I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag...

I pledge allegiance

to the Flag

of the United States of America,

and to the Republic

for which it stands,

one Nation

under God,

indivisible,

with liberty

and justice

for all.

This is the pledge as I remember reciting it each day in school. I don't remember exactly when that ended as a daily practice. Perhaps around 3rd grade. That would put it around 1971.

What do you say, Mark? Did we recite it in Mrs. Eckerd's class?

So, here is a story of how a small school in the small town of Woodbury, Vermont is mishandling the issue.

As an aside, way to go Ted Tedesco and other parents for trying to bring the practice back! Hang in there and keep fighting the good fight!

Maybe, just maybe, there is hope for our Republic after all.

CP

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

I was away from civilization from 2-14 November. In the back-waters where I found myself during that period, I could monitor the news to some degree, but could not post to this blog.

Like many conservatives, I was disheartened by the win (by a sizable margin) of team Obama, and other Democrats for seats in the House and Senate.

Being unable to post, I was pretty frustrated. Now, however, I think that might have been a blessing in disguise.

As I said at the outset, the purpose of this blog is to expound on, and discuss, the issues that face our Republic. It is not an echo chamber (come on, my various correspondents, lets have some discussion here!) Neither, do I want it to become just another bleating, moaning forum for an outcome I (we) don't like.

We don't like the outcome, to be sure. But, lets discuss why we don't like it, in substantive, objective, unemotional terms. Lets discuss how we move on from here. Lets discuss ways to safeguard the Republic from the ills and evils we imagine possible in the next 4-8 years. Or at least until the next election in 2010.

Maybe, just maybe, this will be (in the perspective of history) a good thing for conservatism and our Republic. But only if we make it so in the long run.

CP

Pre-Election Summary

I haven't written much on here since the middle of summer. There are many reasons, most prominently work and life have kept me hopping.

Many have been the times that I have read an article, and saved it with the intention of linking to it and commenting on it as I have done in the past. Alas, as you have seen, few of those intentions have been followed through upon for the past 5 months.

Now, I find myself just days away from the presidential election. I have so much pent up inside that I want to expound on. But, tomorrow morning I leave for an "exercise" that will have me away from home for nearly 2 weeks, and I still have much to do before I can get a few short hours of sleep before departing.

But, I can't let these last few hours before the election slip away without one last comment on what the stakes are for our republic on Election Day.

Simply put, neither of the two main-stream candidates thrill me. They are both flawed. Neither, in my opinion, possesses the experience that would conclusively show he was a worthy chief executive. The Presidency should not be an entry-level job for those seeking to lead. This is slightly mitigated by Senator McCain's career in the military, as a naval aviator. He learned how to lead, and for over 20 years in uniform, he lead in a number of jobs, at a number of levels. In my mind, this isn't nearly as good as having been a large-city Mayor or Governor. But, it remains far more than his opponent has done.

First-term Senator Obama has scant little experience in life, much less leadership. He touts his "community organizing" as experience, but if you dig into it, he wasn't even particularly successful at this. He served in the State Senate of Illinois, with the backing of several influential people, and the fund raising support of one who is now convicted of fraud. He's also been supported by a demonstratively racist and volatile preacher (who Obama only denounced when it got too hot for him otherwise) and an un-repentant domestic terrorist-turned-educator. As my mother always said, "you are known by the company you keep".

Obama is eloquent and motivating. But, anyone can say anything, and used-car salesmen and other con-men can make you believe any lie with their gift of gab. There is little real meat on Obama's record (due to lack of experience), but what is there points to his extreme liberal beliefs. Indeed, he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate, even more so than the avowed Socialist, Senator Sanders. My mother also used to say "you are known by your deeds".

Senator Obama's record on 2nd Amendment issues is abysmal. He is the single largest threat to honest American Citizens on this issue. His voting record clearly shows that he doesn't trust the average law-abiding citizen to own firearms. I can't get past the simple question: "why should we trust someone with the power of the Presidency if he doesn't trust us to have weapons?" As my mother would also say, "trust is a two-way street".

I've had real problems over the years with Senator McCain's position on a number of issues. The "campaign finance reform" bill he co-sponsored a number of years ago is horrible, and clearly violates the First Amendment. I think it is fair to argue that it has helped lead to increased corruption and less transparency. Not good things. He's also been on the wrong side of some 2nd Amendment issues, in my opinion, and not always the friend to the military that one might expect.

Change. It seems that so many people have believed the endless stream of anti-George Bush diatribes, half-truths and lies for the past 8 years that they believe wholesale change is required in our nation. Really? Regardless of the outcome of the election, George Bush is gone. What is so fundamentally wrong with our nation and society that we need wholesale, un-defined "change"? Is it the still-low unemployment? Is it the best medical care available in the world? Is it the opportunity for nearly anyone to go to college? Is it the tax code, that while horribly complex, has proven to bring in more taxes to our government when it is lowered than when it is raised? Perhaps it is the standard of living that is the envy of most of the world?

George Bush gets slammed with many of the temporary ills of our nations, yet most if not all were the result of congressional action, inaction or political-maneuvering.

• Patriot Act? Congress voted to approve and re-authorize.
• War in Iraq? Congress approved, and has repeatedly funded (and during Clinton's administration, approved a resolution for "regime change" in Iraq, and many of Bush's detractors were on record stating definitively that Sadam had Weapons of Mass Destruction.)
• "Domestic Spying" and Guantamo Bay? Both approved and funded by the congress.
• Mortgage Meltdown? President Bush warned us a year ago, and the Democratic-controlled congress accused him of "fear mongering". Not only that, some Republicans (including Senator McCain) tried to tighten regulations on the industry, but were blocked by Democrats, most notably Rep. Barney Frank, who was romantically entwined with the Freddie Mac chairman at the time.
• Government spending? Sure, the president has been a disappointment in this area, but it is still the congress that approves budgets, the President only proposes them.

Since 2006, both houses of Congress have been controlled by the Democratic party. Most of the ills (real and perceived) in our nation should be laid squarely at their feet. Yet, it is the combination of an under-educated populace when it comes to our civic structures, and their being ill-informed by the mainstream media, that combines to lay the blame on George W. Bush and by extension his political party. I guess it is the perfect storm!

