For OffHisMeds' entire life, Secularists have been sounding the alarm bells over the dangers to American society of the imposition of religion upon government. And by Secularists, I mean Democrats. While the views of Secularists and Democrats are not entirely monolithic, they are enough so that there is substantially no difference; and, there are few Secularists on the Republican side of the argument, with the exception of a relatively tiny, whacky yet beloved fragment of Libertarians, who, only by a stretch, are identified as Republican.
So, Democrats own this issue, and fairly so.
I've always wondered why Secularists think it is wrong that religious folks - let's just call them Fundamentalists - would seek to impose their views, through our political process, upon their fellow citizens. Don't they have as much right as say, Environmentalists, Populists, Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists and, well, Secularists? In fact, couldn't you argue perhaps that they have more of a right? After all:
- Fundamentalists - at least the ones that Democrats denigrate - generally contribute far in excess of their numbers the money that drives our bold experiment in Democracy.
- Given their self-sufficiency compared to the general populace, Fundamentalists generally receive little back in terms of governmental benefits relative to their contribution.
- Fundamentalists tend to be much more self-sacrificing than Secularists, inasmuch as that is a singular article of their Christian faith.
- Counterintuitively, Fundamentalists are far less the finger-wagging, hectoring Scolds than Secularists, whose raison d'être seems to be to flog America at every turn with their pungent constitutional insights.
- Finally, even while contributing the most and taking the least, Fundamentalists generally don't bitch about this state of affairs. They're happy to contribute more than their fair share, and they're fine with it being redistributed to those that make little or no contribution.
Couldn't one argue that them that makes the biggest contribution to the Commonweal but takes the least ought to get at least as big a say in policy making? Call OffHisMeds crazy, but those facts alone ought to qualify them for a seat at our Political Table, and arguably the best seat.
That this is something less than conventional wisdom would be an understatement. Poll 100 people, and very few of them - even religious folk - are going to suggest that they're entitled to some kind of primacy in the political life of the nation.
Time and again, I've asked three questions of my liberal friends on this issue, and never gotten satisfactory answers:
- What's wrong with religious folk imposing views through the ballot box that are instructed by their religious beliefs?
- How can religious folk be taxed if they are going to excluded from the political process?
- Why do you give Liberal Churches - and particularly Black Churches - a Hall Pass on the issue of mixing politics and religion?
The standard Democrat argument on religion in our public life generally begins and ends with an incantation on "the separation of church and state". Ask them to explain why that's necessary and a handful will rebound - triumphantly - with the argument that "it's in the constitution". My favorite part of this declaration on the part of my Liberal friends is that they frequently make the little "quotation marks" sign with their fingers as they say the word "Constitution", as if lending it - with hand jive - a legitimacy it would not otherwise enjoy.
That aside, when you tell them that the phrase is not in the constitution, they get fairly exercised. For the benefit of all, here's the actual words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Not only does the Constitution not address the separation of Church and State, it explicitly rejects the premise of Secularists that Religion ought to be restricted in any way. Thus, if I'm to believe the Constitution, Right Wing Fundamentalists - as long as they're paid up on their taxes and don't have any outstanding warrants - are just as entitled to impose their views on our government as say, Bill Maher, right up to and including imposing those views through the electoral process.
On the issue of taxing Religious Folk whilst excluding them from the political process, Democrats are generally dumbfounded. The elephant in the living room is, of course, that they allow untrammeled political activism by Liberal Churches, and particularly Black Churches, but more about that later. More to the point, not only have Democrats not pondered the inequity of taxing the Religious while imposing explicitly anti-religious views, they have used those taxes to explicitly persecute people of faith that don't conform to the Democrat's worldview. Just think of how institutionally deaf they have been on, say, the First Amendment, when it comes to Religious Folk and the public square. It was Democrats that used the RICO statutes to attempt to bankrupt Conservative religious organizations that did nothing more than protest in front of abortion clinics. You might as well ask an alligator why he desires to drag granny off the back lawn of her retirement home in Boca. He's got no moral qualms about it. Granny is a meal. Religious protestors must be destroyed for making Abortionists uncomfortable. End of conversation.
While we're on metaphors involving the animal kingdom, we come next to the proverbial elephant in the living room. Why is it that Black Churches have not only been granted a gigantic exception when it comes to involvement in the political process, but are enthusiastically encouraged to do so by the one half of our polity (Democrats) that get upset when others attempt to do the same? Liberal Black ministers - and particularly those representing the Nation Of Islam - have done for at least 40 years the kinds of things that would automatically cause Fundamentalist churches to lose their tax exempt status. They politic from the pulpit; they bring Democrat politicians in to politic from the pulpit; many of them openly agitate against White America as some kind of monolithic oppressor; some not only "damn America, but God Damn America".
Not that Black Churches are the only group that get a Hall Pass from Democrats. Episcopalians have been espousing the virtues of abortion and same-sex marriage for decades. Liberal Catholic churches likewise speak with impunity on any issues - but only those issues - that are offensive to Conservatives. Muslims preach of the Great Satan and their radical clerics call for the overthrow of the Great Satan and that's all fine - so long as their definition of The Great Satan does not include the Democrat Party.
Why the double standard? My own personal opinion is that all churches are entitled to political speech, however offensive it may be. Democrats clearly feel the same, as long as it is limited to churches that support their views. Another example of their hypocrisy is Barack Obama's support for the Faith Based Initiatives program begun by his predecessor, George W. Bush. I note with interest that he does in fact have at least one nice thing to say about what his predecessor has bequeathed him, albeit that - to date - no words of praise for W have sprung from his lips. While we wait for the compliment for W that will never happen, we will also watch intently to see the extent to which he funds - or overfunds - Black Churches, liberal Catholic Churches, Episcopalians, Muslims and other faiths that take the Democrat worldview.
Given my druthers, I'd settle for the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas on the issue of government and religion before I would the word of your typical Democrat. In the Summa of Theology, he puts the whole concept of "Separation of Church and State" into its proper context when he notes that "only those who have received the faith can be governed by The Church. "Those that have not received the faith cannot be governed by the laws of the Church" and "those that have not received the faith are capable of governing, for Earthly governance is the province of man......"
Those simple sentence makes more sense to me than any of the miles of blather that are indignantly and forcibly expelled from the piehole of your typical Community Organizer. Aquinas clearly states that both Secularists and Religious Folk are capable of governance, and that Secularists should in no way be excluded for their lack of faith. This has been the official position of the church for millennia.
The fact that Aquinas can not only have more moral authority on this question but intellectual authority as well is instructive, since clearly he is a partisan on this issue. A Catholic philosopher in the most well-rounded sense of the word, he expounded not only on issues of faith and God, but the physical world as well. Were he alive today, the Left would attempt to read him out of polite society; you know, what with him being a religious bigot and all, and Catholic to boot.
And Aquinas was a fan of The Church having a say on those aspects of human conduct that involved morality, a notion that the Democrat Party recoils from in horror - as long as we're talking about Conservatives. Again, why? Do Democrats not differentiate "having a say" from "control"?
In fact, my typical Democrat Secularist friends would have only one rebuttal to Aquinas' statements, and it would be their Gotcha moment: "if those 'who have received the faith can be governed by The Church', how is that different from Islamism today"? They might then observe, correctly, that the faith of Islam is frequently received involuntarily, and if the faith was forced on them, then so too must be the laws of Islam.
How can we be certain that Christian Fundamentalism - unchecked - would evolve differently in the political arena?
There are a few essential differences between Christianity and Islam. One, Aquinas at least makes the case for Secular government; Islam does not. Two, when Aquinas wrote his theses 700 years ago, the official position of the Church was that they should not govern anything but men's souls. Now, it is clear that the Church was doing quite a bit back then to govern the Earthly kingdom, but over time, it also evolved away from that position and back to its original mandate. By contrast, Islam in its most common form embraces Earthly Governance and the forcible conversion of non-believers as a mandate from God. Third, the beliefs of all Christians on this subject are instructed by those of Jesus, who, through the example of his life made it clear that Earthly governance was not the role of the Church, so perfectly expressed when he said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's". In sum, you can neither embrace worldly things nor confuse your Christian mandate with worldly things without crossing Jesus. Islam has no such prohibition, and their major prophet Mohammed has no such admonitions. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.
What you observe if you study the issue carefully is the grotesque extent to which Democrats have distorted not just the teachings of Christianity, but the role of Religion in society. For liberals, this debate has been over for decades. To them, Christian Conservatives - mostly Fundamentalists - are attempting to impose a theocracy on our Great Nation. Never mind that that notion has even the most ardent of Fundamentalists scratching their heads; this is the bizarre world in which Secularists live.
It is all the more ironic, then, that the most extreme examples of Secular society - those that are the least religious - are also those who live in the only Western society that has an official state religion. What kind of cognitive dissonance must my Democrat friends be going through to realize that their soulmates in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada - all bastions of Liberalism and Secularism, not to mention non-existent attendance at church - live under a Constitutional Monarchy that has an Official State Church, and that both government and polity are beholden to that Church? Never would they tolerate a "Church of America" as do all Anglophiles "The Church of England".
What a quandary for Democrats. Should they read their Brit, Canadian and Antipodean friends out of polite society? Ignore their thoughts on Earthly governance? And if they do not accept them and their customs, must they then also reject their Socialist policies, grounded as they supposedly are in Christian doctrine? And how do our Anglo cousins of a liberal persuasion reconcile these contradictions?
OffHisMeds has a theory on why Secularists tie themselves into such knots in the first place. It is not complex, it requires no deep thinking, nor the comparison of religions, doctrine and such: Secularists simply don't want to go to Sunday service, and they don't want to feel guilty about it. How better to accomplish this objective than to turn slackness into a virtue? Me, there's a lot of things I don't like to do, including take out the garbage every Saturday and Wednesday, but I don't rationalize it by trashing those who do, you'll pardon the expression.
So, if Religious folk are within their rights to use their numbers to influence public policy - and let's further assume that it is so on as controversial a topic as Abortion - what next? Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden trying to foist their Catholic-Secular views regarding abortion on Aquinas? What would happen to them at his hands rhetorically is surely as unpleasant as will be their eternal reward. And yet, in America there is no Thomas Aquinas - much less a movement based on his principles - that would forcibly argue for not only the inclusion of Christian values in the nation's political life, but some deference to them.
OffHisMeds would argue that Religious folk of a Christian background can lay a more legitimate claim to political power specifically because their doctrine cautions them against amassing Earthly power. Christians have a built in belief comparable to Originalism that makes them, from my perspective, the ideal ruling class, since to desire or revel in political power is contradictory to your beliefs, and gets you cross-wise with God. Do Secularists and Democrats have any comparable restraint?
That's one they ought to chew on before next they speak.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Democrat Preoccupation With Blaming America
I reacted with great amusement to the most recent proclamation of the Democrats that the problem with the Drug Mafias in Mexico is that they have too ready of access to guns from the U.S. The Mexican government picked up this theme and immediately became the Amen Chorus, probably not so much because they believed it as because they saw an opportunity to deflect attention from their own astonishing incompetence, not to mention their corruption to those very same Mafias.
That, and the fact that they no doubt smelled a potential U.S. Government handout a mile away, what with the Democrats throwing up flares and waving the cash upwind.
