For those of you who are frequent readers of this column, you are aware (painfully, at times) that I love clichés. As I move forward into my seventh decade of life, I have discerned that most clichés contain nuggets of truth. I could proclaim the virtues of “old wives’ tales,” but that would be unforgivably politically incorrect. In contradiction to “Cosmopolitan Magazine,” I submit that smaller is better. My greatest argument for that proposition is that “bigness” diffuses accountability thus leading to unproductive inefficiencies.
Let’s examine some examples of how bigness has affected you. When you’ve had a service problem with an appliance that was purchased online or from a huge corporation, how much time did you consume while pushing “1”, then “3”, followed by a “7”, then back to “1”, resulting in the dial tone as you were inadvertently (?) disconnected. After repeating the process, you finally get to speak with a live person whose accent makes him/her nearly impossible to understand. Ever happen to you? When you conduct business with a local “Mom and Pop” store, the customer service issues are a little different, aren’t they? I am not trying to discourage you from using larger enterprises for your commercial activity. There is generally an economic advantage in large scale production or distribution. Larger organizations have their weak spots, however, but in the commercial world we have the option of choosing a smaller, more customer-friendly business. In the realm of government our choices are limited.
No matter the venue…local, state or federal…we have no true choice of which government we have. We do have, for now, the opportunity to relocate to another locality or state if we are unhappy with government in place. On the federal level, however, we have no choice – short of renouncing our citizenship and moving somewhere else. As our individual liberty continues to be consumed by an increasingly intrusive federal presence, our options for forcing the federal government to be more responsive to us become severely limited. There must be a tipping point beyond which the people cannot reclaim the power. Clearly, if the electoral patterns from the past continue and voters blindly support the same two parties, can we expect the inexorable slide into tyranny to subside?
Now is the time for patriots to say “Halt!” Now is the time for citizens to support candidates who are truly committed to smaller government. Now is the time to cease voting for duopoly politicians who give lip service to restraining the reach of government. The Libertarian Party stands on “smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom.” If you are alarmed about the unwieldy growth of government…if you resent having the Nanny state control much of your daily living…if you are fed up with exorbitant taxes that are siphoned from your pockets and frivolously spent…if you would rather be left alone to chose your own priorities and preferences, then YOU are a Libertarian.
Your response is welcome. Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
A Life's tale.
This is a story about the lives of four people: Fred, Florence, Farley and Francis. Any resemblance to persons, alive or dead, is purely accidental and coincidental. These four characters lived on the same street in a small village in Middle America. They were of similar ages, incomes and education, but their lifestyles and priorities were different. Those differences are the basis for our story.
Some people thought that Fred was a clever lad, but others found him unexciting and dull. Some people thought that Fred had the potential to do great things, but others believed him to be a heartless stick-in-the-mud who needed constant supervision and guidance. Some thought that Fred was a kind and compassionate soul who would risk all to help others, and the others surmised that Fred’s vision of compassion was much too limited. Some believed that Fred was a solid, reliable member of the village, but others thought that he lacked vision and idealism.
There were some interesting dynamics at work on that pleasant little street in that quiet little village. Some of Fred’s extended family was very close to Farley’s family while some others had developed long-standing relationships with Florence’s kin. At times, during family gatherings, the kith and kin of Fred’s would discuss their preferences for either Farley’s group or Florence’s. Sometimes the discussions would become heated as each member of the family-at-large would defend his or her allegiance to either the Florence or Farley group.
As a child Fred would often play with Farley and his cousins. He would return home after playtime bloodied and broke as Farley and his family would cheat, beg for mercy, and cheat again. Farley’s family was a fun loving bunch who often broke the rules and lacked self discipline. Farley, himself, epitomized the tribe’s culture. Sometimes he extorted Fred’s lunch money when they were at school. He was a habitual liar and frequently cheated in school. Nevertheless Fred would play with him or defend him at school because they had been neighbors for a long time.
When she was a little girl, Florence was very pretty. As she matured, she became beautiful. Fred was enraptured by her bright eyes and her lovely face. In his dreams at night he pictured her as his constant companion in a mystical future. Whenever Fred became discouraged, Florence would say the words that would rekindle his hope. If Fred and Farley had a disagreement, then Florence would soothe Fred by taking his side. Florence always seemed to have just the right words for Fred whenever he faced a vexing problem. As the time for the 8th grade dance drew near, Fred screwed up his courage and asked Florence to be his date. She said yes. Fred was overjoyed, and as the big night drew near, his excitement began to crescendo. Beautifully dressed and coiffed Florence was the epitome of junior high elegance. Fred was in awe of his young date and all her promise. Later that evening Florence excused herself to go to the ladies room as Fred patiently waited at their table. After what seemed to be an inordinate amount of time, Fred began to search for his missing dream date. He saw her (play dramatic organ music here). She was in the cloakroom…passionately embracing Farley. Fred spun around and left the school…running home as the tears cascaded from his eyes. Later that evening Florence stopped by Fred’s house and apologized profusely. He forgave her, but her intermittent infidelities with Farley continued through high school. Finally Fred faced the final reality and moved on without Florence, the girl of his dreams.
Meanwhile, Francis grew through her early years. Her gangly movement freckles and braces all faded away, and a stunning elegant woman appeared. She was confident and self assured, and Fred was astounded when they met while both were home from college. He asked her out. She accepted. Fred discovered that Francis had simple tastes and unbending principles. She encouraged Fred to achieve his full potential. When he was with Francis, Fred felt as if he were complete. She was always loyal…always faithful. They were married…and were fruitful and multiplied. THE END
Endnote: Fiction writers are often asked if their stories are autobiographical. Well, yes this story is conceptually mine, but not in facts or details. Fred represents me and every other citizen of the United States. Farley is the standard bearer for the Democrats, liberals and progressives. Florence is the symbol of the GOP, and Francis is the representative for the Libertarian Party. For me, this has been a life long journey. I’ve had family members who were strident D’s and diehard R’s. For many years I was a Republican…filled with hope and anticipation. Too often, however, I found them in the closet with Farley (the D’s). Now, I’ve joined with Francis. Keep it simple, keep it solid, and follow the principles…works for me.
As always, your comments are welcome or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Some people thought that Fred was a clever lad, but others found him unexciting and dull. Some people thought that Fred had the potential to do great things, but others believed him to be a heartless stick-in-the-mud who needed constant supervision and guidance. Some thought that Fred was a kind and compassionate soul who would risk all to help others, and the others surmised that Fred’s vision of compassion was much too limited. Some believed that Fred was a solid, reliable member of the village, but others thought that he lacked vision and idealism.
There were some interesting dynamics at work on that pleasant little street in that quiet little village. Some of Fred’s extended family was very close to Farley’s family while some others had developed long-standing relationships with Florence’s kin. At times, during family gatherings, the kith and kin of Fred’s would discuss their preferences for either Farley’s group or Florence’s. Sometimes the discussions would become heated as each member of the family-at-large would defend his or her allegiance to either the Florence or Farley group.
As a child Fred would often play with Farley and his cousins. He would return home after playtime bloodied and broke as Farley and his family would cheat, beg for mercy, and cheat again. Farley’s family was a fun loving bunch who often broke the rules and lacked self discipline. Farley, himself, epitomized the tribe’s culture. Sometimes he extorted Fred’s lunch money when they were at school. He was a habitual liar and frequently cheated in school. Nevertheless Fred would play with him or defend him at school because they had been neighbors for a long time.
When she was a little girl, Florence was very pretty. As she matured, she became beautiful. Fred was enraptured by her bright eyes and her lovely face. In his dreams at night he pictured her as his constant companion in a mystical future. Whenever Fred became discouraged, Florence would say the words that would rekindle his hope. If Fred and Farley had a disagreement, then Florence would soothe Fred by taking his side. Florence always seemed to have just the right words for Fred whenever he faced a vexing problem. As the time for the 8th grade dance drew near, Fred screwed up his courage and asked Florence to be his date. She said yes. Fred was overjoyed, and as the big night drew near, his excitement began to crescendo. Beautifully dressed and coiffed Florence was the epitome of junior high elegance. Fred was in awe of his young date and all her promise. Later that evening Florence excused herself to go to the ladies room as Fred patiently waited at their table. After what seemed to be an inordinate amount of time, Fred began to search for his missing dream date. He saw her (play dramatic organ music here). She was in the cloakroom…passionately embracing Farley. Fred spun around and left the school…running home as the tears cascaded from his eyes. Later that evening Florence stopped by Fred’s house and apologized profusely. He forgave her, but her intermittent infidelities with Farley continued through high school. Finally Fred faced the final reality and moved on without Florence, the girl of his dreams.
Meanwhile, Francis grew through her early years. Her gangly movement freckles and braces all faded away, and a stunning elegant woman appeared. She was confident and self assured, and Fred was astounded when they met while both were home from college. He asked her out. She accepted. Fred discovered that Francis had simple tastes and unbending principles. She encouraged Fred to achieve his full potential. When he was with Francis, Fred felt as if he were complete. She was always loyal…always faithful. They were married…and were fruitful and multiplied. THE END
Endnote: Fiction writers are often asked if their stories are autobiographical. Well, yes this story is conceptually mine, but not in facts or details. Fred represents me and every other citizen of the United States. Farley is the standard bearer for the Democrats, liberals and progressives. Florence is the symbol of the GOP, and Francis is the representative for the Libertarian Party. For me, this has been a life long journey. I’ve had family members who were strident D’s and diehard R’s. For many years I was a Republican…filled with hope and anticipation. Too often, however, I found them in the closet with Farley (the D’s). Now, I’ve joined with Francis. Keep it simple, keep it solid, and follow the principles…works for me.
As always, your comments are welcome or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Monday, December 28, 2009
Safety first.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States lists many of the duties of the federal government. Among them is the requirement for protecting and defending the nation. This latest little fiasco in Detroit featuring flight 253 reveals that the feds are failing miserably in the fulfillment of their assigned Constitutional duties. While aggressively seeking to expand the reach and power of the federal government, they come up short in doing what they have been mandated to do. With the passage of the ill conceived and misnamed “Patriot Act,” Congress and the previous administration broadly and intrusively increased federal interference into our personal lives and liberty.
Remember back to the halcyon days when the Patriot Act was being promoted, and one of the critical provisions was the nationalization of the airport security apparatus. Formerly, each airline provided its own gate side security force, but Big Nanny desired to take this woefully inadequate gaggle and transform it overnight into a civil service protected inadequate gaggle. I’ve done quite a bit of air travel over the years, and I suspect that many of those TSA security “professionals” couldn’t qualify as a greeter at my local Wal-Mart.
So we have this Nigerian, Abdulmutallab, flying one way—Amsterdam to Detroit—RED FLAG. He pays cash for his $2800.00 fare. RED FLAG. He has no luggage to stow. RED FLAG. He had no valid passport. RED FLAG. He was on the “terror watch list.” SUPER, DUPER, RED FLAG. His father had reported his concern about his son’s activities some weeks earlier. TRIPLE DECKER RED FLAG. He carried incendiary material in his underwear. EXPLOSIVELY SCARY RED FLAG. Who is watching the security gate? Mr. Magoo and Stevie Wonder? How’s that Patriot Act working out for you, huh? This entire FUBAR would alarm me, but my concern has been heightened by the fact that my wife had traveled on that same flight several days earlier. She had been to Dubai on a business trip and had changed planes in Amsterdam for her last leg home.
Fortunately, an alert and resourceful Dutch engineer subdued the Nigerian nihilist. Plus, he must have pee’d on his fuse in the restroom because it failed to ignite properly. If either of those factors had not occurred, we would be discussing more than 280 dead on the plane and who knows how many on the ground. What was the initial response from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano? “The system worked.” She later backtracked and admitted there were some flaws in security procedures. You can’t get anything past her: she’s way too smart. She’s so smart that I wish she would explain to me how the civil-service protected goobers at our gates are protecting and defending us.
The HS-TSA bifecta has already implemented some radical new measures to ensure event-free flights. For the last hour of a given flight, passengers will not be allowed to visit the restroom or to have anything on their laps. Travelers will be required to sit in the upright position with their hands placed on their laps. I bet that’ll work. Bennie the bomber has already begun to circumvent the rule makers’ latest inane restrictions. It hasn’t yet been mentioned, but given that Abdulmutallab stowed the explosive in his “Fruit of the Looms,” each of us will have to endure an undergarment check. You mother was right. Always wear clean underwear…skid marks could be mistaken for an explosive substance. Get used to the idea that you may hear the following as you check in at the airport: “O.K., drop your drawers, bend over and grab your ankles.” Of course, Big Government has been telling us that for years. Nothing new there.
As always your comments are welcome or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Remember back to the halcyon days when the Patriot Act was being promoted, and one of the critical provisions was the nationalization of the airport security apparatus. Formerly, each airline provided its own gate side security force, but Big Nanny desired to take this woefully inadequate gaggle and transform it overnight into a civil service protected inadequate gaggle. I’ve done quite a bit of air travel over the years, and I suspect that many of those TSA security “professionals” couldn’t qualify as a greeter at my local Wal-Mart.
So we have this Nigerian, Abdulmutallab, flying one way—Amsterdam to Detroit—RED FLAG. He pays cash for his $2800.00 fare. RED FLAG. He has no luggage to stow. RED FLAG. He had no valid passport. RED FLAG. He was on the “terror watch list.” SUPER, DUPER, RED FLAG. His father had reported his concern about his son’s activities some weeks earlier. TRIPLE DECKER RED FLAG. He carried incendiary material in his underwear. EXPLOSIVELY SCARY RED FLAG. Who is watching the security gate? Mr. Magoo and Stevie Wonder? How’s that Patriot Act working out for you, huh? This entire FUBAR would alarm me, but my concern has been heightened by the fact that my wife had traveled on that same flight several days earlier. She had been to Dubai on a business trip and had changed planes in Amsterdam for her last leg home.
Fortunately, an alert and resourceful Dutch engineer subdued the Nigerian nihilist. Plus, he must have pee’d on his fuse in the restroom because it failed to ignite properly. If either of those factors had not occurred, we would be discussing more than 280 dead on the plane and who knows how many on the ground. What was the initial response from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano? “The system worked.” She later backtracked and admitted there were some flaws in security procedures. You can’t get anything past her: she’s way too smart. She’s so smart that I wish she would explain to me how the civil-service protected goobers at our gates are protecting and defending us.
The HS-TSA bifecta has already implemented some radical new measures to ensure event-free flights. For the last hour of a given flight, passengers will not be allowed to visit the restroom or to have anything on their laps. Travelers will be required to sit in the upright position with their hands placed on their laps. I bet that’ll work. Bennie the bomber has already begun to circumvent the rule makers’ latest inane restrictions. It hasn’t yet been mentioned, but given that Abdulmutallab stowed the explosive in his “Fruit of the Looms,” each of us will have to endure an undergarment check. You mother was right. Always wear clean underwear…skid marks could be mistaken for an explosive substance. Get used to the idea that you may hear the following as you check in at the airport: “O.K., drop your drawers, bend over and grab your ankles.” Of course, Big Government has been telling us that for years. Nothing new there.
As always your comments are welcome or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Friday, December 25, 2009
Charlie's littlestuff wish list
Today is Christmas day. For Christians it’s the time to celebrate the birth of Jesus, the Christ. For others who observe this day, it’s a time of fellowship and giving, and for those who don’t observe Christmas, it’s a day off or holiday pay for working. One week from today it will be January 1st, New Years Day. While it may be a time for reflection, it is primarily a day for looking forward with hopeful anticipation, So in the spirit of Christmas and with the hopefulness of the New Year, here is my list of gifts for others.
For the U.S. House, Senate and Administration: I hope they get a clue.
For The Ohio State University football team: A smashing Rose Bowl victory.
For the citizens of the United States: Knowledge and awareness about the true costs of huge government.
For my friends and family: Good health and great joy.
For my readers: May I provide you with better material that makes you think.
For my grandchildren: A nation that cherishes personal freedom and individual opportunity. Plus, may grandpa share that vision with you.
For the Libertarian Party of Ohio: More than 10% of the 2010 vote with some significant victories.
For my wife: a more sane me (extreme longshot).
For me: Increased energy and passion to fight for freedom and follow Him.
For you: Merry Christmas and a blessed 2010.
As always, you can comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
For the U.S. House, Senate and Administration: I hope they get a clue.
For The Ohio State University football team: A smashing Rose Bowl victory.
For the citizens of the United States: Knowledge and awareness about the true costs of huge government.
For my friends and family: Good health and great joy.
For my readers: May I provide you with better material that makes you think.
For my grandchildren: A nation that cherishes personal freedom and individual opportunity. Plus, may grandpa share that vision with you.
For the Libertarian Party of Ohio: More than 10% of the 2010 vote with some significant victories.
For my wife: a more sane me (extreme longshot).
For me: Increased energy and passion to fight for freedom and follow Him.
For you: Merry Christmas and a blessed 2010.