On the other hand, I believe that McCain's selection of Governor Palin for running mate was inspired. She brings actual "chief executive" experience to the ticket (something Senator Joe-I've-been-in-the-Senate-since-I-was-29-Biden, like his running-mate Obama, doesn't have). She is an "outsider" to Washington, and while perhaps short on foreign policy experience, is long on common sense, conservative values and credibility. As an aside, I've watched with amusement all the liberal NOW types falling all over themselves that a woman would be on the conservative ticket, not the liberal one! For those who hold electing a woman to be President to be the #1 priority, then the Republican ticket is the one... there is a statistically much greater chance that she would have to serve out McCain's term, and thus be the first woman president.

And that reminds me. Racism (or its cousin Sexism). Hillary tried to make the point that voting against her was sexist. Obama and his surrogates have made the point that not supporting him is racist (or if he loses, it is because America is still racist)....

But my dictionary tells me that "Racism" is "the notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior." In normal usage, it connotes the idea that one chooses to hire or not hire, befriend or not befriend, support or not support someone or something because of their race. Yet, for those who are choosing to vote for Obama solely because of his race... is this not also "racism"? I don't see how we have gotten away from "racism" in America. We've merely shifted the players.

Evidence of this "racism" comes in many fashions. One of the most stark is this, however: The black population of America overwhelmingly is against Abortion, and is overwhelmingly against homosexual "marriage". Yet both of these two things are enthusiastically supported by Senator Obama, and the black population overwhelmingly supports him as their champion. What, other than "Racism", in this case prejudice for a particular race, can account for that?

I read a comment today from one fellow who said "I'm worried that Obama will raise my taxes. But, I'm worried that McCain will start wars. Both have positives and negatives for me, and people like me." From my perspective, I think it is an absolute certainty that Obama will raise taxes. On the other hand, I believe that McCain will only send Americans to war if it is necessarily. Few that have worn this nation's uniform would whimsically send our servicemen into harms way, so I don't worry about that facet of his personality. I believe he is simply signaling to our friends and foes alike, that war must not be taken off the table as an option (not the first option). To preclude any option in negotiation is naive at best.

In a discussion the other day, a fellow much smarter than I, commented that when it comes to dictators, there are two flavors: those that are "benevolent dictators". They are all about the power, but unless you threaten them, they are likely to pretty much leave you alone. The other flavor is the "true believer". He isn't only concerned with power, but with anyone who disagrees with him. He will ruthlessly seek to convert or silence all those who don't agree with him, and make it very hard for any dissenting voices to be raised. There are some examples in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao. My smart colleague stated that he believed Obama to be a "true believer" as well.

I started this posting by saying that I have problems with both candidates, and I've just laid out some of my concerns. I am not nearly as excited about this election as I was with Reagan, or the Bushes. That is probably why only today I mailed my Absentee Ballot.

For me, my choice came down to the lesser of two evils. Or, more precisely, it came down to voting against the candidate that I feared would do the most harm if elected to office. Senator John McCain is a flawed candidate. He has a host of negatives to his potential presidency. His running mate at least has some executive experience, but is otherwise fairly untested. Still, these negatives fail to come close to the negatives that an Obama/Biden presidency would have.

So many Americans seem to be not just supportive of an Obama Presidency, but nearly hypnotized by the Obama campaign. So many people seem to be ready to vote diametrically opposed to their own self-interest... I can only assume it is because they have been completely manipulated by the Obama campaign and a supportive media.

Any American who has honestly and dispassionately, looked at the issues, the voting records and the behind-the-spin statements of the candidates has my respect, regardless of whom they vote for. They are exercising both the right, and the responsibility inherent in the privilege of voting. Those who vote for one or the other candidate based on knee-jerk reactions, blind adherence to the endorsement of others, racism, sexism, or hatred of the outgoing administration will earn my scorn, and I would hope the scorn of all who truly care about our nation, and our future.

Be careful and thoughtful, America. Our future very much depends on getting this one right.

CP

Good for the goose... good for the gander

Can you just imagine how loudly the Obama campaign and supporters would scream if what is depicted in this cartoon had actually happened?

Yet somehow there is no philosophical problem with taking other people's money and "redistributing" it.

In a capitalistic system, "wealth" is redistributed every day by the manufacturing, buying, selling, trading of goods and services. Wealth is redistributed by employers to those whom they employ. When we start redistributing wealth not based on productivity and "value added" relationships, but on who has more and less, then we are no longer in a capitalist system. We become socialist or even communist.

Karl Marx wrote about this in his manifesto. It doesn't matter if you restrict your governmental plunder to just the "very rich", or keep the jackbooted-collectors away from the "truly poor" or even "middle class". You are still moving into the realm of socialism/communism... it is then only a matter of degrees.

Taxes are a necessary evil. They are needed to pay for the legitimate functions of government. Our federal government has very limited functions as delineated (enumerated) in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We've gone very far away from those limited functions already. Redistribution of wealth to "even it out amongst our population" is not a legitimate function of our government (as far as our Constitution and Bill of Rights is concerned). It is armed robbery, using the power of coercion of the state.

Is that what we really want to perpetuate on our citizens? Is that really what is in the best interest of our nation?

Be careful, America. Be very careful.

CP

When the Lap-Dog bites...

Recently, in an interview on a Florida Television station, Senator Biden was asked some very relevant questions about his, and his running mate's positions. He wasn't very happy with these questions. His response was to ban the station from further interviews with the Obama/Biden campaign.

What does this say about how the Democratic ticket truly feels about the 1st Amendment and the citizen's right to know?

Be very careful, America. We are on the brink.

CP

Change?

• Change is not always good.
• Wholesale change is usually bad.
• Be careful of what you wish for, it just may be imposed on you!

CP

A Hero Passes

Ed "Too Tall to Fly" Freeman

A measure of heroism that is not so obvious in the Mel Gibson movie: "We Were Soldiers Once......And Young"

Photo: Idaho Statesman (c) 2008

Imagine...

You're an 18 or 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded, and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley, November 14,1965. LZ Xray, Vietnam. Your Infantry Unit is outnumbered 8 to 1, and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the medevac helicopters to stop coming in.

You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns, and you know you're not getting out. Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.

Then, over the machine gun noise, you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter, and you look up to see a Huey, but it doesn't seem real, because no medevac markings are on it.