That's right folks. Mexico is Ground Zero for 80% of the Cocaine that comes into the United States, and for as long as I can remember, it's all America's fault, according to the Democrats. See, if we didn't consume it, Columbia and Ecuador wouldn't produce it, and Mexico wouldn't ship it. And never mind that these Mafias pour the stuff by the freightcar load across our porous borders, courtesy once again of the Democrat Party, with a timely assist from those bipartisan enablers, George W. Bush and John McCain.
But that's a sideshow. What I wish to talk about today is Democrats blaming American gun dealers for the Drug Mafia's access to semi-automatic weapons, as if it is inconceivable that they could get the same from say, Cuba, Venezuela, China or Russia. Given your choice between Americans, Cuban Commies or Hugo Chavez's anarchist thugs, why would Democrats automatically assume that the bulk of the Mafia's weapons were coming from America?
Let us also remark upon Democrat alarm - not to mention incredulity - that weapons could be smuggled from America to Mexico, assuming it's happening on an industrial scale. Shades of Campion and Ramos shooting a Drug Dealer in the ass! If guns are being shipped from the U.S.A., do they have any right to be surprised? Did they really think the porous borders they created would only enable people, drugs and materiale to come into the country, but not out? Finally, are Democrats so devoted to their Blame America First fixation that they wouldn't even consider that the same Drug Mafias that have the free run of our borders - courtesy of the Democrats - are the actual source of the problem with any guns that do flow South? Can we give American gun merchants a frickin' break here?
Democrats assume that if there is evil along our border, that it is being exported from the U.S. If there are Perpetrators, they are American. If there are victims, they are Mexican. Perversely, Democrats are also saying: Porous borders give us Illegal Immigrants, and that is virtuous.
So, here's my suggestion: flood Mexico with fine quality American arms. Get them in the hands of the citizenry of Mexico and give them a fighting chance against those murdering, kidnapping bastards, notwithstanding that those murdering, kidnapping bastards are a natural constituency of the Democrat Party.
In other words, make the Mexican people as dangerous to their Elites as Americans are to theirs.
Problem solved.
That, and the fact that they no doubt smelled a potential U.S. Government handout a mile away, what with the Democrats throwing up flares and waving the cash upwind.
That's right folks. Mexico is Ground Zero for 80% of the Cocaine that comes into the United States, and for as long as I can remember, it's all America's fault, according to the Democrats. See, if we didn't consume it, Columbia and Ecuador wouldn't produce it, and Mexico wouldn't ship it. And never mind that these Mafias pour the stuff by the freightcar load across our porous borders, courtesy once again of the Democrat Party, with a timely assist from those bipartisan enablers, George W. Bush and John McCain.
But that's a sideshow. What I wish to talk about today is Democrats blaming American gun dealers for the Drug Mafia's access to semi-automatic weapons, as if it is inconceivable that they could get the same from say, Cuba, Venezuela, China or Russia. Given your choice between Americans, Cuban Commies or Hugo Chavez's anarchist thugs, why would Democrats automatically assume that the bulk of the Mafia's weapons were coming from America?
Let us also remark upon Democrat alarm - not to mention incredulity - that weapons could be smuggled from America to Mexico, assuming it's happening on an industrial scale. Shades of Campion and Ramos shooting a Drug Dealer in the ass! If guns are being shipped from the U.S.A., do they have any right to be surprised? Did they really think the porous borders they created would only enable people, drugs and materiale to come into the country, but not out? Finally, are Democrats so devoted to their Blame America First fixation that they wouldn't even consider that the same Drug Mafias that have the free run of our borders - courtesy of the Democrats - are the actual source of the problem with any guns that do flow South? Can we give American gun merchants a frickin' break here?
Democrats assume that if there is evil along our border, that it is being exported from the U.S. If there are Perpetrators, they are American. If there are victims, they are Mexican. Perversely, Democrats are also saying: Porous borders give us Illegal Immigrants, and that is virtuous.
So, here's my suggestion: flood Mexico with fine quality American arms. Get them in the hands of the citizenry of Mexico and give them a fighting chance against those murdering, kidnapping bastards, notwithstanding that those murdering, kidnapping bastards are a natural constituency of the Democrat Party.
In other words, make the Mexican people as dangerous to their Elites as Americans are to theirs.
Problem solved.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Democrats And Soccer, Pt. II
In a post a few Blogs back, I compared the Democrat Party to Soccer, and remarked on the amazing number of similarities between the two: useless, boring, insipid, egalitarian, riven with esteem issues and absolutely devoted to screwing up the lives of people who devote themselves to more normal forms of sport or, well, political discourse.
Like vengeful Hall Monitors, Democrats and Soccer Enthusiasts are only happy if everybody is as miserable as they are. I mean, think about it: How else are we supposed to feel about people who devote themselves not only to ensuring that the opposition doesn't score, but that nobody scores? When was the last time you saw a riot inside a football stadium, much less at a Republican political convention? And when somebody in the NFL or MLB commits the equivalent of an Own Goal (Leon Lett & Jose Canseco come to mind), do the fans rise up and murder them, as they routinely do soccer players? As the Clintons did Vince Foster and former secretary of Commerce Ron Brown?
Say what you will, but normal American sports such as Football and Baseball and normal political parties such as the Republicans don't have to carry near the liability insurance that, say, Manchester United or the Kennedy family do.
And would it be impolitic of me to point out that Barack Obama, while not having killed anybody yet, has built up quite a record for throwing his nominees for the cabinet and sundry appointees to other high office under the bus at the first sign of controversy, and for offenses a lot less, well, offensive than whatever the political equivalent of an Own Goal might be? Put it this way: given the number of times in just the last month that Joe Biden has put his foot in Barack Obama's mouth, I wouldn't rule out an untimely accident for our V.P., were he to commit that Own Goal.
And it's not a matter of if Biden will do this, but when.
Which brings us back to what Democrats and Sociologists so lovingly refer to as Root Causes. The source of such anti-social behavior can only be attributed to one thing: Self Esteem issues. The proof is at this website:
http://www.ffps.org/?gclid=CMfgovGs5ZgCFRIcawodsHGJcw
Fun, fair, positive? Wasn't it bad enough when it was not only crushingly boring but likely to cause brain damage as well? I'm referring to Soccer, of course, but it's not too much of a stretch to assume otherwise. Now, organized Soccer for kids must also be inclusive, uplifting and Doggone It, Positive! With equal playing time for all.
At long last, we are no longer left to wonder if Democrats are more drawn to Soccer, or why.
Like vengeful Hall Monitors, Democrats and Soccer Enthusiasts are only happy if everybody is as miserable as they are. I mean, think about it: How else are we supposed to feel about people who devote themselves not only to ensuring that the opposition doesn't score, but that nobody scores? When was the last time you saw a riot inside a football stadium, much less at a Republican political convention? And when somebody in the NFL or MLB commits the equivalent of an Own Goal (Leon Lett & Jose Canseco come to mind), do the fans rise up and murder them, as they routinely do soccer players? As the Clintons did Vince Foster and former secretary of Commerce Ron Brown?
Say what you will, but normal American sports such as Football and Baseball and normal political parties such as the Republicans don't have to carry near the liability insurance that, say, Manchester United or the Kennedy family do.
And would it be impolitic of me to point out that Barack Obama, while not having killed anybody yet, has built up quite a record for throwing his nominees for the cabinet and sundry appointees to other high office under the bus at the first sign of controversy, and for offenses a lot less, well, offensive than whatever the political equivalent of an Own Goal might be? Put it this way: given the number of times in just the last month that Joe Biden has put his foot in Barack Obama's mouth, I wouldn't rule out an untimely accident for our V.P., were he to commit that Own Goal.
And it's not a matter of if Biden will do this, but when.
Which brings us back to what Democrats and Sociologists so lovingly refer to as Root Causes. The source of such anti-social behavior can only be attributed to one thing: Self Esteem issues. The proof is at this website:
http://www.ffps.org/?gclid=CMfgovGs5ZgCFRIcawodsHGJcw
Fun, fair, positive? Wasn't it bad enough when it was not only crushingly boring but likely to cause brain damage as well? I'm referring to Soccer, of course, but it's not too much of a stretch to assume otherwise. Now, organized Soccer for kids must also be inclusive, uplifting and Doggone It, Positive! With equal playing time for all.
At long last, we are no longer left to wonder if Democrats are more drawn to Soccer, or why.
Economics 101 Lesson For The Day
So, the Democrats have rammed their $840 billion "stimulus" package through Congress, and it sits on Barack Obama's desk even as I write this. The Econ 101 lesson for the day is: how will they pay for the $840 billion they are borrowing?
When the Federal government confiscates money from the Private Sector to fund anything - regardless of its merit - the math is real simple to do: simply compare that amount to the overall GDP, and calculate how much more the Private Sector will need to produce to pay for the amount that was confiscated.
The U.S. Government spent $3 Trillion in 2008 against a $14 Trillion dollar economy, so they confiscated 20% of GDP. At that rate of confiscation, the economy collapsed.
Right now Barack Obama and his pals are on track to spend $4 Trillion in a $13 Trillion dollar economy. We no longer have a $14 Trillion economy. That was last year, and we're in a deflationary mode. That means the Federal government will take 31% of GDP this year, at minimum.
So, the Feds in 2009 will have confiscated another $1.5 Trillion from the Private Sector that might otherwise have either been a) invested in businesses or b) in the hands of consumers to spend to allow those businesses to flourish. Had this money been left in the Private Sector, the economy might have grown, and the Federal government's revenues along with it.
Thus, the insanity of an $840 billion dollar "stimulus" package that is virtually 100% additional government spending. Not only will the economy not grow, it will contract, resulting in less government revenues, and require yet further borrowing to finance the additional debt. To make matters worse, that $840 billion is merely the down payment on a generational orgy of additional government spending. If you doubt this, read the budget and then get back to me.
Either a) Barack Obama believes that government spending stimulates the economy as much as Private Sector spending, in which case he is an economic moron, or b) he does not believe that, and is cynically enslaving America to government handouts by destroying the economy.
Either way, this is a textbook example of Friedrich Hayek's "Road To Serfdom". If Barack Obama and the Democrats have their way, we will all soon be serfs.
And let me finish this little riff with a question I perpetually ask of my Democrat friends, but for which they never provide an answer: At what point does the Socialist confiscation of wealth by government damage the economy? 10%? 20% 50%?
Government and Public Sector spending at all levels now consumes 60% of our GDP. Back when FDR managed to make the Depression last a decade, total government and Public Sector spending was only 20% of GDP.
You do the math.
When the Federal government confiscates money from the Private Sector to fund anything - regardless of its merit - the math is real simple to do: simply compare that amount to the overall GDP, and calculate how much more the Private Sector will need to produce to pay for the amount that was confiscated.
The U.S. Government spent $3 Trillion in 2008 against a $14 Trillion dollar economy, so they confiscated 20% of GDP. At that rate of confiscation, the economy collapsed.
Right now Barack Obama and his pals are on track to spend $4 Trillion in a $13 Trillion dollar economy. We no longer have a $14 Trillion economy. That was last year, and we're in a deflationary mode. That means the Federal government will take 31% of GDP this year, at minimum.
So, the Feds in 2009 will have confiscated another $1.5 Trillion from the Private Sector that might otherwise have either been a) invested in businesses or b) in the hands of consumers to spend to allow those businesses to flourish. Had this money been left in the Private Sector, the economy might have grown, and the Federal government's revenues along with it.