As always, you can comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Delayed gratification
Delayed gratification is the topic for today. It seems quite appropriate as the little ones anticipate Christmas morning, but I want to use the topic as a launching point for another (sigh) discussion of the massive (up to 2700 pages) Heathcare Reform Act. Consider that theoretically speaking there is no public option included in this latest version, and yet, they nevertheless manage to bring forth a bill that is more than twice the length of “Atlas Shrugged.” With that many pages and no public disclosure of the contents, one must assume that there is enough crap buried in the legislation to fertilize the entire African continent. We, our children, their children and generations as yet unborn will be unraveling the nuances and side-effects of this behemoth for decades. President Reagan once told a story of a young kid who got up on Christmas morning and found the room with the tree was full of horse manure. When his parents awoke and found him digging through the excrement, they asked little Johnny what he was doing. “There’s gotta be a pony in here somewhere!” the little guy exclaimed.
Regretfully, I suspect that we will never find the pony in this pile of crap, or if we do, it will be a dead horse by the time we uncover it. The last statement that I read regarding the implementation of this Trojan Horse was that the new taxes, the 111 new agencies or bureaus, and many of the restrictions and rules will be implemented next year (2010), but the “benefits” will not begin taking effect until 2014. Assumedly, the taxes collected would be earmarked and accumulated for the four-year start up period. I think I just spit up in my mouth. Right, Congress will allow billions of dollars to sit in an account without spending them. If you believe that, then you are a candidate for the Gullibility Hall of Fame. Back to delayed gratification…the benefits (if any) will be delayed, but the government desire for more to spend will be gratified. The politicians get the gold mine, and we get the shaft.
So what actions are available for short-circuiting this freedom-crushing legislative noose? Clearly the Republicans lack the power and the will to fight this thing. Even if they lack the votes to derail it, they should be dragging their heels while kicking and screaming. The Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, decided to play nice with Harry Reid and allow the vote for Thursday morning rather than Thursday evening as originally scheduled. Great, the senators will get home for Christmas while the people dig lumps of coal from their stockings. Because the Dems want this power grab, and the Repubs are too cowardly to shed blood to stop it, the next line of resistance is the states. At least seven states are considering relying on the Tenth Amendment and the Constitutional challenge embedded there to address some element of “nullification.”
Will a nullification strategy work? It didn’t work out too well for South Carolina in 1861, but there are more recent examples of states and localities that choose to consciously ignore federal heavy handedness. Several cities throughout the country have declared themselves to be “sanctuaries” for undocumented aliens. Other governmental entities have passed laws that contravene federal drug laws…such as medical marijuana. These local efforts have generated some sputtering from the feds, but as a rule have been allowed to stand without much federal resistance. To be effective against the healthcare monster, a significant number of states will have to band together to shut down the government express. To do it in a piece meal fashion would prove to be ineffective and fruitless.
Your comments are appreciated, or email me: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Regretfully, I suspect that we will never find the pony in this pile of crap, or if we do, it will be a dead horse by the time we uncover it. The last statement that I read regarding the implementation of this Trojan Horse was that the new taxes, the 111 new agencies or bureaus, and many of the restrictions and rules will be implemented next year (2010), but the “benefits” will not begin taking effect until 2014. Assumedly, the taxes collected would be earmarked and accumulated for the four-year start up period. I think I just spit up in my mouth. Right, Congress will allow billions of dollars to sit in an account without spending them. If you believe that, then you are a candidate for the Gullibility Hall of Fame. Back to delayed gratification…the benefits (if any) will be delayed, but the government desire for more to spend will be gratified. The politicians get the gold mine, and we get the shaft.
So what actions are available for short-circuiting this freedom-crushing legislative noose? Clearly the Republicans lack the power and the will to fight this thing. Even if they lack the votes to derail it, they should be dragging their heels while kicking and screaming. The Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, decided to play nice with Harry Reid and allow the vote for Thursday morning rather than Thursday evening as originally scheduled. Great, the senators will get home for Christmas while the people dig lumps of coal from their stockings. Because the Dems want this power grab, and the Repubs are too cowardly to shed blood to stop it, the next line of resistance is the states. At least seven states are considering relying on the Tenth Amendment and the Constitutional challenge embedded there to address some element of “nullification.”
Will a nullification strategy work? It didn’t work out too well for South Carolina in 1861, but there are more recent examples of states and localities that choose to consciously ignore federal heavy handedness. Several cities throughout the country have declared themselves to be “sanctuaries” for undocumented aliens. Other governmental entities have passed laws that contravene federal drug laws…such as medical marijuana. These local efforts have generated some sputtering from the feds, but as a rule have been allowed to stand without much federal resistance. To be effective against the healthcare monster, a significant number of states will have to band together to shut down the government express. To do it in a piece meal fashion would prove to be ineffective and fruitless.
Your comments are appreciated, or email me: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Monday, December 21, 2009
In the still of the night
My late father used to tell me that “nothing good happens after midnight.” When I was young, stupid and full of vinegar, I seriously doubted the wisdom of that statement. But now as I have grown older, his admonition rings true. This morning (Monday 12/21) at 1:00am EST, the U.S. Senate voted to override cloture and place the mystery Healthcare Reform bill on the fast track to adoption. The tentative schedule calls for a final vote for passage at 7:00pm Thursday night, Christmas Eve. In the spirit of the season I ask the following (with a little help from Johnny Mathis):
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3qd0o_johnny-mathis-do-you-hear-what-i-he_music
So, do you hear what I hear? I detect the thundering hoof beats of runaway government. We are about to be crushed under the stampede of the Nanny State. Some of you dear readers have recently chided me for being an alarmist or for exhibiting signs of extreme paranoia. Consider this…several polls have indicated that more than fifty per cent of the voters have expressed their reservations about the proposed plan for restructuring healthcare in the U.S. Yet, through a series of backroom deals involving hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds, Majority Leader Reid and his cohorts have stubbornly moved this noxious legislation forward. There are, admittedly, some who believe that greater government involvement in our personal healthcare decisions is a good thing. They either assume that care would improve or that a leveling of health services would be more equitable than the current system. For them I have this seasonal ditty:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xa4gpo_here-comes-santa-claus_music
Only if you believe in Santa can you embrace the notion that the federal government will be a superior source of healthcare than you could possibly arrange for yourself. If you are the type of person who lacks self discipline, then Uncle Sam’s denial of your daily Twinkie fix, the prohibition of Big Macs, and the flushing of all soft drinks may be the only avenue available to you. You must be one of those poor souls who have no will, no strength….no brains. It requires courage and thoughtfulness to make decisions that could have long term effects on your life. It may be easier to allow the government to call the shots, but at what point do you draw the line? Would you “feel” more secure if the Nanny established your bedtime and tucked you in at night? Of course not! You would begin to resent the overly intrusive involvement of the government. Your sense of your personal identity would be smothered by the good intentions of Big Nanny. You would chafe at lack of freedom and yearn for the opportunity to decide for you what is good…and what is not.
So, in essence, you agree that the Senate may be going too far, but you assume that there’s nothing you can do about it. You think are just one little grain in the litter box of life, and you’re used to Government dropping daily deposits in your world. As government has grown larger and larger, less responsive and more domineering, you may have become accustomed to the little droplets of excrement that shower you. You may loathe the way that insensitive bureaucrats treat you as if you were the turd floating in the punchbowl at the party celebrating the glorious government goodies for all. Oh, something stinks alright, but its not you. What smells is that the “leaders” of our nation have assumed that your life is of so little significance that they rather than you should determine how you live it.
Senator Tom Harkin (idiot-Iowa) stated that the Congress would pass this liberty-choking monstrosity in time for Christmas. In my view, if Harkin, Reid and others of their ilk represent the spirit of Christmas, then I prefer to take my chances with the Grinch. The message of Christ at Christmastime is one of salvation…not one of enslavement.
Always, always, always beware of politicians bearing gifts. They purchase them with your credit cards.
Please comment or email me: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3qd0o_johnny-mathis-do-you-hear-what-i-he_music
So, do you hear what I hear? I detect the thundering hoof beats of runaway government. We are about to be crushed under the stampede of the Nanny State. Some of you dear readers have recently chided me for being an alarmist or for exhibiting signs of extreme paranoia. Consider this…several polls have indicated that more than fifty per cent of the voters have expressed their reservations about the proposed plan for restructuring healthcare in the U.S. Yet, through a series of backroom deals involving hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds, Majority Leader Reid and his cohorts have stubbornly moved this noxious legislation forward. There are, admittedly, some who believe that greater government involvement in our personal healthcare decisions is a good thing. They either assume that care would improve or that a leveling of health services would be more equitable than the current system. For them I have this seasonal ditty:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xa4gpo_here-comes-santa-claus_music
Only if you believe in Santa can you embrace the notion that the federal government will be a superior source of healthcare than you could possibly arrange for yourself. If you are the type of person who lacks self discipline, then Uncle Sam’s denial of your daily Twinkie fix, the prohibition of Big Macs, and the flushing of all soft drinks may be the only avenue available to you. You must be one of those poor souls who have no will, no strength….no brains. It requires courage and thoughtfulness to make decisions that could have long term effects on your life. It may be easier to allow the government to call the shots, but at what point do you draw the line? Would you “feel” more secure if the Nanny established your bedtime and tucked you in at night? Of course not! You would begin to resent the overly intrusive involvement of the government. Your sense of your personal identity would be smothered by the good intentions of Big Nanny. You would chafe at lack of freedom and yearn for the opportunity to decide for you what is good…and what is not.
So, in essence, you agree that the Senate may be going too far, but you assume that there’s nothing you can do about it. You think are just one little grain in the litter box of life, and you’re used to Government dropping daily deposits in your world. As government has grown larger and larger, less responsive and more domineering, you may have become accustomed to the little droplets of excrement that shower you. You may loathe the way that insensitive bureaucrats treat you as if you were the turd floating in the punchbowl at the party celebrating the glorious government goodies for all. Oh, something stinks alright, but its not you. What smells is that the “leaders” of our nation have assumed that your life is of so little significance that they rather than you should determine how you live it.
Senator Tom Harkin (idiot-Iowa) stated that the Congress would pass this liberty-choking monstrosity in time for Christmas. In my view, if Harkin, Reid and others of their ilk represent the spirit of Christmas, then I prefer to take my chances with the Grinch. The message of Christ at Christmastime is one of salvation…not one of enslavement.
Always, always, always beware of politicians bearing gifts. They purchase them with your credit cards.
Please comment or email me: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Friday, December 18, 2009
Take a chance on me...
Abba has been selected to be enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Quick: spell Abba backwards. Personally, I’m pleased that they will be honored. Platform shoes, plaid suits, and rather hot ladies have finally been recognized and given their rightful place in modern musical history. If my fading memory hasn’t deceived me, I seem to recall that in their early years of international recording, Abba sang the English versions of their songs phonetically because they didn’t speak the language. While I was pondering this little factoid (or fantasy-toid), I heard on the news that the Senate version of the Healthcare Reform Bill had not yet been written. Or if it had been committed to paper, then Senate Majority Leader, Harry (Dimbulb) Reid had it safely sequestered in an undisclosed location (probably in Al Gore’s Social Security lockbox).
Whoa, what a coincidence! As I listened to the various senators, pundits and newscasters discussing the Senate bill, I was struck with the nagging sense that they were just like Abba. They were mouthing the words, but they didn’t know the language. How mind-boggling is that? A bill that is more than two thousand pages (we suspect) that may contain measures that will radically alter one-sixth to one-fifth of the U.S. economy, and they do not know what’s in it. I have this mental picture of Senator Reid with a humongous bottle of White Out in his hand, opening the lockbox, pulling out the pallet of paper and making his daily alterations. The point is…how can a mystery bill of such great magnitude be rationally debated if only a few people know what’s in it? What’s wrong with this picture? I know what the Majority Leader is doing. He is attempting to secure sixty or more votes for his proposal before submitting it to open examination and condemnation. So, what we have is the American Beef Producers discussing Jello. Instead of a thorough analysis of real meat, we have duck and feint shadow boxing. Meanwhile, the majority staff diligently labors to produce a far reaching document that is all things to all people (at least 60 of them) while siphoning more droplets of freedom from the people.
On a related matter, I’m quite concerned about the power of congressional staff people. Members may come and go (not frequently enough), but staffers stay there forever…unless they run for their former bosses old seat. It has been a “red light” for me for many years, but I was reminded anew by a note in www.Redstate.com by Erick Erickson. He identified a communications weasel for the Senate Republican Campaign Committee named Brian Walsh. Basically, Erick suggested that Walsh preferred to have the committee support moderate or liberal republicans at the expense of more conservative ones. The SRCC is not an official committee of the Senate, but is wholly controlled by the republican members. If an entity under the purview of the more conservative party cannot refrain from supporting liberals and moderates, how can one expect the staffs of the formal committees of the Senate to be cognizant of conservative policies? How can we expect those staff members to endorse personal freedom when the power of the collective is so appealing? How can we expect entrenched staffers to cherish liberty when they fervently promote larger government?
Can we term limit congressional staff? If Members of Congress can catch Potomac Fever, then what do we do about staff members who contract Potomac Fossilization? If you suspect that I am overreacting, then peruse the voting results from The District, Southern Maryland and Northern Virginia. Permanent staff and federal bureaucrats are clustered in those areas. Overwhelmingly leftist and pro-big government, they trek into the city everyday to wreak their havoc, and then retreat to their safe havens after demolishing our personal freedoms. There must be an answer.
Romans 8:15 informs us that “Abba” means Father.
Father, help us.
Whoa, what a coincidence! As I listened to the various senators, pundits and newscasters discussing the Senate bill, I was struck with the nagging sense that they were just like Abba. They were mouthing the words, but they didn’t know the language. How mind-boggling is that? A bill that is more than two thousand pages (we suspect) that may contain measures that will radically alter one-sixth to one-fifth of the U.S. economy, and they do not know what’s in it. I have this mental picture of Senator Reid with a humongous bottle of White Out in his hand, opening the lockbox, pulling out the pallet of paper and making his daily alterations. The point is…how can a mystery bill of such great magnitude be rationally debated if only a few people know what’s in it? What’s wrong with this picture? I know what the Majority Leader is doing. He is attempting to secure sixty or more votes for his proposal before submitting it to open examination and condemnation. So, what we have is the American Beef Producers discussing Jello. Instead of a thorough analysis of real meat, we have duck and feint shadow boxing. Meanwhile, the majority staff diligently labors to produce a far reaching document that is all things to all people (at least 60 of them) while siphoning more droplets of freedom from the people.
On a related matter, I’m quite concerned about the power of congressional staff people. Members may come and go (not frequently enough), but staffers stay there forever…unless they run for their former bosses old seat. It has been a “red light” for me for many years, but I was reminded anew by a note in www.Redstate.com by Erick Erickson. He identified a communications weasel for the Senate Republican Campaign Committee named Brian Walsh. Basically, Erick suggested that Walsh preferred to have the committee support moderate or liberal republicans at the expense of more conservative ones. The SRCC is not an official committee of the Senate, but is wholly controlled by the republican members. If an entity under the purview of the more conservative party cannot refrain from supporting liberals and moderates, how can one expect the staffs of the formal committees of the Senate to be cognizant of conservative policies? How can we expect those staff members to endorse personal freedom when the power of the collective is so appealing? How can we expect entrenched staffers to cherish liberty when they fervently promote larger government?
Can we term limit congressional staff? If Members of Congress can catch Potomac Fever, then what do we do about staff members who contract Potomac Fossilization? If you suspect that I am overreacting, then peruse the voting results from The District, Southern Maryland and Northern Virginia. Permanent staff and federal bureaucrats are clustered in those areas. Overwhelmingly leftist and pro-big government, they trek into the city everyday to wreak their havoc, and then retreat to their safe havens after demolishing our personal freedoms. There must be an answer.
Romans 8:15 informs us that “Abba” means Father.
Father, help us.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Reform, Repair, Reject or...Reset.
Anytime a politician at any level of government utters the words “reform or fix,” jump on your pony and head for the hills. You have probably heard the old bromide that “the cure is more deadly than the disease.” How about another old saying to set the tone for our discussion: “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” First of all, I am absolutely opposed to dictatorships, but on the other hand, how can we expect 535 senators and house members to legislate fairly and reasonably for 300 million people? Inevitably, oxen are gored. Our society has functioned as a mobile one in the sense that an individual could through his/her own efforts change his station in life. It seems, therefore, to attempt to legislate for the greater good of the majority is a doomed proposition. Today’s majority may become tomorrow’s toothless minority. In addition, the ponderous process leading from idea to enacted law often puts government response behind the curve. Meanwhile private sector entities that might be equipped to solve the issues addressed by Congress stand down while waiting for the legislative process to runs its course…and the problem either becomes worse or goes away.
Obviously there are government programs or aspects of our lives that could benefit from reform or repair, but when the government attempts to implement the necessary tweaks, they often use a sledgehammer approach. Consequently, the result is less efficiency, more cost, more frustration and less personal freedom. Another old cliché states that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. That is an apt illustration of most government attempts to fix a problem…usually a problem that had initially been created by government ineptness. Tweaking—the fine tuning of an apparatus—could be considered a form of repairing. Reforming is a make over, and repairing is changing the eyeliner. The heavy hand of government, however, often attempts to repair something by using an ice pick to apply the new eyeliner. The result is usually blindingly inefficient and unworkable.
