Opening the mail

There is an old British diplomatic saying that allegedly goes:

A gentlemen does not open other gentlemen’s mail.

Well, guess what? Everybody does it.

I find the feigned anger and distress that the American technological spy agency, the National Security Agency or NSA, spies on “friends’, enemies and its own people just hilarious.

First, if you have the capability, you use it. If you don’t, then you are not human (look at the analysts who used the capability to snoop on girl and boy friends)… and probably derelict in your duties.

Are the leaders of these countries trying to tell us that they don’t conduct surveillance operations that target the United States? Get real folks. Yes, they do at what ever level of technology they can achieve.  They want advance warning if the US government is going to change a policy affecting them and they sure as hell want to see if they can crack some of the industrial secrets US companies have.

Second, are you trying to tell me that if these countries don’t have these national technical means (to use the euphemism for spying with machines) they are not trying as hard as they can to develop them? Get real folks. Of course, they are. Just like they would beg, borrow, steal, filch, etc., any other piece of technology they can snag for their own use.

Everything the NSA is accused of doing (and probably is doing) is absolutely logical and sensible from an intelligence point of view. (No, I am not saying it is wise policy, just a logical one when you are focused on accomplishing a particular purpose or mission to the exclusion of all else.)

You see the people at the NSA who are doing what everyone objects to (and you have to admit, other nations, groups and hackers are trying to do to us) are very intelligent people and probably very, very focused people. They are very serious in doing their job protecting their nation against all enemies, foreign or domestic (but particularly the foreign ones). It creates a form of tunnel vision or myopia that blocks out other considerations.

And you have to understand, everyone seems to want to take the United States down … and more than just a few pegs. All these leaders want to increase their power on the world stage and cutting back on the American ability to exercise the power it has held for the last 60 years or so, is to their benefit and their enrichment.

But to claim they are not opening other people’s mail? That is a farce.

Actually, Pappy would have put it much better when he would have called it “a tempest in a teapot.”

Delusions

Detention upsets Greenpeace activist

I read this article about a young Greenpeace activist arrested protesting Russian oil exploration in the Artic and all I could do was shake my head with the naiveté of his civil disobedience.

First of all, when a person conducts civil disobedience to protest something in a country not his own that person should suspect that conditions following his or her arrest will not be a vacation.

First of all kids, civil disobedience is not a game. It is not a romantic adventure and you will not wind up being housed in the honeymoon suite at some grand hotel. It absolutely amazes me that the innocents who follow various charismatic environmental movement people are shocked when they discover that if they get arrested, particularly in most jails, they are going to find their lives becoming very uncomfortable.

Such befell the young man who wrote a letter from a Russian jail cell that it was unfair that it was cold, damp and he essentially was being kept in isolation. In addition, the food was worse than that served to hospital patients.

Pray tell me, what was he expecting? To be picked up and transferred to a four-star hotel pending deportation? I don’t think so.

Where are we getting these delusions? This young man is lucky he is in isolation, rather than jammed in a cell with a hundred other bodies, some of whom will be intent on raping him at the first opportunity.

I continually am amazed (I know, you would think I would learn) how many people in North America seem to think that the way things are here are just like the rest of the world. That the rights and privileges that we enjoy here, apply everywhere.  Wrong answer, kids. It ain’t that way and the sooner you grasp that fact, the less shocked you will be by the conditions you find yourself being thrown in during your misadventures.

People who really understand the cost of non-violent civil disobedience know from the get-go that it very likely will result in unpleasantness being visited on your body … regardless of how polite you are or even cooperative. No, the odds are that you will get the shit kicked out of you, thrown in hell holes masquerading as jail cells, with little edible to eat and less potable to drink. Your cellmate and jailors definitely will not be someone you would meet in your Internet Café and probably would kill you if  you look at them cross-eyed.

For instance, I constantly am amazed that the folks involved in the Whale Wars TV series haven’t found themselves literally getting blown out of the water by Japanese Self Defense ships. I mean, the “romantic” characters admit what they are doing is essentially piracy and they are pushing the limits of safety and civil behaviors. Granted, I understand that they oppose the practice, but it is legal under international law and they need to accept that rather than play stupid games where eventually people are going to start getting killed because of their romantic notions of fighting the good fight.

The kid being held in Russia is learning what the world really is like … unfortunately … and it is not really a pretty place.

Nuff Said.

Next logical step

Here comes polyamory ... or is that polygamy?

Well, Katy bar the windows, they are coming through the doors.

The above story is about polyamory, a domestic living arrangement that permits multiple partners. Without being coy about it, we are talking about polygamy under a different name. Literally, from its Latin roots, “polyamory” should mean “many love” (poly = many, amor = love).

Well, once we condoned homosexual relationships and decided they were acceptable, then multiple relationships was the next obvious step.

It is not that either is unnatural, because they aren’t. Homosexuality has been less accepted in human societies, but polygamous and polyamorous relationships have been and still are acceptable in a good number of societies around the world.