Thus, the insanity of an $840 billion dollar "stimulus" package that is virtually 100% additional government spending. Not only will the economy not grow, it will contract, resulting in less government revenues, and require yet further borrowing to finance the additional debt. To make matters worse, that $840 billion is merely the down payment on a generational orgy of additional government spending. If you doubt this, read the budget and then get back to me.
Either a) Barack Obama believes that government spending stimulates the economy as much as Private Sector spending, in which case he is an economic moron, or b) he does not believe that, and is cynically enslaving America to government handouts by destroying the economy.
Either way, this is a textbook example of Friedrich Hayek's "Road To Serfdom". If Barack Obama and the Democrats have their way, we will all soon be serfs.
And let me finish this little riff with a question I perpetually ask of my Democrat friends, but for which they never provide an answer: At what point does the Socialist confiscation of wealth by government damage the economy? 10%? 20% 50%?
Government and Public Sector spending at all levels now consumes 60% of our GDP. Back when FDR managed to make the Depression last a decade, total government and Public Sector spending was only 20% of GDP.
You do the math.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Hybrid Mania and Other Democrat Delusions
Sundry of my Democrat friends (along with a sprinkling of Republicans) and I have a running debate about the efficacy of Hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius as compared to conventional internal combustion engines. Gaia only knows why. To me, the math seems so straightforward as to obviate the necessity of taking the whole concept more than once around the track. Bottom line, the economics don't work, there is little evidence that there's any reduction in pollution, and significant evidence that it actually makes things worse. Kind of like Biofuels, but without Archer Daniel Midland's goons hanging over your shoulder, or greasing the palm of your congressman.
Here's the reality of Hybrids from the perspective of this layperson:
- You pay an extra $8,000.00 in addition to the sixteen grand you would normally pay in order to have a vehicle with the performance characteristics of a Prius.
- If you're extremely lucky, you realize an improvement in gas mileage from roughly 30 mpg to 50 mpg; So, if you realize 66% greater efficiency, instead of using 15,000 miles/30 mpg = 500 gallons of gas, you would instead use 15,000/50 = 300 gallons of gas. At $2.50/gal., that would be 200 gallons x $2.50 = or $500.00 per year saved; over 5 years, that would be $2,500.00 saved on gasoline compared to a gas powered vehicle.
At this point, my question is not whether I covered the opportunity cost of that lost eight grand that I dispensed five years prior, which at 8% simple interest would have netted me $3,755.00. No, I would be at least $4,245.00 in the hole.
Nor is my question about whether the resale value of my car once it's carrying around about 700 pounds of toxic dead weight that has to be replaced will be enough to offset the cost of replacing those batteries. It won't, since replacing the batteries is going to cost at least $3,000.
Nor is my question about the disposal cost to get rid of that 700 pounds of batteries and where they will go? Landfill? Recycled somehow? If so, by whom and at what additional cost? Let's err on the low side and say disposal costs half as much to recycle as to replace, or $1,500.
Nor is my question whether the CO2 generated in the production, operation AND disposal of those batteries was less than the CO2 saved by burning 1,000 less gallons of gas over the five year life of those batteries. I'm going to guess that no, there was no reduction in CO2.
No, my question is: why didn't we discuss all these questions before California was allowed to lead the entire nation by its nose by incenting the purchase of Hybrids and discouraging the purchase of regular gasoline powered cars?
The answer is straightforward. Just as is the case with blocking oil exploration so as not to befoul their ocean view, not having any petrochemical plants despoiling their precious atmosphere, nor allowing any pollution belching power plants to be built near their tender orifices, Californians are more than happy to dump the consequences of their power hoggery on the rest of America. The monumental hypocrisy of consuming far more energy per capita than the rest of the nation while demanding the most stringent pollution controls on the producers of that energy boggles the mind.
The consequence of their actions is yet another wound to our domestic auto industry. The mad pursuit of Hybrid Cars is a total fraud, but since it's mandated by California and now the Federal government, the Big Three are forced to jump through more hoops and divert precious capital and engineering resources into this asininity. Likewise with Flex Fuel vehicles and the pursuit of Ethanol, another fraud that will benefit Archer Daniels Midland, but push GM and Chrysler closer to oblivion.
Democrat industrial policy is a pinball machine, our industry is the pinball, and Democrat politicians are the proverbial "deaf, dumb and blind kid, that sure plays a mean pinball". With their Crazy Flipper Fingers, they mandate Hybrid cars, Flex Fuel, mindless emissions standards, auto safety overkill and the mandatory use of the UAW. It's a wonder to me that the Big Three produces any cars at all, much less keeps their sanity. It's also a wonder to me that their CEOs will sit there like a bunch of neutered cattle at the hearings tomorrow, hat in hand and meekly asking for a handout, when they should be giving to their Democrat inquisitors at least as good as they get.
Time to call a spade a spade.
Here's the reality of Hybrids from the perspective of this layperson:
- You pay an extra $8,000.00 in addition to the sixteen grand you would normally pay in order to have a vehicle with the performance characteristics of a Prius.
- If you're extremely lucky, you realize an improvement in gas mileage from roughly 30 mpg to 50 mpg; So, if you realize 66% greater efficiency, instead of using 15,000 miles/30 mpg = 500 gallons of gas, you would instead use 15,000/50 = 300 gallons of gas. At $2.50/gal., that would be 200 gallons x $2.50 = or $500.00 per year saved; over 5 years, that would be $2,500.00 saved on gasoline compared to a gas powered vehicle.
At this point, my question is not whether I covered the opportunity cost of that lost eight grand that I dispensed five years prior, which at 8% simple interest would have netted me $3,755.00. No, I would be at least $4,245.00 in the hole.
Nor is my question about whether the resale value of my car once it's carrying around about 700 pounds of toxic dead weight that has to be replaced will be enough to offset the cost of replacing those batteries. It won't, since replacing the batteries is going to cost at least $3,000.
Nor is my question about the disposal cost to get rid of that 700 pounds of batteries and where they will go? Landfill? Recycled somehow? If so, by whom and at what additional cost? Let's err on the low side and say disposal costs half as much to recycle as to replace, or $1,500.
Nor is my question whether the CO2 generated in the production, operation AND disposal of those batteries was less than the CO2 saved by burning 1,000 less gallons of gas over the five year life of those batteries. I'm going to guess that no, there was no reduction in CO2.
No, my question is: why didn't we discuss all these questions before California was allowed to lead the entire nation by its nose by incenting the purchase of Hybrids and discouraging the purchase of regular gasoline powered cars?
The answer is straightforward. Just as is the case with blocking oil exploration so as not to befoul their ocean view, not having any petrochemical plants despoiling their precious atmosphere, nor allowing any pollution belching power plants to be built near their tender orifices, Californians are more than happy to dump the consequences of their power hoggery on the rest of America. The monumental hypocrisy of consuming far more energy per capita than the rest of the nation while demanding the most stringent pollution controls on the producers of that energy boggles the mind.
The consequence of their actions is yet another wound to our domestic auto industry. The mad pursuit of Hybrid Cars is a total fraud, but since it's mandated by California and now the Federal government, the Big Three are forced to jump through more hoops and divert precious capital and engineering resources into this asininity. Likewise with Flex Fuel vehicles and the pursuit of Ethanol, another fraud that will benefit Archer Daniels Midland, but push GM and Chrysler closer to oblivion.
Democrat industrial policy is a pinball machine, our industry is the pinball, and Democrat politicians are the proverbial "deaf, dumb and blind kid, that sure plays a mean pinball". With their Crazy Flipper Fingers, they mandate Hybrid cars, Flex Fuel, mindless emissions standards, auto safety overkill and the mandatory use of the UAW. It's a wonder to me that the Big Three produces any cars at all, much less keeps their sanity. It's also a wonder to me that their CEOs will sit there like a bunch of neutered cattle at the hearings tomorrow, hat in hand and meekly asking for a handout, when they should be giving to their Democrat inquisitors at least as good as they get.
Time to call a spade a spade.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Saying For The Day
Show me a profession that has no foreign competition, and I will show you a profession that is bloated, inefficient, and a huge blood-sucking tick on the backside of our economy.
I will also show you where 80% of all Democrats get their jobs.
I will also show you where 80% of all Democrats get their jobs.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Marie Antoinette Republicans
Back about eight years ago, the country was in turmoil as the outcome of the 2000 presidential election hinged on a recount of votes in Florida. Accusations and counter-accusations were hurled about by Democrats and Republicans. "Butterfly Ballots" and "Hanging Chads" became part of the vernacular. The country was in an uproar as Democrats accused Republicans of attempting to game the system and steal the election, even as the Democrats were gaming the system and attempting to steal the election.
Never was there such a blatant attack on Democracy as that engineered by Al Gore and his minions, and never was nor has there been a more egregious smear campaign than the one mounted by the Democrat Party at all levels of society against Republicans; and this despite the fact that it was the Democrats themselves who created the problems with their flawed ballots and Election Goonery.
In a desperate last and disreputable act, Al Gore attempted to have only the votes in counties favorable to him recounted. There followed a mad rush of rulings by the Florida Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the matter was eventually referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Conservative majority found that such actions violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution by giving greater significance to some voters than others.
Well, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a conniption. While the opinion was written by fellow Liberal Stephen Breyer, Bader was the Amen Chorus and Vengeful Cheerleader for the accusations Breyer leveled against the Conservative majority, calling the decision: an "assault on Florida election procedures", and the "most cynical appraisal of the work of judges across this land", and finally, that "the identity of the loser (with this decision) is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." Ginsburg then (and she alone) took the almost unprecedented step of stating "'I dissent' rather than the standard 'I respectfully dissent'". Then she did the interview rounds to further let America know what scumbags she thought her conservative peers were.
All because they sensibly blocked the attempts of the Democrat Party to steal the election.
Now, inflammatory rhetoric like this would - for most of us - cause justifiable outrage. How does one maintain comity and a good working relationship after a peer has not only called you a fraud and dangerous to democracy, but done it in such a public fashion? What to do?
Well, if you're Antonin Scalia, you go on vacation with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You go to dinner and the opera regularly. You are the fastest of friends, no matter that her contempt - and those of all the Democrat Grandees like her - makes a mockery of civil discourse, you, the pursuit of reason, and lastly, the people you allegedly represent.
People like me.
Time for full disclosure: I honor no Jurist as I do Antonin Scalia, with the possible exceptions of Robert Bork and Richard Posner. Either way, he's in my top three, for whatever that's worth. That said, he needs a serious attitude adjustment, as do the seemingly endless ranks of Establishment Republicans who have for decades now have responded to Democrat Character Assassination and Fighting Words with obsequious lip smacking, followed by an olive branch of reconciliation, socializing and all the recognition bestowed upon honored family members.
It doesn't start and end with Antonin Scalia either. He is merely the least likely candidate for such behavior and thus, our object lesson for the day. The real pros at Democrat ass-kissing are legion in the ranks of the Republican Party. The Godfather of such activity must surely be George W. Bush, with John McCain pulling a close second. The Senate is riven with such sellouts; the House of Representatives, blessedly much less so.
So, what to call Republicans who sell out their principals - not to mention their constiuents - on behalf of such nebulous concepts as "bipartisanship", not to mention the approval of their Democrat peers and a guaranteed place at the buffet table of the Federal government? We shall call them "Marie Antoinette Republicans".