At the present time, public opinion polls would suggest that citizens prefer rejecting the massive number of “reform” proposals that are swirling around the U.S. Capitol. The people seem to be encouraging legislators to follow the medical rule, “first, do no harm.” I have designed and executed polls, and I am generally suspicious about the reliability and validity factors of polls reported in the popular press. But still (another cliché) “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” In other words, the level of skepticism and discontent that is demonstrated in the polls may not be accurate, but “the natives are clearly becoming restless.” So, rejection of any effort to “reform” may be a reasonable approach to many of the measures before the Congress.
There is a fourth approach to the bevy of issues that confront the nation at this time. It is the one that I prefer. I know, however, that it is the least likely to be applied. Reset…fold the tent, rebuild the foundation, and erect the structure to fit the foundation. Our Founders provided us with a foundation that provided for more personal liberty than at any time in the history of human governing, and we blew it. We have allowed our sloth and our utopian fantasies to lead us down the path of voluntary servitude. We have ignorantly placed our trust in “leaders” whose primary motivation was not the well-being of the nation, but in their own accumulation of power and their insatiable thirst for reelection. They buy us off with baubles. We take the trinkets and give them our “Manhattans.” At the end, we have some cheap costume jewelry, and they own the island. So, my dream, my prayer is that we have the courage to reset. I fervently hope that we have the wisdom to rebuild on the foundation of freedom that they built for us. I long for a nation--actually a people—the loves personal liberty. I wish that I can live long enough to witness the reset of the U.S.A., but if not, I ask for the courage to die for it.
Please respond or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Obviously there are government programs or aspects of our lives that could benefit from reform or repair, but when the government attempts to implement the necessary tweaks, they often use a sledgehammer approach. Consequently, the result is less efficiency, more cost, more frustration and less personal freedom. Another old cliché states that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. That is an apt illustration of most government attempts to fix a problem…usually a problem that had initially been created by government ineptness. Tweaking—the fine tuning of an apparatus—could be considered a form of repairing. Reforming is a make over, and repairing is changing the eyeliner. The heavy hand of government, however, often attempts to repair something by using an ice pick to apply the new eyeliner. The result is usually blindingly inefficient and unworkable.
At the present time, public opinion polls would suggest that citizens prefer rejecting the massive number of “reform” proposals that are swirling around the U.S. Capitol. The people seem to be encouraging legislators to follow the medical rule, “first, do no harm.” I have designed and executed polls, and I am generally suspicious about the reliability and validity factors of polls reported in the popular press. But still (another cliché) “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” In other words, the level of skepticism and discontent that is demonstrated in the polls may not be accurate, but “the natives are clearly becoming restless.” So, rejection of any effort to “reform” may be a reasonable approach to many of the measures before the Congress.
There is a fourth approach to the bevy of issues that confront the nation at this time. It is the one that I prefer. I know, however, that it is the least likely to be applied. Reset…fold the tent, rebuild the foundation, and erect the structure to fit the foundation. Our Founders provided us with a foundation that provided for more personal liberty than at any time in the history of human governing, and we blew it. We have allowed our sloth and our utopian fantasies to lead us down the path of voluntary servitude. We have ignorantly placed our trust in “leaders” whose primary motivation was not the well-being of the nation, but in their own accumulation of power and their insatiable thirst for reelection. They buy us off with baubles. We take the trinkets and give them our “Manhattans.” At the end, we have some cheap costume jewelry, and they own the island. So, my dream, my prayer is that we have the courage to reset. I fervently hope that we have the wisdom to rebuild on the foundation of freedom that they built for us. I long for a nation--actually a people—the loves personal liberty. I wish that I can live long enough to witness the reset of the U.S.A., but if not, I ask for the courage to die for it.
Please respond or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Three reasons
There was an obituary in today’s Toledo Blade (I know, a liberal rag) that prompted me to engage in some reflective self-analysis. Twenty-five years ago this month my service as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives ended. There were a number of factors that influenced my decision to not run for reelection in 1984, but it was a choice that I have not regretted for this past quarter century. The obituary was for my opponent in 1982…my final race. The gentleman’s name was Bob Heft, recognized designer of the 50-star flag and the mayor of Napoleon, Ohio. Bob was a decent guy and a worthy adversary. His passing and the twenty-fifth anniversary of my leaving legislature have caused me to examine how my political views have shifted though the years.
When I began my legislative sojourn in 1981, I was generally conservative…reflecting my background as a farm boy who became a small business operator in a small town. After encountering the cacophony of interests that surround the statehouse in Columbus, I found that if my representation were to have any coherence and consistency, then I had better more clearly define my principles for decision making. Early on it was apparent to me that many legislative proposals either ignored potential negative side effects or overlooked possible intervening variables that could hijack the original intent of the legislation. My positions began to harden, and my willingness to vote “no” grew dramatically. I began to resent the “we must have a bill” attitude that I observed from both sides of the isle. In my view, more often than not, no bill was far superior to any bad bill. Despite my frequent “no” votes state government continued to grow larger. So did the federal government, and as the state and feds issued mandates and “revenue sharing” schemes, so too, did the local governments. I witnessed very few cost efficiencies or improvements in service delivery.
Many large corporations and business associations have lobbyists representing them at the state house. Given that the state budget has grown so large, it’s only natural that they believe it necessary to lobby in order to protect themselves from hurtful legislation. It didn’t take me very long to detect that big government and big corporations were very similar in some respects. They have no hearts, no minds and no souls. That observation led me to conclude that those were the three primary reasons for my opposition to larger government and government’s willingness to engage in “sweetheart” legislation with large corporations. One of my constituents helped me arrive at that realization. He was a gentleman in his eighties who owned a small manufacturing company that did specialty work for the automotive industry. As he was guiding me on a tour of his facility, I remarked that surely his company had the potential for phenomenal growth. He agreed but said that they had chosen not to grow larger. “Representative Earl,” he said, “ we have 180 people working here now. I know every one of them, most of their spouses, and many of their children’s names. We cannot be as efficient and productive as we are now if we become so large that the employees can’t bitch to the owner on a first name basis.” This may not be an exact quote, but its pretty close. That lesson has stayed with me for more that twenty five years.
No private corporation is too big to fail. If a company becomes so sluggish that is inefficient, or their customer service fails to address the problems of the customer, then they should be allowed to drift away. New, more aggressive and innovative competitors will fill the void. Big government has no competitors to step up when it does not fulfill its mandate. It simply grows larger by claiming it needs more resources. As we have seen, when big government and big business work hand-in-hand to prop up one another, the superstructure becomes a house of cards. The insatiable government continues to consume more of the nation’s wealth, and the mega-corporations who are connected to the governmental umbilical cord fail to improve while the more efficient competitors are placed at a competitive disadvantage.
No heart, no mind, no soul. Three reasons for my becoming a passionate believer in personal freedom. Three reasons for my fear and loathing of an overreaching, uncontrollable government.
RIP Bob Heft.
Oh, there are three more reasons that I call for a saner government. They are twelve year old Shaun, ten year old Erin, and Sully, who will soon be eight months old. My grandchildren.
Your comments are welcome or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
When I began my legislative sojourn in 1981, I was generally conservative…reflecting my background as a farm boy who became a small business operator in a small town. After encountering the cacophony of interests that surround the statehouse in Columbus, I found that if my representation were to have any coherence and consistency, then I had better more clearly define my principles for decision making. Early on it was apparent to me that many legislative proposals either ignored potential negative side effects or overlooked possible intervening variables that could hijack the original intent of the legislation. My positions began to harden, and my willingness to vote “no” grew dramatically. I began to resent the “we must have a bill” attitude that I observed from both sides of the isle. In my view, more often than not, no bill was far superior to any bad bill. Despite my frequent “no” votes state government continued to grow larger. So did the federal government, and as the state and feds issued mandates and “revenue sharing” schemes, so too, did the local governments. I witnessed very few cost efficiencies or improvements in service delivery.
Many large corporations and business associations have lobbyists representing them at the state house. Given that the state budget has grown so large, it’s only natural that they believe it necessary to lobby in order to protect themselves from hurtful legislation. It didn’t take me very long to detect that big government and big corporations were very similar in some respects. They have no hearts, no minds and no souls. That observation led me to conclude that those were the three primary reasons for my opposition to larger government and government’s willingness to engage in “sweetheart” legislation with large corporations. One of my constituents helped me arrive at that realization. He was a gentleman in his eighties who owned a small manufacturing company that did specialty work for the automotive industry. As he was guiding me on a tour of his facility, I remarked that surely his company had the potential for phenomenal growth. He agreed but said that they had chosen not to grow larger. “Representative Earl,” he said, “ we have 180 people working here now. I know every one of them, most of their spouses, and many of their children’s names. We cannot be as efficient and productive as we are now if we become so large that the employees can’t bitch to the owner on a first name basis.” This may not be an exact quote, but its pretty close. That lesson has stayed with me for more that twenty five years.
No private corporation is too big to fail. If a company becomes so sluggish that is inefficient, or their customer service fails to address the problems of the customer, then they should be allowed to drift away. New, more aggressive and innovative competitors will fill the void. Big government has no competitors to step up when it does not fulfill its mandate. It simply grows larger by claiming it needs more resources. As we have seen, when big government and big business work hand-in-hand to prop up one another, the superstructure becomes a house of cards. The insatiable government continues to consume more of the nation’s wealth, and the mega-corporations who are connected to the governmental umbilical cord fail to improve while the more efficient competitors are placed at a competitive disadvantage.
No heart, no mind, no soul. Three reasons for my becoming a passionate believer in personal freedom. Three reasons for my fear and loathing of an overreaching, uncontrollable government.
RIP Bob Heft.
Oh, there are three more reasons that I call for a saner government. They are twelve year old Shaun, ten year old Erin, and Sully, who will soon be eight months old. My grandchildren.
Your comments are welcome or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Friday, December 11, 2009
They keep saying that the earth is getting hotter,
The temps are rising each and every day,
Their data are bogus and funky,
But they still want to take my Escalade away.
Chorus:
Oh, don't take my Escalade away,
I like it more than I can ever say,
With power and size for which I'm happy to pay,
Oh, please don't take my Escalade away.
AlGore is the villan who warns about the heat
His bank account keeps growing, that's what they say
He flies around wasting piles of energy
And the butthead wants to take my wheels way.
Chorus:
Thirty years ago they said the earth was cooling,
Then turned around and claimed a heating range,
They're so messed up and real confused
Now we should all be scared of Climate Change.
Chorus:
Whether cold or hot, I don't know.
The climate has always been unsettled
So its hard for me to take them seriously,
And dump my Caddy for a car that must be pedaled
Chorus.
The temps are rising each and every day,
Their data are bogus and funky,
But they still want to take my Escalade away.
Chorus:
Oh, don't take my Escalade away,
I like it more than I can ever say,
With power and size for which I'm happy to pay,
Oh, please don't take my Escalade away.
AlGore is the villan who warns about the heat
His bank account keeps growing, that's what they say
He flies around wasting piles of energy
And the butthead wants to take my wheels way.
Chorus:
Thirty years ago they said the earth was cooling,
Then turned around and claimed a heating range,
They're so messed up and real confused
Now we should all be scared of Climate Change.
Chorus:
Whether cold or hot, I don't know.
The climate has always been unsettled
So its hard for me to take them seriously,
And dump my Caddy for a car that must be pedaled
Chorus.
What if?
What if….
Conservatives, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Federalists, Tea Partiers, Sons of Liberty, Liberty First, Smart Girls, Freedom Works, Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity and other advocates for a smaller, accountable federal government assembled in a room around a circular table? Perhaps they could agree to band together for just one national election in order to promote thoroughly vetted, totally reliable coalition candidates for president and vice president of the United States of America. They could unite under one principled banner—to reduce the size of the federal monstrosity and implement stringent measures to assure accountability (e.g. recall measures, term limits, whatever). Each party or organization would retain its autonomy for local, state and congressional campaigns, but would support the top-of-the-ticket candidates. The name of the merged group could be RPO coalition—meaning the radically P. O’d assembly of citizens. So, can we get it done in time for 2012? Maybe. I must stop now because the Tooth Fairy is leaving, and Santa Claus is coming.
What if…frogs had wings?
What if…
The men in leadership of the Republican Party grew onions as big as some of the ladies of the GOP seem to have? Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn are not afraid to challenge the socialist monkeys with blunt talk, meanwhile Boehner and McConnell use D.C.-speak to protest the Dem’s roughshod behavior. Even the lady pundits are more straightforward. Malkin, Coulter, Ingraham, Cupp and others tell it like it is. As a reformed politician, I’ve known the type for years: Perfectly coiffed hair, steel-strong starched collar, top-grade suit and vague, non-committal language…and no guts. If I went into battle with most of those guys, I certainly wouldn’t want them behind me.
What if…
In lieu of raising the debt ceiling to 14 Trillion dollars, Congress had simply distributed the amount among the populace? A tidy sum of 46, 666 dollars would have been available for every woman, man and rug rat in the country. The spending surge would have generated a tsunami of economic activity that might have overcome some of the dislocations in the federal balance sheet. Just imagine, The Duggars with their 19 little Duggars would collect $979, 986. Wow, one more kiddling and they could have more than a million. The wife and I could have taken our 93 grand and donated some to Harry Reid’s campaign fund…maybe not. I know this is a pipe dream (even pipes have more realistic dreams than this). Plus, I don’t want Washington to take my money, skim it and shrink it, and send some loose change back. I want to hang on to it and decide how to spend it myself. I believe that I would do so more effectively…and more compassionately than Big Brother. I might not be so hostile to government spending if it were done with accountability and sensibility…and if they weren’t consistently spending more than they collect. So, once again our government is in the hole. Whaddya say…let’s fill in the hole and close it? Let’s bury those suckers once and for all…just like they have burying us under an avalanche of debt for all these years.
What if…President Obama got a clue? I know, won’t happen.
Comments are welcome. cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Conservatives, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Federalists, Tea Partiers, Sons of Liberty, Liberty First, Smart Girls, Freedom Works, Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity and other advocates for a smaller, accountable federal government assembled in a room around a circular table? Perhaps they could agree to band together for just one national election in order to promote thoroughly vetted, totally reliable coalition candidates for president and vice president of the United States of America. They could unite under one principled banner—to reduce the size of the federal monstrosity and implement stringent measures to assure accountability (e.g. recall measures, term limits, whatever). Each party or organization would retain its autonomy for local, state and congressional campaigns, but would support the top-of-the-ticket candidates. The name of the merged group could be RPO coalition—meaning the radically P. O’d assembly of citizens. So, can we get it done in time for 2012? Maybe. I must stop now because the Tooth Fairy is leaving, and Santa Claus is coming.
What if…frogs had wings?
What if…
The men in leadership of the Republican Party grew onions as big as some of the ladies of the GOP seem to have? Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn are not afraid to challenge the socialist monkeys with blunt talk, meanwhile Boehner and McConnell use D.C.-speak to protest the Dem’s roughshod behavior. Even the lady pundits are more straightforward. Malkin, Coulter, Ingraham, Cupp and others tell it like it is. As a reformed politician, I’ve known the type for years: Perfectly coiffed hair, steel-strong starched collar, top-grade suit and vague, non-committal language…and no guts. If I went into battle with most of those guys, I certainly wouldn’t want them behind me.
What if…
In lieu of raising the debt ceiling to 14 Trillion dollars, Congress had simply distributed the amount among the populace? A tidy sum of 46, 666 dollars would have been available for every woman, man and rug rat in the country. The spending surge would have generated a tsunami of economic activity that might have overcome some of the dislocations in the federal balance sheet. Just imagine, The Duggars with their 19 little Duggars would collect $979, 986. Wow, one more kiddling and they could have more than a million. The wife and I could have taken our 93 grand and donated some to Harry Reid’s campaign fund…maybe not. I know this is a pipe dream (even pipes have more realistic dreams than this). Plus, I don’t want Washington to take my money, skim it and shrink it, and send some loose change back. I want to hang on to it and decide how to spend it myself. I believe that I would do so more effectively…and more compassionately than Big Brother. I might not be so hostile to government spending if it were done with accountability and sensibility…and if they weren’t consistently spending more than they collect. So, once again our government is in the hole. Whaddya say…let’s fill in the hole and close it? Let’s bury those suckers once and for all…just like they have burying us under an avalanche of debt for all these years.
What if…President Obama got a clue? I know, won’t happen.
Comments are welcome. cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Camel's New Quarters
The camel has moved so far into the tent that he is poisoning the air with his flatulent methane. Government encroachment on every aspect of our lives has progressed from a disturbing possibility to an alarming probability. Aside from the pending healthcare debacle, the latest assault on our freedom comes from the E.P.A., the Environmental Protection Agency…or is that the Egregious Policy Adopters? So, their mission is to protect the environment, but they stink it up instead…big time. They’ve threatened the Congress (something that I would like to do from time to time) that if our dearly beloved elected representatives do not implement the hyper-noxious Cap and Trade (i.e. cap and tax), then the unelected bureaucrats at the agency will initiate “command and control” policies and procedures regarding carbon emissions. In other words: “If you legislators don’t do what we want, we will usurp your unique authority for law and policy and do what we want. Stick that up your ***, Congress.” Who’s in charge of this popsicle cart?
