The great Wal-Mart shell game

From week-to-week (sometimes day-to-day) the employees of this retail giant are bent on moving products and categories from aisle to aisle with little concern for the aggravations this entails for its customers...especially to those who wanted to make a “quick stop” for a necessary item. Quick stops become aggravating layovers. In addition, to those of us with a less robust constitution and even less body fat, the sub-normal ambient temperatures are enough to bring on the shivers. And frequently at this time of year one faces the delight of exiting into an outside world of high-,80’s, low ‘90’s temperatures.

Nevertheless, the store employees remain among the most courteous and knowledgeable one will find anywhere - and that, and that alone, expedites the shopping experience. But it remains an experience best appreciated in the very early or very late hours.

IT TAKES A VILLAGE

...to slice and dice a fetus and sell it for parts

(Obviously, this post was initiated several years ago but life interfered and I’m just going to finish it off - recent events would suggest it remains timely.)

She's back…the incredible tin-eared, brassy, bossy loudmouth from Park Ridge, Illinois…transplanted to Arkansas where she could pass the bar and be elevated to presidential consideration through coitus with Hope's most renowned (and public) Lothario. And she has just claimed the unborn have no constitutional protections. If this is indeed the case, is it legitimate to prosecute a fiend who has, in a physical assault, killed a woman's unborn child? I would think not but these people make up the rules (and change them) as they go along…just read a couple of Ginsberg's decisions.

A couple of centuries back we shed British rule. Among the reasons was to rid ourselves of the English tradition (in the House of Lords) to allow idiot fathers, to be followed by their idiot sons, to be followed by their idiot grandsons, etc. Today, Bushes follow Bushes, Bayhs follow Bayhs, Sununus follow Sununus, Kennedys follow Kennedys, Byrds follow Byrds, Longs follow Longs, Babbitts follow Babbitts, Cuomos follow Cuomos, Gores follow Gores, Browns follow Browns, etc. 

It goes on and on but to give you a brief idea that this isn't new, check Wikipedia for "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_families_(A)", and go through the alphabet. The numbers for A thru F follow:

A. 89

B. 263

C. 218

D. 120

E. 48

F. 93

But, increasingly, spouses (most often female) are running for, and winning, the offices held by their recently deceased spouses. One needs better references to become a short order cook than to be a member of the Federal and State governing elites. And now we have seen this absurd practice elevated to the highest level.

Of course, there remains an outside chance that more and more will "get the Bern" and defeat the dragon lady. However, it's unnecessary and since six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party, Norman Thomas pointed out when he decided to no longer run: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party had adopted our platform."

Demonstrating an even deeper understanding of what was occurring in American politics, he added: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism'. they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

So Hillary will more than likely be our next President - I doubt that she will serve two terms - her age and temperament mitigate against it. But before she leaves, unborn children, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and Christianity in general will have been thrown under the bus of Liberalism. And, if Boy Trudeau has any influence south of his border, we will also have embraced involuntary euthanasia of the elderly (Hillary will exempt herself and a few of her fellow female "victim" pals). 

What Hillary leaves undone will be carried toward fruition by Michelle O - who will serve two terms. The whole plan will be completed under Chelsea as that chubby cheeked little cherub rounds out the ultimate coup: the installation of a female oligarchy, convinced of their victimhood and determined to maintain a "Wise Latina" majority on the Supreme Court.

The only unresolved problem will be the inevitable emergence of a male Islamic electorate which never has and never will accept female leadership…even one that isn't pushy. Unlike their feminized male American counter-parts, the Arab men will reject a "back of the bus" status, will continue to father as many children as they choose, and will most definitely not submit their children to America's pathetic educational system. Their children will learn, as children have learned for millennia, to cherish and embrace the faiths and beliefs of their fathers. And that includes pushing back against those who demand conformity to whatever doctrine is the "special of the day." 

The end of the world, memory, and golfing supremacy

I received a notice recently that unless I once more shared my great thoughts with the world in general and my multitude of faithful readers in particular, I would lose my posting rights. This caused me a degree of distress as I have discovered with advancing age, my great thoughts still arrive, but my ability to retain them for any significant length of time is limited.

Just the other day as I was drifting off to my second of three daily naps, I had a vision of how the universe began and noted it on a pad I keep next to my bed. Unfortunately, I neglected to include any salient details and felt so dreadful, I immediately dozed off again. I mentioned this to an acquaintance who observed: "Nobody wants to know - its no fun. The fun only occurs when the sanctimonious on each side of the issue begin their timeless and repetitive chatter - in actuality, only a handful of very pretentious and boring individuals keep the debate going."

