ratified, making slavery unconstitutional.
But President Lincoln's proclamation got the ball rolling and is the event most indelible in the minds of Americans. Most people would respond with a blank look if you referenced the 13th Amendment. But, say "Emancipation Proclamation" and everyone knows what it means.
It happened on New Year's Day, 150 years ago! Could not the theme of the Parade of Roses been dedicated to the commemoration of that most significant event in American history, instead of the puzzling "Oh, The Places You'll Go!"?
Does anyone care about 'oh, the places we've been'?
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Immigration from Mexico.
Why does there seem to be so much opposition to immigration from Mexico? I don't see strong feelings against Russian, German, Italian, Japanese, or any other group of foreign nationals. Why Mexicans? Some say it is because we once fought a war with them. But we fought wars (hot or cold) with others, and those memories are faded.
My opinion:
I have spent some time in Mexico. Acapulco, Mexico City, Cozumel, Cuernavaca, Columbus, and many trips to Ciudad Juarez. I have some familiarity with Mexico and Mexicans. Mexico is a beautiful country. Spectacular mountains. Beaches that are the envy of the world. A gentle, pleasant climate.
Mexican people offer much to be admired. I have found them universally a warm, friendly people. Strong family values, strong religious faith. I go to Mexico and stumble through my broken Spanish, always to be met with patience and understanding. I once translated a Spanish saying for a granddaughter and was congratulated by an elderly Mexican woman for having translated correctly. And, Mexicans are most often hard-working, industrious people.
But, in Mexicans there is an interesting dichotomy. One that is deep-rooted and slow to change.
It all began with the Aztecs. Legend has it that the Aztecs were a tribe located somewhere in (what is now) the southwest United States, or northern Mexico. For some reason they migrated south, settling where they found an eagle, perched on a cactus, devouring a snake. (Honest!) That area is now known as Mexico, D.F. - Mexico City.
The Aztecs were a highly advanced people with one major flaw: their religion. Like the innocents of Jonestown, they let their priests convince them that human sacrifice was required to appease their Gods.
The Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortez defeated the Aztecs, but while the Spanish rulers brought much modernity to Mexico, their ways were nearly as harsh as the Aztecs (minus, of course, the human sacrifice). Eventually, the Mexicans overthrew the Spaniards.
Next it was the French. The madman Maximilian was installed as Emperor of Mexico and continued the oppression of the Mexican people until the French, like the Aztecs and the Spanish, were thrown aside.
A purely Mexican (or Indian) government was installed. Sadly, they had learned governing from the Aztecs, the Spanish and the French, and corruption was all they understood.
Then, of course, came the Americans. Mexicans tried to claim all the territory once held by Spain, but the onslaught of western migration in America by European immigrants overwhelmed them. Eventually all territory north of the Rio Grande was lost to Mexico, by force or otherwise.
Fast-forward a century and a half. South American drug cartels, thwarted at delivering their wares to American consumers, through the Bahamas, Florida and gulf cities, or the coast of California, chose to move through Mexico. This brought a wave of violence unequaled even by the Aztecs, plus a flood of cash to tempt the population.
Today, the retiring police chief of Ciudad Juarez estimates that 80% of the population of his city are involved in crime to some degree. Not necessarily what we would consider "serious" crime, but a willingness to be complicit in some degree of corruption if it is of personal benefit. It is all the Mexicans have ever known.
In the United States, we began as a government of the people.We have held respect for our government officials. Despite the tendency of our youth, since the 1960s, to 'question authority', Americans largely respect the rule of law.
Many Mexicans, with good reason, have no such grounding. We often see it in an unwillingness to assimilate. A willingness to accept government largesse, deserved, earned, or not.
Many Americans resent this. But mostly they resent the speaking in Spanish. Generations of immigrants have come to America and have learned to speak English. Imperfectly, perhaps, but they worked at it. Always speaking Spanish is like speaking in code - Americans do not understand. And they greatly resent telephone answering systems that require 'press one' for English.
Yes, there are the youth - the gang-bangers. But that is a stage, inherent in people of most every ethnicity. I have seen virtually no adversarial tendencies in Mexican adults.
Mexicans are good people. They become great Americans. Consider how many persons of Mexican descent have proven their courage and loyalty in the U.S. military. How many Mexican Americans have distinguished themselves as jurists, legislators, educators, entrepreneurs?
Perhaps it will be those outstanding Mexican-Americans who will teach their former countrymen that there is no part-time honesty. That corruption is never acceptable, in any degree. And, that assimilation into American culture and language would be very much appreciated.
My opinion.
