Trump reaction

Note: this section will not be G-Rated … Not even PG … it will be at least R …

WARNING: There will be obscenities and profane language past this point. I have been politic; you have been warned!

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON! America (especially in its national media) is going fucking bonkers because one of its political leadership candidates talks of bawdy things (in a younger iteration) and shows that he is a God-damn, arrogant, loud-mouthed, profane, self-centered, self-absorbed, ruthless, son-of-a-bitch … so what else is new. Get the fuck over it. It ain’t the first time it has happened.

People are going ape-shit crazy calling him to withdraw his candidacy because he told some broadcast flunky off mic that he likes to fondle pretty women … what a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Damn, if there is a male in the room over, let’s say, 45 who hasn’t engaged in bowdlerized, locker-room talk about women and braggadocio about what they would like to do … excepting possibly those men who are gayer that the three-dollar bill … I probably would call them a liar and be right. I can’t say much about people younger than that because I haven’t sat in on many of their conversations, but what I have heard makes me think they aren’t much different.

Folks, take a fucking chill pill. The God-damned politically correct shit has to stop.

The problem with Trump is that he actually talks like he is one of the plebeians … you know, us common folks who actually worked for a God-damn living and not made a living getting paid by the government/state for a career.

I find all this faux-horror at Trump’s tax returns, his sexually explicit talks with people (especially those with recording devices, which is stupid, but then, what the hell, we live in a gotcha by the balls society these days), so freakingly fucking hypocritical that it sort of makes me want to stage a French Revolution here in the US? Trot out the guillotine for the “aristocracy”!!!!

Where is the Red Queen when we need her? Off with their fucking heads! 

I guess I have fallen a long way from my perch among the elites of the world as a college graduate who was the editor of one of the 1600 daily newspapers (at the time) in the USofA, assistant editor at another, editor at a three-times a week paper, and editor of four different weekly newspapers, not including a weekly and an every-other-day newspaper I produced in a war zone.

I no longer have much patience with progressives and those who education or position places them above the fucking masses. I am reminded to tell them, despite your fucking smarts, or God-damn worthless pieces of paper, social, economic or political positions, you stupid over-educated dumbshit assholes, you still put your panties on one leg at a time just like the rest of us idiots.

You know the people you find deplorable may be crude and rude, but they are people. They might not have high-fluting degrees or education, or even money or wealth, but they still are functioning human beings, who can – when called upon – actually have a thought or two in their head … and those thoughts just might be worth listening to. A lot may be stupid or silly thoughts, but given the facts, their common sense will usually win out.

So, Trump is a ruthless, fucking billionaire (or just a multi-millionaire, what does it matter) corporate slob of a businessman, that has never stopped such people from running and serving in public office before. Cue the damn Virginia planter class or the fucking Ivy League country club shit heads

The question you really should be asking yourself, you fucking dumbbells, is has he broken the law? How did he make those billions? By himself or surrounding himself and delegating to a vast corps of really competent deplorables?   I really don’t think he did it selling favors, like a former Senator from New York and Secretary of State, along with her sexually obsessed husband who is an ex-president now, who actually did “it” with a God-damn intern in the Oval Office … or was it her oval orifice … shit, I don’t even know any more ... much less really give a shit.

How many laws, lies, and other shit does Trump’s leading opponent have to break, say and do before you get the message that she really is a bunch of crappola. Do you really want that crappola? Do you really want the fucking status quo candidate to keep things running down the same God-damn track we have been going for the last 10 or so years … so be it … vote for the piece of shit.

Another question: Why is the “establishment” fucking going freaking ape-shit over the possibility of Trump being president? What is it they really are so fucking scared-shitless about? Do they know something about the checks and balances built into our system of governance that we don’t know that makes them think we can’t survive a loose-cannon? What is it that we have had for the last 25 fucking years? Cannons lashed down so tight their pussies squeak? I think they are just afraid he will upset the status quo and maybe, just maybe, fucking change the way things have been run in our fucking capital for that last shitting century or so. Maybe that is the change we need, fucking stupid America.

Now I am not saying anybody should vote for the jerk Trump, or anyone else, but I am saying look at what they say they want to do … ask yourself if those things are what you really want done or if they really are sustainable or just pipe dreams … or just products of your own envy of those who have shit you don’t. … then reach down and vote for the candidate who can win AND do the least amount damage to what freedoms you, as an individual, still have in this country.

One last point, a historical one: The last time the elite was in this much of an uproar, I think, was 1828. You know when that rude, crude and obscene Tennessean Andrew Jackson was elected and the Virginia planter class and the New England lawyers had a hissy fit over this frontier braggart capturing the White House. He was a populist too, if I remember my history correctly and really changed the course of politics and the shape of the American democratic republic. Is that what they are so afraid of?

Anyway, I apologize for my fucking profanity, but I am becoming more and more like the old fucking grunt soldier I was part time, rather than the urbane, cosmopolitan, liberal arts college-educated elite journalist I once was.

Still, I raise my rye on the rocks to all of you who are a) Americans and b) deign to read this rant. (tonight is was Canadian rye, tomorrow night it will be my Gordon’s vodka … I alternate nights on which poison I drink on the rocks).

May you all find your path blessed by the Divine, and you have the strength and courage to endure whatever travails may lie ahead of you personally and (if it so applies) as an American.

 

Footnote: This is a succinct summation why I don't give a fucking rat's ass about Trump's "hot-mic moment". OK, I am done

Bad Republicans

The Republican conspiracy

I read this article on the Huffington Post and I about fell out of my chair laughing. Why? Because the author’s premise is so silly.

First … the Republicans. TEA Party-nics and conservatives are not Democrats or progressives. They are the opposition. You know, people who oppose you. They should be expected to do what they can to make your policies and plans fail.

Now, it doesn’t take a savant to figure out that they don’t agree with policies like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). So, if you are the elected representative of your particular area (and a majority of the people in the last election for your office voted for you) then it is pretty much a given that you represent at least some of their views and that should govern the way you vote. If your district doesn’t really like some law or policy, then it is your job to do what you can to overturn or change that policy.

The author of the article seems to think that Republicans are some terrible beasts because they don’t view the world through the same prism that he does. That is what is wrong with the world.

Reverse the shoe, say a war in Iraq. Is it not the right of the opponents of such a venture to do whatever they can to end it? It seems that was the progressives’ line just a few years ago.

Of course, they were chastised in much the same manner as the right is being assailed today. That is politics, folks.

I find it humorous to the absurd to watch various people and groups of people hammer their political opponents for their views in language that probably would have been reprehensible in my youth. However, the historian in me knows that the language of politics in the United States always has bordered on the rough and tumble.