You may recall that Marie Antoinette (former queen of France late 18th century), when informed that there was no bread for the masses, famously declared that they should instead eat cake. The point here being that French society was so corrupt, the needs of the people so shamefully neglected, and their ruling elites so uncaring about the effects of their policies that the wife of the King could make such a clueless observation.
It has ever been thus with Republican leaders. Fight the good Populist fight for a while. Show the courage of your convictions for the first few years on the national stage and then, ever so slowly but inexorably, slip into the Public Life, and assume your place at the table of Big Government. Let the Democrats - who have run the country non-stop since FDR - continue to drag us into the grave.
No problem, right Justice Scalia? Electoral misconduct by Democrats? Fiscal malfeasance as they borrow and spend us into oblivion? Let them eat cake. Time for me and Ruthie to take a vacation together and ride on an elephant.
And it's not like this was the first time these kinds of words had come out of the mouths of the Liberal clique of the Supreme Court. Ginsberg, Freyer, Stevens and sundry of their predecessors have had a running sideshow for decades now, pillorying their conservative counterparts in the most vile of terms. Using rhetoric usually only deployed in municipal elections in Louisiana, there is apparently nothing you can't accuse a Conservative of and get away with, and your reputation for sobermindedness remains intact.
It has ever been thus, what with Liberals playing to a receptive media, who regurgitate this bile without commentary, unless it's approving.
Well, here's a little shoutout from the Fringe, Justice Scalia; A friendly suggestion from somebody who doesn't enjoy the security of lifetime employment, a sumptuous government pension and a goodies bag of medical coverage so comprehensive as to practically guarantee one will not only cross the centenary threshold, but do so to the strains of "Chariots Of Fire": Get off your ass and start working for your people. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her ilk are the Destroyers of society, and we the people expect more from you than an endless turning of the cheek, followed by afternoon tea with the enemy.
Get pissed, will you? Is it beyond the pale for you to exhibit the same outrage - if not the rhetoric - as Ginsburg when Democrats and their partisans not only crap all over the constitution, but in your shoes as well? Where is it written that your only reaction must be amiable disagreement, followed by vacation plans with these unworthy people?
Justice Scalia, if we can't convince you - a man not corrupted by power - to see reason on this issue, we will never convince Arlen Spectre, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, who are.
Time to get with the program.
Never was there such a blatant attack on Democracy as that engineered by Al Gore and his minions, and never was nor has there been a more egregious smear campaign than the one mounted by the Democrat Party at all levels of society against Republicans; and this despite the fact that it was the Democrats themselves who created the problems with their flawed ballots and Election Goonery.
In a desperate last and disreputable act, Al Gore attempted to have only the votes in counties favorable to him recounted. There followed a mad rush of rulings by the Florida Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the matter was eventually referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Conservative majority found that such actions violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution by giving greater significance to some voters than others.
Well, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a conniption. While the opinion was written by fellow Liberal Stephen Breyer, Bader was the Amen Chorus and Vengeful Cheerleader for the accusations Breyer leveled against the Conservative majority, calling the decision: an "assault on Florida election procedures", and the "most cynical appraisal of the work of judges across this land", and finally, that "the identity of the loser (with this decision) is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." Ginsburg then (and she alone) took the almost unprecedented step of stating "'I dissent' rather than the standard 'I respectfully dissent'". Then she did the interview rounds to further let America know what scumbags she thought her conservative peers were.
All because they sensibly blocked the attempts of the Democrat Party to steal the election.
Now, inflammatory rhetoric like this would - for most of us - cause justifiable outrage. How does one maintain comity and a good working relationship after a peer has not only called you a fraud and dangerous to democracy, but done it in such a public fashion? What to do?
Well, if you're Antonin Scalia, you go on vacation with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You go to dinner and the opera regularly. You are the fastest of friends, no matter that her contempt - and those of all the Democrat Grandees like her - makes a mockery of civil discourse, you, the pursuit of reason, and lastly, the people you allegedly represent.
People like me.
Time for full disclosure: I honor no Jurist as I do Antonin Scalia, with the possible exceptions of Robert Bork and Richard Posner. Either way, he's in my top three, for whatever that's worth. That said, he needs a serious attitude adjustment, as do the seemingly endless ranks of Establishment Republicans who have for decades now have responded to Democrat Character Assassination and Fighting Words with obsequious lip smacking, followed by an olive branch of reconciliation, socializing and all the recognition bestowed upon honored family members.
It doesn't start and end with Antonin Scalia either. He is merely the least likely candidate for such behavior and thus, our object lesson for the day. The real pros at Democrat ass-kissing are legion in the ranks of the Republican Party. The Godfather of such activity must surely be George W. Bush, with John McCain pulling a close second. The Senate is riven with such sellouts; the House of Representatives, blessedly much less so.
So, what to call Republicans who sell out their principals - not to mention their constiuents - on behalf of such nebulous concepts as "bipartisanship", not to mention the approval of their Democrat peers and a guaranteed place at the buffet table of the Federal government? We shall call them "Marie Antoinette Republicans".
You may recall that Marie Antoinette (former queen of France late 18th century), when informed that there was no bread for the masses, famously declared that they should instead eat cake. The point here being that French society was so corrupt, the needs of the people so shamefully neglected, and their ruling elites so uncaring about the effects of their policies that the wife of the King could make such a clueless observation.
It has ever been thus with Republican leaders. Fight the good Populist fight for a while. Show the courage of your convictions for the first few years on the national stage and then, ever so slowly but inexorably, slip into the Public Life, and assume your place at the table of Big Government. Let the Democrats - who have run the country non-stop since FDR - continue to drag us into the grave.
No problem, right Justice Scalia? Electoral misconduct by Democrats? Fiscal malfeasance as they borrow and spend us into oblivion? Let them eat cake. Time for me and Ruthie to take a vacation together and ride on an elephant.
And it's not like this was the first time these kinds of words had come out of the mouths of the Liberal clique of the Supreme Court. Ginsberg, Freyer, Stevens and sundry of their predecessors have had a running sideshow for decades now, pillorying their conservative counterparts in the most vile of terms. Using rhetoric usually only deployed in municipal elections in Louisiana, there is apparently nothing you can't accuse a Conservative of and get away with, and your reputation for sobermindedness remains intact.
It has ever been thus, what with Liberals playing to a receptive media, who regurgitate this bile without commentary, unless it's approving.
Well, here's a little shoutout from the Fringe, Justice Scalia; A friendly suggestion from somebody who doesn't enjoy the security of lifetime employment, a sumptuous government pension and a goodies bag of medical coverage so comprehensive as to practically guarantee one will not only cross the centenary threshold, but do so to the strains of "Chariots Of Fire": Get off your ass and start working for your people. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her ilk are the Destroyers of society, and we the people expect more from you than an endless turning of the cheek, followed by afternoon tea with the enemy.
Get pissed, will you? Is it beyond the pale for you to exhibit the same outrage - if not the rhetoric - as Ginsburg when Democrats and their partisans not only crap all over the constitution, but in your shoes as well? Where is it written that your only reaction must be amiable disagreement, followed by vacation plans with these unworthy people?
Justice Scalia, if we can't convince you - a man not corrupted by power - to see reason on this issue, we will never convince Arlen Spectre, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, who are.
Time to get with the program.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
When Republicans Do Democrat
So, congressional Republicans dug their heels in against the $800 billion dollar "stimulus" package. Good for them. Then, they suggested a $15,000 tax credit for a home purchase. What a colossally stupid idea. Wasn't it artificial incentives on real estate that got us into this economic mess in the first place?
And why aren't any Republican politicians demanding real cuts in government spending? For that matter, why isn't the Conservative Punditry? It seems they're content to simply fight to forestall or minimize a further orgy of government spending. How astoundingly short-sighted that is.
You can't play this game by Democrat rules. The way out of this mess is not to expand the pool of giveaways, it is to stop them cold and attack the real problem: government spending and government mandates now consume 60% of our GDP. 50% of that is wasted or stolen. That's over $4 Trillion that could have been used for investment and purchases simply thrown onto a bonfire to burn.
Bottom line, the inmates are running the asylum. Time to stand athwart History and yell "Stop".
And why aren't any Republican politicians demanding real cuts in government spending? For that matter, why isn't the Conservative Punditry? It seems they're content to simply fight to forestall or minimize a further orgy of government spending. How astoundingly short-sighted that is.
You can't play this game by Democrat rules. The way out of this mess is not to expand the pool of giveaways, it is to stop them cold and attack the real problem: government spending and government mandates now consume 60% of our GDP. 50% of that is wasted or stolen. That's over $4 Trillion that could have been used for investment and purchases simply thrown onto a bonfire to burn.
Bottom line, the inmates are running the asylum. Time to stand athwart History and yell "Stop".
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Obama's Stimulus Package
Several things caused me to scratch my head at my fellow citizen's - not to mention the Press Corp's - continuing ability to suspend disbelief after listening to President Obama's "press conference" last night. The wallowing obeisance of the press, his so called inquisitors, was a sight to behold. But that George W or any Republican president ever got such a suckup. Obama's violations of Presidential press conference etiquette were many, and blatant. The sins of The White House Press Corp were manifold:
- There were no multi-part questions (a staple of Bush inquisitions) to speak of, wherein the answer to the first part must necessarily indict the answerer by the time he got to part two.
- There were no indignant follow ups either by the original interlocutor or anybody else.
- There were no "have you stopped beating your wife" premises as prelude to any substantive question.
- There was no indignation when Obama outright ignored many of the questions put to him, regurgitating boilerplate instead. Bill O'Reilly and former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer were all gushy about Obama's "mastery". Me? I simply saw the same manically overscripted automaton I've been watching for two years now.
- There was not a whit of incredulity as to some of Obama's more fantastical statements, such as "there is not one ounce of pork in this bill", or, that all Republicans - who are numerically incapable of having any impact on the bill at all - are sabotaging his stimulus package, or that his bill "would create or save up to 4 million jobs". Interesting to note that on that last, this is his fourth clarification, having over the past month gone from "new jobs" to "saved jobs", and from "2.5 million" to "4 million".
It really is easy to demonstrate your "mastery" of communications when not only sychophantic press, but also the likes of Bill O'Reilly fail to document how such whoppers have evolved.
- Finally, there was no Helen Thomas character assassination. Too bad. It was one of the things I so very looked forward to in her questions to Presidents all the way back to Ronald Reagan.
In one astounding Foot In Mouth moment, Obama - in portraying the "catastrophe" that our current economic troubles will become unless his stimulus bill is passed - direly warned us that he was not so concerned about the 3.6 million jobs lost since the recession started last year; no, he was most concerned that 80% of those losses had occurred "in the past three months", suggesting that the crisis is accelerating.
In other words, things have only really started going to hell since he won the election. There's more where this came from. The Stock Market didn't really start tanking until - in the last month of the campaign - it was apparent that Obama had the election won. Using Obama's own methodology, a reasonable person might conclude that Democrats taking power has destroyed the economy.
Far be it from a partisan like myself not to draw those conclusions. I'm just not convinced that those are the kinds of comparisons he wants to continue to make to the faithful, though.
- There were no multi-part questions (a staple of Bush inquisitions) to speak of, wherein the answer to the first part must necessarily indict the answerer by the time he got to part two.