Why does there seem to be so much opposition to immigration from Mexico? I don't see strong feelings against Russian, German, Italian, Japanese, or any other group of foreign nationals. Why Mexicans? Some say it is because we once fought a war with them. But we fought wars (hot or cold) with others, and those memories are faded.
My opinion:
I have spent some time in Mexico. Acapulco, Mexico City, Cozumel, Cuernavaca, Columbus, and many trips to Ciudad Juarez. I have some familiarity with Mexico and Mexicans. Mexico is a beautiful country. Spectacular mountains. Beaches that are the envy of the world. A gentle, pleasant climate.
Mexican people offer much to be admired. I have found them universally a warm, friendly people. Strong family values, strong religious faith. I go to Mexico and stumble through my broken Spanish, always to be met with patience and understanding. I once translated a Spanish saying for a granddaughter and was congratulated by an elderly Mexican woman for having translated correctly. And, Mexicans are most often hard-working, industrious people.
But, in Mexicans there is an interesting dichotomy. One that is deep-rooted and slow to change.
It all began with the Aztecs. Legend has it that the Aztecs were a tribe located somewhere in (what is now) the southwest United States, or northern Mexico. For some reason they migrated south, settling where they found an eagle, perched on a cactus, devouring a snake. (Honest!) That area is now known as Mexico, D.F. - Mexico City.
The Aztecs were a highly advanced people with one major flaw: their religion. Like the innocents of Jonestown, they let their priests convince them that human sacrifice was required to appease their Gods.
The Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortez defeated the Aztecs, but while the Spanish rulers brought much modernity to Mexico, their ways were nearly as harsh as the Aztecs (minus, of course, the human sacrifice). Eventually, the Mexicans overthrew the Spaniards.
Next it was the French. The madman Maximilian was installed as Emperor of Mexico and continued the oppression of the Mexican people until the French, like the Aztecs and the Spanish, were thrown aside.
A purely Mexican (or Indian) government was installed. Sadly, they had learned governing from the Aztecs, the Spanish and the French, and corruption was all they understood.
Then, of course, came the Americans. Mexicans tried to claim all the territory once held by Spain, but the onslaught of western migration in America by European immigrants overwhelmed them. Eventually all territory north of the Rio Grande was lost to Mexico, by force or otherwise.
Fast-forward a century and a half. South American drug cartels, thwarted at delivering their wares to American consumers, through the Bahamas, Florida and gulf cities, or the coast of California, chose to move through Mexico. This brought a wave of violence unequaled even by the Aztecs, plus a flood of cash to tempt the population.
Today, the retiring police chief of Ciudad Juarez estimates that 80% of the population of his city are involved in crime to some degree. Not necessarily what we would consider "serious" crime, but a willingness to be complicit in some degree of corruption if it is of personal benefit. It is all the Mexicans have ever known.
In the United States, we began as a government of the people.We have held respect for our government officials. Despite the tendency of our youth, since the 1960s, to 'question authority', Americans largely respect the rule of law.
Many Mexicans, with good reason, have no such grounding. We often see it in an unwillingness to assimilate. A willingness to accept government largesse, deserved, earned, or not.
Many Americans resent this. But mostly they resent the speaking in Spanish. Generations of immigrants have come to America and have learned to speak English. Imperfectly, perhaps, but they worked at it. Always speaking Spanish is like speaking in code - Americans do not understand. And they greatly resent telephone answering systems that require 'press one' for English.
Yes, there are the youth - the gang-bangers. But that is a stage, inherent in people of most every ethnicity. I have seen virtually no adversarial tendencies in Mexican adults.
Mexicans are good people. They become great Americans. Consider how many persons of Mexican descent have proven their courage and loyalty in the U.S. military. How many Mexican Americans have distinguished themselves as jurists, legislators, educators, entrepreneurs?
Perhaps it will be those outstanding Mexican-Americans who will teach their former countrymen that there is no part-time honesty. That corruption is never acceptable, in any degree. And, that assimilation into American culture and language would be very much appreciated.
My opinion.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Insanity
Either Albert Einstein or Benjamin Franklin first said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. That should not be confused with the 'try, try again' maxim, which would suggest you try, try something a little different each time. But if something fails, it does seem insane to do the same thing over and over again.
In 1919, Americans decided to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages. Resulting unintended consequences proved to be untenable and the policy was changed. More recently, we launched the 'War on Drugs'. Unintended consequences are everywhere, most notably in the violence of drug cartels and the overcrowding of our prisons. We are waiting for a better idea.
Now it is guns. Unlike a club or a sword, a gun is easy to use. A small woman can pull a trigger. More Americans own guns than ever owned swords. And, those guns in the hands of law-abiding, peaceful citizens pose no problems. But, a gun in the hands of a criminal, or a deranged person, is very much a problem.