It is not unusual for bureaucrats to run amok, but this attempted blackmail is unbelievably brazen.
The next area of government overreach that I want to share with you involves our bodies of water here in the United States. I apologize that I have misplaced my research on this issue (yes, I do research), so I’ll have to wing it with more generalities that I would like. An agency of the federal government that has responsibility for navigable waterways is under consideration for a much broader scope of oversight. I do not recall if it’s the EPA, the Coast Guard, Interior or some other unelected branch of government, and I don’t remember if it’s a legislative proposal or agency rule making, but the end game is a massive increase in government power to regulate and restrict every body of water in the country. If this ominous prospect comes to fruition, then perhaps we could create a new federal agency—PPP&PS, puddles, pools, ponds and pond scum, too. I’m fortunate to have a three-quarter acre pond here on my little patch of paradise. I neither need nor want some robotic, bean-counting, pencil-pushing, civil servant geek telling me I have too many bluegills (they’re like rabbits) or catfish in my personal puddle…or that my single speckled trout is lonely. Stay away, and if you do come here, go away…NOW!
Last night (Wednesday) I had the opportunity to listen to Mark Levin for a while. He was speaking in his usual high-speed, hyperbolic mode about a sacred USDA program. Levin stated that a study had determined that up to forty per cent of the meat and chicken provided to the school lunch program by the federal government was substandard. The meat failed to qualify for Taco Bell, Arby’s or McDonalds. It was determined that a large portion of the chicken came from spent layers…old egg producers whose value had diminished. Campbell’s claimed that they stopped using spent layers more than a decade ago for their soup products. So, the same government that wants to assume control of your healthcare is knowingly providing substandard meat and chicken for daily lunches for up to 60% of U.S. school students. Isn’t that special?
This column was begun with a discussion of the camel’s moving into the tent. Don’t fret. The government (USDA) will probably incorporate the camel into the school lunch program.
As always, your comments or emails are encouraged: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
It is not unusual for bureaucrats to run amok, but this attempted blackmail is unbelievably brazen.
The next area of government overreach that I want to share with you involves our bodies of water here in the United States. I apologize that I have misplaced my research on this issue (yes, I do research), so I’ll have to wing it with more generalities that I would like. An agency of the federal government that has responsibility for navigable waterways is under consideration for a much broader scope of oversight. I do not recall if it’s the EPA, the Coast Guard, Interior or some other unelected branch of government, and I don’t remember if it’s a legislative proposal or agency rule making, but the end game is a massive increase in government power to regulate and restrict every body of water in the country. If this ominous prospect comes to fruition, then perhaps we could create a new federal agency—PPP&PS, puddles, pools, ponds and pond scum, too. I’m fortunate to have a three-quarter acre pond here on my little patch of paradise. I neither need nor want some robotic, bean-counting, pencil-pushing, civil servant geek telling me I have too many bluegills (they’re like rabbits) or catfish in my personal puddle…or that my single speckled trout is lonely. Stay away, and if you do come here, go away…NOW!
Last night (Wednesday) I had the opportunity to listen to Mark Levin for a while. He was speaking in his usual high-speed, hyperbolic mode about a sacred USDA program. Levin stated that a study had determined that up to forty per cent of the meat and chicken provided to the school lunch program by the federal government was substandard. The meat failed to qualify for Taco Bell, Arby’s or McDonalds. It was determined that a large portion of the chicken came from spent layers…old egg producers whose value had diminished. Campbell’s claimed that they stopped using spent layers more than a decade ago for their soup products. So, the same government that wants to assume control of your healthcare is knowingly providing substandard meat and chicken for daily lunches for up to 60% of U.S. school students. Isn’t that special?
This column was begun with a discussion of the camel’s moving into the tent. Don’t fret. The government (USDA) will probably incorporate the camel into the school lunch program.
As always, your comments or emails are encouraged: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Amateur Hour
Is it idiocy, naivete, ignorance or lunacy that drives the administration’s economic policies? I’ll reluctantly give them a pass for the original TARP package because that was driven by the Bush White House but with eager participation by many in the current leadership. Each attempt to address a sector of the economy seems larger and less effective than those that preceded it. We’ve migrated from discussing hundreds of billions of dollars to nonchalantly speaking of trillions. The national bank account is overdrawn, the promises made by the government to our citizens are largely unfunded, and those who have been lending us the funds for this spending binge are becoming antsy. So, how do I really feel about the administration and its congressional co-conspirators? Please play. Sally Ann Howe captures my sentiments with uncanny precision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQDiKGRut80
So, the President has proposed a “new” stimulus package partially funded by TARP funds that have been returned by affected financial institutions (it’s probably illegal-funds allocated for one purpose cannot be diverted for another). If you were to examine the first stimulus package ($868 B—chicken feed), you might note that an extraordinary portion of the funds were targeted for governmental agencies and NGO’s who provide “services” under the auspices of government watchdogs. Because the government’s reporting data are unclear, it is difficult to ascertain just how many jobs were “created or saved” by the initial stimulus of 2009. In addition, the dearth of specificity in the data makes it impossible to identify if those “created and saved jobs” were in the private sector or the public realm. I have no facts (they won’t produce them), but I suspect that if we could acquire hard data, we would discover that the overwhelming beneficiaries of Stimulus I are public sector entities.
To date, only about forty per cent (40%) of Stimulus I has been distributed, and yet the administration is aggressively promoting a second round. To me, an humble old country boy, it seems as if the inmates were running the asylum. Their modus operandi appears to follow this pattern: declare a crisis, hastily construct a massive unintelligible bill, pass it quickly in the dark of night, and blame the Bush administration. After the new legislation proves to be inadequate or ineffective, then declare another crisis and repeat the pattern.
Meanwhile the deficit grows geometrically as the funds for each “crisis-solving” piece of legislation is passed. There are only three areas of true growth under this Obama/Reid/Pelosi formula. They are: the debt, the deficit, and government. The private sector, meanwhile, is either stagnant or shrinking. The only segments that have consistently demonstrated growth in the last three quarters are healthcare and the sale of firearms and ammo (maybe commodities especially gold). So, the Administration’s driving purpose appears to be that it wants to throw money at every perceived problem—something like ‘whack-a-mole.’ And government continues to grow. I titled this piece “Amateur Hour” because the approach in Washington is nonsensical and counterintuitive, but I wish it were the “Gong Show” so that I could bang the magic twanger and get them off the stage.
Your comments are appreciated. Use the comment link or write cnpearl@woh.rr.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQDiKGRut80
So, the President has proposed a “new” stimulus package partially funded by TARP funds that have been returned by affected financial institutions (it’s probably illegal-funds allocated for one purpose cannot be diverted for another). If you were to examine the first stimulus package ($868 B—chicken feed), you might note that an extraordinary portion of the funds were targeted for governmental agencies and NGO’s who provide “services” under the auspices of government watchdogs. Because the government’s reporting data are unclear, it is difficult to ascertain just how many jobs were “created or saved” by the initial stimulus of 2009. In addition, the dearth of specificity in the data makes it impossible to identify if those “created and saved jobs” were in the private sector or the public realm. I have no facts (they won’t produce them), but I suspect that if we could acquire hard data, we would discover that the overwhelming beneficiaries of Stimulus I are public sector entities.
To date, only about forty per cent (40%) of Stimulus I has been distributed, and yet the administration is aggressively promoting a second round. To me, an humble old country boy, it seems as if the inmates were running the asylum. Their modus operandi appears to follow this pattern: declare a crisis, hastily construct a massive unintelligible bill, pass it quickly in the dark of night, and blame the Bush administration. After the new legislation proves to be inadequate or ineffective, then declare another crisis and repeat the pattern.
Meanwhile the deficit grows geometrically as the funds for each “crisis-solving” piece of legislation is passed. There are only three areas of true growth under this Obama/Reid/Pelosi formula. They are: the debt, the deficit, and government. The private sector, meanwhile, is either stagnant or shrinking. The only segments that have consistently demonstrated growth in the last three quarters are healthcare and the sale of firearms and ammo (maybe commodities especially gold). So, the Administration’s driving purpose appears to be that it wants to throw money at every perceived problem—something like ‘whack-a-mole.’ And government continues to grow. I titled this piece “Amateur Hour” because the approach in Washington is nonsensical and counterintuitive, but I wish it were the “Gong Show” so that I could bang the magic twanger and get them off the stage.
Your comments are appreciated. Use the comment link or write cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
One for All
For a community or a government to protect individual freedom it must be based on moral behavior. There are some schools of thought that morality is strictly an individual consideration (e.g. relativism), but in order for a community of individuals to flourish, there should be a consensus regarding what constitutes moral behavior. Any other paradigm leads to anarchy and chaos. It seems apparent to me that in the United States today the moral foundations have crumbled, and we are balancing on the edge of mayhem. Although I believe the culture has become depraved, it is the moral structure of the body politic that I address today.
It is vital for a democratic republic that the citizens and the elected representatives share a moral vision that defines the public good while, at the same time, provides for maximum personal freedom. Clearly, there are elements of national existence that require collective action…national defense, foreign affairs, adjudication of contract disputes plus fair and just criminal codes…to name a few. If a democratically-based society is to survive and thrive, then the individual citizens must embrace a moral code that encourages maximum self expression while allowing for the coalescence of the nation to morally address issues of national concern. The Founders recognized the importance of the two-pronged approach and drafted a document (The Constitution) that provided the framework for its implementation. Sadly, over time the Founders’ vision has become distorted, and the Constitution has been twisted and perverted. Individual freedom, once shouted from the rooftops of the Republic, has been transformed into whimpering pleas from the cellars of the nation.
The Constitution and, theoretically, subsequent laws, rules and regulations represent a body of law that is anchored to a moral basis of individual liberty. Unfortunately, many of the laws (especially those expanding government power) have abandoned the anchor, and the country is adrift. Individual freedom has become a minor consideration in the governance of the Republic. It’s time for citizens who cherish their liberty to rise up and recapture the reins of power. How can this be achieved? By definition ..organizing individualists is akin to herding cats.
Please have patience as I identify those citizens most likely to successfully band together to seize the power and reassert the principles of personal liberty in the United States. First, let me state that I believe that people who cherish liberty are people of faith. In my view they represent three distinct points-of-view who share a burning passion for liberty. For the purposes of this discussion I’ll define them as believers, non-believers and anti-believers. Although these descriptions appear to be overly broad, I place them all in the context of faith…they’ve thought about faith, they’ve considered faith, and they’ve made decisions regarding faith. The believers have embraced supernatural faith. The non-believers have rationally chosen to ignore supernatural faith, and the anti-believers have determined that human capacity and human intellect are the sole determinants of human existence. In other words we have the believers, the rationalists and the humanists. Next I will describe how these various constituencies for freedom can successfully interact to restore individual liberty in the United States.
Because I am most familiar with the community of believers, I’ll begin with them. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one of a personal relationship with G_d. Although the Lord identified the Nation of Israel as His chosen people, He communicated through the Patriarchs and the prophets. Tradition Christian doctrine has emphasized the personal relationship via the act of salvation. The individual, recognizing that he/she is lost and depraved, accepts Christ (the Messiah) as Savior and is restored through Christ to a personal relationship with God. There have been some strains of thought within the church that have suggested universal salvation (everyone goes to heaven), but most traditional systematic theologies emphasize the personal nature of salvation and redemption. Anecdotally, one can note that in many societies across the globe, Christians are often persecuted or executed. The personal, individualistic elements of the faith make their allegiance and independence a threat to an autocratic society. In the United States today committed Christians are alarmed by governmental restrictions on the practicing of their faith. They see themselves as increasingly constrained. With good reason, many recognize that the Founders relied upon a Judeo-Christian foundation in the formation of the nation. It is understandable, therefore, that they equate the loss of personal liberty with the possibility of encroaching religious persecution. Because of their tragic history, the Jews have generally been apprehensive even to the point of fearing the motives of the Christians.
The non-believing rationalists just want to be left alone. They don’t want government dictating every little facet of their lives, and they don’t want the “church people” telling them how to live. They understand that there are instances that demand cooperation but do not want to be forced into unceasing alliances. Whether they know it or not, their guiding principle is Descartes “I think, therefore I am.” They examine the state of the nation and their personal position within it through the prism of ‘what makes sense.’ Rationalists are wary of believers…suspecting that their ultimate goal is the establishment of a theocratic state. Sometimes Rationalists suspect that believers are so heavenly focused that they’re no earthly good. To a lesser degree Rationalists view the humanists with some skepticism. Rationalists are aware of a universe beyond them. They choose to approach it rationally. The humanists, in their, view are too inner-directed…relying on feelings and perceptions.
True humanists as suggested above believe that all reality is based on the perception of the observer. The reason that anti-believing humanists would struggle to preserve individual freedom is that they resent any effort, by government or any ecclesiastical authority, to impose a definition of reality. They subscribe to the “to each his own” point of view. They yearn for …and demand that they have the freedom to maneuver within reality as they find it. An anecdotal example (an extreme one, I concede) of a dedicated humanist would be Cindy Sheehan. Her perception of the nation and its leadership seems extreme to many, but she endures…seeking to be heard.
So, how can we forge these disparate approaches into a coherent and effective force for freedom. Clearly, there is mistrust and distrust among them. Obviously, their goals and ends are at odds with one another. They share one overwhelming attribute: they have a burning passion for personal freedom. Each must yield some biases and reservations in order to achieve a common goal. The Believers, the community of faith, must be willing to forgo judgment, condemnation and proselytizing and allow the “fruits of the spirit” to be the evidence of faith while working in unity towards personal political freedom. The rationalists and humanists must refrain from minimizing and belittling the validity of faith-based commitment. Rationalists and people of faith must recognize that each human is either: a) created from the breath of God, or; b) rationality is projected from the internal to the other. Humanists must accept that recognition of a reality and source of Truth outside of the individual is not wild-eyed and bizarre, but is a means for understanding the unknowable. Total agreement and acceptance is not likely, but if these liberty loving individuals can put aside their vast differences, then perhaps this coalition can succeed.
None of these can restore freedom in the United States alone. For example, if evangelical Christians assume the mantle of restoration by themselves, the society-at-large fearing a movement to theocracy would vigorously fight them. The same is true for the other types of liberty restores. Everyone, whatever the theological or philosophical justification, who cherishes personal freedom must shed their biases and fight together…or individual liberty will ultimately perish in the United States of America.
Comments are encouraged: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Part I: Alone in the Crowd PartII: All for One Part III: One for All
It is vital for a democratic republic that the citizens and the elected representatives share a moral vision that defines the public good while, at the same time, provides for maximum personal freedom. Clearly, there are elements of national existence that require collective action…national defense, foreign affairs, adjudication of contract disputes plus fair and just criminal codes…to name a few. If a democratically-based society is to survive and thrive, then the individual citizens must embrace a moral code that encourages maximum self expression while allowing for the coalescence of the nation to morally address issues of national concern. The Founders recognized the importance of the two-pronged approach and drafted a document (The Constitution) that provided the framework for its implementation. Sadly, over time the Founders’ vision has become distorted, and the Constitution has been twisted and perverted. Individual freedom, once shouted from the rooftops of the Republic, has been transformed into whimpering pleas from the cellars of the nation.
The Constitution and, theoretically, subsequent laws, rules and regulations represent a body of law that is anchored to a moral basis of individual liberty. Unfortunately, many of the laws (especially those expanding government power) have abandoned the anchor, and the country is adrift. Individual freedom has become a minor consideration in the governance of the Republic. It’s time for citizens who cherish their liberty to rise up and recapture the reins of power. How can this be achieved? By definition ..organizing individualists is akin to herding cats.
Please have patience as I identify those citizens most likely to successfully band together to seize the power and reassert the principles of personal liberty in the United States. First, let me state that I believe that people who cherish liberty are people of faith. In my view they represent three distinct points-of-view who share a burning passion for liberty. For the purposes of this discussion I’ll define them as believers, non-believers and anti-believers. Although these descriptions appear to be overly broad, I place them all in the context of faith…they’ve thought about faith, they’ve considered faith, and they’ve made decisions regarding faith. The believers have embraced supernatural faith. The non-believers have rationally chosen to ignore supernatural faith, and the anti-believers have determined that human capacity and human intellect are the sole determinants of human existence. In other words we have the believers, the rationalists and the humanists. Next I will describe how these various constituencies for freedom can successfully interact to restore individual liberty in the United States.