- There were no indignant follow ups either by the original interlocutor or anybody else.
- There were no "have you stopped beating your wife" premises as prelude to any substantive question.
- There was no indignation when Obama outright ignored many of the questions put to him, regurgitating boilerplate instead. Bill O'Reilly and former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer were all gushy about Obama's "mastery". Me? I simply saw the same manically overscripted automaton I've been watching for two years now.
- There was not a whit of incredulity as to some of Obama's more fantastical statements, such as "there is not one ounce of pork in this bill", or, that all Republicans - who are numerically incapable of having any impact on the bill at all - are sabotaging his stimulus package, or that his bill "would create or save up to 4 million jobs". Interesting to note that on that last, this is his fourth clarification, having over the past month gone from "new jobs" to "saved jobs", and from "2.5 million" to "4 million".
It really is easy to demonstrate your "mastery" of communications when not only sychophantic press, but also the likes of Bill O'Reilly fail to document how such whoppers have evolved.
- Finally, there was no Helen Thomas character assassination. Too bad. It was one of the things I so very looked forward to in her questions to Presidents all the way back to Ronald Reagan.
In one astounding Foot In Mouth moment, Obama - in portraying the "catastrophe" that our current economic troubles will become unless his stimulus bill is passed - direly warned us that he was not so concerned about the 3.6 million jobs lost since the recession started last year; no, he was most concerned that 80% of those losses had occurred "in the past three months", suggesting that the crisis is accelerating.
In other words, things have only really started going to hell since he won the election. There's more where this came from. The Stock Market didn't really start tanking until - in the last month of the campaign - it was apparent that Obama had the election won. Using Obama's own methodology, a reasonable person might conclude that Democrats taking power has destroyed the economy.
Far be it from a partisan like myself not to draw those conclusions. I'm just not convinced that those are the kinds of comparisons he wants to continue to make to the faithful, though.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Cats
Among the many offensive characteristics of cats, surely sucking the breath out of newborn babies in an attempt to kill them in a fit of jealous rage is the most nefarious. Once the stuff of Medieval Legend - not to mention much acrimony amongst the Cat loving community - it is now borne out for all to have a large measure of truth.
In a newspaper article a couple of weeks back, Drs. Berry Braxelton and Joshua Sparrow admonish Cat owners not to allow their cats around their infants, nor even contact with the pregnant female, so replete are these creatures with diseases, petty jealousies and ill intentions. The good doctors give credence to the ancient legend about Cats stealing a baby's breath, recounting "Cats....actually do attach themselves to human caregivers, that they have been known to be jealous of new babies as if the new arrivals were siblings", and that "some cats will seek out the babies' mouths and noses and lie on them to smother them".
While they do take pains to describe the Cat's motivations as being caused by human emotions, in this case affection for the human adult, that is little comfort, nor any sort of justification for one of their prescriptions to prevent said attempts at infanticide by the cat: "keep them out of the baby's room.....find some sort of strong, safe netting to attach firmly across the top of the baby's crib if they do manage to sneak into the baby's room".
As we all know, it is not a question of if the cat will sneak into the baby's room, but when.
There are other solutions, of course. You could simply take the cats to the Pound. If you have kids old enough to miss the cats, you can deploy the Old Reliable "we took them to live on a farm" excuse, allowing their youthful minds to fill in all the blanks of a life replete with Rural Virtue, plentiful food, recreational opportunities aplenty as they chase chickens across the barnyard, and then to the hayloft for a peaceful four hour nap. Later, perhaps, the Spurned cat will catch a mouse.
Ah yes. Cats - their few small virtues aside - can occupy in the minds of men the same moral space as Pit Bulls, for all that the two do not have in common. Where Cats are sneaky, Pit Bulls are forthright. Where Cats are finesse, Pit Bulls are power. And while both of them can turn on strangers - not to mention their owners - without so much as a cross stare beforehand, only Cats are known to kill their human baby siblings out of jealousy. A Pit Bull might chew off the child's foot, mistaking it for a toy, mind you, but they are not predisposed to kill them out of jealousy's sake, and are generally quite protective.
That said, they both are fairly useless in the pantheon of pets, right up there with Little Dogs, boa constrictors and, well, any other reptiles.
I suspect Cat Owners keep their cats because - all their excesses notwithstanding - cats can be tolerated beyond those excesses. The relationship is nothing so forthright as the shining, uncomplicated love that a dog will bestow upon their master for even the smallest of kindnesses. Let's face it: dogs make Dog Owner's feel good about themselves because dogs love their Owners. Cats make Cat Owners feel good about themselves because it publicly and graphically demonstrates the Cat Owner's ability to endure rejection and hardship, which makes them appear virtuous and increases their self-esteem. It's not quite on the same level as letting your mother-in-law move in upstairs in lieu of the Old Folk's Home, but a reasonable facsimile thereof.
See, Cat's are nothing if not self-righteous enablers of their Owners' sundry pathologies. Surely not all the time, and maybe not even most of the time, but arguably the plurality of the time.
Full disclosure, I am myself a Cat Owner, and in fact have owned nothing but cats for over twenty years. It started out innocently enough: a stray bruiser that I eventually named Buddy was accosted by my German Shepherd on the street, and fought her to a draw. I forced them both to neutral corners, and after that, they were friends, with Buddy coming over every afternoon to be fed out of my side door. A couple months after that, the neighbors who "owned" him moved and left a message with my next door neighbor that I could have the cat, since I seemed to be feeding him.
I must admit Buddy had nothing of the Baby Smotherer tendency that apparently afflicts other cats, and in fact was a trusted presence in the bedrooms of several of my nieces and nephews, placidly guarding their cribs as he dozed underneath them, ready to fend off dogs, noisy adults or any other critter - real or imagined - that he suspected might upset either the baby's peace, or his own.
That, more or less, is how all future cats my wife and I have owned have come into our lives. Jesse was inherited from one of the kids. Seems frat parties and the apartment life didn't suit him too well. He wasn't the most affectionate of pets, but was arguably the most entertaining. He had a four year running battle with a bluejay (or succession of bluejays, who could tell?). The Bluejay would sweep down from the trees in the front yard, always from behind like some aerial attack by an Axis power, and attempt to disembowel the cat. Jesse would flip in the most fantastical and unlikely manner, attempting to disembowel the Bluejay. This might go on for 30 minutes every morning in the spring, right around egg-laying time, and it was worth feeding and caring for him the rest of the year, just for the privilege of a ringside seat to this spectacle.
Fraidy was flown from Detroit by my sister, who as it turns out, was allergic to Cats. She owned two at the time, and retained one who remained an indoor cat. Apparently two indoor cats pushed some hypo-allergenic envelope. I can relate. Sixteen years later she is still with us (Fraidy, that is; my Sister is still around too), dividing her time between sleeping, eating, the occasional stretch outside, and complaining to us about her sorry conditions. Fraidy's ingratitude - while endearing - is monumental. It is also her most redeeming trait.
Idgit - so called because he was immune to all of my Yosemite Sam-like admonitions to "whoa" - just showed up one day and never left. Yes, the name Idjit has only the slightest, albeit affectionate removal from "Idiot", as in "Knucklehead", as in "Obstinately Stupid". Idjit, so many years later, parks his large self at the side door five to six times per day, waiting to be allowed into the house. He never is. I step on him twice per week. I step over him. I trip over him. I boot him towards the garage door ever-so-gently, and he hisses. He leaves. He comes back. He sits by the door. Repeat.
So, my own personal experience has been one good Cat out of four. I've got friends who have had worse luck with spouses, so maybe I should consider myself lucky.
And so far, no attempts at Baby Smothering.
In a newspaper article a couple of weeks back, Drs. Berry Braxelton and Joshua Sparrow admonish Cat owners not to allow their cats around their infants, nor even contact with the pregnant female, so replete are these creatures with diseases, petty jealousies and ill intentions. The good doctors give credence to the ancient legend about Cats stealing a baby's breath, recounting "Cats....actually do attach themselves to human caregivers, that they have been known to be jealous of new babies as if the new arrivals were siblings", and that "some cats will seek out the babies' mouths and noses and lie on them to smother them".
While they do take pains to describe the Cat's motivations as being caused by human emotions, in this case affection for the human adult, that is little comfort, nor any sort of justification for one of their prescriptions to prevent said attempts at infanticide by the cat: "keep them out of the baby's room.....find some sort of strong, safe netting to attach firmly across the top of the baby's crib if they do manage to sneak into the baby's room".
As we all know, it is not a question of if the cat will sneak into the baby's room, but when.
There are other solutions, of course. You could simply take the cats to the Pound. If you have kids old enough to miss the cats, you can deploy the Old Reliable "we took them to live on a farm" excuse, allowing their youthful minds to fill in all the blanks of a life replete with Rural Virtue, plentiful food, recreational opportunities aplenty as they chase chickens across the barnyard, and then to the hayloft for a peaceful four hour nap. Later, perhaps, the Spurned cat will catch a mouse.
Ah yes. Cats - their few small virtues aside - can occupy in the minds of men the same moral space as Pit Bulls, for all that the two do not have in common. Where Cats are sneaky, Pit Bulls are forthright. Where Cats are finesse, Pit Bulls are power. And while both of them can turn on strangers - not to mention their owners - without so much as a cross stare beforehand, only Cats are known to kill their human baby siblings out of jealousy. A Pit Bull might chew off the child's foot, mistaking it for a toy, mind you, but they are not predisposed to kill them out of jealousy's sake, and are generally quite protective.
That said, they both are fairly useless in the pantheon of pets, right up there with Little Dogs, boa constrictors and, well, any other reptiles.
I suspect Cat Owners keep their cats because - all their excesses notwithstanding - cats can be tolerated beyond those excesses. The relationship is nothing so forthright as the shining, uncomplicated love that a dog will bestow upon their master for even the smallest of kindnesses. Let's face it: dogs make Dog Owner's feel good about themselves because dogs love their Owners. Cats make Cat Owners feel good about themselves because it publicly and graphically demonstrates the Cat Owner's ability to endure rejection and hardship, which makes them appear virtuous and increases their self-esteem. It's not quite on the same level as letting your mother-in-law move in upstairs in lieu of the Old Folk's Home, but a reasonable facsimile thereof.
See, Cat's are nothing if not self-righteous enablers of their Owners' sundry pathologies. Surely not all the time, and maybe not even most of the time, but arguably the plurality of the time.
Full disclosure, I am myself a Cat Owner, and in fact have owned nothing but cats for over twenty years. It started out innocently enough: a stray bruiser that I eventually named Buddy was accosted by my German Shepherd on the street, and fought her to a draw. I forced them both to neutral corners, and after that, they were friends, with Buddy coming over every afternoon to be fed out of my side door. A couple months after that, the neighbors who "owned" him moved and left a message with my next door neighbor that I could have the cat, since I seemed to be feeding him.
I must admit Buddy had nothing of the Baby Smotherer tendency that apparently afflicts other cats, and in fact was a trusted presence in the bedrooms of several of my nieces and nephews, placidly guarding their cribs as he dozed underneath them, ready to fend off dogs, noisy adults or any other critter - real or imagined - that he suspected might upset either the baby's peace, or his own.