Now, given that we living in an instantaneous communication and gratification society, it is no small surprise that coming so quickly on the heels of acceptance of homosexuality as a positive norm that the next logical step to multiple, multi-sexual relations be advocated for acceptance. I mean we see a form of polygamy exercised in our culture in the serial marriages in the lives of our opinion makers and cultural leaders, if not just serial relationships and to heck with the institution of marriage.

Of course, those who wish to see the overthrow of all traditions will greet this development with open arms. It frees them up to focus on their satisfaction, regardless of the consequences to society.

Therein, I propose, is the problem. You see, change is not necessarily bad. Far from it, actually. Change is a natural part of the evolution of human existence. However, uncontrolled change can create havoc and conflict as those who are comfortable with the status quo seek to protect its status.

So, I am not opposed to change (although a lot of people seem to think I am) but I always question the necessity and rational for any changes and often ask troublesome questions like “What if … ?”

It is all well and good to want to change society, to change social structure, change the way we do things or the way we are governed. But one must be wary when proposing grand sweeping changes because the law of unintended consequences (as President Obama’s signature Patient Protection  and Affordable Care Act is providing ample illustrations) has not been repealed.

I was just reading the fall news letter from my local state senator (a Democrat in a state where the Democrats control both houses of the state legislature and a Republican sits as governor) where he was lamenting the fact that government gridlock was limiting changes to small incremental things (with special interest groups of all shapes and sizes doing all they could to protect their vision of the status quo). He was hoping that there could be broad and sweeping revisions and change. To me, that man is dangerous.

He may tout bipartisanship, but broad changes usually are only reflective on one world view (Much like the PPACA) and not of a consensus.

Governing by consensus, rather than just majority rule, usually is slower, but it usually brings with it less strife … and less hate and discontent among those being forced to accept the changes being imposed by those whose vision of the world and how society is different from those who are being asked to accept the changes.

It is something I think Americans would do well to ponder as we look around the world and see the fruits of rapid and uncontrolled changes. Is that what we want? I don’t think so. It is not our style.

I hope it gives you something to think about.

Nuff Said.

Unbelievably incompetent

Obama "blindsided" by Obamacare problems

Kathleen Sebelius says President Barack Obama didn't hear that there may be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – aka Obamacare - until it went live on October 1.

You have got to be kidding me.

If he didn’t know, then as a leader he was not asking the right questions and that is inexcusable. If he wasn’t told, then he was being served by incompetent subordinates – and that is being charitable.

One basic rule of management: You, the manager, never should be surprised when things go wrong. In fact, a wise manager expects it and prepares for it. By the same token, competent subordinates never, ever, ever, let the boss get blindsided, especially if they are aware that something MIGHT go wrong.

So, President Obama did not know until the web portal for his most important legislative achievement was rolled out to serve the public that it was in deep trouble and had serious problems with it implementation. Ah, that is not the fault of the Tea Party. It is not the fault of Congress. It IS the fault of the man in the Oval Office and his immediate staff. That he didn’t know about it does not absolve him of any of the responsibility for the disaster that has occurred since Oct. 1.

President Obama needs to take note that, as President Harry Truman said in a legendary sign on his desk, the buck stops there, in the president’s office. No where else. It is not the fault of the Health and Human Services secretary, regardless of whether she is willing to fall on her own sword or not. It does not fall on his chief of staff, or the various people on down the government food chain that oversaw the development (at a cost of more than a half-billion dollars) of the program that was supposed to be as easy as booking a flight on Travelocity, the online travel agency (and that is pretty easy. I have used it for more than 15 years).

That Sebelius still has a job is amazing. That people are letting her be the fall guy is appalling. Yes, she bears some responsibility – it was her people who were supposed to get it right and to warn her (which apparently they did) when it looked like there would be problems so she could give the boss the heads up that things were not going to be hunky dory, but the buck does stop with the president and he should be lopping off heads.

Of course, that is not going to happen. You see, it seems (and I may be wrong) that in the progressive/liberal mindset there should be no consequences for failure. No, that would be unfair and inhumane. Because all people are good people and bad things never should happen to such people.

Well, if you buy that, as the old saying goes, I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

Now, even good people make mistakes and sometimes even do bad things. The problem we have is there has been a track record of no accountability and it is plaguing our entire social construct in the United States. 

Unfortunately, it appears that our leader is one of the worst offenders in this department.

People, we have a problem in this country and it goes straight to the top. We have a leader who refuses to engage and who seems never to accept that the burden of leadership makes it his fault, not his subordinates, when things go wrong … and when things go dreadfully wrong, it is even more important that the leader step up and assume the mantle of responsibility.

Short of him resigning, which would be the proper thing to do, we will have to put up with three more years (after five already) of this incompetence. Bend over, as the saying goes, and get used to it (if you aren’t already).