It is fair to note that there have been a high number of murders in Russia, mostly from domestic violence, often with alcohol involved. Since guns are effectively banned in Russia, those murders are by primitive weapons.
In America, like Russia, we could just ban all guns. But no thinking person believes a criminal would give up his or her gun. Which means we could only ban guns from law-abiding citizens. If you want to see the results of that policy, look to Mexico. Recently the soon-to-retire Police chief in the Mexican city of Juarez said he will have to leave his country when he retires, as so many Mexican criminals have promised to kill him. As a private citizen in Mexico, he will be prohibited from defending himself.
In light of recent shootings in America, numerous politicians are vowing to fix the problem. So far, none have offered a new idea. Perhaps some day, someone will.
Either Albert Einstein or Benjamin Franklin first said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. That should not be confused with the 'try, try again' maxim, which would suggest you try, try something a little different each time. But if something fails, it does seem insane to do the same thing over and over again.
In 1919, Americans decided to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages. Resulting unintended consequences proved to be untenable and the policy was changed. More recently, we launched the 'War on Drugs'. Unintended consequences are everywhere, most notably in the violence of drug cartels and the overcrowding of our prisons. We are waiting for a better idea.
Now it is guns. Unlike a club or a sword, a gun is easy to use. A small woman can pull a trigger. More Americans own guns than ever owned swords. And, those guns in the hands of law-abiding, peaceful citizens pose no problems. But, a gun in the hands of a criminal, or a deranged person, is very much a problem.
It is fair to note that there have been a high number of murders in Russia, mostly from domestic violence, often with alcohol involved. Since guns are effectively banned in Russia, those murders are by primitive weapons.
In America, like Russia, we could just ban all guns. But no thinking person believes a criminal would give up his or her gun. Which means we could only ban guns from law-abiding citizens. If you want to see the results of that policy, look to Mexico. Recently the soon-to-retire Police chief in the Mexican city of Juarez said he will have to leave his country when he retires, as so many Mexican criminals have promised to kill him. As a private citizen in Mexico, he will be prohibited from defending himself.
In light of recent shootings in America, numerous politicians are vowing to fix the problem. So far, none have offered a new idea. Perhaps some day, someone will.
Monday, December 24, 2012
The Tea Party. Recalcitrant? You bet!
Some years ago, following a presidential election, one of the broadcast networks, NBC, I think, did a documentary they titled "The Right Man".
I no longer remember the content, but the gist of their argument was that even with all the rough and tumble of our political campaigns, we always manage to elect the right man - or woman.
We believed that.We lived through Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and some 25 Congresses, always believing we had elected the right men and women to trust with our government... the business of running our country. We proceeded to build our careers and our homes, we raised and educated our children.
Then came the year 2009 and we started hearing alarming sounds of deficit and debt. What? This rich and powerful country of ours seriously in debt? Cannot be! We took a look. They told us our national debt was some twelve trillion dollars. We did a little fourth grade math;
$12,000,000 000,000. (OUR DEBT)
300,000,000 (OUR POPULATION)
Holy cow! That's $40,000. for every man, woman and child in the United States! We said, Stop! For the first time in our lives we began protesting, out in the street, carrying signs! And, we campaigned for like-minded candidates, managing to take back one house of Congress in 2010.
But the spending has not stopped. Now the debt is $16.4 trillion and the population is 308 million. The debt is now $43,000 per person. We prayed for election day to come. It came and low-information people re-elected much of the government that got us into debt. This government tells us they need more money, and more spending. They want to raise the debt ceiling at will. They say we must compromise or we will go over a cliff.
We are already over a cliff. There is no way we can pay back this debt, short of near-miraculous growth. We cannot wait for miracles. We must stop this government now.
No compromise! No more taxes! We want spending cuts. Significant spending cuts and we want them now.
Rid the military of all the unneeded, unwanted bases and weapons programs protected by politicians. Lessen our military footprint on foreign soil.
Change the retirement age for Social Security. Stop providing benefits to people who did not pay into them. Social Security was instituted as old-age insurance. You do not collect insurance benefits unless you have paid the premiums.
Change the eligibility age for Medicare. Get serious about cutting Medicare fraud - it is rampant!
Cut wages of government employees to levels matching salaries of like skills in the private sector.
Eliminate collective bargaining for government employees. Cut excessive pensions for government and private sector employees alike.
End welfare for able-bodied persons. Work or go hungry.
End base line budgeting. Forget last year's budget, start from zero every year.
Completely eliminate government programs that are not working: The departments of Agriculture, Energy, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Commerce, and, yes, the Post Office and Amtrak. All these programs have failed in their intended purpose. Why are we going deeper in debt to support them?