This soothed me for a while until I realized I didn't really give a fig about how the universe began. In fact, I would wager many would agree. On the other hand, a great, great many are concerned about when their own individual universe will end - as it most surely will. Thoughts along these lines make further napping difficult and, interestingly, make them almost impossible to forget.

I could go on but its a little after 10 p.m. now and that means my wife's addiction to Fox news will shortly abate and I will have an opportunity to watch whatever dreck comes on at these late hours.  At one time not too long ago I would use these hours to watch the evening replays of the day's professional golf tournaments. American players (like the Brits before them) were the titans of the sport. Unfortunately, again like the Brits, they are being dethroned by upstarts from unexpected parts of the world - mostly from the Asian countries. This is particularly noticeable in women's golf where women from South Korea have become a dominant force.

Sic transit gloria.

Education Today: What awaits an optimistic grandchild?

I recently searched my text files for matieral I had collected on C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man." I found it in "April, 2012." While there I came across a piece I had written reflecting my hopes for my grand-daughter's educational progress as she was abou to enter high school. I post it now since she will return to us next month to finish her final year and then, perhaps, college. I have made two minor modifications, both marked off by brackets.

Has American leadership failed once too often? A 2005 Harris Poll indicates it wasn't that high to begin with. Figures revealed that Americans distrust government by a 57%-22% margin, distrust the political parties by 77%-8%, and distrust Congress by 56%-22%. The ongoing Real Clear Politics website shows congressional distrust leading by a 60%-30% margin. Nevertheless we are being asked to believe that these same groups are on the threshold of solving our energy crisis, our health care crisis, and our financial crisis...within six months.

The press (distrusted by 62%-22%) paints a picture of a handful of legislative Neanderthals attempting to cripple legislation which, if passed, would usher in a new era of prosperity, unprecedented good health, and permanent energy security. Unfortunately, I look to history for guidance and it indicates that the wag who suggested that the last "big-scale" government triumph was World War II (a military venture) is correct. All the other biggies (all social ventures) from Social Security to Medicare/Medicaid, the FDIC, Amtrak, the post office, and  prescription drug legislation, are notable for two characteristics: first, each has gone broke or is in the process of doing so and, two, those politicians who supported their passage were easily re-elected. 

I'm confident our current federal representatives, like their predecessors, will successfully bungle them all. I would hope, though, that Education, being a state and local issue, we might fare better as local representative must face their neighbors regularly and can't hide behind a phone-in Town Hall meeting.

Historically, Tennessee education has been a key issue for a whole string of governors. It has been suggested that Governor [now Senator] Alexander was appointed Secretary of Education largely on the "success" of his Better Schools Program; Governor McWherter was widely lauded for the Tennessee Education Improvement Act and the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS). 

A year ago Governor Bredesen came forward with the Tennessee Diploma Project (TDP), a program "designed to challenge students and better prepare them for college and the workforce." Then former Senator Frist introduced SCORE, the "State Collaborative on Reforming Education...[which] will focus on jumpstarting reforms that will help Tennessee schools, teachers, and students meet this bar."

Despite the fulsome praise given these programs, educational achievement levels remain discouragingly unimpressive. They're certainly at a level that leaves our graduates at a significant disadvantage when competing against the best this country and others will produce.

While we might hope that new thinking will lead to new approaches, an overview of the current batch indicate they all contain elements first put forward in the 1983 landmark study "A Nation at Risk." That report put forward 38 solid recommendations - none were adopted. Twenty-five years later many are being reconsidered, although in modified form. 

To date almost every major study, blue ribbon report, or idle thought has been put forward by members of either the education or political establishments. Not surprisingly, many of the notables from the political sphere continue to shield their children from the public education system. Interestingly, their private-school educated offspring often follow them into political office (e.g, the Kennedys, Bushes, Dodds, Bayhs, Byrds, Udalls, Romneys, Gores, Sununus).

It would appear our leaders are certain as to what they wish their children to be exposed to educationally. By extension, we must assume our public schools do not provide it - although much in the various curricula would not exist without an approval by them or their staff.  Am I upset about this situation? You bet...and with adequate reason. 

No less an individual than Bill Gates, whose foundation has poured over $2 billion into the public education system has said "It surprises me that more parents are not upset about the education their own kids are receiving....Many of the small schools that we invested in did not improve students’ achievement in any significant way....These tended to be the schools that did not take radical steps...We had less success trying to change an existing school than helping to create a new school." 

