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.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
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.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Taking shots...
When contemplating what to write, I often have several topics brewing. I have decided, therefore, to integrate this feature into the blog rotation. These are topics that I haven't yet developed but want to toss out for you to ponder. Some of them will be one-liners, and others may merit a paragraph. Here goes:
Long shots:
1. Paying off the National debt.
2. Getting the massive nose of the federal government camel out of the tent.
3. Finding sensible progressives. Diogenes would fail at this task.
4. Taxing our way to prosperity. This would be a "no shot" except that ultra high taxation does tend to enrich some people at the seat of power.
Low shots:
1. The media attitude toward Sarah Palin...and other conservatives, libertarians, objectivists, christians and capitalists.
2. Progressive (liberal or marxist) views of the free market.
3. President Obama's bowing before foreign heads of state. He bows really low. One pundit suggested that he did it because he could see his own reflection on his shoes.
4. Hysterical "climate change" lackeys attempting to disrupt and dislodge every aspect of our daily lives. As an individualist, I think that I'll coin a new term "SUVidual."
No shot:
1.President Obama's image on Mt. Rushmore.
2. President Hillary Clinton.
3. Any Democrat-controlled urban center--see Detroit.
4. The Cleveland Browns.
5. Pauly Shore winning the Oscar.
Parting shots: (these could get ugly--beware).
1. Don't get too close to Speaker Pelosi...if her skin snaps, you could get hurt.
2. Look for Joe Biden's new autobiography in the "fiction" section.
3. Congressional elections are next year: let's not allow 95% "jobs saved."
4. Do the multitude of Czars appointed by the administration count as "jobs created?"
Favorite shots:
1. Lebron's fade-away from 25 feet.
2. Tea parties...citizen involvement.
3. My grandchildren.
4. Good scotch.
Long shots:
1. Paying off the National debt.
2. Getting the massive nose of the federal government camel out of the tent.
3. Finding sensible progressives. Diogenes would fail at this task.
4. Taxing our way to prosperity. This would be a "no shot" except that ultra high taxation does tend to enrich some people at the seat of power.
Low shots:
1. The media attitude toward Sarah Palin...and other conservatives, libertarians, objectivists, christians and capitalists.
2. Progressive (liberal or marxist) views of the free market.
3. President Obama's bowing before foreign heads of state. He bows really low. One pundit suggested that he did it because he could see his own reflection on his shoes.
4. Hysterical "climate change" lackeys attempting to disrupt and dislodge every aspect of our daily lives. As an individualist, I think that I'll coin a new term "SUVidual."
No shot:
1.President Obama's image on Mt. Rushmore.
2. President Hillary Clinton.
3. Any Democrat-controlled urban center--see Detroit.
4. The Cleveland Browns.
5. Pauly Shore winning the Oscar.
Parting shots: (these could get ugly--beware).
1. Don't get too close to Speaker Pelosi...if her skin snaps, you could get hurt.
2. Look for Joe Biden's new autobiography in the "fiction" section.
3. Congressional elections are next year: let's not allow 95% "jobs saved."
4. Do the multitude of Czars appointed by the administration count as "jobs created?"
Favorite shots:
1. Lebron's fade-away from 25 feet.
2. Tea parties...citizen involvement.
3. My grandchildren.
4. Good scotch.
Monday, November 16, 2009
How's the weather?
Al Gore and his cohorts have burrs up their butts because they are alarmed about global climate change (formerly global warming). Where I sit here in Northwest Ohio, we call climate change..."seasons." I absolutely love climate change. Without it my perfect little plot of paradise would be covered by tons of ice and snow. Because of climate change, the glacier receded, and the Great Black Swamp was formed. My fantastic little farmette is located in what once was the Black Swamp. Another benefit for me was that as the ice melted, the Great Lakes remained. I now enjoy having Lake Erie a mere twenty-five miles from my little haven of happiness.