That is a start. That is my idea of compromise. When that is done we can start talking about more cutting.
Some years ago, following a presidential election, one of the broadcast networks, NBC, I think, did a documentary they titled "The Right Man".
I no longer remember the content, but the gist of their argument was that even with all the rough and tumble of our political campaigns, we always manage to elect the right man - or woman.
We believed that.We lived through Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and some 25 Congresses, always believing we had elected the right men and women to trust with our government... the business of running our country. We proceeded to build our careers and our homes, we raised and educated our children.
Then came the year 2009 and we started hearing alarming sounds of deficit and debt. What? This rich and powerful country of ours seriously in debt? Cannot be! We took a look. They told us our national debt was some twelve trillion dollars. We did a little fourth grade math;
$12,000,0
3
Holy cow! That's $40,000. for every man, woman and child in the United States! We said, Stop! For the first time in our lives we began protesting, out in the street, carrying signs! And, we campaigned for like-minded candidates, managing to take back one house of Congress in 2010.
But the spending has not stopped. Now the debt is $16.4 trillion and the population is 308 million. The debt is now $43,000 per person. We prayed for election day to come. It came and low-information people re-elected much of the government that got us into debt. This government tells us they need more money, and more spending. They want to raise the debt ceiling at will. They say we must compromise or we will go over a cliff.
We are already over a cliff. There is no way we can pay back this debt, short of near-miraculous growth. We cannot wait for miracles. We must stop this government now.
No compromise! No more taxes! We want spending cuts. Significant spending cuts and we want them now.
Rid the military of all the unneeded, unwanted bases and weapons programs protected by politicians. Lessen our military footprint on foreign soil.
Change the retirement age for Social Security. Stop providing benefits to people who did not pay into them. Social Security was instituted as old-age insurance. You do not collect insurance benefits unless you have paid the premiums.
Change the eligibility age for Medicare. Get serious about cutting Medicare fraud - it is rampant!
Cut wages of government employees to levels matching salaries of like skills in the private sector.
Eliminate collective bargaining for government employees. Cut excessive pensions for government and private sector employees alike.
End welfare for able-bodied persons. Work or go hungry.
End base line budgeting. Forget last year's budget, start from zero every year.
Completely eliminate government programs that are not working: The departments of Agriculture, Energy, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Commerce, and, yes, the Post Office and Amtrak. All these programs have failed in their intended purpose. Why are we going deeper in debt to support them?
That is a start. That is my idea of compromise. When that is done we can start talking about more cutting.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
You Can't Fix Stupid. (Oh, Yeah?)
Some idiots who call themselves Handgun Control, Inc. made a poster. Pretty picture. Stupid copy.
Comparing such numbers without relating to population, or individual nation's restrictions on gun ownership makes little sense. You can surely post startling numbers by comparing traffic deaths, deaths from falling in the bathtub, or any of many other human mishaps.
But here in America, we have a different take on things. We look at the history of some of our neighbor nations and we remember The Nazi Holocaust; The Soviet Gulags; The Chinese Cultural Revolution; The Pol Pot Killing Fields. And we remember the Japanese massacre of innocents in Nanking. and on and on.
So, we have revised their silly poster:
Yes, we American gun owners deplore the loss of innocent life at the hands of thugs, murderers, and madmen, by use of guns or any other means. We search for ways to protect innocents. But, when we propose to arm the innocents to level the playing field against the thugs, we are met with frantic opposition by people proposing the very policies that have enabled mass loss of life around the world.
7000 Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto and millions more in the Nazi concentration camps. The Jewish people said "Never Again" and they meant it. Today Israel is a well-armed nation able to protect its citizens.
We look at the world's mass murders of the past and we say "Never In America!" We want our citizens armed. And they are. There are over 100 million gun owners in America. There are 41 million military veterans, all with some military training, many with extensive combat experience. Among them are tens of thousands of veterans who were highly trained, highly skilled, high-ranking officers who could provide command and leadership at the blink of an eye. That makes American citizens the world's largest army, in reserve.
And this American is a proud member of the National Rifle Association!
Some idiots who call themselves Handgun Control, Inc. made a poster. Pretty picture. Stupid copy.
Comparing such numbers without relating to population, or individual nation's restrictions on gun ownership makes little sense. You can surely post startling numbers by comparing traffic deaths, deaths from falling in the bathtub, or any of many other human mishaps.
But here in America, we have a different take on things. We look at the history of some of our neighbor nations and we remember The Nazi Holocaust; The Soviet Gulags; The Chinese Cultural Revolution; The Pol Pot Killing Fields. And we remember the Japanese massacre of innocents in Nanking. and on and on.