Ed "Too Tall" Freeman is coming for you. He's not a medevac, so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire, after the medevac's were ordered not to come.

He's coming anyway.

And he drops it in, and sits there in the machine gun fire, they load 2 or 3 of you onboard, as they drop off much needed water and ammunition.

Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire, to the Doctors and Nurses.

And, he kept coming back...... 13 more times..... and took about 30 of you and your buddies out, who would never have gotten out otherwise.

Medal of Honor Recipient Ed Freeman died Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2008 at the age of 80, in Boise, Idaho.

Greater Love hath no man than he who lays down his life for his fellows. The miracle of Ed Freeman is that he risked all for men he likely didn't even know, 13 times, and survived to tell his grandchildren about it.

What have the rest of us done for our country and fellow citizens?

CP

Putting Lipstick on a Pig

When is a comment... just a comment and not some sort of attack, slur, racist or sexist remark?

The latest news cycle was awash with the charges --- and counter charges --- that Obama's remark, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig" was some how a sexist or inappropriate remark against the GOP VP candidate, Sarah Palin.

Now, I truly believe that the Democratic party, and leftists in general are in a tizzy about the GOP having a female VP candidate. After all, aren't all true feminists supposed to follow the Democratic line (hook, line and sinker)? How can a successful woman be a GOP operative?

But, in this case, from the evidence I've seen, this comment is coincidental to Mrs. Palin's remark at the GOP convention that "the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick."

This is much ado about nothing. It is a fairly common metaphor... denoting that you can pretty something up, but it is still that which it started as. A rose by any other name... etc.

John McCain is even on video tape using the same comment earlier in this seemingly decade-long election season.

Issues like this detract from the true purpose of our elections. We need to know the substance of what each candidate has planned. We need to ask "where's the beef", not " was that a sexist remark"?

There are rightly plenty of things both tickets can question the other on. Fair, open, honest discussion is not only allowed, it is required. Personal attacks are not, and tell us a lot about the candidates who stoop to that level. This, however... is neither. Its a coincidence at worst. Everyone needs to get over it, past it, and focus on the substance of the issues.

CP

What are they thinking?

I recently saw a lady with an "Obama" T-shirt. I had a strong urge to ask her if she would hire me to be her brain surgeon.

Is this the (Left's) game plan?

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” - H.L. Mencken

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."-- George Orwell ("Animal Farm" 1945)

Political Humor

Recently received a joke in my email that hit the spot:

Five surgeons are discussing the types of people they like to operate on.

The first surgeon says: 'I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.'

The second responds: 'Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded.'

The third surgeon says: 'No, I really think librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order.'

The fourth surgeon chimes in: 'You know, I like construction workers...those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over.'

But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed: 'You're all wrong... Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There are no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine. Plus, the head and the ass are interchangeable.’

Hey, you gotta be able to laugh; or else you might have to cry.

CP

Economics 101 and responsibility

The major story for the past several weeks has been the ever climbing price of gasoline in the USA.

To be sure, it is climbing to unprecedented levels in the US. But even $4.09 /gallon is cheap compared to many parts of the western world. In Italy, the locals pay Euro 1.57 per liter. That works out to something like $2.50 per liter, or $9.11 per gallon. To put this into perspective, I recently paid slightly over $32 to fill up the 5-gallon gas tank on my motorcycle!

But perhaps I digress.

Regardless of how much others pay for gas, Americans are feeling the pinch in their wallet. Those that have little in the way of discretionary income, are having to cut back in other areas to afford the gas they need to get to work, school, etc.

In Salt Lake City, a pair of "angry" kids protested, because their mother decided to cancel the Cable contract to save money for gas.

Whilst I applaud the kids for using democratic means to voice their opinion, it also shows that the mother missed a golden opportunity to teach her children basic economics, not to mention to reinforce the notion of responsible money management. She probably can't be blamed for the former, as like most Americans she is probably woefully undereducated about economics.

Gas prices have raised because of the simple principle of supply and demand. Simply put, demand has steadily increased globally while supply is constrained. Those that say that drilling in Alaska or offshore would have no effect are lying or naive. Increase supply, and cost will go down. And it will happen sooner than the ability to actually get any of that oil to market, as it will send the speculators out and cause others (OPEC, Venezuela, etc) to increase production now.

Of course, there are other parts of the equation, not the least of which is our woefully inadequate US refinery capacity, currently working at near 100% capacity. This needs to be increased with new refinery construction using the newest technologies. But the first and foremost thing that will help the prices we pay at the pump is increased output, and you only get that from more drilling.

True, you can attack the problem on the demand side, as well. And we should. Alternative sources of energy, conservation, etc... all will help on the demand side. But we must realize that demand is global, and while we may conserve and shift our sources of energy, other economies will continue to increase demand overall. So again, the best way to address this is to increase production.

Mrs. Vance missed this opportunity to teach her kids a basic truth. Rather, she was apparently happy to have them go out and "demonstrate", as if there is some power (government? big oil?) that can wave a magic wand and reduce the prices we all pay... for anything?

The other opportunity Mrs. Vance missed was in instilling in her children the notion of responsible income management. How great it would have been for Sadie and Pyper to participate in the budget discussion at the dinner table... to compare income with what they spend, and analyze just what was necessary, and what was discretionary. Then help the family to decide what to give up to save the required amount. Perhaps they would have come up with something different... eliminating the weekly pizza dinners, or reducing some other area of their lives. Maybe they would have agreed with the cable reduction, but if they were a part of the process, they would have not only better understood the situation, and had buy-in for the solution, but would have learned something very valuable as well.

There are no free rides, and in life we have to make decisions and compromises. Responsible people choose to pay for necessities first, and only then to buy those things that are nice to have, but not required.

CP

Patriotic Triplets in Cadillac, Michigan

In the heart of the flat-lined economy, in Cadillac, Michigan, comes a story of unusual patriotism.

Three triplet siblings, two boys and one girl, have all joined the United States Marine Corps.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370641,00.html

This wasn't some sort of publicity stunt. Apparently each came to the decision to enlist separately, and for different reasons. Still, what an awesome display of patriotism and maturity by these three young adults.

It is stories like this that buoy my soul when I fear too much for our Republic.

Semper Fi, Andrew, Sam and Elizabeth Foltz

Slim Pick'ns!