That, more or less, is how all future cats my wife and I have owned have come into our lives. Jesse was inherited from one of the kids. Seems frat parties and the apartment life didn't suit him too well. He wasn't the most affectionate of pets, but was arguably the most entertaining. He had a four year running battle with a bluejay (or succession of bluejays, who could tell?). The Bluejay would sweep down from the trees in the front yard, always from behind like some aerial attack by an Axis power, and attempt to disembowel the cat. Jesse would flip in the most fantastical and unlikely manner, attempting to disembowel the Bluejay. This might go on for 30 minutes every morning in the spring, right around egg-laying time, and it was worth feeding and caring for him the rest of the year, just for the privilege of a ringside seat to this spectacle.
Fraidy was flown from Detroit by my sister, who as it turns out, was allergic to Cats. She owned two at the time, and retained one who remained an indoor cat. Apparently two indoor cats pushed some hypo-allergenic envelope. I can relate. Sixteen years later she is still with us (Fraidy, that is; my Sister is still around too), dividing her time between sleeping, eating, the occasional stretch outside, and complaining to us about her sorry conditions. Fraidy's ingratitude - while endearing - is monumental. It is also her most redeeming trait.
Idgit - so called because he was immune to all of my Yosemite Sam-like admonitions to "whoa" - just showed up one day and never left. Yes, the name Idjit has only the slightest, albeit affectionate removal from "Idiot", as in "Knucklehead", as in "Obstinately Stupid". Idjit, so many years later, parks his large self at the side door five to six times per day, waiting to be allowed into the house. He never is. I step on him twice per week. I step over him. I trip over him. I boot him towards the garage door ever-so-gently, and he hisses. He leaves. He comes back. He sits by the door. Repeat.
So, my own personal experience has been one good Cat out of four. I've got friends who have had worse luck with spouses, so maybe I should consider myself lucky.
And so far, no attempts at Baby Smothering.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Democrats Off The Leash, NASA Feeling Faint
It had to happen. In the mad dash to spend every dollar that's not nailed down, stuffed in a mattress, earning interest in Russian Mafia bank accounts or otherwise committed to useful things, Democrats have finally crossed a line into a pure and utter madness the likes of which we have not seen before, at least on a national scale. Dissatisfied with having a thousand government agencies merely do the job for which they were created - however ill-advised it might be to have a thousand government agencies, and however ill-conceived they might all be - the Giant Brains of the Democrat Party have decided to diversify, and have these sundry agencies stop doing that for which they were created and to now do things for which they were not created, funded, chartered, or for that matter, demonstrated the slightest aptitude.
For today's example, I give you the article in the Feb. 3rd Houston Chronicle titled "NASA urged to keep feet on Earth". Honestly folks, you can't make this stuff up. A study group of the Usual Suspects from the James A. Baker Institute at Rice University - surprisingly comprised of Clinton-era hacks and other denizens of the Democrat Party - has called for NASA to cease the manned exploration of space so that they can concentrate on "energy and the environment....especially climate change".
This study demands America eliminate the NASA program to return to and colonize the moon, and in so doing, kill any and all prospects for space travel not just now, but forever. Of course, that's not what these experts say, but it is the practical result of all of the specific initiatives they propose. NASA would then take this funding and redirect it "to tackle climate change", launch satellites "that study the Earth", and use NASA's supercomputers "to evaluate the future consequences of global warming".
Mark my words, within the year, there will be authoritative new findings to buttress the Dogma of The Global Warmers, freshly regurgitated from whatever pet name NASA has for its Supercomputer; and seeing as how these conclusions came from the Omnipotent Innards of such a machine, the results will be incontestable. Of course, this will only be so because The Global Warmers are immune and even stupefied by the concept of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). It matters not if their model was fallacious to begin with; it will achieve ever greater credibility merely because it has been recycled through increasingly more expensive computers, made all the more possible by diverting the resources of formerly productive agencies like NASA to their pet schemes.
I can't wait until these numbskulls - fresh from dismantling NASA - do the inevitable study on, say, DARPA, or Lawrence Livermore. Talk about agencies without a purpose, what with all that military research and such! Talk about under-utilized Supercomputers that could be deployed to validate the Global Warming Model! "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares...."
Oh yes, the authors also insist that NASA "get back to research, finding new technology", apparently of the opinion that this is what NASA has done in the past. What a perfect example of Democrat self-delusion. Do these folks actually believe that all of the technology NASA produced happened in a vacuum, or were they just not sentient back in the 60s and 70s? It was the very fact that NASA had a grand objective of "landing on the moon, and returning safely to the Earth" that made all of that technology possible. So typical of the bureaucratic mindset of government apparats to believe that technological advancement can be achieved without inspiration, without goals. No, funding is all we need, and the Technology will shower forth.
There's a couple of other suggestions of such shimmering idiocy that they would be detectable by a 5th Grader reject from any number of overfunded Special Needs course available in HISD:
- Extend the life of the Shuttle for five more years so as to insure the supply of parts and people to the Space Station.
- Cancel the next-generation heavy lift vehicle Aries.
- Downsize our next-generation spaceship, Orion, from six seats to three.
Each of these suggestions on their own reveal a shortsightedness that would take your breath away.
First, why extend the life of the vehicle that literally has destroyed NASA, and made it the aimless, underfunded Panhandler it is today? Granted, NASA should have questioned the efficacy of trying to achieve their objectives by creating a space vehicle the size of an office building back in the 70s when some genius first brought the idea up, but when you do you stop compounding the problem? I would have thought you stopped compounding the problem about the time each shuttle flight cost $1 billion dollars.
Even as that inconceivable sum rolls off your tongue, one is reminded that it would take naught but the money saved on a mere handful of Shuttle flights to not only fund the Orion in its original six person configuration, but to accelerate its development so that it could bridge the gap after the Shuttle's retirement.
Which brings us to the next bit of idiocy: downsizing the Orion from 6 people to 3. Surely the authors of the study realize that in so doing, they render the Orion useless in servicing the ISS, inasmuch as the plans are moving forward to expand the crew from a skeleton crew of three to an operational crew of six or more. Were they successful in downsizing the Orion, it not only would serve no purpose for crew changes, but would be useless as a lifeboat, leaving America all the more dependent on Russia for the life of the ISS.
Finally, the commission proposes eliminating the Ares heavy lift vehicle, which would leave the U.S. incapable of launching the heavy payloads necessary to pursue manned flight or even adequately servicing the ISS. They blithely suggest that private companies take over these duties, apparently oblivious of the fact that no private company has the resources necessary to produce such a vehicle. Further to this point, they seem intent on not using any of the astonishing technology perfected on the Space Shuttle to advance the Space Program.
No, this study reeks of bureaucrats closing ranks to defend their pet projects, not to mention their long term employment. The mission of NASA - as has been the case with so many other government agencies - is simply to give people a place to go and pick up a paycheck, or renew their funding. That is the only thing that explains such insanity. That perhaps, and the more sinister objective of dismantling NASA in such as way as to ensure they are capable of no mission other than Global Warming research.
A MODEST PROPOSAL
Which brings us to the United States military. You know, it's not like there's absolutely no premise for having one Agency do the job when another Agency cannot. What makes this NASA study so remarkable is that they would have NASA stop doing what its acronym stands for, literally cease to involve itself with Space. My recommendation would be - rather than upending NASA and totally changing its mission - that we simply make it a part of the U.S. Military. In so doing, NASA would find itself renewed.
There is precedent for this kind of thing: Under the Bush Administration, the American military took over all diplomacy and nation building in the Middle East, Europe and large portions of the Americas from the State Department, albeit that it didn't replace its primary mission: waging war. Like so many other public agencies, Foggy Bottom - as State is so aptly known - had become so larded with Bureaucrats, Appointees, Infighters, Place-savers, Lifers, Doorstops, Backstabbers and Family Members that the agency long ago ceased to have any purpose other than a) to perpetuate its own existence and b) to sabotage the foreign policy objectives of Republican presidents.
Of course, only in time of war does the Military come in close or sustained proximity to such as Diplomats and the other denizens of State, and they were appalled by what they saw, which is why our fighting men and women promptly relieved our diplomatic corps of any responsibilities other than validating parking in the Green Zone, chased them all out of Afghanistan, confined them to their opulent new digs in the heart of Baghdad, and promptly won not only the war, but the peace. The results are everywhere to be seen: The Anbar Awakening, The Surge, the political defeat of Al Quaeda and Baathist Loyalists, the reconciliation of Sunni and Shia - all accomplished by the military.
There may be a template in there somewhere that can be duplicated. If we taxpayers are to ever get our money's worth out of government employees, perhaps the military could take over other operations as well. One shudders with glee to think what Patreus and a hand-picked cadre could do if turned loose on Health and Human Services or the Department of the Interior for a few months.
Or, for that matter, with NASA.
For today's example, I give you the article in the Feb. 3rd Houston Chronicle titled "NASA urged to keep feet on Earth". Honestly folks, you can't make this stuff up. A study group of the Usual Suspects from the James A. Baker Institute at Rice University - surprisingly comprised of Clinton-era hacks and other denizens of the Democrat Party - has called for NASA to cease the manned exploration of space so that they can concentrate on "energy and the environment....especially climate change".
This study demands America eliminate the NASA program to return to and colonize the moon, and in so doing, kill any and all prospects for space travel not just now, but forever. Of course, that's not what these experts say, but it is the practical result of all of the specific initiatives they propose. NASA would then take this funding and redirect it "to tackle climate change", launch satellites "that study the Earth", and use NASA's supercomputers "to evaluate the future consequences of global warming".
Mark my words, within the year, there will be authoritative new findings to buttress the Dogma of The Global Warmers, freshly regurgitated from whatever pet name NASA has for its Supercomputer; and seeing as how these conclusions came from the Omnipotent Innards of such a machine, the results will be incontestable. Of course, this will only be so because The Global Warmers are immune and even stupefied by the concept of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). It matters not if their model was fallacious to begin with; it will achieve ever greater credibility merely because it has been recycled through increasingly more expensive computers, made all the more possible by diverting the resources of formerly productive agencies like NASA to their pet schemes.
I can't wait until these numbskulls - fresh from dismantling NASA - do the inevitable study on, say, DARPA, or Lawrence Livermore. Talk about agencies without a purpose, what with all that military research and such! Talk about under-utilized Supercomputers that could be deployed to validate the Global Warming Model! "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares...."
Oh yes, the authors also insist that NASA "get back to research, finding new technology", apparently of the opinion that this is what NASA has done in the past. What a perfect example of Democrat self-delusion. Do these folks actually believe that all of the technology NASA produced happened in a vacuum, or were they just not sentient back in the 60s and 70s? It was the very fact that NASA had a grand objective of "landing on the moon, and returning safely to the Earth" that made all of that technology possible. So typical of the bureaucratic mindset of government apparats to believe that technological advancement can be achieved without inspiration, without goals. No, funding is all we need, and the Technology will shower forth.
There's a couple of other suggestions of such shimmering idiocy that they would be detectable by a 5th Grader reject from any number of overfunded Special Needs course available in HISD:
- Extend the life of the Shuttle for five more years so as to insure the supply of parts and people to the Space Station.
- Cancel the next-generation heavy lift vehicle Aries.
- Downsize our next-generation spaceship, Orion, from six seats to three.
Each of these suggestions on their own reveal a shortsightedness that would take your breath away.