Lastly, as a retired newspaper editor, I am deeply saddened by my compatriots in the journalism profession for their failure to pillory this administration for its incompetence. However, I have grown to expect it.

Marijuana

I find headlines like this rather ironic.

Why? You may ask.

Well, first of all, I have been of the conviction since my college days that such drugs as marijuana (and basically all recreational drugs) should be legalized. Not only legalized, but subject to an excise tax and regulated for content, just like alcohol and tobacco.

OH! Did I say “tobacco”? Tobacco is bad for you. And we need to outlaw it everywhere it raises its nefarious head. Stomp on it. Banish its practitioners. Better yet, draw and quarter anyone who smokes. We must protect everyone from its evils.

Ok, I will turn off my sarcasm.

You see, unfortunately for those proponents of legalizing the smoking of marijuana, I view smoking pot as little different from smoking tobacco. Both can have adverse effects on people, while at other times they can have seemingly beneficial effects.

I often have toyed with the idea of opening my own business – say a bar-nightclub-restaurant-smoke shop-tobacconist-social club  – and making all the employees sign an employment contract that points out that at this business permits the use of tobacco products, and other legal substances, on its premises and that they are fully aware of this fact and indemnify the owners from any liability (assumed, presumed or actual) from that fact. Then I would post a sign on the front door that patronage of my business means that the customer understands what the environment is and if they do not agree to accept their own responsibility they are welcome to go elsewhere.

And then I would hire the best chefs and bartenders around and serve the best food around.

Of course, the progressives would not like me. The liberals would do all they could to shut me down.  The medical community would be aghast and look upon me as something satanic.

Boy, I miss my pipe.

Still, I find it ironic that progressives are all het up over legalizing marijuana. Does that mean that they are for individual rights and individuals taking responsibility for their own actions? Sadly, I think not. I do think it is all about feeling good … or as the Huffington Post says: Having a “High Time”.

Personally, I find it repugnantly elitist … but then most progressives are just that.

Strange but I'll take it.

Took this test and this was the result. I thought I would be more expendable than that.


Your results:
You are Jean-Luc Picard

Jean-Luc Picard 60% Geordi LaForge 60% Deanna Troi 60% Will Riker 55% An Expendable Character (Redshirt) 55% James T. Kirk (Captain) 50% Chekov 50% Worf 50% Uhura 45% Data 44% Spock 42% Leonard McCoy (Bones) 40% Mr. Sulu 40% Beverly Crusher 40% Mr. Scott 30%

A lover of Shakespeare and other   fine literature. You have a decisive mind   and a firm hand in dealing with others.

Click here to take the Star Trek Personality Quiz

More rambling thoughts

Go win an election – Obama

President Obama sometimes gives the impression that as president, he is the only one who counts.  Sorry, the US government doesn’t work that way.

Gloating over the capitulation of his opponents in Congress on the issues of  what form of government funding was to be passed and how much debt the federal government would be allowed to take on, he told the losers they “needed to win an election.” The implication here, I suppose, is that the only election that counts is the presidential one. I guess if you think that the government should answer only to the president and be at his beck and call, that would be true but it is not what a democratic federal republic is all about.

You see, Mister President, your opponents on policy issues did win 232 elections in 2012 (out of 435 for seats in the House of Representatives), which means they hold a majority there. Now, if the US was a parliamentary system, it would mean that you would not be the elected leader of the United States … but that is a never-mind.

The point being is that not all power is supposed to reside in the White House and those people who control the other House were doing, essentially, what the people who voted them into office asked them to do.

No, Mister President (and your allies across the aisle in the House and across the hall in the Senate where they have control), that does not mean that those people who oppose you are extremists – despite being repeatedly labeled as such, nor racists – another favorite label being thrown around, nor hostage takers or terrorists or anarchists or arsonists or bombers. Despite your rhetoric to that effect, these people are not out to destroy the government, any more than one would hope you are. These merely are people who have a profound difference of opinion and world view than yours.

To me, it is tragic to see so many news stories and political pundits saying that the shutdown (such as it was) and the resistance to raising the debt ceiling was all the fault of the conservative Republicans and their Tea Party allies.

The shutdown did not have to happen and all the “painful” closures were not necessary. It doesn’t take much critical thinking to realize that the needed legislation had been passed by the House of Representatives but was blocked from passage by the presidential party loyalists in the Senate. It was those Senators who were holding the government hostage until they got what they wanted, not the other way around. Unfortunately, that was not nor will it be the way it was reported in the majority of the news dissemination outlets in the United States.

And now they are gloating over their victory and telling their opponents don’t ever oppose us again.

It is even more distressing to see liberal/progressive web sites like the Huffington Post headlining their page with demands that the loyal opposition bow down in obeisance to the righteousness of the progressives demands. What was it Churchill said about in victory? Something about magnanimity?

I read somewhere about how progressives are looking to create a country where it is the elite (themselves) who will perpetually be in power and those beneath them will just accept the justness of such an arrangement.