The last sitting Senator to be elected President of the United States was John F. Kennedy.

When the current election season started, we had a number of Senators vying for the office, but also a few prominent current or past Governors, and a former mayor of New York City. One of the former Governors also had successfully planned and executed an Olympics... no small feat considering the construction, security and logistics involved over numerous years.

But now, we are basically down to two Senators to choose from: one Republican and one Democrats. By the time November rolls around, they will have done everything in their power (and the power of their war chests) to make people believe they have had much more actual experience than they truly have. They will still be "just" Senators.

I don't mean to belittle Senators. They are a significant part of our government, a pillar of the Legislative branch. Their name and responsibilities hearken back to the Roman Empire, and the first Senate.

But as superior a legislative body the Senate is, it is fairly easy to be all things to all people over time. Like John Kerry, it is no big trick to be able to say you were for something before you were against it. The way bills are crafted, with amendments and riders... it is nearly impossible for the common citizen to truly know what his Senators stand for and represents.

The sad fact is, many of them only truly stand for themselves and their re-election.

And let us not forget, they are not held accountable for their results. It is all too easy for our congressman to avoid responsibility when bills they voted for or even sponsored go wrong, have unintended effects or are later ruled unconstitutional.

Governors, mayors and businessmen are ultimately and immediately accountable when things go wrong (they seldom get the credit when things go right, however). Chief executives, of government or business, must be cognizant of the bottom line. They must achieve results. They have run large organizations and have the experience we should want in the highest office in the land.

Obama has only organized campaigns for his political pursuits. He hasn't had to make a profit, nor has he been responsible actually run something.

Hillary (who may end up on the Democratic ticket as the VP candidate?) likewise has only been a Senator, an occasional lawyer and investor, and a spouse. Granted, keeping Bill Clinton's many faults obscured, and his scandals controlled counts for some experience, but not like running a business or state.

McCain, led people in combat and in non-combat military positions for a 22 year career. He acted honorably and courageously while in combat and even more so while in captivity as a Prisoner of War. But, almost immediately after retiring from the Navy, he went into politics, first as a US Representative, then a Senator. Aside from the military, he also has never been accountable to be a chief executive of something, ultimately responsible.

The office of the President of the United States of America is arguably the most powerful and important position in the world. Decisions made by the President affect nearly everyone on the planet, and certainly every American... good or bad, permanently or temporarily. It is a position for a proven, seasoned veteran of executive management and leadership, not an intern. It isn't an entry-level executive position. We elect someone inexperienced at our own peril... unfortunately the field of contenders at this point in 2008 doesn't contain anyone thusly qualified.


CP

If the Republic Shall Fall...

... it will not be because of patriots like this. It will be because succeeding generations were not worthy of their sacrifice.

Jack Lucas Dies At 80; Earned Medal Of Honor At 17

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Jack Lucas, who at 14 lied his way into the military to serve in World War II and became the youngest marine ever to receive the Medal of Honor, died Thursday in Hattiesburg, Miss., where he made his home. He was 80.

Mr. Lucas had been hospitalized with leukemia and died after asking doctors to remove a dialysis machine, said his wife, Ruby.

Jacklyn Lucas, known as Jack, was just six days past his 17th birthday when, in February 1945, his heroism at Iwo Jima earned him the medal. He used his body to shield three members of his squad from two grenades and was nearly killed when one exploded.

“A couple of grenades rolled into the trench,” Mr. Lucas said in an interview with The Associated Press shortly before he received the medal from President Harry S. Truman in October 1945. “I hollered to my pals to get out and did a Superman dive at the grenades.”

But “I wasn’t a Superman after I got hit,” he added, recalling the scream he let out “when that thing went off.”

Mr. Lucas was left with more than 250 pieces of shrapnel in his body and had 26 operations in the following months. He was discharged as a private first class.

The youngest member of the military to receive the Medal of Honor in any conflict other than the Civil War, he became a symbol of patriotism in the ensuing decades, meeting presidents and traveling the world to speak with frontline troops and fellow veterans.

Mr. Lucas, born in Plymouth , N.C. , on Feb. 14, 1928, was a 13-year-old cadet captain in a military academy when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor .

Big for his age and eager to serve, he forged his mother’s signature on an enlistment waiver that would have allowed him to join the Marines at 17 rather than the usual 18. But in fact he was by then only 14, though the military did not learn of that until censors discovered it through a letter he had written to his 15-year-old girlfriend.

“They had him driving a truck in Hawaii because his age was discovered, and they threatened to send him home,” said D. K. Drum, who wrote Mr. Lucas’s story with him in the 2006 book “Indestructible.”

Mr. Lucas eventually stowed away aboard a Navy ship headed for combat in the Pacific. He turned himself in aboard ship to avoid being listed as a deserter, and volunteered to fight.The officers aboard “did not know his age,” Ms. Drum said. “He didn’t give it up, and they didn’t ask.”

After the war, Mr. Lucas earned a business degree from High Point University in North Carolina and raised, processed and sold beef in the Washington area. In the 1960s, he rejoined the military, becoming an Army paratrooper to conquer his fear of heights, Ms. Drum said. On a training jump, both of his parachutes failed, she said, and Mr. Lucas later said his stocky build and a last-second roll as he hit the ground had saved his life.

In addition to his wife, Mr. Lucas is survived by four sons, a daughter, seven grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.

What have you done for your country lately?

CP

Nothing New Under the Sun?

It has been said that the "information age" has changed all the old paradigms, has rendered old truths to be invalid.

Perhaps.

But maybe it has just sped up things more.

I stumbled on an interesting blog recently that illustrates what I mean.

In the not-so-long ago days before the internet... or even Television. When Radio was a novelty, and few private homes had a phone line, we had blogging of a sort.

They just called it writting letters.

Of course, instead of instant-mass media, it was usually addressed to just one person, or perhaps a small intimate group like a family.

The media was different, but the purpose largely the same.

During WWI, a young soldier with the British 9th Battalion, York and Lancaster Regiment, sent letters to his wife and other family members from the front. In their entirety, they constitute a runnning dialog on the things that mattered most to him (and by extrapolation, one can assume most of the soldiers in the same situation).

Private Harry Lamin's grandson has established a blog, www.wwar1.blogspot.com, and is posting the individual letters on the dates they were written plus 90 years. Thus, a letter written by the Private from the trenches of France on July 1, 1917, was posted on July 1st, 2007. And so on.