First, why extend the life of the vehicle that literally has destroyed NASA, and made it the aimless, underfunded Panhandler it is today? Granted, NASA should have questioned the efficacy of trying to achieve their objectives by creating a space vehicle the size of an office building back in the 70s when some genius first brought the idea up, but when you do you stop compounding the problem? I would have thought you stopped compounding the problem about the time each shuttle flight cost $1 billion dollars.
Even as that inconceivable sum rolls off your tongue, one is reminded that it would take naught but the money saved on a mere handful of Shuttle flights to not only fund the Orion in its original six person configuration, but to accelerate its development so that it could bridge the gap after the Shuttle's retirement.
Which brings us to the next bit of idiocy: downsizing the Orion from 6 people to 3. Surely the authors of the study realize that in so doing, they render the Orion useless in servicing the ISS, inasmuch as the plans are moving forward to expand the crew from a skeleton crew of three to an operational crew of six or more. Were they successful in downsizing the Orion, it not only would serve no purpose for crew changes, but would be useless as a lifeboat, leaving America all the more dependent on Russia for the life of the ISS.
Finally, the commission proposes eliminating the Ares heavy lift vehicle, which would leave the U.S. incapable of launching the heavy payloads necessary to pursue manned flight or even adequately servicing the ISS. They blithely suggest that private companies take over these duties, apparently oblivious of the fact that no private company has the resources necessary to produce such a vehicle. Further to this point, they seem intent on not using any of the astonishing technology perfected on the Space Shuttle to advance the Space Program.
No, this study reeks of bureaucrats closing ranks to defend their pet projects, not to mention their long term employment. The mission of NASA - as has been the case with so many other government agencies - is simply to give people a place to go and pick up a paycheck, or renew their funding. That is the only thing that explains such insanity. That perhaps, and the more sinister objective of dismantling NASA in such as way as to ensure they are capable of no mission other than Global Warming research.
A MODEST PROPOSAL
Which brings us to the United States military. You know, it's not like there's absolutely no premise for having one Agency do the job when another Agency cannot. What makes this NASA study so remarkable is that they would have NASA stop doing what its acronym stands for, literally cease to involve itself with Space. My recommendation would be - rather than upending NASA and totally changing its mission - that we simply make it a part of the U.S. Military. In so doing, NASA would find itself renewed.
There is precedent for this kind of thing: Under the Bush Administration, the American military took over all diplomacy and nation building in the Middle East, Europe and large portions of the Americas from the State Department, albeit that it didn't replace its primary mission: waging war. Like so many other public agencies, Foggy Bottom - as State is so aptly known - had become so larded with Bureaucrats, Appointees, Infighters, Place-savers, Lifers, Doorstops, Backstabbers and Family Members that the agency long ago ceased to have any purpose other than a) to perpetuate its own existence and b) to sabotage the foreign policy objectives of Republican presidents.
Of course, only in time of war does the Military come in close or sustained proximity to such as Diplomats and the other denizens of State, and they were appalled by what they saw, which is why our fighting men and women promptly relieved our diplomatic corps of any responsibilities other than validating parking in the Green Zone, chased them all out of Afghanistan, confined them to their opulent new digs in the heart of Baghdad, and promptly won not only the war, but the peace. The results are everywhere to be seen: The Anbar Awakening, The Surge, the political defeat of Al Quaeda and Baathist Loyalists, the reconciliation of Sunni and Shia - all accomplished by the military.
There may be a template in there somewhere that can be duplicated. If we taxpayers are to ever get our money's worth out of government employees, perhaps the military could take over other operations as well. One shudders with glee to think what Patreus and a hand-picked cadre could do if turned loose on Health and Human Services or the Department of the Interior for a few months.
Or, for that matter, with NASA.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Why Is Daschle Off The Hook?
The big story in the Houston Chronicle today is that former Senator Tom Daschle has withdrawn his name from consideration for Secretary of HHS, even though he had paid the taxes and interest he owed from 2005, 2006 and 2007. But did he?
Daschle reported that he paid $128,203 in back taxes, and $11,964 in interest. Even at first glance, the interest figure seems shockingly low, constituting an average annual interest rate over 4 years of a little more than 1%. When you calculate the actual taxes including compound interest, it appears he should have paid far more than reported, at least per the relevant IRS code found at this link:
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=200320,00.html
This document reports that interest for the period from 2005 to 2009 ranged from a low of 5% to a high of 8%. As reported, Daschle underpaid $128,203 over that period. Let's work the numbers in his favor using the tables, and assume he underpaid $30,000 in 2005, $30,000 in 2006 and $68,000 in 2007. Since the interest on the unpaid taxes is compounded for every year that they are unpaid, he would have 2.75 years compound interest on '05, 1.75 years interest on '06, and .75 years on '07.
Applying an average interest rate of 6.5%, that's an interest penalty of $10,655.62 for 2005, $4,970.06 for 2006, and $3,315.00 for 2007 for a total interest penalty of $18,940.68.
So how is it that Daschle got away with paying only 60% of that amount? It appears his accountants calculated his entire unpaid taxes is if they had originated with the 2007 tax year and did not compound the interest.
Sounds like tax fraud to me.
Daschle reported that he paid $128,203 in back taxes, and $11,964 in interest. Even at first glance, the interest figure seems shockingly low, constituting an average annual interest rate over 4 years of a little more than 1%. When you calculate the actual taxes including compound interest, it appears he should have paid far more than reported, at least per the relevant IRS code found at this link:
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=200320,00.html
This document reports that interest for the period from 2005 to 2009 ranged from a low of 5% to a high of 8%. As reported, Daschle underpaid $128,203 over that period. Let's work the numbers in his favor using the tables, and assume he underpaid $30,000 in 2005, $30,000 in 2006 and $68,000 in 2007. Since the interest on the unpaid taxes is compounded for every year that they are unpaid, he would have 2.75 years compound interest on '05, 1.75 years interest on '06, and .75 years on '07.
Applying an average interest rate of 6.5%, that's an interest penalty of $10,655.62 for 2005, $4,970.06 for 2006, and $3,315.00 for 2007 for a total interest penalty of $18,940.68.
So how is it that Daschle got away with paying only 60% of that amount? It appears his accountants calculated his entire unpaid taxes is if they had originated with the 2007 tax year and did not compound the interest.
Sounds like tax fraud to me.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Soccer As A Metaphor For What Is Wrong With America
I've got a problem with Soccer - surely not unique - and it's not just that it is a stupefyingly boring sport. Well, OK, it is mostly about that, and please, you soccer fans, spare me any lyrical descriptions regarding the subtleties of a game where the typical score ends in a 1-1 tie. The fact that Soccer not only exists but thrives tells me everything I need to know about the resurgence of Socialism worldwide, and not coincidentally, the fortunes of the Democrat Party. Let us review the origins of Soccer, so as to better understand a) what is wrong with it, b) why it is a Metaphor for The Democrat Party and c) how to improve it.
1) Enslavement to Conformity - Low scoring as a virtue
Karl Marx famously said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It's a bit of irony that Marx pilfered the poetical nature of this phrase from Matthew 25:14-30 in the Bible, seeing as how he was himself an atheist. Not that that is a big surprise. Socialism has teemed with shameless Plagiarizers from well before Marx, and that tradition continues to this day, including both President Obama and V.P. Joe Biden. And when Lenin so famously stated that "capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them", he wasn't just talking about exploiting the profit motive of Capitalism for Socialism's ends, he was talking about using our Words against us as well.
That aside, the Socialist credo is the embodiment of the virtue of low scores, one of Soccer's most hallowed orthodoxies. Inciting the working classes against Greedy Capitalist Exploiters who take more than their fair share has always been foremost in the minds of the Commissars, be they of the classic Russian variety or as personified by the current Democrat Party leadership. And so it is that in Soccer, low scores are an honored tradition. In contrast to the gaudy and excessive scoring of American Basketball and Football, Soccer encourages low scores so as to sustain the self esteem of the losing team. After all, if the final score was 1-0, how bad could the losing team truly be said to suck?
And thus, does Soccer seduce the masses to conformity and against overachievement. This explains Soccer's popularity amongst Soccer Parents, by the way. Our theory on this point is that most Soccer Parents were - in their youth - failures at more conventional sports themselves. Thus, however bad their kid's team is, it's rarely reflected in the score, and the parents can sustain their child be truthfully observing that "you only lost by one goal!", whilst simultaneously exorcising their own youthful failures on the diamond, the field or the court. By the way, this also explains why Soccer leagues insist on giving trophies to the second, third and fourth place teams in any tournament.
2) The death of Meritocracy and the rise of the Midfielder
There's a classic joke amongst the hardy folk of Russia during the Soviet era, and it summed up the relationship between the Common Folk and the Communist Party in the "Worker's Paradise": "You pretend to pay us, and we'll pretend to work". Now, that might not strike you as too funny, but in Russia - where cynicism reigns - it has them rolling in the aisles.
This simple phrase pretty much sums up the essential nonsense of the Rules Of Play in Soccer, and particularly as it is embodied in the position of Midfielder.
See, Soccer is boredom, and Socialism is boredom elevated to a virtue. And how better to institutionalize this boredom than through the positions of its players and the things that they are allowed - or not allowed - to do. Defenders, Midfielders, Forwards and Goalie all play very prescribed roles. Each position occupies a particular portion of the Pitch (playing field), and they cannot stray from it. Of all of these positions, they have created one that has absolutely no meaning: the Midfielder.
Midfielders are not allowed to Defend. Midfielders are not allowed to score. Midfielders are not allowed to stray from, well, Midfield. No, to all appearances, the Midfielder's only purpose is to advance the ball to the Forwards in the event that the Defenders or the Goalie fail to do so, and to prevent the opposing Team's Midfielders from doing likewise. It is not a coincidence, by the way, that the Midfield is the largest portion of the Pitch, and Midfielders the largest portion of the team. In a sport so devoted - as Socialism is - to distracting the masses from their sorry lot by whatever means possible, this was inevitable.
It is clear that the position was created so as to stifle even a hint of the Meritocratic impulses which so energize Capitalist societies. After all, if you proceed from the premise that a certain percentage of your workers are going to be Underachievers, you still have to find a place for them in society. In Soccer, their "place" is at Midfield. Here, they can do no real harm, and through the Rules of Play, you can actually convince them of the importance of their role.
For the real-life equivalent of this phenomenon in the workaday world, you need look no further than government employment. With a few honorable exceptions, it is the place where society deposits its underachievers. And in the ranks of our Polity, this is nowhere so embodied as in the United States Senate, the institution P.J. O'Rourke so famously described as being "the place where society could deposit 100 of its more prominent numbskulls, so they could do no real harm".
It is no coincidence in the Age Of Soccer that for the first time in the nation's history, both the President and Vice President hail from this dubious institution.
Knights, Heroes of the Revolution, Forwards - Whatever
Soccer is rife with traditions that encourage the myth of a benevolent Aristocracy and its Champions, for example, allowing only Forwards to attack the opposing goal. In the Superbowl just past, a linebacker named James Harrison for the Pittsburgh Steelers intercepted a pass at his own goal-line and thundered 100 yards to score a touchdown. That single play proved to be the winning margin for the Steelers, a team in a sport that is steeped in the American values of democracy and capitalism, not to mention a moment of unparalleled excitement.