Because I am most familiar with the community of believers, I’ll begin with them. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one of a personal relationship with G_d. Although the Lord identified the Nation of Israel as His chosen people, He communicated through the Patriarchs and the prophets. Tradition Christian doctrine has emphasized the personal relationship via the act of salvation. The individual, recognizing that he/she is lost and depraved, accepts Christ (the Messiah) as Savior and is restored through Christ to a personal relationship with God. There have been some strains of thought within the church that have suggested universal salvation (everyone goes to heaven), but most traditional systematic theologies emphasize the personal nature of salvation and redemption. Anecdotally, one can note that in many societies across the globe, Christians are often persecuted or executed. The personal, individualistic elements of the faith make their allegiance and independence a threat to an autocratic society. In the United States today committed Christians are alarmed by governmental restrictions on the practicing of their faith. They see themselves as increasingly constrained. With good reason, many recognize that the Founders relied upon a Judeo-Christian foundation in the formation of the nation. It is understandable, therefore, that they equate the loss of personal liberty with the possibility of encroaching religious persecution. Because of their tragic history, the Jews have generally been apprehensive even to the point of fearing the motives of the Christians.
The non-believing rationalists just want to be left alone. They don’t want government dictating every little facet of their lives, and they don’t want the “church people” telling them how to live. They understand that there are instances that demand cooperation but do not want to be forced into unceasing alliances. Whether they know it or not, their guiding principle is Descartes “I think, therefore I am.” They examine the state of the nation and their personal position within it through the prism of ‘what makes sense.’ Rationalists are wary of believers…suspecting that their ultimate goal is the establishment of a theocratic state. Sometimes Rationalists suspect that believers are so heavenly focused that they’re no earthly good. To a lesser degree Rationalists view the humanists with some skepticism. Rationalists are aware of a universe beyond them. They choose to approach it rationally. The humanists, in their, view are too inner-directed…relying on feelings and perceptions.
True humanists as suggested above believe that all reality is based on the perception of the observer. The reason that anti-believing humanists would struggle to preserve individual freedom is that they resent any effort, by government or any ecclesiastical authority, to impose a definition of reality. They subscribe to the “to each his own” point of view. They yearn for …and demand that they have the freedom to maneuver within reality as they find it. An anecdotal example (an extreme one, I concede) of a dedicated humanist would be Cindy Sheehan. Her perception of the nation and its leadership seems extreme to many, but she endures…seeking to be heard.
So, how can we forge these disparate approaches into a coherent and effective force for freedom. Clearly, there is mistrust and distrust among them. Obviously, their goals and ends are at odds with one another. They share one overwhelming attribute: they have a burning passion for personal freedom. Each must yield some biases and reservations in order to achieve a common goal. The Believers, the community of faith, must be willing to forgo judgment, condemnation and proselytizing and allow the “fruits of the spirit” to be the evidence of faith while working in unity towards personal political freedom. The rationalists and humanists must refrain from minimizing and belittling the validity of faith-based commitment. Rationalists and people of faith must recognize that each human is either: a) created from the breath of God, or; b) rationality is projected from the internal to the other. Humanists must accept that recognition of a reality and source of Truth outside of the individual is not wild-eyed and bizarre, but is a means for understanding the unknowable. Total agreement and acceptance is not likely, but if these liberty loving individuals can put aside their vast differences, then perhaps this coalition can succeed.
None of these can restore freedom in the United States alone. For example, if evangelical Christians assume the mantle of restoration by themselves, the society-at-large fearing a movement to theocracy would vigorously fight them. The same is true for the other types of liberty restores. Everyone, whatever the theological or philosophical justification, who cherishes personal freedom must shed their biases and fight together…or individual liberty will ultimately perish in the United States of America.
Comments are encouraged: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Part I: Alone in the Crowd PartII: All for One Part III: One for All
Monday, December 7, 2009
All for One
According to those eminent philosophers, Three Dog Night, “One is the loneliest number.” Though lonely, it is the most basic number, and thus, the individual is the basic component of a group, a community, a state or a planet. There may be other people who resemble us physically, culturally and intellectually, but because each of us is unique, they do not match us exactly. There is evidence, in fact, that cloned creatures exhibit some behavioral differences from their sources. Each of us possesses a composite of attitudes, physical attributes, preferences, dreams and goals that segregate us from others who may be similar. While there may be compelling biological explanations for the variations among us, those unique elements are the underlying justification for engaged monotheism. Each individual has a personal relationship with the Creator who, in turn, acknowledges the individual as unique.
One does not need a theological justification for recognizing true individuality. Rational observation illuminates that people differ in many ways. Simple deductive reasoning illustrates that no two people are exactly alike. Some can protest that it is impossible to know everyone on the planet, ergo there may be a series of exact duplicates scattered around the planet. O.K., so my Somali twin and I share which attributes? Biological science reinforces uniqueness. Each of us has our own retinal scans, fingerprints and DNA (Tiger Woods is aware of this). Despite superficial similarities, each of us is a unique individual. So, we can conclude that individuals are unique through theological, biological and observational methods of inquiry.
In spite of our individuality, there times we choose to “run with the pack.” Although there may be some inherent biological impulse to associate with others, it still remains a choice. From an historical perspective, early settlers in the United States (or the colonies) joined together to “raise” barns and for defensive purposes. They formed churches and social groups to enhance their relationships with one another and to broaden the pool for potential mates. In every case the associations were voluntary although there was some ostracism when it was deemed that an individual was not contributing to the community good. The individual, however, remained as the primary component of the community, and many people on the frontier periodically pulled up roots and relocated further to the west to escape too much “crowding.”
If the individual is the basic unit from a theological, biological and observational perspective, why is it that current society appears to want to suppress individuality—at least in a political milieu? Aberrant and audacious behavior are tolerated or encouraged in social intercourse, dress and entertainment, but forceful individualism is often marginalized in the political realm. “Wacko’s, weirdo’s, loons” are just a few of the pejoratives that are used to characterize those who resent being forced to become one of “sheeple.” Although some elements of voluntary association still remain, an ever-growing government has preempted many aspects of everyday life there were once the province of individuals.
The state, if it has not been formed by conquest, is a voluntary organization. The United States of America was formed by the voluntary association of the thirteen original colonies. The Constitution is the fundamental document of that voluntary banding that defines and limits the power of the federal government relative to the individual states and their citizens. Today we discover a massive federal structure that overrides the separate states and ignores the individual. The ability to act individually is unfettered freedom. Any voluntary association will necessitate that an individual relinquish some element of freedom in order to become a member. In the simplest form, a member will sacrifice Tuesday evenings to attend a Lion’s Club meeting. Consistent failure to attend could result in the member’s name being removed from the roll. The government’s relationship with the individual is much more coercive that the Lion’s Club. Failure to comply with government’s myriad rules and regulations leads to sanctions and penalties. Individual freedom is relegated to those minor areas of life where the government has not yet expressed its will.
One of the great tragic consequences of the growth of the federal government is that the states and local entities have grown at nearly the same rate. Some of the growth is a result of federal mandates and revenue sharing schemes, and other areas of proliferation come about because of the misplaced sense of mandate that local politicians assume. Each new rule, law or regulation erodes the liberty of someone(s). Given the nature of government evolution in recent decades, it seems that many rugged individualists are forced to join together to stop the “Blob” from consuming them.
The next entry in this series will explore how and why individuals should band together to salvage their freedom.
Please comment to: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Part I: Alone in the Crowd
Part II: All for One
One does not need a theological justification for recognizing true individuality. Rational observation illuminates that people differ in many ways. Simple deductive reasoning illustrates that no two people are exactly alike. Some can protest that it is impossible to know everyone on the planet, ergo there may be a series of exact duplicates scattered around the planet. O.K., so my Somali twin and I share which attributes? Biological science reinforces uniqueness. Each of us has our own retinal scans, fingerprints and DNA (Tiger Woods is aware of this). Despite superficial similarities, each of us is a unique individual. So, we can conclude that individuals are unique through theological, biological and observational methods of inquiry.
In spite of our individuality, there times we choose to “run with the pack.” Although there may be some inherent biological impulse to associate with others, it still remains a choice. From an historical perspective, early settlers in the United States (or the colonies) joined together to “raise” barns and for defensive purposes. They formed churches and social groups to enhance their relationships with one another and to broaden the pool for potential mates. In every case the associations were voluntary although there was some ostracism when it was deemed that an individual was not contributing to the community good. The individual, however, remained as the primary component of the community, and many people on the frontier periodically pulled up roots and relocated further to the west to escape too much “crowding.”
If the individual is the basic unit from a theological, biological and observational perspective, why is it that current society appears to want to suppress individuality—at least in a political milieu? Aberrant and audacious behavior are tolerated or encouraged in social intercourse, dress and entertainment, but forceful individualism is often marginalized in the political realm. “Wacko’s, weirdo’s, loons” are just a few of the pejoratives that are used to characterize those who resent being forced to become one of “sheeple.” Although some elements of voluntary association still remain, an ever-growing government has preempted many aspects of everyday life there were once the province of individuals.
The state, if it has not been formed by conquest, is a voluntary organization. The United States of America was formed by the voluntary association of the thirteen original colonies. The Constitution is the fundamental document of that voluntary banding that defines and limits the power of the federal government relative to the individual states and their citizens. Today we discover a massive federal structure that overrides the separate states and ignores the individual. The ability to act individually is unfettered freedom. Any voluntary association will necessitate that an individual relinquish some element of freedom in order to become a member. In the simplest form, a member will sacrifice Tuesday evenings to attend a Lion’s Club meeting. Consistent failure to attend could result in the member’s name being removed from the roll. The government’s relationship with the individual is much more coercive that the Lion’s Club. Failure to comply with government’s myriad rules and regulations leads to sanctions and penalties. Individual freedom is relegated to those minor areas of life where the government has not yet expressed its will.
One of the great tragic consequences of the growth of the federal government is that the states and local entities have grown at nearly the same rate. Some of the growth is a result of federal mandates and revenue sharing schemes, and other areas of proliferation come about because of the misplaced sense of mandate that local politicians assume. Each new rule, law or regulation erodes the liberty of someone(s). Given the nature of government evolution in recent decades, it seems that many rugged individualists are forced to join together to stop the “Blob” from consuming them.
The next entry in this series will explore how and why individuals should band together to salvage their freedom.
Please comment to: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Part I: Alone in the Crowd
Part II: All for One
Friday, December 4, 2009
Alone in the crowd.
The current debates surrounding various issues at all levels of government expose a fundamental tension inherent in self government. Who should reign supreme, the state (the collective) or the individual? The friction can be characterized in a number of ways, but one of the more common ones is “security versus freedom.” This is a false dichotomy because when one looses freedom, then security is at risk. In other words, when others make your choices for you, who will guarantee that those choices will be the optimal ones for you? As Ben Franklin stated,”Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.”
In a political sense, the tug-of-war between the individual and society is fundamentally confined to democracies or republics, that is political systems that have a broad franchise with clear choices for voters. One-party states and tyrannies limit the individual and forces him or her into a collective mode. In an individually based structure, the citizen can choose to vote, act or think with or for the group. The collective or statist organization discourages or prohibits individual behavior. Thus, individually-centered communities can choose to become more collective or statist, but members of a tyrannical society cannot promote or encourage individualism without facing ostracism or bodily peril. To reiterate an old cliché: you can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube.
For a free people to ask the government to do more for them leads to an inevitable slide into tyranny. Each new role assumed by the state chips away at the bedrock of individual freedom. Again, an old cliché: the Golden Rule of business and government, he who has the gold…rules. They who have been ceded the power will wield it. After some time the state will not wait for the power to be given to it, it will assert its authority and assume the power. The nanny-state exercises power to protect the people from themselves, but as government continues to unabatedly become larger, the state begins to use power to protect itself from the people.
People who live in democratic societies may choose to become more collectivist for several reasons. A misplaced sense of compassion may lead them to conclude that “society” has an obligation to care for those in “need.” Human nature and our unique differences assure that the compassionate nirvana is never achieved. There are and always will be individuals whose circumstances place them out of the mainstream. The call for government remedies for an increasing number of perceived shortcomings leads to enhanced government power. Massive bureaucracies are developed to address the needs of the individuals, and after a time, it is discovered that some are “falling through the cracks.” New programs with greater government power are created to assure that all are treated fairly.
Political considerations are another motivation for increasing state influence. Often driven by ideology, statists believe that their way, their belief system, their method of governing is far superior to any alternative. Once they have their hands on the reins of power, they do not release them. They nurture the government leviathan so that they may exercise power and control. Dissent is either ridiculed or crushed.
Indifference is a major contributor to the loss of freedom and the growth of the state. Softball games, television shows, dining out, family vacations and a myriad other activities compete for thoughtful consideration. Fighting for individualism requires energy, passion and knowledge. It’s easier for people to leave the battle to others and kinda’ hope for a good outcome. Once individual rights have eroded to the tipping point, then the indifferent ones wring their hands and mutely cheer for the warriors who charge the barricades
Insolence is a big contributor to growth of government. Certain elites, either via education or wealth, determine that they alone are worthy for charting the course of the nation. The other citizens, they believe, lack the sophistication and knowledge to steer the state through perilous times. They implement programs that patronize the recipients, but none-the-less cause the government to grow as they make more people dependent on their largesse.
A final attribute that I will identify as a freedom-eroding, government bloating enabler is ignorance. Citizens don’t care, or they want more from government so they don’t have to do it themselves. They ignorantly sell themselves into serfdom because they believe they’re getting something for nothing from the government…or “I’ve paid taxes all my life, and they owe me this.” Some of them drool and grovel for government jobs because of minimal layoffs and rather slack work requirements.
Clearly, the descriptions that I have laid out above are not exclusive. Some big-state enhancers combine several of the categories. In my view, all are dangerous and toxic. In a future blog I will examine individualism and its motivations. Then, in a later one I will examine ways for freedom loving people to challenge the collective impulse.
Please feel free to comment. I cherish your feedback-positive or negative. If you prefer, you can email me at cnpearl@woh.rr.com
In a political sense, the tug-of-war between the individual and society is fundamentally confined to democracies or republics, that is political systems that have a broad franchise with clear choices for voters. One-party states and tyrannies limit the individual and forces him or her into a collective mode. In an individually based structure, the citizen can choose to vote, act or think with or for the group. The collective or statist organization discourages or prohibits individual behavior. Thus, individually-centered communities can choose to become more collective or statist, but members of a tyrannical society cannot promote or encourage individualism without facing ostracism or bodily peril. To reiterate an old cliché: you can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube.
For a free people to ask the government to do more for them leads to an inevitable slide into tyranny. Each new role assumed by the state chips away at the bedrock of individual freedom. Again, an old cliché: the Golden Rule of business and government, he who has the gold…rules. They who have been ceded the power will wield it. After some time the state will not wait for the power to be given to it, it will assert its authority and assume the power. The nanny-state exercises power to protect the people from themselves, but as government continues to unabatedly become larger, the state begins to use power to protect itself from the people.
People who live in democratic societies may choose to become more collectivist for several reasons. A misplaced sense of compassion may lead them to conclude that “society” has an obligation to care for those in “need.” Human nature and our unique differences assure that the compassionate nirvana is never achieved. There are and always will be individuals whose circumstances place them out of the mainstream. The call for government remedies for an increasing number of perceived shortcomings leads to enhanced government power. Massive bureaucracies are developed to address the needs of the individuals, and after a time, it is discovered that some are “falling through the cracks.” New programs with greater government power are created to assure that all are treated fairly.
Political considerations are another motivation for increasing state influence. Often driven by ideology, statists believe that their way, their belief system, their method of governing is far superior to any alternative. Once they have their hands on the reins of power, they do not release them. They nurture the government leviathan so that they may exercise power and control. Dissent is either ridiculed or crushed.
Indifference is a major contributor to the loss of freedom and the growth of the state. Softball games, television shows, dining out, family vacations and a myriad other activities compete for thoughtful consideration. Fighting for individualism requires energy, passion and knowledge. It’s easier for people to leave the battle to others and kinda’ hope for a good outcome. Once individual rights have eroded to the tipping point, then the indifferent ones wring their hands and mutely cheer for the warriors who charge the barricades
Insolence is a big contributor to growth of government. Certain elites, either via education or wealth, determine that they alone are worthy for charting the course of the nation. The other citizens, they believe, lack the sophistication and knowledge to steer the state through perilous times. They implement programs that patronize the recipients, but none-the-less cause the government to grow as they make more people dependent on their largesse.
A final attribute that I will identify as a freedom-eroding, government bloating enabler is ignorance. Citizens don’t care, or they want more from government so they don’t have to do it themselves. They ignorantly sell themselves into serfdom because they believe they’re getting something for nothing from the government…or “I’ve paid taxes all my life, and they owe me this.” Some of them drool and grovel for government jobs because of minimal layoffs and rather slack work requirements.
Clearly, the descriptions that I have laid out above are not exclusive. Some big-state enhancers combine several of the categories. In my view, all are dangerous and toxic. In a future blog I will examine individualism and its motivations. Then, in a later one I will examine ways for freedom loving people to challenge the collective impulse.
Please feel free to comment. I cherish your feedback-positive or negative. If you prefer, you can email me at cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Vain musings
After experiencing a massive attack of brain freeze while pondering topics (too many) for today’s blog, I decided to do one similar to “Taking Shots” from two weeks ago. The reason for this title, Vain Musings, is that the President used the personal pronoun at least 36 times during his Tuesday evening address from West Point, so I (that’s two) thought that I (3) would try to match him.