90 years ago, the battles were still raging in France, it was the summer of 1918. The cannons did not fall silent until November 11th, so there are 5 more months of blog entries to look forward to... if Private Lamin survived, which his grandson is not saying. An intriguing concept for a blog, methinks.

Once we accept that freedom is not free, we owe it to those who have paid for it to understand what they went through for us. This blog provides just such an opportunity to learn. I recommend it.

CP

... Some Gave All

US Military Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer, France. On the bluffs overlooking Omaha Beach, Normandy, contains the remains of 9,387 American military dead, most of whom were killed during the invasion of Normandy and ensuing military operations in World War II. The graves face westward, towards the United States. Strangely, nobody considered such numbers of dead to be indicative of a "quagmire" or called for the withdrawal of US forces prematurely.


BG Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. didn't have to be on the Normandy Beaches... but he knew it was the right place to be.

All photos Copyright (C) 2004 Todd A. Mercer. All Rights Reserved

“Greater love hath no man than this, that he give his life for his friends.” – John, 15:13

The drum rolls.

The marching boots kick up the dust of countless trails.

They marched toward the sound of the cannon.

They marched with fear gnawing at them, wondering if the next step would be the last.

Wondering if they would make it home to see their child, their wife, their mom and dad.

The fear was almost debilitating.

Yet, they marched on, the fear of letting down their buddies overcoming their personal dread.

The toll:

Spanish-American War(1903): 2,446 dead

World War I( 1917-18): 116,516 dead

World War II (1941-46): 405,399

Korean War(1950-53: 36,574

Vietnam War(1964-75): 58,209

Iranian Hostage Rescue (1979): 8

Lebanon Peacekeeping (1982-84): 265

Urgent Fury, Grenada (1983): 19

Just Cause, Panama (1989): 23

Persian Gulf War(1991-92): 383

Restore Hope, Somalia (1992-94): 43

Uphold Democracy, Haiti (1994-96): 4

Global War on Terror (2001-current): approaching 5000

In the 20th Century and the first decade of the 21st, over 625, 000 American servicemen and women paid the ultimate price in combat. (Source: Congressional Research Service)

How many potential Nobel laureates were among those numbers? How many scientists that would discover medical cures; artists who would inspire and awe. How many who would discover things to make our lives better, longer or more meaningful?

It is meaningless to analyze (as some have anyway) the demographic breakout of those who died. The races, religions, genders, economic strata they came from. In death, they are equally exalted as heroes, regardless of their background. They gave their last full measure of devotion for our country and our way of life.

More importantly, how does a nation honor such heroes?

In the United States of America, we set aside the last Monday in May as Memorial Day to honor and commemorate those that paid the ultimate price for our freedom. One day in 365. It hardly seems enough.

But we are a nation of short attention spans, and shallower knowledge of history, by and large. Even that one day a year all too often becomes an excuse for a party, or the first trip to the beach, or a trip to the mall. How many of our countrymen don't even realize what the holiday is really for?

Sad. Disrespectful. Dishonorable.

But perhaps, just perhaps, through no true reasoning or fault of their own... the oblivious masses and the rest of us who show such little respect and admiration for what they sacrificed for us are the penultimate honor and tribute to their devotion.

That we can go about our lives, generally free of fear from tyranny and oppression. That we can take off from work whole weekends and weeks. That we can travel freely throughout our country, and indeed through much of the world. That we have the ability and freedom to work where we want, study at a college of our choice, spend our incomes on the material things we want... actually speaks volumes about the sacrifices made on our behalf.

These 625,000 men and women; predominately young and with their whole lives in front of them; traded their tomorrows so that we can wallow in our oblivious lives, enjoying our today's and planning for our own tomorrows. In their deaths, they displayed the pure, unadulterated love of country and their fellow countrymen that only such sacrifices reveal.

General George S. Patton, Jr. once said "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived."

Is it a shame that we don't better and more fully honor those that gave up all their tomorrows? Absolutely, it is. But maybe in some small measure, we are still honoring them by just living.

So, in living our lives, perhaps we are indeed celebrating Memorial Day every day.

Happy Memorial Day, my fellow citizens. Freedom is not free.

CP

All Gave Some...

Memorial Day weekend. 2008

Amidst all the barbeque's, parties and "big box" store sales, almost in spite of the 4-day weekend most Americans get to take, there is a holiday that is meant to commemorate the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have died while answered their country's call to arms.

Officially, the holiday commemorates U.S. men and women who perished while in military service to their country. First enacted to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War, it was expanded after World War I to include casualties of any war or military action. Over time, it has come to also honor all those who marched off to war, and maybe even to a larger extent, those who served in any capacity to support a war effort. To be sure, all the "Rosie the Riveters" who manned America's assembly lines when the men went off to fight can take justifiable pride in their accomplishments, this weekend more than most. Freedom's fought for and won in numerous ways.

But to be sure, the holiday is first and foremost about those who died in the defense of America and America's freedoms.

Growing up, even in the midst of the Vietnam conflict, when I thought of Memorial Day, I thought of WWII's veterans. The greatest generation. I forget how old I was, but I'm sure not too old, when I realized with some amazement that my own father was among that generation, among that cohort. The man whom I knew as a fairly nondescript salesman and manager, father, husband, golfer and bowler... braved the flak-filled skies over Europe as a tail gunner in a B-26 medium bomber.

As most of that generation, he didn't (and doesn't) talk much about the war. Even getting small tidbits out of him took years. He preferred to be known for his accomplishments after coming home: college, family, sending his only child off to college. But, I'm sure also that the war experience defined him as much as anything he did, before or since.

Official reports from the Veterans Administration, among other agencies, tell us that the WWII veterans, once so many, are leaving us at the rate of 1500 each day. WWI veterans are all but gone, perhaps one or two still alive in America. Korean and Vietnam War vets are still plentiful, but they too are creeping toward old age. Grenada, Panama, Operation Desert Storm; these veterans too answered America's call and while fairly small in number, still represent the notion that America is worth defending.

Of course, we are currently growing a new cohort of war casualties and veterans. Citizen soldiers who have marched off to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are now joining their fathers, grandfathers, uncles and older brothers in the ranks of those we should memorialize this weekend. Sadly, over 4000 have joined the heroic ghosts of Arlington National Cemetery and other cemeteries around the country.