I guess what I find most humorous is the view that everyone has to view the world through the same lens, the same philosophy, the same cultural view plate. I find it humorous, because it is so tragic and misguided that it really makes me want to despair, but I chose to laugh at my troubles rather than cry.

I wish, as Pappy used to say, I could knock some heads together in order to knock some sense into them.

People, we are all different. We all look at the world and see different visions. Depending on our experiences and cultural environment, we value different things. Some of these things we agree on the value of and others we profoundly disagree; however, the mere fact that we disagree doesn’t make us bad people.

Just because a person disagrees with you does not necessarily make that person evil … just different. Sometimes that person is evil, but it is not because they disagree with you.

The difference, as I see it, is a different view on how much responsibility the individual for his or her life. Are we, as individuals, supposed to be willing to accept the consequences of our choices? Are we supposed to be willing to accept that life is not fair and often sends adversity our way when we can ill afford it?

A lot of people say we are not. They say we are obligated to help all those less fortunate than we are. I would agree with part of that. I would say I have an personal obligation to make that choice, but that society, or the state, doesn’t not have the right to compel me to do it by force.

So to insist that anyone has a right to demand or compel another give them a good or service at a price less than they are willing to do it is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Even lifesaving medical care.

Another unfortunate aside: It seems to me that in our narcissism that seems to afflicted so many people, we seem to believe that we are supposed to live forever. Wrong answer, folks. We are mortal and every day here is a gift (that is why they call it “present”).

Sometimes, I think, in our quest for immortality, we forget that others have rights too. We forget it is not ours to demand that they forgo their rights just to our benefit. This is not to say that they can’t forgo those rights, but the choice is theirs and not ours.

Anyway, I love when progressives try to defend their demands, but it makes me want to laugh in their face when I hear them denigrate those who disagree with them. What was it Pappy used to tell me about the pot calling the kettle “black.”

My goodness

President tells Congress about US mission in Somali

It seems that the French fiasco in Somali at least got the president to admit that there is a War Powers Act. I hope the progressives are happy.

Now, if he would just to the same about the US support for the French intervening in Mali.

Progressive hypocrisy is almost funny

I finding interesting, if not exceedingly hypocritical, when I read various critiques by liberal, progressives who make no pretense of their disdain for people of faith that fault those people for failing to adhere to the progressive’s image of what their faith should be.
Most liberals and progressives will admit that they basically are secular humanists who believe that religious faith is a mistake and belief in such dogma is leading individuals, if not societies, astray.
The thesis, as I understand it, is that there is good and there is bad, but only according to the definitions as provided by their secular viewpoint. To them, these values are absolutes, but everyone else’s is relative. I may be wrong in this analysis, but I don’t think I am far off.
So, it somewhat surprises me when they criticize followers a two-millennia-old Jewish rabbi, cum Christian messiah and prophet, by quoting their interpretation of that prophet’s doctrine as it has been handed down, interpreted, re-interpreted and re-re-interpreted over all those generations, which they don’t believe in, and expect to be taken seriously. That strikes me as being a stellar height of hubris.
And then, of course, if these people happen to hold what might be conflicting thoughts on what they think is right and proper, then the liberals and progressives call down all sorts of hell and damnation because these people might have a view that reconciles these differences and still cling to their faith.
It really is almost humorous, if it wasn’t so serious.
It is, almost by definition, an assault on individual liberty. You know, the kind that Americans have enshrined in the First Amendment to their Constitution.
I mean, if you don’t believe in the dogma as these progressives do, then you are condemned and chastised. You are, as it is said, “a bad person”. Some people might even go so far as to call you names like “lying bastards” who are out to subjugate women and the poor.
Now, that might be true, but I would be willing to bet that it is a false characterization. But then I remember, it is Election Time in America (Sorry, my Canadian relatives, but I had to borrow your line – It is Hockey Night in Canada) and this is what is to be expected from people on opposing sides of the political fence.
I hope everybody enjoys the next two presidential debates between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Romney. It will be so interesting to watch the vitriol spewing forth from each sides’ supporters … unless people shock me and actually talk civilly about the candidates.
An example of what I speak

Setting dangerous foundations

Reich warns Romney still can be elected
Robert Reich, the secretary of labor under President Clinton, is a prolific proponent of all things progressive and liberal … and he always has been.
Above, Mr. Reich appeals to his fellow followers not to get complacent about the re-election of President Barack Obama. That is good news. No one should be complacent about the election or re-election of any candidate. And everyone should be encouraged to participate in the elections scheduled for Nov. 6. (Although the old slogan “Vote early and vote often” is not such a good idea.)
What bothers me about that article is, whether he means it or not, he sets the foundation for claiming the election is a fraud. That disturbs me considerably.
It is his final point that bothers me so much:
“… the Republican Party will do whatever it can to win -- even if it means disenfranchising certain voters. To date, 11 states have enacted voter identification laws, all designed by Republican legislatures and governors to dampen Democratic turnout.
“The GOP is also encouraging what can only be termed "voter vigilante" groups to "monitor polling stations to prevent fraud" -- which means intimidating minorities who have every right to vote. We can't know at this point how successful these efforts may be but it's a dangerous wildcard. And what about those Diebold voting machines?”
Ok, folks, enough with the conspiracy theories. In the first paragraph, it seems to me that both parties have ample evidence (actually the Democratic Party has a lot more historical evidence, especially in the Southern states) of disenfranchising certain voters, as well as having ineligible voters (especially dead people) vote in elections in numbers of enough to swing elections. So, if one wants to be cynical enough, you could say that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Then, there are those cases where supporters of the Democratic Party have been videotaped intimidating voters at the polls in at least one city.
As for the issue of voter identification: I already am  on record as saying I see absolutely no problem with requiring people to show photo IDs when they vote. It seems that just about everywhere else you go you have to do it.
Now, if it is a problem for some people, that is where the party can and should intervene (it will make a supporter of the voter) to make sure that those people they want to vote have such photo IDs. They are not hard to get and as much as the party spends on advertising and registering voters, it seems to me a small price to pay to make sure that those supporters who can’t afford the pittance that is required, in most states (some are free), to get a state-issued photo ID.
Besides, it is not just “minorities” who would be affected by such a requirement, but that is a good job of putting in the race card.
Lastly, Mr. Reich takes a slam at computerized polling stations, particularly those made by the Diebold corporation. Granted, all computer driven vote counting systems are subject to possible tampering and manipulation, but, unless you have specific proof (not anecdotes or conjecture) that a specific manufacturer has illegally tampered with the vote totals with the machines that it makes, then Mr. Reich is on very dangerous ground. Not only is he libeling the corporation (yes, you can libel a corporation) but he also is attempting to call the validity of the election into question without justification.
There is a major problem with that and it stems partly back to the election of 2000 and the images of election board members examining punch-card ballots in a effort to verify the intent of the voter in each case (remember the issue of the “hanging chads” and the “indented chads”?). It is a Democratic Party mantra that the U.S. Supreme Court, by calling a halt to the Democrats charade, “stole” the election for George W. Bush.
However, what people tend to forget in the narrative of that election is two things:
1. It was the Gore Campaign that took the case to court trying to alter the count before it was even finished – contrary to the law. Court challenges are supposed to come after the count has been canvassed and not before. So, it was not the Bush campaign that was using the court system to overturn the Florida election result, but the Gore campaign.
2. There was a consortium of newspapers, news services and broadcast networks that was able to go back in in 2001 and examined all the ballots and interestingly enough in just about every case, by differing margins, President Bush actually won. That would seem to have vindicated the initial results that had him winning by something like 543 votes.
Granted, Gore won the “popular” nationwide vote, but that is not what counts in our REPUBLIC. You also have to win a majority of the “electoral” votes that are divided among the states by their representation in Congress.
So, what we have here, is Mr. Reich laying the groundwork for his party and its supporters to cry “foul” if their candidate loses a close race … which my dear wife (who is Canadian) predicts it will be, a veritable cliffhanger.
So, my advice to Mr. Reich: On your final point, shut up, because it serves no purpose but to invalidate the election, apparently in sour grapes if your guy loses again.