As for the other issue at the bar in the shutdown – Obamacare, or as it officially is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that it was designed to fail and that has been the intention of its “supporters” all along. I know that is being dreadfully cynical of me, but given the absolute disastrous train wreck the rollout of the “health insurance exchanges” this month, it is hard to believe that even our government and its contractors could be that incredibly incompetent. Those who know me know that I am loath to attribute to conspiracy anything that can be explained by mere incompetence, but this really has been pushing the envelope on that viewpoint.

I mean, nobody read the bill (supposedly) before it was passed and since then it seems that waivers and exceptions to its application have been the rule rather than the other way.

You see, here I tend to agree with the people who have been denigrated as Tea-baggers: I am of the opinion that the law, whatever it is, should be applied without regard to wealth, social status, gender, race, creed, religion, color, parentage or any of the plethora of other things that we use to divide us. In fact, I have feared the Balkanization of the United States for many years.

The law, in my humble opinion, should apply to all or to none at all. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the Obamacare law and its mind-boggling pages of regulations. To me, this is an egregious error, but I guess I am one of those bomb-throwers.

The funny thing to me is that, outside a few notable exceptions, I have met very few health care professionals who are in favor of Obamacare … actually most of them have expressed very negative views about the “reforms”.

As I discussed with one recently, the problem we have in the United States is not with our health care delivery system. It, in fact, is in really good shape, considering all the challenges it faces. Rather, the problem lies in how we are going to ration that delivery because it must be rationed. We have no other choice. Health care is a finite resource. We have only so many doctors, nurses, health care technicians and right on down to the porters and maids (not to mention the clerks and accountants in the billing offices).

To me the problem always has been how do you pay for all of that and who gets to decide who gets what? I am of the opinion that is not the in the purview of the US federal government, but since the bulk of the opinion makers in the US are now allied with national news dissemination organizations, all problems are nationalized (even if national solutions rarely are able to solve all problems).

I mean what would all the Bill O’Reillys, Anderson Coopers, Rachel Maddows, etc., do if they had to address merely local issues (even if they had some national implications) in all the various markets around the nation. They would not be able to cope.

I cite as a for-instance, an issue brewing in southern Maine over the use of the port facilities in South Portland to export Canadian oil. Currently, the facilities are used to pump oil from tankers from other places to Canada to feed its needs for heat, energy and transportation. The people who operate the pipeline, apparently plan to use the same facilities to take Canadian oil and export it to markets elsewhere in the world.

There are those around here are extremely put out that such a plan would be put forth at all. Of course, these people would dearly love to see the Port of Portland closed down, or so I overheard one supporter of a ballot initiative  to place such strict restrictions on the oil facilities that it would force them to close, tell another person today. They said something to the effect that so what if the 10 people working at the terminal were put out of work.

That would not be my point, however. Mine would say something about why should we in Portland be wanting to hurt so many Canadians?

However, I also know that this is not just about oil, but “tar sand” oil which those whose minds are focused on “protecting” the environment are so adamantly opposed to being developed. It doesn’t matter that the Canadians in Alberta are getting a good deal out of selling the oil, we just can’t have that happen, I guess.

And last but not least … I think the internet is a good thing. I think that letting people “blog” their thoughts and views is a good thing.

You see, apparently unlike the President of the United States, I think that blogging is of benefit and the more ideas, thoughts, points of view, etc., competing in the free market of politics the better … and may the better ideas float to the top.

Apparently, President Obama doesn’t agree and thinks that “bloggers” have too much influence. Well, I guess if your goal is to control the flow of information to the vast unwashed masses out there (note all the lengths the current administration has gone to combat leaks to reporters and the news media – which is predominately friendly to the Obama government), then the unrestrained freedom of social media and blogging would be more than disconcerting.

Just another sign that progressives and the president really don’t trust anyone but their fellow travellers.

Well, nuff said and nuff rambling for one post.

Bad day in the Little Apple

Oopsie.

My Kitties at Kansas State aren’t doing all that well this year … the lost to Baylor today (10/12/13) 35-25. Now they are like 2-4 for the season … guess no bowls this year. Oh well, I still love them.

Who is blocking the solution to shutdown, debt limit?

Senate Democrats block progress on debt limit, shutdown

Reid nixes bipartisan compromise in Senate

The folks over the Huffington Post are all happy because the people they like in the Senate are all over throwing various compromise solutions back in the faces of the Republicans if they offer any.

 

NO SURRENDER! NO RETREAT!

 

I think the American people deserve a little bit better than this, but I understand the sentiment and it is a two-way street. However, having said that, it seems egregious to me that the Majority Leader in the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, rejected a compromise proposal by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that had the support of at least six Democrats. Not enough to invoke cloture (should someone decide to filibuster it), but enough to pass the bill if all the Republicans bought into the measure.