Anti-war protesters naively protest against particular wars, or any war. The City of Berkley, California, and others, make it nearly impossible for military recruiters to do their all important job of gaining new recruits for our all-volunteer military. College campuses around the nation happily take federal grant dollars, even in some cases to work on military-related projects, but steadfastly refuse to allow recruiters or ROTC on the campus. The underlying belief seems to be that if America doesn't have a military, it won't get into any wars.

How naive.

To paraphrase a common quote, "these people are free to carry on their silly protests, are free to go to the Memorial Day sales, free to picnic and party with their friends and take Monday off from work, because patriots still stand ready to visit violence upon those around the world who hate us for our liberties and tolerance." And make no mistake: there is no shortage of those who viscerally hate the USA and all we stand for. The only thing that keeps the hounds at bay is the fear of our military. If we ever loose that, we loose all.

Canadian singer-song writer Terry Kelly put together a great song, and video, several years ago that really cuts to the point. See the video here. Read the back story to why he wrote it, here.

Happy Memorial Day my fellow citizens. Sleep well.

CP

The 545 that cause our problems

A friend recently sent me one of his regular emails, that included the below gem. It is perported to be written by a former columnist for a Florida paper. I don't know if it was or not, but regardless, it pretty succinctly captures a key element of the problems we face.

Charley Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper (April 22, 2008). This is the simplest, most understandable and truest explanation of the woes of the nation and who caused them, as well as how to cure them. This should be sent to every person in the United States, including the '545'.

545 People By Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against
deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President and nine Supreme Court justices: 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to
provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he or she votes.

These 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.

They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.

No normal human being would have the gall of the Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the
House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want.

If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted by present facts of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545
people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq. The President cannot unilaterally declare war. The President needs the approval of Congress, as well as the budget from Congress to continue a war.

If they do not receive Social Security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

These 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Now, with the above said, I find it interesting that Congress is currently "enjoying" an extremely low favorability in terms of consistently bad polls. Everyone seems to think Congress is doing a poor job as a group. All the congressmen should be replaced. All, that is, except for each respondant's own congressman and Senators. They, it seem, are doing a pretty good job.

Tip O'Neil used to say that "all politics are local". Our current crop of employees in Washington have perfected the game of "buying" their constituents with the "earmarks" that used to be called "Pork", and thus they keep their jobs. Each of them only has to keep their own constituents happy, and they do that with tax dollars. What a racket!

Sure makes a great case for "Term Limits", doesn't it?

CP

Character and Integrity on the Campaign Trail

Back in 1992, one of the (Bill) Clinton campaign's slogans was "It's the economy, Stupid".

While in 1992, the economy was important, and in 2008 it is again, the true underpinning of our presidential elections should be"Its about Character, Stupid".

Lets face it. Any US President can gather around him world-class advisers on any subject. He can reach out to any source for expert advice. There is no shortage of people grovelling at a President's door to be an aide, cabinet member or other advisor.

But, what a President can't gather around him, and can't buy, is Character and Integrity. A President provides vision and direction. The government executes. He isn't in there working on the tax code or health care... others are doing that on his behalf, within the vision he sets forth for the task.

Recent statements by both Obama and (Hillary) Clinton call both of their integrity's and characters into question. Hillary with her several lies about her "experience" as the spouse of a president. The Sniper-fire lie, etc. Obama has struggled to keep people from seeing his character flaws too. The association with an unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist and a 20-year association with a racist reverend, call into question his sense of right and wrong, his integrity and ultimately his character.

A friend sent me the following article that discusses Obama's short association with the truth better than I ever could... and again highlights his problems with character and integrity.

Say What, Barrack?

By Paul R. Hollrah

Tuning in to C-Span recently, I found myself listening to a speech by Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. He was standing in the pulpit of a black church in Selma, Alabama, and as I studied the body language of the dozen or so black ministers standing behind the senator, I couldn't help but be reminded of the little head-bobbing dolls that people used to place in the rear windows of their 1957 Chevrolets. If their reactions are any indication, the new "Schlickmeister" of the Democrat Party is actually a pretty ccomplished public speaker.

However, as he spoke, I found my b.s. alarm going off, repeatedly. But I couldn't quite figure out why until I actually read excerpts of his speech several days later. Here's part of what he said:

"...something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children.

"When (black) men who had PhD's decided 'that's enough' and 'we're going to stand up for our dignity,' that sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.

"So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great- grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that, (in) the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child.

There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. Was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma , Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

Okay, so what's wrong with that? It all sounds good. But is it?

Obama told his audience that, because some folks had the courage to "march across a bridge" in Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child.

The problem with that characterization is that Barrack Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, at least five years after Obama's parents met.

Obama went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that they could be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barrack Obama, Sr., to America.

The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So if this African grandfather heard words that ''sent a shout across oceans,'' inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not a Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, nor his brother Bobby, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Obama's speech is reminiscent of Al Gore's claim of having invented the Internet, Hillary Clinton's claim of having been named after the first man to climb Mt. Everest, even though she was born five years a and seven months before Sir Edmund climbed the mountain, and John Kerry's imaginary trip to Cambodia.

As one of my black friends, Eddie Huff, has said, "We need to ask some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, and it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince."

That obviously smart and learned people such as Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton would make such egregiously inaccurate statements talks to more than their inaccurate memory or knowledge. It talks to their belief that the average American is so historically illiterate that they will believe whatever they are told, and never validate it. Remember, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propagandist, liked to say that if you tell a big lie often enough, most people will believe it. Barrack and Hillary have learned this lesson well!

Nobody can steal or otherwise take your integrity away from you. Only you can give it away. What does it say about those who seek to lead us if they do so by giving away their integrity?

CP

Stealth Attack to gain Amnesty for Criminal Immigrants

Last year, I kicked off this blog for a number of reasons. A big one was to discuss the criminal immigrant situaiton, and the horrible political plans to deal with it.

Back then, a majority of Americans came together and voiced their displeasure at what our politicians were intending to do: grant amnesty in one form or other to a bunch of people in our country illegally. In other words, law breakers.