Yet another example
GOP uses voter ID laws to block college students

Political cover for Hillary

Sebelius won’t be punished for Hatch Act “violation”
Office of Special Counsel Advisory on Hatch Act.
Hatch Act of 1939
What part of the following does the Office of the Special Counsel in the Obama Administration not understand?
“(T)the law permits employees who are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to widely engage in political activity while on duty and in government buildings, even these employees are prohibited from soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions.”
Office of the Special Counsel – 2/14/2001
The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit employees (civil servants) in the executive branch of the federal government, except the President and certain designated high-level employees of the executive branch, from engaging in partisan political activity.
Wikipedia article
It provides that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns, using this language to specify those who are exempt:
(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
Fox News may be reporting the news correctly, but the Office of Special Counsel in the Obama Administration is putting out a line of equine manure.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, the former governor of Kansas, did not break any federal law when she spoke at a “Human Rights Campaign Event” back earlier in 2012. Sorry, but you idiots at the OSC need to go back and actually look at what the law says: “An employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines polices to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws” is specifically exempted from the provisions of the Hatch Act.
The HHS secretary is, at least the last time I looked, an official member of a president’s cabinet and head of a specific executive department, subject to approval (advice and consent) of the Senate. If Sebelius does not fit that description, then why is she called the HHS secretary.
According to the Fox News report:  In her North Carolina remarks that prompted the report, Sebelius urged voters to make sure Obama "continues to be president for another four years." 
Sorry, but that doesn’t rise to the level of  “soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions.”  The only area that the Hatch Act does apply to cabinet officers.
No, folks, this is the OSC covering up for the State Department’s and the White House’s claim that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not legally attend the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte last week. I really wish someone in the national media would get their fricking act together and point out that this OSC statement that Sebelius violated the law, and the subsequent statement, apparently, that all was made good by her changing her status and the campaign paying for the trip, and she would not be prosecuted, is so full of bovine scatology that it isn’t even funny anymore.
Sorry, but the OSC is wrong … and I will continue to say it is wrong, until someone can come up with some specific language in the Hatch Act that unexempts cabinet secretaries from the law.
Doesn’t this tend to make you angry? It makes me angry because this country is supposed to be one of law and when you go about misrepresenting what the law says, then you are doing the country no favors. In fact, you are actively trying to hurt the country and that type of behavior I will oppose to my dying breath.
I may not agree with the law, but I will pledge my life, my wealth and my sacred honor in its defense, of that have no doubt.

Something wrong here

Egyptians storm US Embassy compound in Cairo
Protesters scale wall of US Embassy in Egypt
Libyan protesters burn American consulate
Libyan protesters kill US Consular employee
US Embassy statement on events
OK, folks, something is seriously wrong with this picture and it ain’t the U.S.’s fault.
Sorry but Muslims are going to have to get a tougher skin and stop acting like idiots because it reflects badly on them and their religion. Tuesday, 9/11/12, Muslim protesters in Egypt and Libya attacked U.S. diplomatic offices, killing one person, wounding a second and tearing down the U.S. flag while painting graffiti on the walls of the U.S. Embassy compound in Cairo, Egypt.
Their reason: Because America allowed some unknown filmmaker in California to produce a movie that depicts the prophet Mohammed in a bad light … actually; it apparently depicts him as a sex-crazed murdering maniac.
This of course is insulting to any true-blue Islamicist and merits at least a riot or two, burning buildings and flags and possibly killing some people. What a bunch of bovine scatology or maybe I should say porcine scatology or porcine fecal material!
I am sorry Egyptians; I am sorry Libyans; but in this country you are allowed to insult religions, people, government institutions, businesses, hospitals, your neighbors, etc. and if you don’t like it, then you take them to court. You do not shoot people; you do not storm their property; and you do not destroy or deface their property. No, you don’t do those things because you respect the rights of others to be idiots.
And especially you don’t go blaming the government or some government agency of a nation that isn’t even yours for letting their citizens act like idiots. Obvious, the Americans are much more enlightened than you are, or at least more tolerant than you are, because we just nod our heads and say, “They are at it again” and go on about our lives.
We don’t storm the local mosque, or the Egyptian Embassy or whatever goes for the Libyan Embassy, every time a mob kills a bunch of tourists or Christians or whatever minority group is in disfavor in the Middle East. No, Americans look at the person who is insulting and say, “What an idiot” and let him go on being an idiot.
You see, we Americans are governed by the rule of law. Apparently that concept is alien where you live. You really ought to try it sometime. It lets all sorts of people with differing views and opinions coexist peacefully without destroying people or lives. I am beginning to understand that in Egypt and in Libya your people apparently don’t like the idea that an individual can be allowed the freedom to think for themselves. Apparently, if these latest actions are any indication, you think that everyone has to believe just as you do, or they should die or something worse.
And despite the rhetoric being spouted by our government and its leadership, we are starting to get just a tad bit exasperated with the screaming intolerance being exhibited by your so-called demonstrators.
We put up with you burning our flag, burning and destroying religious texts that we hold sacred, because a) you are not Americans and we don’t expect you to understand the concept of the law and tolerance and b) because you are not here. Otherwise we probably would be suing your pants off, in court where the law is the master and not your emotions because you were insulted.
I think I can speak for a lot of Americans. You all in the Middle East, and much of Muslim world, need to grow up real fast and understand that you can’t just throw temper tantrums when somebody offends you. You consider the source, call them ignorant if you want, and then move on.
But going down and defacing their property, shooting people, and basically showing your derrieres is so beneath what you could be as a person. It definitely shows a enormous lack of dignity and self-respect on your part.
One of these days, those with patience, well, you will see their patience tested, if not run out and though might does not make right … might does wield a pretty big hammer and you don’t want to be where it falls.