Sane Musings:
Doesn’t it seem as if there are too many balls up in the air for us to have favorable outcomes? The economy, unemployment, erosion of manufacturing, shaky financial sector, falling home values, exploding national debt (long term), huge personal debt, massive deficits (annual), unfunded future liabilities, the baby boomers reaching retirement with escalating healthcare costs, health care (overblown in my view), energy dependence, water needs and shortages, tax-crazy politicians, lousy television (257 channels and nothin’ on), inflation/deflation, buy gold/buy land. My head hurts just doing this partial list.
Tiger Woods is a fool. Sorry, I (4) had to say that. People sometimes believe that if they had talent and money, they would have no problems. Original sin infects us all.
Government employment is currently the only sector with growth.
Dogs are cool. Good dogs are irreplaceable. This could work for spouses also…sometimes.
Insane Musings:
Do the people who buy tabloids and read them…vote? Who are Jon and Kate?
Did Charlie Weis have a “decided schematic advantage” for cleaning out his office?
If vegans convince everyone to not eat meat because animal flatulence “causes” global warming, what will be the primary source of protein?...beans…hmmmmm.
If I (5) were an Islamic terrorist, I (6) would think that Las Vegas, New Orleans and San Francisco would be logical targets based on teachings of the Quran.
Do monkeys think that Darwin was nuts? Has the apocryphal monkey typed out “War and Peace” yet? Is he still trying?
Why do we applaud for old people at events? I (7) mean, O.K., she’s 91 and made it to the event, so why applaud? Is that an illustration that “showing up” is good enough?
Inane Musings:
Do people who believe that “you can have your cake and eat it, too” become thieves and con artists?
Home is where the heart is unless…you’re Tiger Woods, John Edwards or Mark Sanford.
I (7) like hammers…not too many parts.
My plastic flowers died. Gonna’ get silk ones next year.
I (8) understand that pain and suffering are inevitable, but do they have to hurt?
Why do I (9) feel compelled to engage in frequent unintentional attempts at self mutilation in my woodworking shop?
Why do I get those crazy pop ups on one the sites I (11) visit? It boldly proclaims that I (12) can meet sexy singles. Yeah right, I’m (13) not Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt. I’m (14) more like Wally Cox or Richard Simmons.
Why don’t I (15) end this frivolous exercise while I (16) can? So, I’ll (17) stammer my way out of here…IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (18-37). There…more egomaniacal than he.
Sane Musings:
Doesn’t it seem as if there are too many balls up in the air for us to have favorable outcomes? The economy, unemployment, erosion of manufacturing, shaky financial sector, falling home values, exploding national debt (long term), huge personal debt, massive deficits (annual), unfunded future liabilities, the baby boomers reaching retirement with escalating healthcare costs, health care (overblown in my view), energy dependence, water needs and shortages, tax-crazy politicians, lousy television (257 channels and nothin’ on), inflation/deflation, buy gold/buy land. My head hurts just doing this partial list.
Tiger Woods is a fool. Sorry, I (4) had to say that. People sometimes believe that if they had talent and money, they would have no problems. Original sin infects us all.
Government employment is currently the only sector with growth.
Dogs are cool. Good dogs are irreplaceable. This could work for spouses also…sometimes.
Insane Musings:
Do the people who buy tabloids and read them…vote? Who are Jon and Kate?
Did Charlie Weis have a “decided schematic advantage” for cleaning out his office?
If vegans convince everyone to not eat meat because animal flatulence “causes” global warming, what will be the primary source of protein?...beans…hmmmmm.
If I (5) were an Islamic terrorist, I (6) would think that Las Vegas, New Orleans and San Francisco would be logical targets based on teachings of the Quran.
Do monkeys think that Darwin was nuts? Has the apocryphal monkey typed out “War and Peace” yet? Is he still trying?
Why do we applaud for old people at events? I (7) mean, O.K., she’s 91 and made it to the event, so why applaud? Is that an illustration that “showing up” is good enough?
Inane Musings:
Do people who believe that “you can have your cake and eat it, too” become thieves and con artists?
Home is where the heart is unless…you’re Tiger Woods, John Edwards or Mark Sanford.
I (7) like hammers…not too many parts.
My plastic flowers died. Gonna’ get silk ones next year.
I (8) understand that pain and suffering are inevitable, but do they have to hurt?
Why do I (9) feel compelled to engage in frequent unintentional attempts at self mutilation in my woodworking shop?
Why do I get those crazy pop ups on one the sites I (11) visit? It boldly proclaims that I (12) can meet sexy singles. Yeah right, I’m (13) not Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt. I’m (14) more like Wally Cox or Richard Simmons.
Why don’t I (15) end this frivolous exercise while I (16) can? So, I’ll (17) stammer my way out of here…IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (18-37). There…more egomaniacal than he.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
House call
Why would anyone with a scintilla of intelligence promote big government? If one were to observe supertankers at sea, you would note that those huge ships are extremely difficult to maneuver. They can neither stop quickly nor turn on a dime. Government and large private bureaucracies are similar. When confronted with a catastrophe or faced with rapidly deteriorating conditions, bloated bureaucracies are generally ineffective. In and of itself a slow responding agency might be tolerable except for the fact that the government is often the party of last resort. In other words, if government cannot resolve the issue in a timely and effective manner, then no one else is in a position to remedy the situation.
One of the current battlegrounds surrounding the growth of government here in the United States is the debate about “healthcare reform.” This is the type of issue that is ripe for demagoguery as the various interested parties overwhelm us with multiple instances of anecdotal evidence either supporting or denigrating the proposals under consideration. Actually, the legislation that has been submitted thus far does not reform healthcare per se, rather the focus is on health insurance. I have not attempted to ascertain just how many health insurers there are in the United States, but I submit that if they were free to compete in all 50 states, then it seems likely that competition would radically enhance affordability. If there is only one source of insurance with no competitive restraints, then I would assume that costs will not be contained in a rational manner.
The debate has often centered on the quality of care as well as the cost. Well, I have an anecdotal gem for you. Nearly 32 years ago (February, 1978) I was diagnosed with Type I diabetes. With excellent doctors, phenomenal developments in medicines and technology, and some personal lifestyle changes, I am enjoying a robust life to the fullest. Next June I will celebrate my 64th birthday. When I was a mere whippersnapper, diabetes or “sugar” was deadly. One’s life was expected to be short and gruesome. I knew friends and relatives who suffered from the ravages of the disease, and I attended their funerals. After more than three decades with the disease, I do have some occasional discomfort, but if you didn’t know that I am a diabetic, you would not be able to discern it in a casual social setting. The issue is not health care.
There are remedies available for tweaking the system in ways that provide access to quality care for all citizens, and there are other mechanisms available for controlling costs without radically restructuring the health care delivery system. You do not tear down the house to repair a broken window…or several broken windows. You get new transparent glass and place it in the original framework. Then you glaze it to make certain that it does not get out of line. Personally, I would rather we dump the whole structure and morph into an individually-based cash system. I realize, though, that if I lead that movement, when I look behind me, I would be alone.
So, let’s tweak the current health care system to make it more accessible and more affordable for our neighbors, but let’s not let the government become the 800 pound gorilla in health care. I do not want Big Brother controlling every facet of my life. For example, if I own a shotgun for sporting purposes, I do not want the government telling me that firearms have been declared a health risk. “Give up the gun if you want to see your doctor.” I really detest having to write this, but I do not trust my government.
One of the current battlegrounds surrounding the growth of government here in the United States is the debate about “healthcare reform.” This is the type of issue that is ripe for demagoguery as the various interested parties overwhelm us with multiple instances of anecdotal evidence either supporting or denigrating the proposals under consideration. Actually, the legislation that has been submitted thus far does not reform healthcare per se, rather the focus is on health insurance. I have not attempted to ascertain just how many health insurers there are in the United States, but I submit that if they were free to compete in all 50 states, then it seems likely that competition would radically enhance affordability. If there is only one source of insurance with no competitive restraints, then I would assume that costs will not be contained in a rational manner.
The debate has often centered on the quality of care as well as the cost. Well, I have an anecdotal gem for you. Nearly 32 years ago (February, 1978) I was diagnosed with Type I diabetes. With excellent doctors, phenomenal developments in medicines and technology, and some personal lifestyle changes, I am enjoying a robust life to the fullest. Next June I will celebrate my 64th birthday. When I was a mere whippersnapper, diabetes or “sugar” was deadly. One’s life was expected to be short and gruesome. I knew friends and relatives who suffered from the ravages of the disease, and I attended their funerals. After more than three decades with the disease, I do have some occasional discomfort, but if you didn’t know that I am a diabetic, you would not be able to discern it in a casual social setting. The issue is not health care.
There are remedies available for tweaking the system in ways that provide access to quality care for all citizens, and there are other mechanisms available for controlling costs without radically restructuring the health care delivery system. You do not tear down the house to repair a broken window…or several broken windows. You get new transparent glass and place it in the original framework. Then you glaze it to make certain that it does not get out of line. Personally, I would rather we dump the whole structure and morph into an individually-based cash system. I realize, though, that if I lead that movement, when I look behind me, I would be alone.
So, let’s tweak the current health care system to make it more accessible and more affordable for our neighbors, but let’s not let the government become the 800 pound gorilla in health care. I do not want Big Brother controlling every facet of my life. For example, if I own a shotgun for sporting purposes, I do not want the government telling me that firearms have been declared a health risk. “Give up the gun if you want to see your doctor.” I really detest having to write this, but I do not trust my government.
Monday, November 30, 2009
AWOL reporters
Sometimes it seems as if the Main Stream Media (MSM) were sitting under the “cone of silence” with Control Agent Maxwell Smart and the Chief. Beguiling news items flash throughout the blogosphere and the MSM remains silent. The latest example of media malfeasance involves the leaked or hacked emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU). The intercepted communications indicated that a number of ideologically-driven climatologists were complicit in “cooking the books” regarding data about so-called climate change. When MSM’ers did address the matter, they were muted.
It seems to me that when an issue as comprehensive as man-made global warming/climate change is seriously discredited, then the media should be ferreting out the facts and providing their audiences with trustworthy information with which to make informed judgments. Nearly every facet of public policy in the United States has some climate change component or justification. For example, it has been mandated that we switch from incandescent light bulbs to the twisty (looks like an ice cream cone to me) florescent types. The newbie’s are supposed to last much longer, but their mercury component makes their disposal a touchy problem. The CAFÉ standards that have been imposed on the auto industry are said to be an effort to minimize CO2 emissions although my limited scientific knowledge reminds me that carbon monoxide is the primary exhausted fume.
The proposed “Cap and Trade” (Crap & Tax) legislation is far-reaching and would restrict various outputs all across the private and economic sectors. Please excuse the crudity but it has been proposed that animal flatulence be taxed because of the massive volumes of methane gas that is released. That raises a couple of questions in my mind: Who will measure cow farts to determine that ol’ Bessie is in violation? Whoa, a USDA Flatulence Specialist Grade II, Step 3 at $68,392.76 per year plus a government-provided vehicle. What about my dog? Good grief, Frosty could power a Prius on his bad days. So, do I have to pay a tax for Frosty’s excess gas?or can I configure a “Hefty” bag to capture the noxious doggie byproduct and sell it at my local Farmer’s Market? Does it matter if Frosty blasts his deadly cloud inside (usually in my study) or outside? If I can sell FrostyGas, will the price be regulated…are there quality standards?
If the media were doing their jobs, many of these questions would be answered. Or if the whole climate change scam were proven and reported to be bogus, then all (or most) of my questions would be moot. I say most because liberals and regulators cannot resist telling others how to live. That should be solely the province of God and parents. Read my lips, Clowns. Stay away from my lightbulbs ‘cause I don’t want to pollute landfills with mercury. Stay away from my tailpipe emissions. I reserve the option to suck on it when you boneheaded busybodies succeed at making my life absolutely miserable. Stay away from my dog. He’s sweet, he’s stupid and if he gets as fed up as his master, it could get ugly. Just sayin’.
So, come on, mass media. Do your job.
It seems to me that when an issue as comprehensive as man-made global warming/climate change is seriously discredited, then the media should be ferreting out the facts and providing their audiences with trustworthy information with which to make informed judgments. Nearly every facet of public policy in the United States has some climate change component or justification. For example, it has been mandated that we switch from incandescent light bulbs to the twisty (looks like an ice cream cone to me) florescent types. The newbie’s are supposed to last much longer, but their mercury component makes their disposal a touchy problem. The CAFÉ standards that have been imposed on the auto industry are said to be an effort to minimize CO2 emissions although my limited scientific knowledge reminds me that carbon monoxide is the primary exhausted fume.
The proposed “Cap and Trade” (Crap & Tax) legislation is far-reaching and would restrict various outputs all across the private and economic sectors. Please excuse the crudity but it has been proposed that animal flatulence be taxed because of the massive volumes of methane gas that is released. That raises a couple of questions in my mind: Who will measure cow farts to determine that ol’ Bessie is in violation? Whoa, a USDA Flatulence Specialist Grade II, Step 3 at $68,392.76 per year plus a government-provided vehicle. What about my dog? Good grief, Frosty could power a Prius on his bad days. So, do I have to pay a tax for Frosty’s excess gas?or can I configure a “Hefty” bag to capture the noxious doggie byproduct and sell it at my local Farmer’s Market? Does it matter if Frosty blasts his deadly cloud inside (usually in my study) or outside? If I can sell FrostyGas, will the price be regulated…are there quality standards?
If the media were doing their jobs, many of these questions would be answered. Or if the whole climate change scam were proven and reported to be bogus, then all (or most) of my questions would be moot. I say most because liberals and regulators cannot resist telling others how to live. That should be solely the province of God and parents. Read my lips, Clowns. Stay away from my lightbulbs ‘cause I don’t want to pollute landfills with mercury. Stay away from my tailpipe emissions. I reserve the option to suck on it when you boneheaded busybodies succeed at making my life absolutely miserable. Stay away from my dog. He’s sweet, he’s stupid and if he gets as fed up as his master, it could get ugly. Just sayin’.
So, come on, mass media. Do your job.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Bread and circuses
The decline of the Roman Empire was preceded by and concurrent with the citizens' fixations with diversion, entertainment and government-provided largesse. Gibbon's classic work identified the distractive aire that led to the Roman odyssey toward fun and frolic as opposed to practicing the behaviors of good citizenship. In many respects, the present path of the United States is similar to that of ancient Rome.
Our federal, state and local governments are spending us into oblivion while refusing to accept responsibility for their profligate actions. In their efforts to provide the "bread" of absolute personal security such as housing subsidies, food subsidies, healthcare provisions, the governmental entities have assumed (and ignored) massive financial obligations that are unsustainable and unredeemable. "You get what you pay for" is becoming ever more apparent. Government subsidized housing is generally substandard. Government food subsidies are frequently inadequate or nutritionally suspect. When we examine the present system of government healthcare delivery (VA, Medicare, Medicaid and various state and local programs), we see that the quality is remarkably uneven. So, there are some who wish to expand government's role in each sector.
Let's review the circuses in the present-day United States. "Survivor," "Big Brother," "The Osbornes," American Idol," "So You Think You Can Dance" are just a few of the brain-dead entertainment programming offerings. The proliferation of cable and personal music pakages (iPod, MP3 et al) suggests a populace that runs to the circus to avoid the responsibilities of truly engaged citizenship. We debate who should have won "Dancing with the Stars" while the foundations of our republic erode. We cry "foul" when the flawed BCS ignores a worthy team, and breathe nary a whimper when the Kelo decision is rendered. We have committed to memory all the batting averages of the Lansing Lugnuts, and we are clueless about our Congressperson's voting record. We mourn the loss of the prince of arrested development, Michael Jackson, and we are oblivious to the gradual loss of our freedoms.
We celebrate perversion and dysfunction. At the same time, we demean and deride those who reject the circus. Our citadels of culture on the east and west coasts belittle people of faith, and we are silent. Our courts and our legislators attempt to crush our opposition to aberrant behavior by legitimizing the bizarre and sanctioning those who object. The republic as envisioned by our founders is topsy-turvy. Although there a few voices of discontent, they've not yet reached the point of critical mass where the entire electorate speaks with one voice, "ENOUGH...WE'VE HAD ENOUGH!" If we fail to marshall the majority of citizens to halt the slide into obscurity, then we will get our pockets picked at the circus, and we will choke on the government bread.
Our federal, state and local governments are spending us into oblivion while refusing to accept responsibility for their profligate actions. In their efforts to provide the "bread" of absolute personal security such as housing subsidies, food subsidies, healthcare provisions, the governmental entities have assumed (and ignored) massive financial obligations that are unsustainable and unredeemable. "You get what you pay for" is becoming ever more apparent. Government subsidized housing is generally substandard. Government food subsidies are frequently inadequate or nutritionally suspect. When we examine the present system of government healthcare delivery (VA, Medicare, Medicaid and various state and local programs), we see that the quality is remarkably uneven. So, there are some who wish to expand government's role in each sector.