So, we have revised their silly poster:
Yes, we American gun owners deplore the loss of innocent life at the hands of thugs, murderers, and madmen, by use of guns or any other means. We search for ways to protect innocents. But, when we propose to arm the innocents to level the playing field against the thugs, we are met with frantic opposition by people proposing the very policies that have enabled mass loss of life around the world.
7000 Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto and millions more in the Nazi concentration camps. The Jewish people said "Never Again" and they meant it. Today Israel is a well-armed nation able to protect its citizens.
We look at the world's mass murders of the past and we say "Never In America!" We want our citizens armed. And they are. There are over 100 million gun owners in America. There are 41 million military veterans, all with some military training, many with extensive combat experience. Among them are tens of thousands of veterans who were highly trained, highly skilled, high-ranking officers who could provide command and leadership at the blink of an eye. That makes American citizens the world's largest army, in reserve.
And this American is a proud member of the National Rifle Association!
Friday, December 21, 2012
Negative Speech... or something.
We hear it often these days, but most frequently from our super-intelligent, Harvard educated president:
"I couldn't be..."
I couldn't be more clear. I couldn't be more proud. I couldn't be more pleased. Oh, yeah? Supposing that, right after you said that, Michelle handed you a double cheeseburger, large fries and a 42-ounce Coke! Wouldn't you then be more pleased?
The point being, whatever happened to "I am proud..." "I am pleased to announce..." You might even say "I am most pleased" or "I am very proud". Must it always be "I couldn't be more"?
Being a high-school dropout, I guess I am just stupid. But as a one-time broadcaster I learned to KISS, or to "Keep it simple, stupid"!
We hear it often these days, but most frequently from our super-intelligent, Harvard educated president:
"I couldn't be..."
I couldn't be more clear. I couldn't be more proud. I couldn't be more pleased. Oh, yeah? Supposing that, right after you said that, Michelle handed you a double cheeseburger, large fries and a 42-ounce Coke! Wouldn't you then be more pleased?
The point being, whatever happened to "I am proud..." "I am pleased to announce..." You might even say "I am most pleased" or "I am very proud". Must it always be "I couldn't be more"?
Being a high-school dropout, I guess I am just stupid. But as a one-time broadcaster I learned to KISS, or to "Keep it simple, stupid"!
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Suffering Fools
Centuries ago, Saint Paul told the people of Corinth, "ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise."
That phrase has been used and abused in many ways, by many people. Today some aver that they do NOT suffer fools gladly. I tend to join that group, while adding that I do not consider myself wise. So, what is a fool? Why are we intolerant of them?
I consider a fool a person who does foolish things. I have been there, done that, time and again in my youth. Some times just for fun. Many times unaware of the danger I posed to myself or others. Today I see young people doing foolish things, having fun, and I hope they do no harm.
But those are not the fools we fear. We fear the fools in positions of power or influence who choose to ignore facts of history, thus placing many in harms way. Maybe not physical harm, but harm, no less.
Our nation's current fiscal problems are a classic example. We are repeating tragic mistakes of the past while refusing to recognize past successes.
Today we are again on the brink of a big battle over gun control. Our nation's founders had seen the consequences of an unarmed population with a tyrannical government. They sought to prevent that happening in this new nation by providing protection for the right of the population to be armed. But that right has been twisted until it is now blamed for the actions of a deranged person who became a mass murderer.
As to the original purpose for an armed population, some anti-gun activists insist that people with small arms are no match for a modern army protecting a tyrannical government. Maybe they haven't noticed what happened in Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya, and what is currently happening in Syria. Insufferable fools.
But many of these fools are in positions of great influence, like the national news media; or positions of great power, like the President of The United States and members of the United States Congress.
Their current boogey man is the 'assault rifle', which, like the monster under the child's bed, does not exist. When I attended an Army Infantry Training Center, we employed long rifles with wooden stocks, patterned somewhat after the style of the muskets carried by my ancestor at Valley forge.
In recent years, the Army began using rifles of an entirely different style. They surely have some advantages, perhaps with added features, perhaps just in ease or cost of mass manufacture. But they look different. As may be expected, many private citizens wanted their personal rifles to look like the modern style military rifles. Gun manufacturers complied with this market demand.
Some find the new style rifles scary looking and have dubbed them 'assault weapons'. A traditionalist, I just find them ugly! Whatever your opinion, these new rifles on the civilian market are different in appearance only. No matter. The fools will insist they be banned.
So, we must fight the gun battle again. Not with our little rifles, shotguns or pistols. Rather, with our pens, our telephones and our emails. But fight we must, or we'll find ourselves suffering at the hands of fools, and not so gladly!