Thank you, Michael Moore

Michael Moore on presidential race
I don’t know if Michael Moore, the very progressive film producer who keeps churning out films that attack conservatives, knew he was doing it but he did make a very pertinent observation during an interview on the Huffington Post.
Disregard his comments on his expectation that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will defeat incumbent President Barack Obama in November. He doesn't know any more than the rest of us on how the election will turn out.
No, his telling comment was on campaign finance and how political parties use it (or should use it).
"This election's going to be decided on who gets out the most people that day. Who's up at four in the morning, making sure that dozens, hundreds, thousands of people in their communities are getting out to vote. And the Republican machine that is set up and the money behind it to guarantee [what] is really the only important thing -- turnout on that day -- that's what looks pretty scary here."
Uh, did I miss something here? Isn’t that what a democratic-republic is all about? Isn’t that what the democratic process is all about? I thought, though I may be wrong here, that the objective in any election was to mobilize supporters and to get them to the polling station so that the person elected represented their interests. Isn’t that what elections are all about?
To me, the role of the parties, other than to define the issues that they support and recruit candidates to run for office who will represent those views on those issues, is to mobilize their supporters and get them out to vote for their candidates. That is the job of the party faithful, to get those voters who support their cause to the polls in sufficient numbers to make a difference. If they aren’t doing that, then what are they doing? They sure ain’t helping their candidates. If the Republicans do that better than the Democrats or the Green Party or the Libertarians, then shouldn’t they deserve to win?
Mister Moore is scared that the turnout on Election Day might not represent his views. He calls that pretty “scary.” What about majority rule, Mister Moore? What about people electing their representatives in a federal-republic? That is scary?
The hypocrisy of his statement should be obvious. He doesn’t believe that enough people will vote “against” Romney. He might be right and he might be wrong, but then again, he might just be in the minority. Did that thought even cross his mind?
It is said that Americans are spending too much money on our elections. It is even raising questions in the foreign press. Hello, we spend more money in this country advertising tooth paste than we do on political efforts. We literally spend more than a trillion on advertising and public relations communications efforts but spending less than .6 percent of that figure on communicating our political views is wrong? There has got to be a disconnect there.
Of course, you can always say that in a perfect world, people wouldn’t have to spend money on communicating political speech. Hello, who said the world is perfect? Yes, money corrupts, but money also makes a pretty good megaphone and amplifier for what you want to say. Unfortunately, you can’t have one without the other.
Still, thank you Mister Moore, you hit the nail on the head. Elections are about turnout. Elections are about the constituents making their preferences known. That is what elections in the United States are all about.

No Fear tour

No Papers No Fear tour

Ok, it sounds like some music group, but apparently there is a bus-load or so of undocumented immigrants / illegal immigrants / illegal aliens (you take your pick) on a tour of U.S. cities flouting the fact that they have no immigration papers and basically, at least from my impression, are telling American citizens and their government where they can stick their immigration laws and rules.

Once again, folks, does this seem right to you? If it does, I surely would love to have an explanation, because I don’t understand. You see, I have first hand experience with the U.S. immigration system: My wife is, and still is and will be, a Canadian citizen. She has her “Green Card” which took almost three years to get. She has a work permit, which took a year to get. In other words, we played by the rules. We paid the fees, etc., too. So, between you and me, I don’t have a lick of sympathy for these people who have entered the U.S. without following the rules and the law. Sorry, like in the game of Chutes and Ladders, you get to go back to square one and start all over.

Unfortunately, that is not the politically correct view we should have. We should be empathetic and understand that most of these people are here contributing to the U.S. economy (supposedly doing jobs “normal” Americans refuse to do and would rather sit out collecting on welfare and extended unemployment), but I am not sure I buy that argument.

And then we are supposed to be welcoming of those young people whose parents brought them here illegally more than five years ago and are between 16 and 30 now because they weren’t responsible for their plight, their parents were.

With all due respect to what are probably righteous and upright individuals, but sorry but that is equine fecal material. Of course, we can’t apply the “law” to you because it wouldn’t be “fair”. That is part of the problem with our society today: We are carving out so many exemptions to applying the law that it no longer applies to anybody. And that really burns me.

You see, I happen to be one of those people who firmly believes that the law – any and every law – should apply to everybody. It shouldn’t matter what race, religion, ideology, color, economic status, wealth or whatever. When it comes to the law, we all should be equal before it. Is that what we have now? Not only no, but HELL NO! and that is wrong.

The easiest place to start is the federal tax code, particularly the income tax portions of it for both individuals and corporations. The code is so riddled with exemptions, deductions and tax credits (most tailored for specific special interest groups, rich and poor) that it is not surprising few Americans do their own taxes. They go out an hire someone professing to be a professional who has studied and understands the intricacies of it, or buy a computer software program that promises the same.

I know, and understand, all the various reasons given for all those exemptions, deductions and tax credits, but they are wrong. They are wrong because they make some pigs (oops, people) more equal than others, to borrow a cliché from George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

It doesn’t matter what the law is, you will see that it has been tailored to impact one group while leaving another group unaffected. You see this in all sorts of regulatory law and administrative law where the regulations and rules only apply to individuals or corporations that meet certain criteria. Don’t meet the criteria, and then the law doesn’t apply.

Sorry but that is bovine scatology.

So, these people going around the country making a big deal that they have no papers? Ok, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, where are you? Got a group that is making it easy for you and are in violation of the rules you are supposed to enforce. Oh, that is right; our President (you know the man who is constitutionally empowered to enforce the laws of the United States) has told you not to enforce that law. It seems that he either disagrees with the law as it stands … or he has some other reason (like trying to buy votes of the Hispanic community – please, people, don’t sell your souls and your votes so cheaply).

I didn’t know that we could pick and choose what laws we wanted to obey. Hey, do you think that is a great idea? Hell, why have any laws then at all. Let’s just let our hair down and enjoy the anarchy. I mean that why should we let government control any of our activities? Hey, progressives, I need to hear from you on this. Why should government tell us what to do on anything? Why should government be allowed to regulate any of our behaviors? If we want to go out and kill someone, Hell, it is our choice, where does the government have any business in it.