Let's review the circuses in the present-day United States. "Survivor," "Big Brother," "The Osbornes," American Idol," "So You Think You Can Dance" are just a few of the brain-dead entertainment programming offerings. The proliferation of cable and personal music pakages (iPod, MP3 et al) suggests a populace that runs to the circus to avoid the responsibilities of truly engaged citizenship. We debate who should have won "Dancing with the Stars" while the foundations of our republic erode. We cry "foul" when the flawed BCS ignores a worthy team, and breathe nary a whimper when the Kelo decision is rendered. We have committed to memory all the batting averages of the Lansing Lugnuts, and we are clueless about our Congressperson's voting record. We mourn the loss of the prince of arrested development, Michael Jackson, and we are oblivious to the gradual loss of our freedoms.
We celebrate perversion and dysfunction. At the same time, we demean and deride those who reject the circus. Our citadels of culture on the east and west coasts belittle people of faith, and we are silent. Our courts and our legislators attempt to crush our opposition to aberrant behavior by legitimizing the bizarre and sanctioning those who object. The republic as envisioned by our founders is topsy-turvy. Although there a few voices of discontent, they've not yet reached the point of critical mass where the entire electorate speaks with one voice, "ENOUGH...WE'VE HAD ENOUGH!" If we fail to marshall the majority of citizens to halt the slide into obscurity, then we will get our pockets picked at the circus, and we will choke on the government bread.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Terms of endearment
Congress is out of control. With the exception of a small cluster of patriots the bulk of the 535 members of the House and Senate have lost their collective minds. Facing a national debt that cannot be repaid and unfunded liabilities that cannot be sustained, Congress continues to spend the national wealth at a breath-taking pace. When families or households suffer an erosion of resources, they have to implement strategies to survive the crisis. They must implement cost-saving plans like purchasing generics rather than brand name items from the grocery store. This could be defined as a type of rationing. Does anyone with more than a single functioning brain cell believe that some sort of rationing will not be necessary for the plethora of government programs to continue? And what about the massive new programs that are coming down the pipeline? Check out the link. It says it all.
http://www.vidap.nl/napoleon/ Click the play arrow.
Philosophically, I have been opposed to term limits for political offices. I have believed that term limits denied the voters the opportunity to exercise true choices. There is, however, a medical crisis that has caused me to reconsider my position. It's called "Potomac Fever." There are local variations of this disease such as "Sacramento Sickness" in California, "Lansing Loopiness" in Michigan, "Columbus Cholera" in Ohio and "Albany Anemia" in New York. Each of the fifty states (57 if you're President Obama) has its own version of the dreaded, incurable sickness.
Prior to the development of the present miracles of medical science, it was commonplace for physicians to use leeches to "bleed" patients suffering from intense fever. The patient today, our nation, must be bled again, but we must start by eliminating the leeches first. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) has become the longest serving person in the history of the Congress. The former Grand Kleagle of the KKK has established a legacy as a master of pork. There are, I believe, porta potties named after him in his state. He hasn't been relevant since his little dog, Billy, went to that great kennel in the sky. Former senator, Strom Thurmond, held his office until he was in a semi-vegetative state. It's not the age of the politician that's at issue, but after so many years or decades of exposure to Potomac fever, the officeholder's judgement becomes radically impaired, and they begin to believe their own press clippings. Former Senator, J. William Fullbright (no favorite of mine, an unrepentant racist) had a book called "The Arrogance of Power." That title describes what happens too often when people serve too long.
We need the disinfectant of sun light on our national legislative body. For too long we, the citizens, have been treated as if we were a fungus...growing in the dark and frequently covered with crap or manure. It's the mushroom effect. It's time that we grow some legs and stand up for what is right. I have been against term limits because I believed the people should retain their power to decide who should represent them. I have changed my view. In many cases the voters have demonstrated that they are too lazy, too ignorant or too venal to make wise choices. Our country cannot afford to humor stupidity any longer. Term limits make cause us to lose a few good people but just a few. We can replace them, and maybe...just maybe...add a few more.
I'll develop my plan for term limits in a later blog, but I wanted to throw the idea on the table. Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day. I am thankful for my Lord who saved me, for my family who loves me, and for my country who lets me vent so openly. May God bless America.
http://www.vidap.nl/napoleon/ Click the play arrow.
Philosophically, I have been opposed to term limits for political offices. I have believed that term limits denied the voters the opportunity to exercise true choices. There is, however, a medical crisis that has caused me to reconsider my position. It's called "Potomac Fever." There are local variations of this disease such as "Sacramento Sickness" in California, "Lansing Loopiness" in Michigan, "Columbus Cholera" in Ohio and "Albany Anemia" in New York. Each of the fifty states (57 if you're President Obama) has its own version of the dreaded, incurable sickness.
Prior to the development of the present miracles of medical science, it was commonplace for physicians to use leeches to "bleed" patients suffering from intense fever. The patient today, our nation, must be bled again, but we must start by eliminating the leeches first. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) has become the longest serving person in the history of the Congress. The former Grand Kleagle of the KKK has established a legacy as a master of pork. There are, I believe, porta potties named after him in his state. He hasn't been relevant since his little dog, Billy, went to that great kennel in the sky. Former senator, Strom Thurmond, held his office until he was in a semi-vegetative state. It's not the age of the politician that's at issue, but after so many years or decades of exposure to Potomac fever, the officeholder's judgement becomes radically impaired, and they begin to believe their own press clippings. Former Senator, J. William Fullbright (no favorite of mine, an unrepentant racist) had a book called "The Arrogance of Power." That title describes what happens too often when people serve too long.
We need the disinfectant of sun light on our national legislative body. For too long we, the citizens, have been treated as if we were a fungus...growing in the dark and frequently covered with crap or manure. It's the mushroom effect. It's time that we grow some legs and stand up for what is right. I have been against term limits because I believed the people should retain their power to decide who should represent them. I have changed my view. In many cases the voters have demonstrated that they are too lazy, too ignorant or too venal to make wise choices. Our country cannot afford to humor stupidity any longer. Term limits make cause us to lose a few good people but just a few. We can replace them, and maybe...just maybe...add a few more.
I'll develop my plan for term limits in a later blog, but I wanted to throw the idea on the table. Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day. I am thankful for my Lord who saved me, for my family who loves me, and for my country who lets me vent so openly. May God bless America.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Six words that should be banned.
George Carlin had an old routine called "Seven Dirty Words." I'm not going to recreate that famous bit, but I do have six words that I believe should be banned as a unit. Individually the words are innocuous, perhaps even useful, but when phrased together, are quite damaging. These words can lead to a gradual erosion of our freedom. In fact, they already have. They are critical for the transferring of power from the people to the government. The six evil words are "there ought to be a law."
Back in my day as a state legislator more than a quarter century ago, those six words provided the basis of my "stump" speech. Every piece of legislation that is passed, whether locally, statewide or nationally, negatively affects the liberty of someone. In many respects, legislating resembles a zero-sum game. In order to "enhance" the lives of one group of citizens, the rights of another group must be restricted. Meanwhile, the state's power grows with each regulatory bauble that's added to the tree. We're getting close to the stage where we observe that the state tree is all aglow and beautifully adorned, while the individual citizen's liberty tree is being torn up by the roots.
When I hear someone utter "there ought to be a law," it generally follows that the person wants the government to coerce others so that their behavior conforms to his. The speaker is either too lazy or too inarticulate to convince others to adhere to the desired practice, therefore he seeks the strong arm of the law to enforce his preferences. As the laws on the various governmental books increase, they invariably begin to contradict one another (the lawyers' full employment provision) or become so picayune as to become laughable...unless you're cited for violating one.
The nature of law-making assumes that one size fits all. If you are fortunate to have a good lobbyist, then you may get an exemption for your group written into the final product. Even without considering how foolish it is to write laws that are fair and just for some three hundred million citizens (and who knows how many illegal...whoops, undocumented), the task is just as difficult at the city, village or township level. To illustrate the absurdity..consider any family with at least two children. There are (ideally) a set of basic rules to which both kids must adhere. Any parent with a modicum of intelligence and awareness knows that beyond the basics each child is unique...and must be engaged in a manner that differs from her/his sibling. So, do we write laws for individuals? It has happened, but no.
My copy of the "Constitution of the United States" is nineteen pages. The House and Senate "Health Care Reform" bills totalled four thousand pages. Hmmm. The Constitution is the basic. The others are the absurd. The Constitution establishes principles and parameters. The healthcare monstrosities establish winners and losers. The Constitution limits the government's power. The healthcare bills expand it.
Recently while reading a John Lescroart novel (The Oath), I came upon a statement that could summarize this blog entry (paraphrase): Facism consists of making laws forbidding everything and then selectively enforcing them against your enemies. That observation seems so painfully close to where we are today, and the healthcare debacle could (would) make it even worse. Nearly every facet of our lives will be subject to government oversight. For those who lust for security it might provide a comfortable cocoon. For those of us who cherish freedom and liberty the suffocating presence of Big Brother will be unacceptably oppressive. Something's gotta give.
We must halt the inexorable march toward benign big government. We must have the courage and personal responsibility to say "STOP!" We must use every device at our disposal to defeat the coming tyranny. In fact, there ought to be a law.....
Back in my day as a state legislator more than a quarter century ago, those six words provided the basis of my "stump" speech. Every piece of legislation that is passed, whether locally, statewide or nationally, negatively affects the liberty of someone. In many respects, legislating resembles a zero-sum game. In order to "enhance" the lives of one group of citizens, the rights of another group must be restricted. Meanwhile, the state's power grows with each regulatory bauble that's added to the tree. We're getting close to the stage where we observe that the state tree is all aglow and beautifully adorned, while the individual citizen's liberty tree is being torn up by the roots.
When I hear someone utter "there ought to be a law," it generally follows that the person wants the government to coerce others so that their behavior conforms to his. The speaker is either too lazy or too inarticulate to convince others to adhere to the desired practice, therefore he seeks the strong arm of the law to enforce his preferences. As the laws on the various governmental books increase, they invariably begin to contradict one another (the lawyers' full employment provision) or become so picayune as to become laughable...unless you're cited for violating one.
The nature of law-making assumes that one size fits all. If you are fortunate to have a good lobbyist, then you may get an exemption for your group written into the final product. Even without considering how foolish it is to write laws that are fair and just for some three hundred million citizens (and who knows how many illegal...whoops, undocumented), the task is just as difficult at the city, village or township level. To illustrate the absurdity..consider any family with at least two children. There are (ideally) a set of basic rules to which both kids must adhere. Any parent with a modicum of intelligence and awareness knows that beyond the basics each child is unique...and must be engaged in a manner that differs from her/his sibling. So, do we write laws for individuals? It has happened, but no.
My copy of the "Constitution of the United States" is nineteen pages. The House and Senate "Health Care Reform" bills totalled four thousand pages. Hmmm. The Constitution is the basic. The others are the absurd. The Constitution establishes principles and parameters. The healthcare monstrosities establish winners and losers. The Constitution limits the government's power. The healthcare bills expand it.
Recently while reading a John Lescroart novel (The Oath), I came upon a statement that could summarize this blog entry (paraphrase): Facism consists of making laws forbidding everything and then selectively enforcing them against your enemies. That observation seems so painfully close to where we are today, and the healthcare debacle could (would) make it even worse. Nearly every facet of our lives will be subject to government oversight. For those who lust for security it might provide a comfortable cocoon. For those of us who cherish freedom and liberty the suffocating presence of Big Brother will be unacceptably oppressive. Something's gotta give.
We must halt the inexorable march toward benign big government. We must have the courage and personal responsibility to say "STOP!" We must use every device at our disposal to defeat the coming tyranny. In fact, there ought to be a law.....
Congressional Appetites: The other white meat.
Today is Senator Mary Landrieu's fifty-fourth birthday, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (the dim bulb from Searchlight, Nevada) has given her a special gift. The sun is shining in Louisiana because Marvelous Mary, the daughter of Moon Landrieu, has secured 300 million dollars in extra Medicare and Medicaid funds for the Bayou State. Reid wanted to avoid cloture on the so-called healthcare reform package, and to do so he needed at least 60 votes to move the legislation forward. The final bribe for Landrieu was three times that originally offered by Reid, and it proved sufficient. The measure to bring the bill forward for consideration passed 60 to 39. In Senator Landrieu's defense, she wasn't the only so-called moderate democrat whose faux angst and hand wringing made the ultimate outcome of the vote in doubt. Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson from Nebraska publicly shared their reservations about the over broad healthcare package. We have not yet discovered what their payoffs are as of Monday morning (November 23rd).
The situation described above is not unique or abnormal. It happens quite often as congressmen attempt to move legislation through a variety of competing interests and ideological differences. The Landieu-Louisiana caper seems so over-the-top because of its size, because of the massive national debt, and because Senator Landrieu appears to openly and joyfully embrace it. In a nation of 300 million people (Sen. Landrieu got 1 dollar from each of us), it is reasonable to expect that there will be a vast array of wishes, needs and attitudes about how Congress should respond. Invariably, the ultimate outcome is less than satisfying, and the process for securing a majority becomes ugly. Deals are cut. Trades are made. Backs are scratched. The citizenry is screwed.
When one is in a position of power...particularly in the U.S. Congress, there are four words that can be used to illustrate the legislator's options when confronted with a vexing vote or issue. They are: party, pretense, pork (the other white meat), or principle. Some officials serve in order to enjoy the position, the paycheck and the benefits. Whatever the issue, they blindly follow the party line. They invest little thought or effort but rely on party guidance to determine their positions.
Those who use pretense as a public posture revel in the attention they receive for agonizing about a particularly difficult matter. They seem to thrive when the Klieig lights and microphones are present. They are flattered when news people ask them to analyze the subject at hand because their assumed aire of indecision is considered thoughtful and intelligent. They are proud to be one of the undecided ones.
The "porkers" are obvious. "Give me the gravy and get my vote." At some basic level the porkers are admirable. No b.s., no pretense, no blindly following the party. Their major weakness, though, is that generally the majority party is the only which how can deliver the pork. If the majority does not require the vote of the porker to pass a piece of legislation, then the porcine-loving legislator will not "bring home the bacon." Their effectiveness is limited.
Principles represent a basic belief and value system that the congressperson uses to assess legislation. They provide a template for measuring each and every bill. Principled legislators will not support measures that violate their standards. You will never hear a principled officeholder say that he or she is voting to move a bill to the floor so that it can be debated if she has determined it to be noxious. To the principled legislator...good is good and bad is bad. They do not go along to get along.
So, where does our birthday girl fit into this little lexicon of political motivation? For the party? Check. Agonizing, hand-wringing pretense? Check. Pork? Three hundred million checks. Principle? Nah. So, I guess that we can surmise that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La) is a pork sucking, drama-queen partisan with no principles. Unfortunately she's not alone. Happy birthday, Mary.
When one examines the fiscal nightmare that haunts the United States, the underfunded liabilities appear front and center.
The situation described above is not unique or abnormal. It happens quite often as congressmen attempt to move legislation through a variety of competing interests and ideological differences. The Landieu-Louisiana caper seems so over-the-top because of its size, because of the massive national debt, and because Senator Landrieu appears to openly and joyfully embrace it. In a nation of 300 million people (Sen. Landrieu got 1 dollar from each of us), it is reasonable to expect that there will be a vast array of wishes, needs and attitudes about how Congress should respond. Invariably, the ultimate outcome is less than satisfying, and the process for securing a majority becomes ugly. Deals are cut. Trades are made. Backs are scratched. The citizenry is screwed.
When one is in a position of power...particularly in the U.S. Congress, there are four words that can be used to illustrate the legislator's options when confronted with a vexing vote or issue. They are: party, pretense, pork (the other white meat), or principle. Some officials serve in order to enjoy the position, the paycheck and the benefits. Whatever the issue, they blindly follow the party line. They invest little thought or effort but rely on party guidance to determine their positions.
Those who use pretense as a public posture revel in the attention they receive for agonizing about a particularly difficult matter. They seem to thrive when the Klieig lights and microphones are present. They are flattered when news people ask them to analyze the subject at hand because their assumed aire of indecision is considered thoughtful and intelligent. They are proud to be one of the undecided ones.
The "porkers" are obvious. "Give me the gravy and get my vote." At some basic level the porkers are admirable. No b.s., no pretense, no blindly following the party. Their major weakness, though, is that generally the majority party is the only which how can deliver the pork. If the majority does not require the vote of the porker to pass a piece of legislation, then the porcine-loving legislator will not "bring home the bacon." Their effectiveness is limited.
Principles represent a basic belief and value system that the congressperson uses to assess legislation. They provide a template for measuring each and every bill. Principled legislators will not support measures that violate their standards. You will never hear a principled officeholder say that he or she is voting to move a bill to the floor so that it can be debated if she has determined it to be noxious. To the principled legislator...good is good and bad is bad. They do not go along to get along.
So, where does our birthday girl fit into this little lexicon of political motivation? For the party? Check. Agonizing, hand-wringing pretense? Check. Pork? Three hundred million checks. Principle? Nah. So, I guess that we can surmise that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La) is a pork sucking, drama-queen partisan with no principles. Unfortunately she's not alone. Happy birthday, Mary.