Perhaps there were some drawbacks associated with the melting of my local glacier. Some polar bears may have perished or were forced to hustle their fuzzy tails north. If the glacier had never receded, then Michigan and Ohio would not have had the high levels of unemployment that they are experiencing today. We wouldn't have Toledo or Detroit (hmmm good, bad...bad, good...hmmm). Because we now longer have the massive clump of ice here, mosquitos are annoyingly present. And so are fast food restaurants.
My little plot of land wouldn't be accessible today if it weren't for some dirty Central American idustrialist who indiscriminately poluted the air while reaping filthy profits. Oh wait...there were no industrialists back then...dirty or otherwise. Maybe some insensitive tribesmen caused global warming because they excessively struck their flints or rubbed their sticks too fast. That's it. That's the ticket. That explains manmade global warming in earlier epochs. Or maybe, just maybe, the sun had something to do with it then...and now.
Personally, climate change has been a good thing. I find it ironic when many of those who raise the alarm about climate change proclaim that it will ultimately destroy most of humankind, but they willingly endorse the killing of unborn babies. Save the group, but discard the individual. So, tell me which of the following scenarios you would prefer: 1.) To live for a few months in your mother's womb, feel the beat of her heart, hear her voice and move when she moves, then to be ripped limb from limb and discarded in a dumpster, or
2.) To spend four score years loving, laughing, some pain, some sorrow while having to cope with a theoretical two-tenths of a degree increase in earthly temperature? Maybe your child or grandchild or great, great, great, great grandchild will fix the problem...if it really exists.
Listen to your local weatherperson for a few days. Many of them provide historical data for each calendar day. You might hear something like this, "The coldest recorded November 16th in Northwest Ohio was in 1892 when the mercury hovered at minus 3 degrees. The hottest eleven-sixteen on record was 1942 when the temperature reached a eighty-seven degrees." This example is not real, but does illustrate that on any given historical day, there were highs and lows. And maybe they are getting progessively warmer in a general sense, but not in a particular day-by-day measurement.
So think what you wish, I'm happy that my little patch no longer requires that I build an igloo for shelter.
Perhaps there were some drawbacks associated with the melting of my local glacier. Some polar bears may have perished or were forced to hustle their fuzzy tails north. If the glacier had never receded, then Michigan and Ohio would not have had the high levels of unemployment that they are experiencing today. We wouldn't have Toledo or Detroit (hmmm good, bad...bad, good...hmmm). Because we now longer have the massive clump of ice here, mosquitos are annoyingly present. And so are fast food restaurants.
My little plot of land wouldn't be accessible today if it weren't for some dirty Central American idustrialist who indiscriminately poluted the air while reaping filthy profits. Oh wait...there were no industrialists back then...dirty or otherwise. Maybe some insensitive tribesmen caused global warming because they excessively struck their flints or rubbed their sticks too fast. That's it. That's the ticket. That explains manmade global warming in earlier epochs. Or maybe, just maybe, the sun had something to do with it then...and now.
Personally, climate change has been a good thing. I find it ironic when many of those who raise the alarm about climate change proclaim that it will ultimately destroy most of humankind, but they willingly endorse the killing of unborn babies. Save the group, but discard the individual. So, tell me which of the following scenarios you would prefer: 1.) To live for a few months in your mother's womb, feel the beat of her heart, hear her voice and move when she moves, then to be ripped limb from limb and discarded in a dumpster, or
2.) To spend four score years loving, laughing, some pain, some sorrow while having to cope with a theoretical two-tenths of a degree increase in earthly temperature? Maybe your child or grandchild or great, great, great, great grandchild will fix the problem...if it really exists.
Listen to your local weatherperson for a few days. Many of them provide historical data for each calendar day. You might hear something like this, "The coldest recorded November 16th in Northwest Ohio was in 1892 when the mercury hovered at minus 3 degrees. The hottest eleven-sixteen on record was 1942 when the temperature reached a eighty-seven degrees." This example is not real, but does illustrate that on any given historical day, there were highs and lows. And maybe they are getting progessively warmer in a general sense, but not in a particular day-by-day measurement.
So think what you wish, I'm happy that my little patch no longer requires that I build an igloo for shelter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