Heck, if we want something, aren’t we just allowed to take it?

I know I am being sarcastic here, folks, but it seems to me that when we stop applying the law to all, and only apply the law selectively, then we are drifting into deep trouble.

Yes, I know prosecutors will tell you all over the country that they and the court system is overwhelmed and that they can’t prosecute every case of a broken law. They plead for prosecutor’s discretion. Seen far too much of that in my years of covering court and putting court news in the paper. Plea bargains are fine, so are suspended sentences, but when you are prosecuting a person for a seventh offense DUI, or fifth time for driving while suspended, or the umpteenth time for assault, battery or burglary … or armed robbery or violations of stock exchange regulations, then it is time to reexamine your priorities. As prosecutors, they need to really get out there and explain why some laws are “good” and need to be enforced and why some laws are “bad” and shouldn’t be on the books.

However, I know that a) that takes too much work and b) it is easier to just game the system.

I guess, if this is what the American people like, or at least are willing to tolerate, then I should, as Pappy used to say, “Go back in the teapot.” I just wish more people would say it is time for this crap to stop.

Enforce the law, or repeal it and let us take the consequences.

Disturbing defense trends

I am not linked in as well as I once was to things that are happening the Army, but I do try to follow as best I can. I recently was trying to catch up on the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the young intelligence specialist who is to stand trial for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified (if nothing other the FOUO/NFD (For Official Use Only/No Foreign Dissemination) but much classified (which is the next step up) and secret) documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State, and I noticed something that I thought was disturbing about issues that the defense had raised.
Note, I also heard a similar defense argument that Maj. Hassan, the accused killer of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood a while back.
The defense argument in each case is that it is the Army’s fault that the soldier involved did whatever they did which has them facing charges because the Army failed to take preventative actions against the individuals. In other words, the Army should have known these guys were bad eggs, and weeded them out of the basket before they could do any harm. These people are not responsible for their actions, the Army is.
Time out! Does this logic not bother anybody else? It bothers the heck out of me.
You take adults (these people are adults, you know, not little children) who are supposedly responsible individuals, or at least aware what is expected of them, and you are trying to say that they are not because the Army didn’t stop them. Whoa! As the old saying goes, that dog won’t hunt.
Sorry, I don’t care what issues these individuals may have had in their personal lives, it doesn’t excuse conduct contrary to the Universal Code of Military Justice. Unfortunately, in this day and age, few people understand what goes into being a service member and have even far less understanding of the UCMJ. I admit, I am not an expert on the UCMJ, not even enough to be considered a barracks lawyer, but I know enough what usually right and what is wrong in the way of military behavior. I also know that the “well, everybody else does it” defense doesn’t fly, in the military as well as in civilian life.
From what PFC Manning’s attorneys say, it is pretty obvious that a) he downloaded inappropriate material (regardless of whether or not he should have access or not) and b) he gave that information to a foreign national without authorization.
Why he did it really doesn’t matter. I know that will offend some people who think that if you think you are in the right, then there are no laws that cannot be broken. Or those who think that just because you disagree with what somebody else is doing, it is ok to publicize information that will possibly damage the institution, if not those you disagree with. That is a whole bunch of bovine scatology.
What if I think my employer, let’s say a software company that makes games, panders to views or values that I think are wrong. They don’t have to be illegal, necessarily, just things that I think are wrong. Does that give me the right to dump all the source code for all their software out on the internet plus all the bosses’ e-mails that discuss strategy against the competition? Do you not think the company would have the right to fire that me, sue me for everything I have and, if possible, file criminal charges against me for breach of contract and theft of property … basically throw the book at me?
If you don’t think the company has that right … please pull your head out of your derriere.
Essentially, what PFC Manning did is the equivalent or so would any legal bumpkin who had any smarts know that.
So, we plead that it is the company’s fault, because they shouldn’t have let me have access to any of the crap because of my personal problems (I was going through a mid-life – ok a senior-moment – crisis). Just because he allegedly had “gender identity” problems does not absolve him of his culpability for his actions. I am sorry, but that defense doesn’t fly.
Ok, he didn’t like what the government did, or how it did it … when you wear the uniform, you basically have surrendered your right publically express dissent. Sorry, but that is the way things are. In the polling station’s privacy, you can express your political views, otherwise, sorry, but it is prohibited by law and regulation. I hope all of you see the value in having an apolitical military (even if most members adhere to more conservative values) responsive to civilian authorities, rather than having a politically active military that ignores civilian authorities when it comes to domestic policy.
I think it is sad that the legal system grinds so slowly, but like everything else bureaucratic, it does. And it is unfortunately that PFC Manning is the person that he is, and that those who support him are the way they are.
Sorry, but solitary confinement is not torture. Sorry, but it is not.
When you are considered a suicide risk, yes, certain procedures are taken to make sure you can’t create an opportunity to hurt yourself. Sorry, but that has to be done.
Lastly, while you have many rights, all those rights you think you have as a civilian? Well, when you swear that oath when you enter military service, you basically surrender most of them. You no longer are in a democratic republican society, but a military one. Military society is different. In today’s world, you are not forced to join this society; you volunteer. You are not a child when you volunteer, but an adult and you must assume adult responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is understanding that you probably won’t get to do what you want to do most of the time and, in fact, you probably will dislike what you are asked to do a big part of the time. Get over it, it is part of the job.
Based on the information that is in the public domain, PFC Manning is nobody’s hero. He really isn’t a decent whistleblower as a good part of the information that he dumped out on the internet could be obvious to most rational people, but it didn’t help to throw it in people’s faces. That hurt and possibly cost some people their lives. We will never know.
Still, he acted like he didn’t care what happened to his fellow soldiers, to those who serve the nation. I am sorry, but that attitude, when in uniform, will get you jail, if not shot (and not by the official system).
Mister Assange of WikiLeaks can huff and puff all he wants (because it makes him feel good and powerful), but PFC Manning should face the full measure of the consequences for his breaking faith with those who served with in uniform.

Journalistic hit job

Mormon Church takes in billions in tithes, owns billions in property and businesses

First of all: Who the heck cares how much Mormons give to their church? Who cares what they spend it on? And why would anybody be trying to study it?

Ok, folks, once again, it seems that NBC News has decided that the fact that the Mormon Church receives about $7 Billion per year through tithes from its members, that makes it a) worthy of a news story and b) critical analysis of the LDS Church’s investments. I guess this is because probably Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney happens to be Mormon and this gives NBC an opportunity to sling a few globs of mud and stuff.