That could have never happened in Soccer, since the honor of scoring has been reserved for Forwards, the Elite of all Soccer players. Much as Europe has - for all of its history - reserved the title of Hero for it's Upper Classes, and even enshrined the concept in the traditions of Chivalry, so has Soccer duplicated all that is worst about Agrarian society, a Landed Gentry and Aristocracy by creating the position of Forward.
Forwards are the Knights Errant of the present day, right up to their sworn fealty to some Supreme Ruler. So it has ever been with Socialism and so it has ever been with the Democrat Party. It is no coincidence that their mythology so revolves around "Camelot" and the Kennedy family, or that Barack Obama has been so anointed. It is also no coincidence that the consequences of inbreeding so inherent in such a social arrangement should result in the embarrassment of Caroline Kennedy being put forward for appointment to one of the highest offices in the land, or that most of Chicago's most prominent political sons are either in jail or mere steps ahead of a Federal prosecutor.
The American Solution
The elevation of Caroline Kennedy, Barack Obama and Soccer is a societal cry for help, a cry for some fresh thinking about how we order our affairs. I believe that if we can cure soccer of what ails us, we can cure America of the Democrat Party. In summary:
- Midfielders serve no purpose.
- Scoring is far too low.
- The Pitch - or Field of Play - is much too large.
In a nutshell, we need to transform Soccer into a truly entertaining sport such as NFL football. In a nutshell, we need to Americanize Soccer. Much, say, as we have Americanized Iraq by exposing it to the most virtuous aspects of our culture, we can work the same magic on the ancient game that the rest of the world knows as Football with one simple change: Get rid of the Midfield, and get rid of Midfielders.
This stroke of genius would accomplish all of our objectives in a single swoop, making the game interesting, high scoring, and - might I say - ensuring it's profitability at the Professional level as well, since, not only do you get rid of the sizable group of players that serve no purpose other than to slow down play, you allow for another 10,000 seats in the stadium as well.
The benefits at the intramural level would be even greater. At municipal fields all across the world, there would suddenly be room for twice as many Soccer pitches; so, for those concerned that underachievers would be displaced from the sport, you simply create two tiers of proficiency, and put the underachievers on the "B" squad. Kids with no athletic talent not only get to continue playing Soccer, they get to do so with other kids at their own skill level, thus ensuring them of a competitive match and the opportunity - however modest - for some of them to excel.
Finally, in ridding ourselves of the Midfield, we have also rid ourselves of the dreaded boundaries of which statists everywhere are so fond. Defensemen would be free to charge the short length of the new Pitch and score, without all the tedious manuevering necessitated by the "Tweeners". A Goalie's inbound kick might actually result in a score, and a whole generation of Joe Harrisons would spring forth, with glory available to all based on talent, merit and grit.
There is no more honored concept in all of commerce than that of "getting rid of the Middleman". And what is the modern Democrat Party if not the Middleman? Constantly insinuating themselves between Buyer and Seller, Provider and Consumer; producing nothing, but consuming far more than the value of the services they provide, none of which are actively sought out by an informed and empowered citizenry. Democrats are the Midfielders of our age, aimless underachievers seeking esteem and purpose - not by the dint of their effort - but by enforcing their mediocrity upon an overachieving public.
Socialism will never produce a Sergeant York, a James Harrison, or any other working class hero - hard as it may try - and neither will the Democrat Party. Get rid of the Midfield, and the Midfielder. Strike a blow for Freedom and Democracy. Strike a blow against boredom and conformity.
Strike a blow for Soccer.
1) Enslavement to Conformity - Low scoring as a virtue
Karl Marx famously said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It's a bit of irony that Marx pilfered the poetical nature of this phrase from Matthew 25:14-30 in the Bible, seeing as how he was himself an atheist. Not that that is a big surprise. Socialism has teemed with shameless Plagiarizers from well before Marx, and that tradition continues to this day, including both President Obama and V.P. Joe Biden. And when Lenin so famously stated that "capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them", he wasn't just talking about exploiting the profit motive of Capitalism for Socialism's ends, he was talking about using our Words against us as well.
That aside, the Socialist credo is the embodiment of the virtue of low scores, one of Soccer's most hallowed orthodoxies. Inciting the working classes against Greedy Capitalist Exploiters who take more than their fair share has always been foremost in the minds of the Commissars, be they of the classic Russian variety or as personified by the current Democrat Party leadership. And so it is that in Soccer, low scores are an honored tradition. In contrast to the gaudy and excessive scoring of American Basketball and Football, Soccer encourages low scores so as to sustain the self esteem of the losing team. After all, if the final score was 1-0, how bad could the losing team truly be said to suck?
And thus, does Soccer seduce the masses to conformity and against overachievement. This explains Soccer's popularity amongst Soccer Parents, by the way. Our theory on this point is that most Soccer Parents were - in their youth - failures at more conventional sports themselves. Thus, however bad their kid's team is, it's rarely reflected in the score, and the parents can sustain their child be truthfully observing that "you only lost by one goal!", whilst simultaneously exorcising their own youthful failures on the diamond, the field or the court. By the way, this also explains why Soccer leagues insist on giving trophies to the second, third and fourth place teams in any tournament.
2) The death of Meritocracy and the rise of the Midfielder
There's a classic joke amongst the hardy folk of Russia during the Soviet era, and it summed up the relationship between the Common Folk and the Communist Party in the "Worker's Paradise": "You pretend to pay us, and we'll pretend to work". Now, that might not strike you as too funny, but in Russia - where cynicism reigns - it has them rolling in the aisles.
This simple phrase pretty much sums up the essential nonsense of the Rules Of Play in Soccer, and particularly as it is embodied in the position of Midfielder.
See, Soccer is boredom, and Socialism is boredom elevated to a virtue. And how better to institutionalize this boredom than through the positions of its players and the things that they are allowed - or not allowed - to do. Defenders, Midfielders, Forwards and Goalie all play very prescribed roles. Each position occupies a particular portion of the Pitch (playing field), and they cannot stray from it. Of all of these positions, they have created one that has absolutely no meaning: the Midfielder.
Midfielders are not allowed to Defend. Midfielders are not allowed to score. Midfielders are not allowed to stray from, well, Midfield. No, to all appearances, the Midfielder's only purpose is to advance the ball to the Forwards in the event that the Defenders or the Goalie fail to do so, and to prevent the opposing Team's Midfielders from doing likewise. It is not a coincidence, by the way, that the Midfield is the largest portion of the Pitch, and Midfielders the largest portion of the team. In a sport so devoted - as Socialism is - to distracting the masses from their sorry lot by whatever means possible, this was inevitable.
It is clear that the position was created so as to stifle even a hint of the Meritocratic impulses which so energize Capitalist societies. After all, if you proceed from the premise that a certain percentage of your workers are going to be Underachievers, you still have to find a place for them in society. In Soccer, their "place" is at Midfield. Here, they can do no real harm, and through the Rules of Play, you can actually convince them of the importance of their role.
For the real-life equivalent of this phenomenon in the workaday world, you need look no further than government employment. With a few honorable exceptions, it is the place where society deposits its underachievers. And in the ranks of our Polity, this is nowhere so embodied as in the United States Senate, the institution P.J. O'Rourke so famously described as being "the place where society could deposit 100 of its more prominent numbskulls, so they could do no real harm".
It is no coincidence in the Age Of Soccer that for the first time in the nation's history, both the President and Vice President hail from this dubious institution.
Knights, Heroes of the Revolution, Forwards - Whatever
Soccer is rife with traditions that encourage the myth of a benevolent Aristocracy and its Champions, for example, allowing only Forwards to attack the opposing goal. In the Superbowl just past, a linebacker named James Harrison for the Pittsburgh Steelers intercepted a pass at his own goal-line and thundered 100 yards to score a touchdown. That single play proved to be the winning margin for the Steelers, a team in a sport that is steeped in the American values of democracy and capitalism, not to mention a moment of unparalleled excitement.
That could have never happened in Soccer, since the honor of scoring has been reserved for Forwards, the Elite of all Soccer players. Much as Europe has - for all of its history - reserved the title of Hero for it's Upper Classes, and even enshrined the concept in the traditions of Chivalry, so has Soccer duplicated all that is worst about Agrarian society, a Landed Gentry and Aristocracy by creating the position of Forward.
Forwards are the Knights Errant of the present day, right up to their sworn fealty to some Supreme Ruler. So it has ever been with Socialism and so it has ever been with the Democrat Party. It is no coincidence that their mythology so revolves around "Camelot" and the Kennedy family, or that Barack Obama has been so anointed. It is also no coincidence that the consequences of inbreeding so inherent in such a social arrangement should result in the embarrassment of Caroline Kennedy being put forward for appointment to one of the highest offices in the land, or that most of Chicago's most prominent political sons are either in jail or mere steps ahead of a Federal prosecutor.
The American Solution
The elevation of Caroline Kennedy, Barack Obama and Soccer is a societal cry for help, a cry for some fresh thinking about how we order our affairs. I believe that if we can cure soccer of what ails us, we can cure America of the Democrat Party. In summary:
- Midfielders serve no purpose.
- Scoring is far too low.
- The Pitch - or Field of Play - is much too large.
In a nutshell, we need to transform Soccer into a truly entertaining sport such as NFL football. In a nutshell, we need to Americanize Soccer. Much, say, as we have Americanized Iraq by exposing it to the most virtuous aspects of our culture, we can work the same magic on the ancient game that the rest of the world knows as Football with one simple change: Get rid of the Midfield, and get rid of Midfielders.
This stroke of genius would accomplish all of our objectives in a single swoop, making the game interesting, high scoring, and - might I say - ensuring it's profitability at the Professional level as well, since, not only do you get rid of the sizable group of players that serve no purpose other than to slow down play, you allow for another 10,000 seats in the stadium as well.
The benefits at the intramural level would be even greater. At municipal fields all across the world, there would suddenly be room for twice as many Soccer pitches; so, for those concerned that underachievers would be displaced from the sport, you simply create two tiers of proficiency, and put the underachievers on the "B" squad. Kids with no athletic talent not only get to continue playing Soccer, they get to do so with other kids at their own skill level, thus ensuring them of a competitive match and the opportunity - however modest - for some of them to excel.
Finally, in ridding ourselves of the Midfield, we have also rid ourselves of the dreaded boundaries of which statists everywhere are so fond. Defensemen would be free to charge the short length of the new Pitch and score, without all the tedious manuevering necessitated by the "Tweeners". A Goalie's inbound kick might actually result in a score, and a whole generation of Joe Harrisons would spring forth, with glory available to all based on talent, merit and grit.
There is no more honored concept in all of commerce than that of "getting rid of the Middleman". And what is the modern Democrat Party if not the Middleman? Constantly insinuating themselves between Buyer and Seller, Provider and Consumer; producing nothing, but consuming far more than the value of the services they provide, none of which are actively sought out by an informed and empowered citizenry. Democrats are the Midfielders of our age, aimless underachievers seeking esteem and purpose - not by the dint of their effort - but by enforcing their mediocrity upon an overachieving public.
Socialism will never produce a Sergeant York, a James Harrison, or any other working class hero - hard as it may try - and neither will the Democrat Party. Get rid of the Midfield, and the Midfielder. Strike a blow for Freedom and Democracy. Strike a blow against boredom and conformity.
Strike a blow for Soccer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)