Centuries ago, Saint Paul told the people of Corinth, "ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise."
That phrase has been used and abused in many ways, by many people. Today some aver that they do NOT suffer fools gladly. I tend to join that group, while adding that I do not consider myself wise. So, what is a fool? Why are we intolerant of them?
I consider a fool a person who does foolish things. I have been there, done that, time and again in my youth. Some times just for fun. Many times unaware of the danger I posed to myself or others. Today I see young people doing foolish things, having fun, and I hope they do no harm.
But those are not the fools we fear. We fear the fools in positions of power or influence who choose to ignore facts of history, thus placing many in harms way. Maybe not physical harm, but harm, no less.
Our nation's current fiscal problems are a classic example. We are repeating tragic mistakes of the past while refusing to recognize past successes.
Today we are again on the brink of a big battle over gun control. Our nation's founders had seen the consequences of an unarmed population with a tyrannical government. They sought to prevent that happening in this new nation by providing protection for the right of the population to be armed. But that right has been twisted until it is now blamed for the actions of a deranged person who became a mass murderer.
As to the original purpose for an armed population, some anti-gun activists insist that people with small arms are no match for a modern army protecting a tyrannical government. Maybe they haven't noticed what happened in Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya, and what is currently happening in Syria. Insufferable fools.
But many of these fools are in positions of great influence, like the national news media; or positions of great power, like the President of The United States and members of the United States Congress.
Their current boogey man is the 'assault rifle', which, like the monster under the child's bed, does not exist. When I attended an Army Infantry Training Center, we employed long rifles with wooden stocks, patterned somewhat after the style of the muskets carried by my ancestor at Valley forge.
In recent years, the Army began using rifles of an entirely different style. They surely have some advantages, perhaps with added features, perhaps just in ease or cost of mass manufacture. But they look different. As may be expected, many private citizens wanted their personal rifles to look like the modern style military rifles. Gun manufacturers complied with this market demand.
Some find the new style rifles scary looking and have dubbed them 'assault weapons'. A traditionalist, I just find them ugly! Whatever your opinion, these new rifles on the civilian market are different in appearance only. No matter. The fools will insist they be banned.
So, we must fight the gun battle again. Not with our little rifles, shotguns or pistols. Rather, with our pens, our telephones and our emails. But fight we must, or we'll find ourselves suffering at the hands of fools, and not so gladly!
Saturday, December 15, 2012
A Christian Atheist?
Impossible? Let's explore. The true history of the man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is sketchy. There is little record of his existence other than in the writings of His followers. But then, any recorded history from that era is sketchy. There were no printing presses, no paper or pen as we know it. Recording information on lambskin or papyrus with some kind of quill pen and plant dyes was tedious.
But, there is no denying that Christ was the most influential man in the history we know. His teachings are guidelines for many persons who have no affiliation with any organized church. That is not to say that Christ was the first to advocate principles of love, but certainly those principles are most closely associated with Christ's teachings.
People call themselves a Liberal or a Conservative, simply because they believe in most of the tenets attributed to those labels.
Many hold that to be a Christian, one must believe in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Some liberal Christians, however, do not accept a literal bodily resurrection, seeing the story as a richly symbolic and spiritually nourishing myth. Still, they consider themselves Christians.
An atheist, on the other hand, is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. While it is common to define atheists as persons who want to ban Christmas trees, nativity scenes or even the phrase 'Merry Christmas', many Americans who claim to be atheists do enjoy Christmas. They observe it as a National Holiday celebrating love, charity, and the joy of giving. And they are okay with calling it Christ's birthday. Why not? Those are the things He taught.
Some well educated, well read, critical thinking Americans believe strongly in the principles taught by Christ. They believe in equality, in fairness, justice, honesty, and truth in all cases. They try to instill these principles in their children. But they do not belong to, or attend services of any organized church. Can they not still be called Christians?
They do not believe in a Supreme Being. They believe in Christ as a man, a Rabbi, a teacher but do not believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, or that Christ is the Son of God - unless we are all "Sons of God".
And they do not believe in an afterlife, believing instead in Moses' recounting of God's sentence to Adam in Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Are they not atheists? Christian atheists?
Impossible? Let's explore. The true history of the man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is sketchy. There is little record of his existence other than in the writings of His followers. But then, any recorded history from that era is sketchy. There were no printing presses, no paper or pen as we know it. Recording information on lambskin or papyrus with some kind of quill pen and plant dyes was tedious.
But, there is no denying that Christ was the most influential man in the history we know. His teachings are guidelines for many persons who have no affiliation with any organized church. That is not to say that Christ was the first to advocate principles of love, but certainly those principles are most closely associated with Christ's teachings.