Well, right now, the Senate is debating the most recent spending authorization for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regardless of how you feel about the wars, and I unabashedly support them, I think it is just dead wrong to attach amnesty (or anything not related to spending for the war) to this bill. Our policians on both sides of the isle, are loading this bill with pork and other spending. And, apparently they are pushing ahead with the hope that most Americans won't notice or will notice too late.

This wouldn't happen if the "Read the Bills" legislation were the law of the land. This legislation would mandate that our elected officials actually read the bills, and that they would be posed on the web for 7 days so we lowly citizens could read it, too.

But, that is not now the case.

Still, we citizens can once again mobilize to tell our employees in congress that WE STILL SAY NO TO AMNESTY FOR THOSE IN OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Period.

I urge you to call your Senator's office now. Have all your relatives and friends do the same. Remind them you will not forget them at the ballot box if they go against the will of the people.

You can find their contact information by clicking here: US Senate.

This webpage has more detail about what is going on in Washington as I type this. I urge you to check it out.

For me, it is as simple as this: Our elected officials have sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws of our land. Criminal immigrants are, by definition, illegally in our country. They broke the law to come in, and continue to break it every day they stay. There is no way our elected officials can morally or ethically reconcile that with support for amnesty. WE SHOULDN'T LET THEM TRY! Get involved. If this bill goes through with these attachments, the President should be supported in a VETO.

CP

To write a blank check

A US Military veteran, regardless of length of service, period of service, and whether or not he/she ever heard a shot fired in anger, is one who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The People of the United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

--- Received recently in an email. Hat-tip to SD

That pecular American Way of selecting our leadership

The political process by which we Americans whittle down the many candidates to the two individuals who will represent each of the two major parties had been on display this season for all the world to wonder at.

Living in Europe as I currently am, I am amazed at the interest that my European colleagues have taken in the candidates. They've been keenly interested, and asked me many probing questions about the process. It has forced me to pay more attention to my own country's process for determining who will be the next leader we call "Commander-in-Chief".

I had previously thought that the push for many states to move their primaries earlier in the year was a bad thing. I felt it would truncate an already too-short opportunity to really learn what the candidates are about before they are running a "national" campaign. Only in the primary season, I reasoned, were candidates accessible by the public. Thanks to our national media, what a candidate answers to a question in Iowa no longer stays in Iowa, but is transmitted around the nation and reported on (sometimes ad nauseum). But that is good, because the answer in our global economy is relevant in Hawaii and Alaska and Florida and New York, too.

Gone are the days when politicians can routinely get away with telling different audiences conflicting things because that is what they want to hear. Remember Obama's San Francisco comments about Pennsylvania religious gun owners!

Here are some suggestions on how to further improve the process with the goal of really finding the best candidates for President... not just the most electable. And, along the way, likely generating some truly revolutionary solutions to the problems of our times:

1. Get rid of the "Super Delegates" the Democrats are using. From the party that whined so loudly about the Electoral College win that put George Bush in the White House in 2000 (but, gee, Al won the popular vote, it isn't fair!) it seems awfully strange and counter to democratic principles to have folks that are unaccountable to the voters be able to make the decision. True, at this point, it looks like they will follow the general will of the voters of their respective states... but they don't have to. And who knows if the Clinton machine has something that will swing them all to Hillary's camp at the last minute? Leave it to the voters entirely!

2. The GOP should adopt a similar proportional system as the Democrats are using. "Winner takes all" shouldn't be the case for the primaries (nor, really, for the general election, in my opinion). I'm not saying to go straight with the popular vote, however. It should be based on the congressional districts. If a district is won by a candidate, that candidate gets the district's affiliated delegates. The overall winner of the state then gets two "at large" delegates as well.

3. Keep the results of each state's primary or caucus secret until the convention. This would keep each candidate fully engaged in the process through the end. Each state would be relevant, regardless of if it was the first or last state, since neither campaign would be sure of who was leading or trailing, and what the delegate count was.

4. Return to the time when the conventions were actually working sessions that hammered out compromises and the party's platform, not just coronation ceremonies for the "anointed one".

5. Return to teaching what used to be called "civics" in school, so that our voters understand what a president (or US Representative, or Senator, or Governor) can and can't do. While we are at it, teach basic economics too, so our citizens realize that the the government can't pay for every desire without taking that money from someone's pocket... and what the effect of that would be.

This primary season has been a surprise for me in a number of ways. I fear that too many of our citizens view the presidential races like a blood sport, however, instead of the very serious task of choosing our next President. My suggestions would return the serious purpose and remove some of the sport-like qualities of the contest. But in the end, it will be about winning, hopefully America winning by electing the very best candidate from the crop.

CP

Gaming American Politics

With the Presidential primary season dragging into its 5th month of actual voting and caucusing, many of the pundits and commentators have increasingly called it the "never ending" campaign.

Republicans have all but nominated John McCain... waiting only for the GOP convention to make it official. But, nobody is seriously challenging him on the Republican side, and he is campaigning nationally now as the de facto Republican Candidate... enjoying a window of opportunity whilst the Democrats continue their slug-fest primaries.

Ah, the Democrats. Despite the math, Hillary continues to campaign. Obama seems to be increasingly frustrated by her refusal to bow out. Many voices in the Democratic party have been calling on her for over a month to throw in the towel... "for the good of the party".

And, they are right, if the objective is only to elect a Democrat in November.

But, I hold that the real objective is to determine who the best candidate for President is. Not just the most electable. I think all primaries, both GOP and Democrat, should go all the way to the convention. I believe that way is the only way for truly revolutionary ideas about our way forward as a nation will form and percolate to the top of the rhetoric.

What we are seeing in the Democratic drama, is the nation gleaning from each candidate who they really are, and what they really stand for. The long, long electoral season is allowing us, the consumers of politics, to pull away the curtains of polished sound bites and key messages, and see how each deals with issues that shed light on their character. The Rev. Jeremiah Wrights, the unpaid bills by the Clinton Campaign, the Weatherman friends and all the missteps by Bill Clinton all are indicators... they shed light on the character of the candidates and imply elements of each's character.

Moreover, with the elongated primary season, the liberal media is finding it increasingly difficult to avoid actually looking at the candidates' records in congress and elsewhere, and compare (and contrast) it with the rhetoric they are providing. This, too, shines a very needed light on their character and what they truly believe. Heck, anybody can say anything, and a good liar will make you believe it. But to gauge if it is true, look at what someone has actually done and said over time.