So, the narrative remains that it all the Republicans’ fault. I am sorry, but that meme doesn’t fly anymore. This has become a situation where the progressives/liberals are saying “We won the White House. We still control the Senate. It don’t matter what the House says, especially since it is controlled by the opposition. What we want goes, period. End of sentence. End of story. And if you don’t like that you are a hostage-taking, kidnapping, baby-killing, ransom-demanding, terrorist bomber.”

If it were left to me, and I was the only one whose vote mattered, I would start with serious clearing out of the halls of Congress in November 2014 (if not sooner in those states where recall elections are permitted) and I would start with the liberals and progressives, and probably would continue on down to all the elected folks, and then start on the career staff that man all the policy-affecting offices in the congress members’ offices. Now, that is not going to happen, but it is what I would do.

Of course, there is little I could or would do with the blatant partisanship among the various news gathering and news disseminating organizations, other than call them on the fact that they are not fair and balanced, especially the ones in the broadcasting field but also including those in the traditional print media.

Sorry, but label what passes for journalism now as what it is: in the traditional sense of it, we are living again in the heyday of new era of Yellow Journalism.

Wikipedia's defines "Yellow Journalism"

Now, if you don’t know about Yellow Journalism, you need to go back a little more than a century or so, and look at the way the news was covered by the “majors” … not a pretty sight.

The “objective journalism” standard never really has been the norm, but for a brief shining period there in the 1950s and 1960s (and maybe into the 1970s and early 1980s) it was something that mainstream journalists professed as their goal. Not that they even came close, but it was the dream of a lot journalists that trained in that era.

So, I think it is time for us to let go of that illusion and realize that is not the case. Time to realize that everyone has a point of view and to them, it is fair and balanced and everyone else’s is prejudiced.

However, I would like to disabuse those who say that the House has no right to defund programs it doesn’t like. Sorry, but that dog don’t hunt. You may not like it, but the same thing was tried when the Iraq War went south. Remember the people who voted for the war before they voted against it? If you don’t remember that issue, then you need to have your memory checked because it wasn’t that long ago.

And just because some law has passed Congress, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court, does not mean that law is engraved in stone … and unless it is an amendment to the Constitution, it is not necessarily the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes do take precedence over state law, but that does not equal constitutional status.

If it were the case, then little things like the Fugitive Slave Act and the Volstead Act would still be the law of the land. Or Plessey v. Ferguson would still be in effect. Nope, laws can be changed. Courts can change their opinion on what is constitutional and what is not.

Even if it is a law, Congress (especially in the case of the House) has the prerogative to vote against providing any funds to enforce or put any law into effect. Heck, it has been underfunding immigration enforcement for years.

I really would hope, however, that more people would look at the situation unfolding in Washington, D.C., and recognize that despite the repetition of the canard that it all is the fault of the party that controls the House of Representatives, the fault for this mess does indeed lie elsewhere.

To me, the answer is obvious beyond debate.

Nuff said.

I think Jimmy Carter should stick to building houses

Democracy is not working in US: Jimmy Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter does some pretty amazing work with his wife through his efforts with Habitat for Humanity. I really laud his efforts there.

Unfortunately, when he strays from that he kinda loses me.

For example, I think Habitat for Humanity is an incredible program. It helps build homes for people who otherwise might not have one and those people have to put some sweat-equity into not only their new home, but others as well. It is part of the Habitat contract with the individual. No, these homes are not just given to people gratis. Sorry, that isn’t what the program is about.

In addition, in most places, it is not a government program. I think that is one reason that it works so well. It is a non-governmental effort that makes agreements with families that through donated labor and material a home will be constructed to modern standards as long as the person agrees to put in so many hours working on their own home as well as helping build other homes. I think that is a fair trade.

However, I think President Carter implies a lot more than he bargains for when he starts saying that things like housing, health care and education are “rights.” Yes, they are necessary things and things that one would hope that most people would have at least some access to. 

Having said that, I would start to question where one draws the line on providing necessities to people. It is the old “How much is enough” question and who gets to decide what enough is.

For people like Carter, it seems that government is the answer to who should be doing the providing and begs the question of who decides how much is enough. And of course, if government is not guaranteeing food, housing, health care and education, then obviously democracy is failing.

Sorry, Mr. Carter, but that is a bunch of hokem and you should be old enough and smart enough to realize that it defies human nature. You and the folks with Habitat are smart enough to require a contract from the new homeowners, but it seems that when something becomes a “right” and is provided by the government, then the contract that requires some return from the purchaser (receiver of goods and/or services) gets lost somewhere.

Actually, Mr. Carter, democracy is alive and well in the American republic. Maybe you don’t like the way things are going, but then you had your chance and the American people chose a different course than you were offering some forty years ago. Sorry, but the American people weren’t buying what you were selling. (I remember, because I had to endure double-digit inflation and mortgage rates pushing 20 percent and witnessed double digit unemployment when benefits were far less generous than now.)