People call themselves a Liberal or a Conservative, simply because they believe in most of the tenets attributed to those labels.
Many hold that to be a Christian, one must believe in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Some liberal Christians, however, do not accept a literal bodily resurrection, seeing the story as a richly symbolic and spiritually nourishing myth. Still, they consider themselves Christians.
An atheist, on the other hand, is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. While it is common to define atheists as persons who want to ban Christmas trees, nativity scenes or even the phrase 'Merry Christmas', many Americans who claim to be atheists do enjoy Christmas. They observe it as a National Holiday celebrating love, charity, and the joy of giving. And they are okay with calling it Christ's birthday. Why not? Those are the things He taught.
Some well educated, well read, critical thinking Americans believe strongly in the principles taught by Christ. They believe in equality, in fairness, justice, honesty, and truth in all cases. They try to instill these principles in their children. But they do not belong to, or attend services of any organized church. Can they not still be called Christians?
They do not believe in a Supreme Being. They believe in Christ as a man, a Rabbi, a teacher but do not believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, or that Christ is the Son of God - unless we are all "Sons of God".
And they do not believe in an afterlife, believing instead in Moses' recounting of God's sentence to Adam in Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Are they not atheists? Christian atheists?
Sunday, December 09, 2012
First Amendment
As we near the Christmas holiday, we hear more and more protests over Christmas symbols on public property and,well, you know the drill.
What's the problem? After 225 years, why are people sill arguing over what the Constitution means?
I believe it all boils down to the definition of the word "religion", as used in the wording of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
What, exactly, did the Framers have in mind? Having read a fair amount of original writings, I conclude they were concerned that America, like most European nations, would establish a "national" church.
They had seen what President Calvin Coolidge would have seen when, in 1926, he spoke of "entire congregations and their pastors emigrating to the colonies." If you are, say, a Lutheran, and the "National" church is Roman Catholic, you are probably going to feel isolated.
It seems apparent that by "religion" they meant, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, or whatever. There is no evidence that the Framers were opposed to religious faith in general.
Today, unfortunately, many people believe the Framers meant to ban anything remotely connected to faith. And, they wrongly believe that "Christianity" represents one or all of those "churches" that follow the Christian philosophy.
In reality, the fact that many churches adhere to the principles of Christianity does not make Christianity a "Religion".
And, so, the beat goes on. People continue to believe that any act or symbol related to a religious faith represents a "religion", which, by virtue of The Constitution, must not be "established". How narrow!
As we near the Christmas holiday, we hear more and more protests over Christmas symbols on public property and,well, you know the drill.
What's the problem? After 225 years, why are people sill arguing over what the Constitution means?
I believe it all boils down to the definition of the word "religion", as used in the wording of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
What, exactly, did the Framers have in mind? Having read a fair amount of original writings, I conclude they were concerned that America, like most European nations, would establish a "national" church.
They had seen what President Calvin Coolidge would have seen when, in 1926, he spoke of "entire congregations and their pastors emigrating to the colonies." If you are, say, a Lutheran, and the "National" church is Roman Catholic, you are probably going to feel isolated.
It seems apparent that by "religion" they meant, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, or whatever. There is no evidence that the Framers were opposed to religious faith in general.
Today, unfortunately, many people believe the Framers meant to ban anything remotely connected to faith. And, they wrongly believe that "Christianity" represents one or all of those "churches" that follow the Christian philosophy.
In reality, the fact that many churches adhere to the principles of Christianity does not make Christianity a "Religion".
And, so, the beat goes on. People continue to believe that any act or symbol related to a religious faith represents a "religion", which, by virtue of The Constitution, must not be "established". How narrow!
Saturday, December 08, 2012
Smokin' and Tokin'
People smoke tobacco and marijuana for the same reasons. They burn some dried leaves and inhale the smoke to achieve some kind of "high", a euphoric feeling of some sort, or perhaps just for the satisfaction some tobacco people promise. Now they claim marijuana smoke eases pain, or something.
Just as smoking tobacco is being considered a dumb idea, the opposite is true of marijuana. Lawmakers and regulators seem bent on making it an okay thing to toke. Many citizens are lobbying for toking. If that bit of euphoria, or satisfaction, or pain relief is important enough to you, light up. But anyone with a brain must realize that purposely inhaling the smoke from burning leaves can't be good for the lungs.
Numerous studies assert that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer. Some very well done studies. What they actually prove is that the incidence of lung cancer is much higher among tobacco smokers. But there is always the guy who will tell you his grandfather started smoking tobacco when he was twelve and smoked every day of his life, until he died at age 90 when he stepped in front of a bus. Still, purposely inhaling smoke from dried leaves, up close and personal, cannot be good for lungs.