Or, believe the used car salesman and drive away in a lemon.

Over the last few years, as states scrambled to move their primary and caucus dates earlier and earlier, I thought it was a bad move. I thought it would further limit the opportunity for candidates to be close and personal with the electorate. It would limit the town-hall meeting format of campaigning and reduce our elections to very long ad campaign seasons, talking heads without any dialog, questions and answers.

At least for this election cycle I was wrong. It has actually caused states and territories (Guam) to truly have a voice in the process. Many of these states were no longer relevant in primaries past... the race had already been decided by the time their turn came. I'm glad they have had a chance this year... I believe it makes the process better and more revealing.

This has been a truly interesting primary season, especially on the Democratic side. And it ain't over yet. I salute Hillary for not giving in, for continuing to slug it out. It may be a futile effort as far as her candidacy goes, but I believe it is the right thing for our republic and democracy in general.

That's how I see it.

CP

Tolerant, but not stupid!

"Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it! ..."Tolerate" means you're just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or you tolerate a bad cold." -- South Park

Whilst I hestitate to quote an adult cartoon show for much of anything, this quote strikes me as very relevent in our society's hyper-tolerant condition.

There is a list of 9 other relevent quotes for our society at this link, along with a little discussion of exactly why each one (and this quote as well) is very relevent today.

CP

Responsible Welfare

I tend to be libertarian in my views: in most things, the government should not involve itself in our lives. Other people's rights to do things end at my front door, as do my rights to do things (end at other's front door).

But, I am not 100% libertarian, and I'd like to think I'm realistic. In terms of those who are "down on their luck", I believe it is right and just that we, as a society, provide some assistance to help them get back on their feet. This was the premise of the various assistance programs that grew out of FDR's "New Deal".

But now, circa 2008, we have third and even fourth generations of people who have lived on nothing but government support. There continue to be people who have children they can't support merely to garner more support from the government (e.g. Taxpayers). The various attempts to "reform welfare" over the past 30 years have all helped, but have not "solved" the problem of welfare dependency, and those who use welfare for a livelihood, not the "help back on their feet" it was intended to be.

This is where the libertarian view of no-government-intrusion comes to a screaching stop.

I believe that if we taxpayers, through our government(s), provide assistance to someone, we have an obligation to ensure those funds are well spent. To this end, I believe those on assistance should be held to a reasonble standard of conduct and living.

Some have proposed drug testing for those on welfare. To me, this is a no-brainer and should have been instituted long ago. Funding to run the program would come from savings of those kicked off the dole because they turned up hot on the test.

I propose the following additional measures for those on any form of assistance:

1. Living conditions must meet a mimum standard, but not exceed a maximum in terms of square footage per person or luxuries.

2. Amenities should be restricted to a bare minimum. Small, maybe 19" TV (just one) and one "boom box" type stereo. They shouldn't have big-screen TVs, cable or satellite, or large stereo systems. If they can afford those things, they don't need assistance. Furnishings should be basic and limited.... if they have time to lounge around on a plush couch or such, they have time to go out and find work.

3. Automobile should be basic, reliable, but nothing special. Those drug dealers who are on welfare and drive Mercedes, need to either unload the car or get off welfare. I'd say something on the order of a 1995 Ford Taurus is about the nicest they should have. If they can afford a better car, they shouldn't be on welfare.

4. No cigarettes, no booze, no beer, no soda, no junk food, no take-out food. Food stamps and welfare should go for wholesome, healthy food. It should also go for soap, toothpaste, over-the-counter medicine, vitamins and laundry detergent, but not cosmetics. Smoking, drinking alcohol and soda, and eating junk food is demonstratably bad for a person, and we shouldn't be causing harm to our fellow citizens through our assistance. Moreover, these things don't lead to them getting back on their feet, so they shouldn't be buying it while on assistance.

5. Activities, clothing, recreation, etc... all is cut to the bare minimum essential.

Bottom line, public assistance should be just that: ASSISTANCE. If you can do these other things, you don't need it. If you are on a form of assistance and want to be able to do these other things... get off assistance. It doesn't matter to me if they earn 99% of their income through legitmate work, and get 1% assistance... as long as they are receiving even a penny of taxpayer dollars through the government as assistance, they should be restricted in how they live, what they own, and the things they do.

Such a regime would also help people to learn to better manage their lives. Some on assistance are there because of bad decisions they have made. A regimented life while on assistance may help them to learn to make better decisions in the future, something that would help them for the rest of their lives!

Many will call this proposal draconian, and an intrusion into people's civil liberties. Maybe so, but when people accept government (taxpayer) assistance, that acceptance should constitute agreement to live a certain way and be monitored for compliance. If they don't like that condition, they always have the option to not accept the assistance. Just like when we join the military, we voluntarily accept a restriction on our civil liberties for the duration of our service. Why should those not serving, but enjoying taxpayer largess, be any different?

Perhaps in this way, we would finaly break the cycle of dependence on government assistance, and truly reform welfare, while maintaining the ability to truly assist those who just need a little help to get back on their feet.

CP

Happy New Year, everyone.

I know my posting here has taken a hit for the past several months, and there are many reasons for it. Changing jobs, moving, and having a baby are all valid excuses, and all have occurred this year.

My New Year's resolutions are to eat more vegitables and exercise more... and do a better job at posting on this blog. Luckily, it being an election year, that shouldn't be hard for me to fulfill.

My New Year's wish is for my fellow countrymen to see through the pandering and positioning, and select two worthy candidates to battle for President, then to select the best qualified for the job. The future of our Nation and way of life, not to mention democracy and feeedom, is very much in the balance. Maybe what I'll write over the next 11 months will help in some small way to make the choice easier for my readers.

My New Year's prediction is that during 2008, common sense, real science and continuing technology will continue to punch sizeable holes into Global Warmism, and it will begin to be seen as the cult/fantasy/hoax that I believe it largely to be.

But for now, the vistas that are 2008 are spread before us, and it is a good time to take stock of what we have, and give thanks (again) for all we've been blessed with.

The picture was taken at midnight, from our house in Italy. The neighbors, and most everyone within the area seems to have enjoyed their night of fireworks. To the best of my knowledge, nobody was hurt in the process, despite proximity to many houses and people.

CP