I am afraid the President Barack Obama is having to learn the same lesson that President Carter had to learn. Sometimes, a large number of people in the US tend to resent things just being handed to them or someone else. They see the ultimate fairness in exchanges – like the sweat-equity contracts demanded by Habitat for Humanity – for goods and services.

A lot of people look at 99 weeks of extended unemployment benefits and scrunch up their noses and eyebrows and wonder what the heck is going on. They also look at people expecting the government to provide them with housing, healthcare, food and cellphones and wonder whatever happened to the contract where you had to give in order to receive?

Take the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Mr. Carter: Interestingly enough a slim majority of Americans (at least reflected by the people they sent to represent them in the House of Representatives) seem to think it is not working out like it was projected and maybe there should be some changes in the program … like making it apply to everybody and not just those unfortunate not to have the pull to be exempted from its provisions and face fines etc. if they don’t get with the program. So their representatives are using the constitutionally-mandated power given them to rattle a few cages and try to get the attention of the Senate and the Executive Branch to maybe tweak the law some.

You need to put a call in the Mr. Obama, Mr. Carter, and tell him that maybe he should be listening more to the people and less to the media, the pundits and his political cronies.

Just a random thought there.

New Narrative: GOP moves goal posts

CNN: GOP changes demands to resolve impasse

I love politics … because it is so predictable … at least in the US.

Ok, to be out front – the way I see it – the shutdown could be ended today if the SENATE would pass the funding resolutions in its current hopper.

That won’t happen because the SENATE is holding out for one big omnibus continuing resolution to fund ALL government operations. It is either the omnibus spending bill or no bill – the so-called “clean CR” – according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and President Barack Obama.

However, I am seeing others starting to pick up on the point of view that what the House of Representatives is doing is IN FACT just what those silly dead white men 225 years ago wanted it to do in cases like this when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. This is exactly what those evil “framers” or “founders” of our government expected and wanted the House to do. It is performing its role as a check on the Senate and the Executive Branch (the president) by exercising its power over the purse.

Now, there are those, mainly progressives, who see this as a bad thing (although they were busy trying to defund military operations in Iraq just a few years ago), but it really is what people like James Madison and the others who sweated the summer of 1787 out in Philadelphia to contrive a more perfect union meant to happen.

What those less than three-score of gentlemen did really is quite remarkable, when  you look at the diversity (yes, Virginia, they were a diverse cultural lot) of the group and the interests that they represented.

It indeed was a grand compromise, that no one went home 100 percent satisfied with the result (the biggest rift was over the institution of slavery), but it still put in place a formula for governance that pretty well stood the test of time … until we all got complacent about it and for reasons discussed very well by the guru at Strafor (George Friedman) we have let ideologues grab the wheels of power.

(The roots of how we got here)

Still and yet, the government is functioning pretty much within normal designed operating parameters – despite the rather bizarre rhetoric and talking points being distributed by the leadership of the Democrat Party and its supporters.

As I told one person today, it ain’t time to man the barricades just yet.  Her concerns are well grounded, I told her, and not all people are quite as tolerant and generous as she might be but while we may be in the latter stages of the infamous “Cycle of Democracy”, there always is hope. Hope does spring eternal, despite what we might think in moments of despair as we watch/hear/read the news each day from various sources competing to get us to accept their view of world affairs.

That most of them – at least all those people who talk at us via the TV and Internet these days as well as those who we have elected to lead the government - really are being disingenuous (being charitable here) is most distressing and, as Pappy used to say, you just want to knock some heads together to knock some sense in them.

Does it not seem strange that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can get a chunk of money (some $445 million) while the $100,000 that supposedly goes to the survivors of American service members killed in the line of duty (roughly two dozen since Oct. 1, including four killed in action in Afghanistan) has been suspended because the government can’t afford it?

Or how about a rally on the National Mall by supporters of amnesty for people who have entered the United States without the proper documentation or have overstayed the visits they said they were going to have when groups of aged veterans from World War II are denied access to the open-air memorial on the same mall and threatened with arrest if they come back?

How about people being denied access to their privately owned homes and businesses that happen to have ended up on property owned by the federal government in the creation of various national parks?

Or the National Institutes of Health enrolling a half-dozen or so sick children in special treatment programs even though they have been forbidden to do so by the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office Building next to the White House?

If that does not sound to you like misplaced priorities, then I would question whether you should reexamine those priorities. I definitely think there is some serious misrepresentation of issues going on here.

And no, the federal government is not going to default on its debt payments, unless someone in the executive branch really screws things up.

A) Under existing funding legislation (and that already passed by the House) funds are available to pay the interest on the national debt … hence, no need for a default because that is what is required. It is when you don’t make those payments that you default. It is a bit like paying your mortgage (even in the worst of times, if all you can do is pay the interest portion, the lender probably will not give you too much of a bad time).

B) The federal government does not need to raise the debt ceiling in order to make these payments, because it takes in enough money in taxes, tariffs, duties, etc., to cover the interest due along with a whole bunch of other things.