Well, how about the Roman Catholic Church? I mean Paul Ryan and Joe Biden, the major parties’ presumed nominees for vice-president are both Catholics. What about their church? Oh, the best estimate I could find was somewhere between $100 Billion and $400 Billion, and that does not include the money that church receives from being the largest landholder in the world. As for all it other assets, let’s just say they are priceless.

My point being is that who the devil cares how much the Mormon Church receives in tithes … or for that matter, what any other church receives in tithes and donations? Unless you are member of the church involved, then it really isn’t any of your business … unless, of course, you are looking to stir the kettle of resentment against a particular faith. You think this is silly? Just look at the Jews who have been the targets of pogroms and discrimination because they are perceived to be “wealthy.” It matters not if they are or not, the resentment makes a good diversion from other issues that those stirring the pot would rather the masses don’t notice.

I am sorry, but I was hoping that we in America had gotten past that type of behavior. Obviously, I am wrong, but I guess I could continue to want to hope that we are better than that.

It angers me, not because I am particularly religious (and I definitely am not Mormon nor Jewish), but because it is something that has to be pointed out at all. NBC, the silly professor in Florida who apparently did the study and any other hangers on really deserve to be shunned. You know the good Amish tradition when someone does something that violates community standards, the community just stops talking to them, stops all associations with them. We need to start invoking it against some of these instigators.

It seems that no matter what religion you are these days, you are going to stand condemned for being a believer. I wish those who profess to want to be our leaders would be lashing out verbally against these kinds of attacks. I don’t mean the leaders under direct assault. I mean the other leaders in our communities, our civic groups and organizations, our churches, our synagogues, our temples, our mosques, our city halls, our county seats, our state capitols and, yes, even in the our national government who should be out there saying: This type of attack is wrong. We call on it to be stopped.

Ok, I am a raving lunatic. I know that this is not going to happen, nor does the realist in me ever expect it would ever happen, but I can at least be a lonely voice in the wilderness. Hell, I know I am, but at least I am saying something. I only wish more people would say something.

You know the old saying: If you convince two people to do the right thing and they each convince two people in turn, and you keep that chain going with each individual convincing two more people, it is amazing what you can accomplish.

Anyway, it is a random thought.

Real World

Example of the progressives'' mindset: Dumb and Dumber

 

The author of the linked article is a professor of linguistics out in California and he makes a plea to his fellow Democrats and progressives to use the language carefully or the plebeians might catch on that they are being talked down to.

To me, that is one of the problems with the so-called liberals and progressives: They tend to talk down to people they disagree with. You see, according to the above article, the problem with “low-information voters” (which probably includes the vast majority of voters) is they are not voting for what is in their material interest sometimes, but what feels right in their gut. This supposedly explains why sometimes people who are not filthy, obscenely rich sometimes vote against the liberals and for the conservatives, who usually are Republicans and not Democrats.

Now, these dumb people, who don’t know what is in their own interest, for their own good and obviously in the national interest, need to be courted, but unfortunately they are smart enough to know when someone is calling them dumb … and the professor points out they have figured out that calling them a “LIV” essentially is calling them dumb. Bad move.

Ok, what is the problem here? The problem is an entire mindset. There is a mindset that thinks that if a person has a certain background, a certain religious preference, looks a certain way, talks a certain way, then obviously they are too stupid … oops, silly, and dumb (which really means mute, but we are using it colloquially) and need to have those who are more educated, let’s say, more cosmopolitan, more learned, make all the important decisions for them. The implication is that they are too dumb to do what is “right” and they cling to their “bibles and guns.”

Sorry, wrong answer. I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack, but I long ago figured out not to put someone down because they don’t have some piece of paper or haven’t been to as much schooling as I have. Now, that, I contend, is really dumb.

For example, I don’t think anyone of my Canadian in-laws have more than a high school diploma (at best, and I know some don’t even come close) and yet, they can do things that leave me in the dust. Oh, sometimes I can bluff my way into maybe making them think I have a clue what they are talking about, but with my college degrees and 40 years of white collar jobs … I am almost always faking it. I do know a little, but that is because I was a journalist and when you are general journalist, you have to learn a little about a whole lot of subjects … as I say, you know enough to get yourself in really deep trouble (because others think you know what you are talking about).

Still, at least one of them has made (and lost and made) more money than I can ever dream of making. Another, well, he is smart as a whip (like his sister) and can figure out how to make things work that leave me totally baffled.

I have worked with people like that all my life. Just because someone has a college degree, or a professional degree, or seems to have a higher intelligence quotient than somebody else, it never makes them better. I have seen high school graduates who were better wordsmiths than people who had masters’ degrees and doctorates from prestigious universities.

I look out at the world today and I see far too many people dismissing others because of what they think they don’t have. Smart is not a piece of paper. Smart is not necessarily a lot of money. Smart can be a lot of things.

It is the reason that I try (and I admit, I am no more a success at this than probably the next man, but I do try) to treat each and every person I meet with the dignity and respect that I hope they will treat me. I don’t make fun of their accents, or their dress, or how much they weigh (like I should talk). I try to accept their lifestyles, even when I disagree with them. I sure as heck don’t try to say to them “Do as I tell you to do!”

I might try to convince them that maybe I have a better idea, but if they don’t agree … well, not much I can do about that.

It is sort of like the linked article. It seems to assume that conservatives and those who disagree with progressive premises are somehow on the lower end of the evolutionary scale. Well, I don’t agree, and I would hope that they would agree to disagree civilly.

I know my old progressive classmate out west probably thinks I am a lost cause, but as I keep trying to tell him: I just look at the world through a different prism. He ought to try it sometime.

But then, I do try to do so too … much to the frustration of my dear sweet wife when I get in to mode and start trying to argue things from what I perceive to be “their” perspective. It is great fun as an intellectual exercise, but it keeps me on my toes.

Still, my advice to people out there: Go with your gut. It almost never fails you. Be true to what you believe and at least you will have stood for something. That is all we can do.