When one examines the fiscal nightmare that haunts the United States, the underfunded liabilities appear front and center.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Radio-active: Littlestuff's Fairness Doctrine.
AA couple of my reader friends have gently chided me for constantly attacking leftists. They suggest that there are some on my side of the political spectrum who could be critiqued. So, as the weak and compliant sap, I offer to you my views about four giants in conservative talk radio. I have chosen Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin as the largely unwilling recipients of my remarks. There are others to whom I listen, but not frequently enough to warrant informed criticism.
El Rushbo
Rush is the king of conservative talk radio. He has been syndicated since 1988 and is heard on more than 600 radio stations in the United States. My first introduction to MahaRushie was in 1990. A psychologist friend thought that I might enjoy Rush's bombastic style of talk and entertainment. He was right. I have been a somewhat faithful listener for the last nineteen plus years. There is no doubt that Rush is a conservative. He cherishes the history and stated principles of our republic. In earlier years, his devotion to our country's basic fundementals was most apparent when he discussed his father and grandfather and their influences on his values and beliefs.
Although the liberals characterize Rush as "the nominal head of the Republican Party," his cheerleading for the GOP has been somewhat muted lately, and he has become straightforwardly conservative. Rush is clearly a professional broadcaster who owns an agile mind and a biting sense of humor. He is often on the vanguard of pragmatic conservative thought, and illustrates "the absurd with absurdity. (paraphrase)" His incessant ridicule of liberals and their half-baked ideas, drives leftists to sputtering fury.
There are a couple of things that Rush does that I find somewhat offputting. First, he often takes credit for predicting liberal actions (implosions or powergrabs) when the evidence for such a claim is sketchy. He retrieves an audio soundbite from sometime in the past that vaguely implies that the present action was predicted by him. To his credit, he does forsee many liberal moves, but that is as much a function of the leftist nature as it is the far-seeing wisdom of Rush. This little flaw is not a show killer for me, but is annoying.
The second issue that I have with Rush is not necessarily his fault. In fact to a degree, I share the weakness. Appropriating the ideas and insights of others without attribution. I am not referring to plagarism. On several occasions I have heard callers to Rush's show express a gem of an idea or nugget of a phrase, and later in the show or subsequent shows, Rush assumes ownership of the glorious tidbit. The reason I submit that this confiscation may not be Rush's fault is that I encounter similar situations myself. As a writer, I am often searching for metaphors, examples or the proper word to adequately express my thoughts. I assume that I have inadvertently used the tools that have been developed by others. Because I am a voracious reader, I am frequently encountering the work of others, ... and perhaps integrating their efforts into my own. As a frequent listener of the Rush Limbaugh show, I occassionally wince when I hear him declare something that a previous caller had stated. It's a small matter...insignificant, but this is a critique.
Sean
People have remarked that Hannity is a really nice guy. I don't doubt that he is, but because of his penchant for taking an issue or a phrase and beating it to smithereens, he seems to have the persona of a ticked-off pitbull or a perpetually barking Jack Russell terrier with a bad attitude. To his credit Sean's Freedom Concerts and his efforts for the troops are superb standards. He does an amazing amount of good for the movement, but does it repetitively.
Glenn
Glenn Beck is the new hot thing. Since his relocation from Headline News to the Fox News Channel, he has been on fire. Most of issues he addresses are usually right on the money though he tends to exagerate for effect. Sometimes he overemphasizes the importance of seemingly innocuous statements as he reaches to arrive at a nefarious conclusion. In his defense let me observe that even paranoids can have enemies, and while Glenn may seem to construct mountains from molehill material, his big picture is often on target. Another critique I have regarding Glenn's work is that his intensity flat out tires me (pun intended). When his television gig has ended, I am exhausted. A final complaint that I have with Beck is something that entertainers and programers do to hold the audience. Teasing...excessive teasing...not just when going into a break ("when we come back"), but week-long teases, month-long teasers, and year-long, too. Here's a paraphrase: "Americaaa, we have to change what we're doing. Next month at the Final Stop Nursing Home I will announce my plan for a phoenix-like renewal of our country." For Heaven's sake, Glenn, if you have the plan already, give it to us. If you don't have the plan, do not set us up for the Grand Fizzle.
The Great One, Mark Levin
Mark is an attorney who has a great grasp of the Constitution. He forcefully denounces the unrestrained growth of government. I do not get to hear Mark as often as I do the others because his show is scheduled during the evening time in my market and is frequently preempted by sports programming. Nevertheless, while I find Mark to be refreshing and informative, I detect a current of jealousy or disdain for Beck during his show. I don't know what the basis for his dislike may be, but I assume that he hoards some resentment towards Glenn because Mark may believe that Beck is rather unschooled and buffoonish. He's possibly upset that Beck's books are top sellers, and Mark may believe his to be more accurate, more thorough and more substantial. Just guessing. Levin's attitude, as I perceive it, makes him appear as somewhat of a whiner. He does know his stuff and is a top-notch host.
So, my moderate/lefty friends should be satisfied. I have taken some shots at the big four of conservative radio. I still listen. I still learn. These warriors are a vast improvement over an all night Larry King on Mutual, or a Jim Bohanon (Jimbo's OK, but middle of the road) on Westwood, any dolt on Air America (is it still on?) or any dulcet toned, raised pinkie PBS news reader...if all things are considered. They are all working for a stronger, better America. They all love the United States and the values she has historically embraced. I shall continue to listen until everybody agrees with Rush.
El Rushbo
Rush is the king of conservative talk radio. He has been syndicated since 1988 and is heard on more than 600 radio stations in the United States. My first introduction to MahaRushie was in 1990. A psychologist friend thought that I might enjoy Rush's bombastic style of talk and entertainment. He was right. I have been a somewhat faithful listener for the last nineteen plus years. There is no doubt that Rush is a conservative. He cherishes the history and stated principles of our republic. In earlier years, his devotion to our country's basic fundementals was most apparent when he discussed his father and grandfather and their influences on his values and beliefs.
Although the liberals characterize Rush as "the nominal head of the Republican Party," his cheerleading for the GOP has been somewhat muted lately, and he has become straightforwardly conservative. Rush is clearly a professional broadcaster who owns an agile mind and a biting sense of humor. He is often on the vanguard of pragmatic conservative thought, and illustrates "the absurd with absurdity. (paraphrase)" His incessant ridicule of liberals and their half-baked ideas, drives leftists to sputtering fury.
There are a couple of things that Rush does that I find somewhat offputting. First, he often takes credit for predicting liberal actions (implosions or powergrabs) when the evidence for such a claim is sketchy. He retrieves an audio soundbite from sometime in the past that vaguely implies that the present action was predicted by him. To his credit, he does forsee many liberal moves, but that is as much a function of the leftist nature as it is the far-seeing wisdom of Rush. This little flaw is not a show killer for me, but is annoying.
The second issue that I have with Rush is not necessarily his fault. In fact to a degree, I share the weakness. Appropriating the ideas and insights of others without attribution. I am not referring to plagarism. On several occasions I have heard callers to Rush's show express a gem of an idea or nugget of a phrase, and later in the show or subsequent shows, Rush assumes ownership of the glorious tidbit. The reason I submit that this confiscation may not be Rush's fault is that I encounter similar situations myself. As a writer, I am often searching for metaphors, examples or the proper word to adequately express my thoughts. I assume that I have inadvertently used the tools that have been developed by others. Because I am a voracious reader, I am frequently encountering the work of others, ... and perhaps integrating their efforts into my own. As a frequent listener of the Rush Limbaugh show, I occassionally wince when I hear him declare something that a previous caller had stated. It's a small matter...insignificant, but this is a critique.
Sean
People have remarked that Hannity is a really nice guy. I don't doubt that he is, but because of his penchant for taking an issue or a phrase and beating it to smithereens, he seems to have the persona of a ticked-off pitbull or a perpetually barking Jack Russell terrier with a bad attitude. To his credit Sean's Freedom Concerts and his efforts for the troops are superb standards. He does an amazing amount of good for the movement, but does it repetitively.
Glenn
Glenn Beck is the new hot thing. Since his relocation from Headline News to the Fox News Channel, he has been on fire. Most of issues he addresses are usually right on the money though he tends to exagerate for effect. Sometimes he overemphasizes the importance of seemingly innocuous statements as he reaches to arrive at a nefarious conclusion. In his defense let me observe that even paranoids can have enemies, and while Glenn may seem to construct mountains from molehill material, his big picture is often on target. Another critique I have regarding Glenn's work is that his intensity flat out tires me (pun intended). When his television gig has ended, I am exhausted. A final complaint that I have with Beck is something that entertainers and programers do to hold the audience. Teasing...excessive teasing...not just when going into a break ("when we come back"), but week-long teases, month-long teasers, and year-long, too. Here's a paraphrase: "Americaaa, we have to change what we're doing. Next month at the Final Stop Nursing Home I will announce my plan for a phoenix-like renewal of our country." For Heaven's sake, Glenn, if you have the plan already, give it to us. If you don't have the plan, do not set us up for the Grand Fizzle.
The Great One, Mark Levin
Mark is an attorney who has a great grasp of the Constitution. He forcefully denounces the unrestrained growth of government. I do not get to hear Mark as often as I do the others because his show is scheduled during the evening time in my market and is frequently preempted by sports programming. Nevertheless, while I find Mark to be refreshing and informative, I detect a current of jealousy or disdain for Beck during his show. I don't know what the basis for his dislike may be, but I assume that he hoards some resentment towards Glenn because Mark may believe that Beck is rather unschooled and buffoonish. He's possibly upset that Beck's books are top sellers, and Mark may believe his to be more accurate, more thorough and more substantial. Just guessing. Levin's attitude, as I perceive it, makes him appear as somewhat of a whiner. He does know his stuff and is a top-notch host.
So, my moderate/lefty friends should be satisfied. I have taken some shots at the big four of conservative radio. I still listen. I still learn. These warriors are a vast improvement over an all night Larry King on Mutual, or a Jim Bohanon (Jimbo's OK, but middle of the road) on Westwood, any dolt on Air America (is it still on?) or any dulcet toned, raised pinkie PBS news reader...if all things are considered. They are all working for a stronger, better America. They all love the United States and the values she has historically embraced. I shall continue to listen until everybody agrees with Rush.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Biggest Loser
An AP story today (Thursday) reports that U. S. District Judge Stanwood Duval ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers is largely responsible for the post-Katrina flooding in New Orleans. This ruling is notable for a number of reasons. Referring to the Corps maintainence practices as "monumental negligence," Duval awarded more than seven-hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) to seven plaintiffs. He found that the primary cause for the massive destruction on New Orleans' west side was the Army's Corp failure to maintain the levee system.
Duval's agressive ruling has opened the floodgates (sorry!) for nearly 100,000 other individuals, businesses and others to seek recovery of their documented economic losses from the federal government. The potential awards could be in the billions of dollars, but the government is expected to appeal in an effort to justify its action (or inaction) under the umbrella of 'limited liability.' Or, to describe it more correctly...limited accountability. Whatever the resolution after the appeal, we, the citizens, will take it on the chin.
If Duval's ruling is upheld, then the taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars in damages to restore the decimated properties in New Orleans. How will we pay? The only way available is to borrow more money and increase the deficit, or raise taxes to generate the funds. The repercussions do not end with the Delta. What if the National Weather Service errs when predicting the path of another storm? Will the federal government be held liable? What if ethanol subsidies fail to support the growers and processors at a level that will make them viable? Will the government be obligated to make up the difference? And on...and on...and on.
Because the government usually manages to avoid direct accountability, the ruling is likely to be overturned upon appeal. Good news, right? A successful appeal could save taxpayers trillions of dollars from the New Orleans' case and potential future litigation. The massive downside, however, would be that government accountability is non-existent. Citizens would have no recourse when they are harmed by negligent government action...or indifference.
So, how does this ruling and this case affect what is going on today. If we were operating (pun intended) under a government-controlled health care system, then if Duval's ruling hold, the over-the-top cost of malpractice protection would have to be included in the estimated costs. How is that structure much of an improvement? The trial lawyers (blood-sucking, ambulance-chasing, liberal-supporting sleazebags) will not be eliminated in the model because of their political activism and contributions. A recent poll suggested that up 45 per cent of practicing physicians would leave medicine in the U.S. if the "public option" were enacted. Even if a large portion of those respondents were to reconsider, the exodus of the remainder could put a severe strain on the health-care delivery system. At any rate, it seems plausible that high quality care may be jeopardized, and increasing the likelihood of more care-related litigation (the trial lawyer full employment act of 2009).
If the appeal is successful, then isn't it comforting to know that our government run healthcare system would have no accountable obligation. What an exciting prospect: Surgeon A cutting open your gut, handling your vital organs, placing them back and sewing you up, and if she screws up....Oh, well. Better luck next time, if you survive. Just image what the doctrine of "no accountability" would mean for other government tasks. Air traffic controllers...Homeland Security...FBI. To a large degree, government workers are immune from being held strictly accountable for their decisions and their errors. A "fall guy" is identified and either demoted or dismissed. A legal finding that holds the government, and by extension...government employees, exempt from liability would strengthen and codify the current system of whitewashing.
The Army Corp of Engineers will probably argue (with some merit) that billions of dollars for levee improvments had been budgeted by Congress in recent years, and much of the money was siphoned off by Louisianna state, city and parish politicians for other purposes. The Corp, therefore, was unable to fullfil its obligation to restore and maintain the levees. I agree with this line of argument. It illustrates massive incompetence and venality at every level of government.
Personally, I want Judge Duval's ruling to stand. If it does, then my friends and I will sue the living crap out each and every department, agency and directorate that does not perfectly execute its mandate. For decades the liberals have used the courts to bypass the Constitution and a reasonable legislative process. It's time to turn the tables and litigate all levels of government to their knees.
Duval's agressive ruling has opened the floodgates (sorry!) for nearly 100,000 other individuals, businesses and others to seek recovery of their documented economic losses from the federal government. The potential awards could be in the billions of dollars, but the government is expected to appeal in an effort to justify its action (or inaction) under the umbrella of 'limited liability.' Or, to describe it more correctly...limited accountability. Whatever the resolution after the appeal, we, the citizens, will take it on the chin.
If Duval's ruling is upheld, then the taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars in damages to restore the decimated properties in New Orleans. How will we pay? The only way available is to borrow more money and increase the deficit, or raise taxes to generate the funds. The repercussions do not end with the Delta. What if the National Weather Service errs when predicting the path of another storm? Will the federal government be held liable? What if ethanol subsidies fail to support the growers and processors at a level that will make them viable? Will the government be obligated to make up the difference? And on...and on...and on.
Because the government usually manages to avoid direct accountability, the ruling is likely to be overturned upon appeal. Good news, right? A successful appeal could save taxpayers trillions of dollars from the New Orleans' case and potential future litigation. The massive downside, however, would be that government accountability is non-existent. Citizens would have no recourse when they are harmed by negligent government action...or indifference.
So, how does this ruling and this case affect what is going on today. If we were operating (pun intended) under a government-controlled health care system, then if Duval's ruling hold, the over-the-top cost of malpractice protection would have to be included in the estimated costs. How is that structure much of an improvement? The trial lawyers (blood-sucking, ambulance-chasing, liberal-supporting sleazebags) will not be eliminated in the model because of their political activism and contributions. A recent poll suggested that up 45 per cent of practicing physicians would leave medicine in the U.S. if the "public option" were enacted. Even if a large portion of those respondents were to reconsider, the exodus of the remainder could put a severe strain on the health-care delivery system. At any rate, it seems plausible that high quality care may be jeopardized, and increasing the likelihood of more care-related litigation (the trial lawyer full employment act of 2009).
If the appeal is successful, then isn't it comforting to know that our government run healthcare system would have no accountable obligation. What an exciting prospect: Surgeon A cutting open your gut, handling your vital organs, placing them back and sewing you up, and if she screws up....Oh, well. Better luck next time, if you survive. Just image what the doctrine of "no accountability" would mean for other government tasks. Air traffic controllers...Homeland Security...FBI. To a large degree, government workers are immune from being held strictly accountable for their decisions and their errors. A "fall guy" is identified and either demoted or dismissed. A legal finding that holds the government, and by extension...government employees, exempt from liability would strengthen and codify the current system of whitewashing.
The Army Corp of Engineers will probably argue (with some merit) that billions of dollars for levee improvments had been budgeted by Congress in recent years, and much of the money was siphoned off by Louisianna state, city and parish politicians for other purposes. The Corp, therefore, was unable to fullfil its obligation to restore and maintain the levees. I agree with this line of argument. It illustrates massive incompetence and venality at every level of government.
Personally, I want Judge Duval's ruling to stand. If it does, then my friends and I will sue the living crap out each and every department, agency and directorate that does not perfectly execute its mandate. For decades the liberals have used the courts to bypass the Constitution and a reasonable legislative process. It's time to turn the tables and litigate all levels of government to their knees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