The debt ceiling debate is sort of like arguing over which credit cards you are going to try to pay this month, with one side let’s just raise the credit limit and the other side saying that it might be a good idea to start cut back on how much we are spending.

Unfortunately, what we are being treated to daily by those we have hired to run our government is a whole lot less than the truth and a whole lot of stuff to try to scare us into demanding that one political party’s viewpoint is the only acceptable one.

I don’t think so.

But that is enough of my random thoughts for this go around.

Nuff said.

Media ignorance and bias as illustrated by CNN

The effort for Universal Health Care begins on CNN

CNN Anchor displays ignorance of the Congressional budget process   (view the video headlined: Rep. Matt Salmon: "I believe this will send us back into a part-time economy")

 

Ok, I could slam Fox News Channel because of its sloppy journalistic approaches in its prime time reporting, but unfortunately that would be an easy target because it IS NOT really simple reporting, but news analysis – usually with a conservative slant.

However, the CNN reports ostensibly are news reports and not just opinion. And the anchor/reporter in each segment above brings a particular point of view and agenda to the table. That is not good journalism, but it is what passes for it today.

However, the thing that set me off tonight (10/3/2013) was watching CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper questioning a Republican representative about the GOP-controlled House’s efforts to fund the federal government department by department in separate bills. To Cooper, this seemed to be such a bad thing.

HELLO MR COOPER! Where were you in your high school civics class? Asleep?

For those unfamiliar with the in and outs of way the US Congress has worked for the  past 225 years, it does not just pass one big bill to to fund the operations of the federal government. No, it passes a number of authorization bills – broken down by various subjects and departments – that authorize the various departments of the government to spend certain amounts of money for their operations. This is followed by a similar number of appropriations bills that actually allocate the available federal funds to pay for those things authorized. Anything left over … well usually Congress authorizes borrowing the money to cover whatever it wants to spend.

This really is just like us peons do when we pay our monthly and annual bills. We don’t just write one huge check. We write a plethora of little ones to pay our creditors … and we make agonizing decisions how much to spend on each separately and not all at one time.

Unfortunately, this process has broken down at the federal level in the last 35 years or so. Now, it seems that Congress and the President are content with literally kicking the can down the road. And for the last three years, it basically has given up on doing a budget and passing authorization and appropriations bills … well at least the appropriations bill parts … and instead votes for continuing resolutions or omnibus spending bills that include all federal spending in one lump sum.

Obviously, Mr. Cooper really likes omnibus bills because it is just one big story, but the problem with bills that big comes in the details. All sorts of various and sundry things get stuck in the bill – because it has to pass – which fund the famous pork barrel projects we all hear about and give this or that special interest group a special perk or tax exemption.

Now, continuing resolutions basically say that we authorize and appropriate money for all government programs and “current” spending levels (back to the last time a real budget bill was passed with whatever changes were made in the interim omnibus spending bills). This basically abrogates the responsibility of Congress – and especially the House of Representatives, where all taxing and spending legislation is supposed to originate.

However, since it basically has become the way that our government operates now, Mr. Cooper, President Obama and the Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid want to make it the way government is supposed to be funded. Or so it seems to me.

It seems to me that when a Democratic president is elected in this country, the Congress is to play lap dog and pass whatever the person in the Oval Office proposes. Oh, if a Republican president is in office, then this rule does not apply.

So, now, it apparently is against the civil rules of society to say: “Hey, here is how we have done things for 225 years (and it has worked pretty well up to now until people decided it had to be all or nothing) and the nation did pretty good.

As I said, I know this is not politically correct to say right now, but the House is not obligated to support anything, including measures passed by previous Congresses, if the majority in said House says it doesn’t want to.

If you don’t understand that, tell it to all those DoD contractors who have seen planned construction projects cancelled year after year (especially when contractors low-balled their estimates and tried to implement their contracts that would let them get more money … but that is another issue). What previous Congresses approved carry little weight then.

And even if an issue gets defeated, repeatedly, that doesn’t stop Congress trying to pass another law on it (note gun control and amnesty for non-American citizens who enter this country without following the legally mandated procedures and want to stay).

So, when you watch broadcast/cable TV news and see them talking about a “clean bill” continuing resolution what they really are talking about is Congress once again failing to do its fricking job in the first place … and unfortunately for the last three years the biggest culprit in this farce has been the members of the US Senate.

Yes, there is a “minority” in the House that has stiffened the spine of the majority party there, but that is how democratic republics work. Heck, it is even how democracies work.

The people at CNN and other national news disseminating organizations may not like or agree with the political views of that minority/majority, but it is wrong to portray them with disparaging views … like they are children or terrorists. They are neither. They are merely who have a profound politically and ideologically different view of the world.

A good journalist accepts that and tries not to become an advocate of either side in the questions he or she is pitching to the politicians or the public.

Nuff said!