Pot calling the kettle

Arianna Huffington on election issues
My Pappy used to have a couple of phrases he used when he observed people complaining about things they were as guilty of or more so.
One was: “Me thinks the lady doth protest too much”
And the other was: “There goes the pot calling the kettle black”
Well, I read the lament by the mistress of the Huffington Post web site, Arianna Huffington, over Americans spending $2.5 billion or so on the current presidential election cycle and not getting much for their money and how so much of the rhetoric was so blasted negative, if not false.
Ok, after I got up off the floor laughing at the irony of her lament, it struck me that she had a point. Most of the comments, so-called news stories, poll reports (all of which are featured quite prominently at the HuffPost) really were contributing very little to the knowledge and understanding of the general voter.
In fact, I find the hyperbole and vitriol at the HuffPost about on a par with the Brietbart site, which offers a counterbalance to Ms. Huffington.
Still, both sites tend to distress me. Not just because of what I perceive as the blithering ignorance of most of the sites’ contributors, as well as their totally polarized view of the world, but the absolute lack of any respect for anyone who holds an opinion different than them.
It strikes me as somewhat of a travesty that the HuffPost deals with such nasty stereotypes of anyone who isn’t associated with or from the East or West Coast cultures and treats them with such distain. It is like these ignorant, unwashed, unenlightened serfs should know their place and just do what we tell them to do as we, the more progressive people, will ensure that they are taken care of and provided for as long as they have the good sense to follow our program.
Sorry, but I am not buying it.
My progressive friend out west says that anyone who reads Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and doesn’t think it is trash just hasn’t matured enough (He also complains about her sexual mores). However, those who have read it and shiver because of the eerie similarities to the path modern culture is taking in the U.S. are obviously people who just don’t understand how wonderful and great the new progressive world will be.
Oops, again, I am not buying it. I may not buy into all of Rand’s “Objectivism” but then I do not reject all of it either. Nor do I reject the Judeo-Christian value system that I was brought up in either. It seems to me that rejecting the religious value system upon which our culture and civilization rests is somewhat a self-defeating approach to the world. But then, I remember that I am just one of those non-progressive, ill-advised and basically unthinking people who don’t understand how much of a scam religion is. Oh, and by the way, it also is the source of all the evils in the world.
You see, my problem is that I don’t see humans as “perfectible.” Nope, that is not going to happen. I suspect that people are going to go on as they have for however number of millennia that it took the species to get to this current level of development acting pretty much as they have before. This is to say that people will be petty, mean, cruel, greedy, grubby, and self-absorbed and just about everything that makes us mad at ourselves.
Reminds me of the old story about the turtle and the scorpion: (Forgive me if you have heard this joke before) There was a turtle and a scorpion who encountered each other on a river bank. The scorpion asked the turtle if he would ferry the scorpion across. The turtle looked at the scorpion and said: You must think I am stupid. You will sting me. The scorpion replied: Now that would be pretty stupid to do because we would both drown. The turtle thought about that for a moment and thought the logic was pretty good, so he told the scorpion to hop on his back and he would take him across. Halfway across the turtle felt a deadly burning sensation in his neck and knew the scorpion had stung him. WHY, asked the turtle as he slid beneath the water dying. The scorpion replied: Because I am a scorpion and that is what scorpions do - Sting turtles.
People are just like that. You may not want to believe it, but we are.

Is it a Pyramid or a Ponzi scheme?

Social Security not such a good deal for workers anymore
Definition of a Ponzi Scheme
Definition of a Pyramid scheme
It seems, according to the latest reports on the American Social Security system that current recipients will be unlike their predecessors: They will get less from Social Security than they put in it.
It seems that, up to now, when a person retired on Social Security that they received more in payments than they put in. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, now that the baby boomer generation is starting to retire and take Social Security, it seems that the money coming in from taxes is going to be less than the payments going out. That doesn’t sound so good, does it?
Well, the good thing for the Social Security system, there is this huge trust fund set up to make up the differences. You see, the federal government (i.e. Congress) has invested all the extra money taken in over the years in federal treasury notes. Those, you should know, are the best, most secure investments you can make. They are guaranteed by the government, even if the Federal Reserve just has to print some more money to cover them.
Anyway, this trust fund should last, under current calculations, until about 2030, until it runs dry. Then the question comes how does the U.S. government keep its promises to all those millions of workers who have paid into the system … that will be interesting, but unfortunately, I doubt very seriously I will be around to see how the government answers it. It will, however, be left to my children and my American grandchildren to figure out how to solve that dilemma.
You see, instead of investing in something that creates wealth, the government was forced to invest in itself. Unfortunately, despite what you may have been taught or told, the government rarely creates wealth … it mostly uses it for the benefit of the people it governs. People make wealth, which is then taxed and taken by the government to use on worthy projects to help the people that are governed by the government … or not so worthy projects, depending on the integrity of the individuals elected to make the decisions (and those they hire) on how the government largess will be disbursed.
In the case of Social Security, workers essentially have been subsidizing the disabled and retirees while receiving a promise from the government that should they become disabled or when they retire at 62-65-67 or whenever, that the younger generation will subsidize their older years.
Actually, it is a wonderful concept. It is one of those beautiful things that we just think is the greatest thing that we can do for our seniors. Unfortunately, like most utopian ideas, it tends to fail in practice. And that is what we are seeing now.
Now, I know you are thinking: Well, you are retired and disabled, don’t you benefit from Social Security? Yup! I do. I paid into the system for 40-plus years, holding up my end of the contract, so I think it is time for the rest of you folks to hold up your end of the contract. Don’t like it? You should have read the small print. Of course, I won’t go into the battles I have had to fight to get the government to honor its contracts with me, but heck, that is what you pay lawyers for, right? (Even if it cost me a pretty penny)
Still, I doubt, with my health, that I will live to get back all I paid into the system (had I been able to invest it in something that produces wealth), so I guess that the system wins (as usual with me, it seems) another round.
However, if you think about it: Social Security qualifies as one of the longest running Ponzi schemes or Pyramid schemes, both of which make suckers of the people who come in at the end … and, interestingly enough, are illegal in the United States and will get you sent to prison … except if you are a member of the U.S. Government’s elected contingent, then you are protected by sovereign immunity (as are all those minions who administer and regulate the system you designed).
Sort of makes you a little angry, doesn’t it? If it doesn’t, it should.
But don’t take your anger out on me. I just played the game by the rules my society and government laid out for me. I basically held up my side of the bargain and now it is time for you to hold up your end of the bargain. Sucks, doesn’t it.