Tobacco companies' brands are enormously valuable. They have spent much treasure and at least one life promoting their brands. (The macho Marlboro Man died of lung cancer, widely attributed to his smoking habit.) They spend even more protecting the consistency of their brands. There was a time when tobacco companies distributed cartons of their best brands, free of charge, on college campuses. The idea being that if you smoked a carton of 200 of their cigs, you would be hooked on their brand.
You can buy a pack of Marlboros in Los Angeles, then buy a pack in Boston, and the taste and aroma would be the same. They carefully select their tobacco leaves. They carefully handle and process those leaves in a certain way. All to achieve that valued consistency. Not to protect you, to protect their brand!
Not true of marijuana. There is no brand name on a plastic sandwich bag of weed. No billboards or neon signs touting a name. Just a bag of weed. No one knows where it was grown. How it was handled. How many unwashed hands processed it. If there is a bit of pesticide or herbicide on the stuff. What kind of tropical mold spore or insect eggs may be included.
When I was in the Army in the Pacific, it was rumored that bootleggers were opening bottles of whiskey, somehow preserving the seal. They drew off 10% of the liquor, replaced it with water and re-closed the bottle. Do this ten times and you've added a free bottle of whiskey to your inventory. Maybe true, maybe not. But how much easier to "cut" that marijuana stash with a little jimson weed, or something, to increase your profit? If grown in South America, the pot has leaped many hurdles to reach Chicago streets. Why not, now, expand your inventory?
The idea being that when you set a bong of marijuana on fire and suck the smoke into your lungs, you must be performing the dumbest act of your lifetime.
You know what is said of restaurants: if you saw what goes on in the kitchen you would not eat the food. But again, the restaurant has a brand to protect.
If you knew what is in that bag of week, would you still toke?
People smoke tobacco and marijuana for the same reasons. They burn some dried leaves and inhale the smoke to achieve some kind of "high", a euphoric feeling of some sort, or perhaps just for the satisfaction some tobacco people promise. Now they claim marijuana smoke eases pain, or something.
Just as smoking tobacco is being considered a dumb idea, the opposite is true of marijuana. Lawmakers and regulators seem bent on making it an okay thing to toke. Many citizens are lobbying for toking. If that bit of euphoria, or satisfaction, or pain relief is important enough to you, light up. But anyone with a brain must realize that purposely inhaling the smoke from burning leaves can't be good for the lungs.
Numerous studies assert that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer. Some very well done studies. What they actually prove is that the incidence of lung cancer is much higher among tobacco smokers. But there is always the guy who will tell you his grandfather started smoking tobacco when he was twelve and smoked every day of his life, until he died at age 90 when he stepped in front of a bus. Still, purposely inhaling smoke from dried leaves, up close and personal, cannot be good for lungs.
Tobacco companies' brands are enormously valuable. They have spent much treasure and at least one life promoting their brands. (The macho Marlboro Man died of lung cancer, widely attributed to his smoking habit.) They spend even more protecting the consistency of their brands. There was a time when tobacco companies distributed cartons of their best brands, free of charge, on college campuses. The idea being that if you smoked a carton of 200 of their cigs, you would be hooked on their brand.
You can buy a pack of Marlboros in Los Angeles, then buy a pack in Boston, and the taste and aroma would be the same. They carefully select their tobacco leaves. They carefully handle and process those leaves in a certain way. All to achieve that valued consistency. Not to protect you, to protect their brand!
Not true of marijuana. There is no brand name on a plastic sandwich bag of weed. No billboards or neon signs touting a name. Just a bag of weed. No one knows where it was grown. How it was handled. How many unwashed hands processed it. If there is a bit of pesticide or herbicide on the stuff. What kind of tropical mold spore or insect eggs may be included.
When I was in the Army in the Pacific, it was rumored that bootleggers were opening bottles of whiskey, somehow preserving the seal. They drew off 10% of the liquor, replaced it with water and re-closed the bottle. Do this ten times and you've added a free bottle of whiskey to your inventory. Maybe true, maybe not. But how much easier to "cut" that marijuana stash with a little jimson weed, or something, to increase your profit? If grown in South America, the pot has leaped many hurdles to reach Chicago streets. Why not, now, expand your inventory?
The idea being that when you set a bong of marijuana on fire and suck the smoke into your lungs, you must be performing the dumbest act of your lifetime.
You know what is said of restaurants: if you saw what goes on in the kitchen you would not eat the food. But again, the restaurant has a brand to protect.
If you knew what is in that bag of week, would you still toke?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)