Post Scriptum: I know there are those out there would will read this and see it as condescending or talking down to people. Folks, I am not doing that (at least not consciously) but I am trying to explain how the US system should be working and how it is failing to work … because sometimes we tend to forget that.

Obviously, the Senate does not believe in democracy

Ok, I am not source this because any links I post about the current curtailment of government services will be overcome by events.

It is time for a lot of people to step back and reassess what they think about governance, particularly at the federal level, and what it really means.
We Americans give our various levels of government varying levels of responsibility. Granted over the last  century, we have allowed the federal government to extend the sides of that envelope tremendously, but that still is the concept embedded in the US Constitution and its various amendments.
For example, the House of Representatives remains that branch that represents the people. Its members face election every two years and (albeit rarely happens) can be replaced by their constituents every two years.
The members of the Senate, on the other hand represent a much different tradition. Initially, Senators were not “elected” by the people but “elected/selected” by the various state governments/legislatures (how was left of to each state government as a sop to being federal republic – a democratic republic, true, but a republic just the same with the vast majority of political power residing with government levels less than the national federal level). That changed 100 years ago when the Constitution was amended to make Senators elected by popular vote. Senators no longer represented the state they were from, but the folks who elected them. It may seem an arcane  difference, but it is significant.
However, the House remains the voice of the people, much more so than the President or the Senate as a group because the president is elected every four years and only a third of the Senate is up for election every two years.
So, why is it the most responsive voice of the people has been ignored by the Senate for the last three years?
The big media narrative is that the government shutdown is the result of the the “Republicans” in the House not cooperating with the President or the Senate. Since when has it been the role of the People’s House to rubber stamp things proposed by either the President or the Senate. If they did, the representatives would be failing in their job to represent those people who voted them in to office.
Now, make no mistake, no elected representative is bound to try to represent those people who did not vote for him or her. Sorry, but that is not how the world works. If you didn’t vote for your representative, then he or she does not represent you or have any legal, or even moral, obligation to try to represent you. If you have a problem with that you need to go back and take your civics class all over again.
Now, for the edification of those too obtuse to see it, in 2010, the people in the polling booth selected more people who saw the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as a mistake than those who thought it was the next best thing to sliced bread, or maybe a Krispy Kreme donut. Then, in 2012, those same people helped those representatives who thought Obamacare needed to be repealed … or at least seriously tweaked … be the majority in the House of Representatives.
However, that is not the narrative you are seeing reported. What you do see is accusations that those people in the People’s House are holding the nation hostage and are terrorists or jihadiis or some other equal vile characterization. Wrong answer.
Yes, President Obama was re-elected (in a pretty narrow race – 2 percent difference between him and his opponent), but that does not say the voters endorsed keeping Obamacare. Apparently, the voters didn’t because they elected enough representatives to try to vote to block the President’s initiative in their legislative branch.
Of course, every attempt to do so has been blocked by the President’s supporters in the Senate; hence, the impasse that has lead to the current spate of foolishness in the nation’s capital.
This, one needs to realize, is by a Senate that has not passed a budget in like four years. Nope, they just keep passing “continuing resolutions” based on the 2009 budget, with whatever other additions they like. Is that anyway to run a railroad?
What makes things even more silly is that the “shutdown” is a) totally unnecessary and b) not really a shutdown at all (but I won’t digress into that quagmire).
You see, those radicals in the House have sent over any number of bills that would have provided funding for the majority of government services. Unfortunately, they voted (remember they are representing those people who voted for them in November 2010) not to  include funding for major parts of the Affordable Care Act (which may be anything but affordable, but again, I will not digress).
The President and the Senate majority leader start crying foul. It seems that once something gets passed by Congress it is a done deal … since when? If it was, then you need to send back all those fugitives slaves you are hiding and definitely hide the beer, wine and other alcoholic beverages that may be in your house, because they too were once bills that passed Congress.
Sorry, what Congress does, it also can undo.
So, who is responsible for the government shutdown and who is trying to make political hay from that? Ah, who has been refusing to pass bills that would open the fiscal spigots for all those parts of government whose failure to provide service is causing such a hue and cry.
It ain’t those damn Tea Party-nicks who are merely representing those who elected them.
Sorry, folks, but it is the Senate – controlled and run by the Democratic Party – which is trying to extort money out of the People’s House. You either fund what we say, or we funding nothing.
I know, this is not a popular narrative amongst those who want universal health care guaranteed by the federal government but it points out that they really just don’t like the results of a democracy.
I could say something about, you lost control of the House but that would seem to lack the faith the progressives have in their ability to control the future.
Anyway: My view -
It is the Senate and the Democrats (not democrats with a little d who definitely should not be confused with those with big D) and those Republicans (also not to be confused with those with a little r) who can’t seem to get their act together and fund what they can … and then work on funding the rest … assuming there is any money left over.
I mean that is what we pagani (Latin word, Google it) do every month when the bills come around.