Greed is greed

Sacrifice Zones - a comic book
Bill Moyers on Sacrifice Zones
My friend, the self-proclaimed progressive on the West Coast, posted the above link about a comic book (I am sorry a graphically illustrated book that he unfortunately referred to as a non-fiction graphic novel, which I was very hesitant to point out was an oxymoron, because a novel always is fiction, but I decided that discretion was the better part of valor on that point) that offers a scathing attack on what it calls “corporate greed.”
I find this funny for two reasons. Yes, corporations can be “greedy” but that is because they are run by people, who can be greedy. Hello, when were corporations being run by saints? Come to think of it, when was just about anything in today’s world being run by saints (Mother Theresa excepted)? I guess I find it funny that anyone thinks humans aren’t greedy.  Maybe I am too cynical, but self-interest is too deeply ingrained in human nature to believe the altruism is more than a veneer on the patina of what we call civilized behavior.
I am sorry, but the examples apparently cited in the comic book (as explained by the Bill Moyers’ site also linked above) fail to point out that in most of those cases the industries that were savaged happened to be industries that were failing. It was not necessarily because of corporate “greed” (although that probably had played a role in it) but because the technology, products, etc., were being supplanted by others in the global marketplace.
It is interesting to note that a lot of the heavy industries, such as steel and other manufacturing plants, probably were among the most polluting in the country. Are we not supposed to be glad that they are gone? Much of the problem in Appalachia is that the coal industry is dying. Not that we don’t need the coal, per se, but because coal is not currently in favor as a source of energy because … well, it takes a lot to keep it from polluting the atmosphere. So, those greedy corporations, who mine the coal and use it to run power plants, and used to use it run steel mills and all sorts of other defunct plants in the rust belt, basically are finding it a very hostile business environment these days. So, is it the greedy corporations fault they no longer are in business or is there possibly some other factors at play here. It is easier to blame the greedy corporations.
However, are all corporations greedy? The way that it is portrayed by those who proclaim to be progressives, the answer is yes. And all those obscenely rich folks who manage them need to be taken down a lot of pegs and their wealth redistributed to the people at the lower end of the economic scale.
Still, it makes me giggle that people like Bill Moyers, probably one of the richer “journalists” that I have ever encountered (and I did many, many, many years ago), make this plea to help those in poverty. I mean, I don’t begrudge him his wealth, but I was taught long ago that if you want to lead, you do so by personal example. That doesn’t mean hectoring people from your bully pulpit to do more for the poor or trying to right all the wrongs in the world by taking from some people to give to others.
Now, my old high school classmate apparently has had a fairly tough go of things. I mean he tells me he is a two-time cancer survivor (which is why he hates health insurance companies, I guess). But then again, he is the chief operating officer (or so it says on the web site of his corporation) of an apparently successful computer gaming company. He also has a home apparently in the country (he always is bragging about his fowl) as well, apparently, a condominium in the nearest big city (just did a little research on the building: The smallest condo is a little over 700 square feet and goes for a quarter million dollars, while there are condos in the building that go for up to $2.5 million, according to the city MLS service).
I think it is great that he can afford such digs. I know that I never would have been able to do so, even in my wildest dreams. So, I find it funny that he advocates all these things for the downtrodden, while being a corporate executive himself (note that I never said, nor ever would, say that he is greedy), while I, on the other hand, who have never been a corporate executive (just a mid and somewhat senior level manager at companies that were not always incorporated but usually were), take the position that more people should take responsibility for their own lives and the lumps that come with it.
I hope you find that a bit humorous as well.
But then, you see, I didn’t stay out in California or move to a nice neighborhood in Oregon. I went to live in in “fly-over country” like small farming communities in Kansas and Texas, and lived in a variety of not very big towns across the South and Appalachia, where we usually were saying “Thank God for Mississippi” (sometimes it was Louisiana, depending on what ranking you were talking about). I guess, what I am saying is that I have seen the underbelly of the U.S. and take a different perspective on it than West Coast progressives do.
So, people like the authors of that comic book who hail from New York or Los Angeles can say what they want, but they have no clue what it is like to watch fields burn in the sun of a drought or old mills close because no matter how hard the corporate scallywags try to salvage something, they just no longer can compete.
I can remember listening to Roger Milliken, a textile baron in South Carolina who died in 2010 and was worth, supposedly, about a $1 billion (according to Forbes), lament as he pulled the plug on mill towns all across the area where I lived. He blamed it on “foreign” competition (while he was investing overseas).
Still, the biggest battle I had was trying to convince the leaders in my community that the old mill culture, however wonderful it had been, was dying and the time had come to get ready for the 21^st century. They still are trying to grapple with those changes.
Was Milliken greedy? I don’t know. But I do know a) he made a lot of money with his private corporation and spread a lot of money into things the “good” people of the Upstate of South Carolina thought were appropriate and b) the mill culture finally died.

Prove it, sir

Romney paid no taxes: Harry Reid

You want to know why I don’t like a lot of politicians: U.S. Senator Harry Reid is a poster boy for my reasons.

A member of the U.S. Senate since 1986, after spending four years in the U.S. House before that, the Senate majority leader says he has it on good authority from somebody he knows at Bain Capital that apparently Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney hasn’t paid any taxes in 10 years and that is why he is not releasing his tax returns.

Ok, Mr. Senator, I have two words for you: Prove it.

In addition, assuming that Romney hasn’t paid taxes on whatever money he earned during that period, Mr. Senator, prove that it was done illegally.

This is why I get so ticked at Democrats this go around (and all those Birthers who question whether President Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen – just get over it). Unless you have proof of something illegal then just shut up with the innuendoes.

I have no doubt that Mr. Romney probably paid the least amount he could legally in federal taxes and, you know what, I don’t blame him. Obviously, Romney can afford to pay top notch tax attorneys and tax accountants to comb through federal tax laws and regulations (all whatever hundreds of thousands of pages that takes) to take advantage of every break that is in them. If you fault him for doing that, then I seriously question your sanity. Nobody, but nobody WANTS to pay more taxes than they absolutely have to and if you do? Well, then that is your choice and therefore your fault.

In addition, Sen. Reid, having spent nearly 30 years in the halls of Congress, you bear some responsibility for that disaster known as the U.S. Tax Code. I have no doubt that you have, during those 30 years, voted for a whole bunch of the various and sundry tax breaks, credits, deductions, exclusions and other foo-for-rah that boggle the human mind.

It is hypocrisy like that make me shake my head in total disgust.

I hate coming to the defense of Romney, but I really am getting tired of the Big Innuendo coming in the current presidential campaign. If there are any grounds for all the alleged illegal conduct by former Massachusetts Gov. Romney then would someone please explain why no warrants have been issued and he hasn’t been arrested.

The “he might be a felon” campaign and now the “he might not have paid any taxes” borders on something coming from sleazy character assassins, like maybe Joseph Goebbels (if you don’t know who he is, look him up) really needs to be treated with the disgust it deserves and those people promoting it should not get anyone’s vote. Some 80 years ago, a group of people voted such character assassins into office and the world paid a rather serious price for it.

Please, I am not saying that either Democrats or the people behind these statements are in anyway equivalent to that earlier mob, just that they appear to be using the same style of tactics.

However, I do reserve the right reframe my opinion if the wealth-envy crowd or the bunch that supports homosexual marriages gets around to busting heads and smashing the property of those who disagree with them. Then, I think circumstances will have changed.