In the spirit of Gates, then, I speak as an adult with a grand-daughter in the system, Here's what a high school graduate wishes for her:

First, I want her to learn that her real education begins after she's finished with school. Ideally, she will learn how to learn - how to gauge a problem, develop a solution, and attempt to implement it. And, of greater importance, proceed to another solution if the first fails. 

This leads naturally to the second, which is to learn that failure is an essential part of growth; in fact, it's an every day event that must be dealt with. I expect her to get D's and F's if that's what she deserves; praise ought to be used sparingly and for unusually high performance. 

I want her to discover that learning through reading is greater than that achieved by watching and listening. Reading is an "active" pursuit, one that fully engages the mind. Watching videos or listening to recordings are passive and far less effective since it's easy to get distracted and miss the message. Lectures, regardless of the skill of the presenter, can be very effective only with superior note-taking - an art form that must also be learned.

I want her to learn that there is greater satisfaction in accomplishing a minor skill than in daydreaming of performing impractical ones; that knitting an Afghan is a towering achievement that makes creating a spreadsheet appear a pedestrian endeavor. That building a tree house is a monument that mocks the transience of a Power Point presentation.

I want her to learn that no virtue is more highly prized than trustworthiness. We are where we are because we were betrayed by  governmental and business interests in whom we had placed an inordinate amount of trust. If we had only heeded the answers provided to the Harris poll we might have avoided some of this. Unfortunately, despite our better instincts, we want to believe in our major institutions; they are, after all, the ones that "have made us great." 

Yet even the most cursory study of our history would reveal that we have been proven fools time and time again. Leave it to a Russian, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, once imprisoned for speaking out to give appropriate advice regarding politicians: "Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them." But governments and businesses can come back with different names and faces and, once again, ask for and receive our trust. With an individual, though, once trust is lost, it's usually lost forever.

For that reason I also want her to learn that guilt can be a healthy emotion. There's nothing pathological in a conscience telling the individual that she knowingly acted inappropriately and that, if possible, apologies must be given and amends made. This is especially important in this time when cheating has become so big and so prevalent, that success is gauged by the what degree to which it is limited; no one seriously believes it can be stamped out. The reason it can't be eliminated borders on the obscene - no guilt is attached to indulging in it. 

Some studies find that as many as 80% of high-achieving high schoolers and 75% of college students admit to cheating. More telling is why they cheat. As they move from grade to grade they gradually discover that despite previous high marks, they are ill-prepared for the bigger challenges. So, many feel it's necessary to cheat and do so - with no remorse (and why not, they might argue, the system has "cheated" them by awarding promotion despite substandard work). 

Their comeuppance occurs in the commercial world where cheating and substandard work are grounds for dismissal. This point shouldn't be interpreted as a blanket indictment of the teaching profession. In a report issued by Arthur Levine, a well regarded writer on education, he comments that "Teacher education is the Dodge City of the education world,...There is no standard approach to where and how teachers should be prepared...A majority of teacher education alumni [61 percent] reported that schools of education did not prepare graduates well to cope with the realities of today's classrooms..."

I want her to be required to state her views, with substantiating documentation, on a variety of issues appropriate to her age level. And I want those views challenged if they merit challenge, and support if they merit support. But, under no circumstances, should her right to state them be prohibited.

I want her to learn that each learning discipline has its own rules and procedures. For instance, natural science is one thing, and political science quite another. Politics operates on consensus: 50% plus one will generally carry the day. Victors frequently claim (speciously) that they were on the "right" side. Science is based on evidence gained through experimentation which is falsifiable - that is, the experiment can be repeated over and over by other scientists in other locales with identical results. Even then it isn't proven or "right." As Einstein observed: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." (As a matter of interest, neither Darwinism nor Creationism are falsifiable…both persist on faith.)

I want her to learn perspective by studying the order in which things are prioritized. She can do this by being taught how to observe what her friends and acquaintances believe is important; what her parents, teachers, ministers, and other elders believe. If, for instance, she sees that over half of the teaching staff, and learns that more than half of the school budget is expended on non-core pursuits, then perhaps the publicly proclaimed core is not the real core.

I want her, through an examination of history, to appreciate that she lives in very unusual times. For thousands of years humans, regardless of their country, lived hand-to-mouth existences. Abundance was a rarity, thrift was a necessity, and old age was fifty. Children then, as now, were regarded as precious - except that "then" their value was measured by the amount and quality of the labor they could provide. 

Each was expected to contribute more than they consumed (profit); failing that (loss), their hours were extended or their food portions cut. For about four generations, though, we have experienced an explosion of wealth; even the poorest among Americans today live much better than 99% the people who populated this country in 1909. As a result of this abundance, in many households children are treated as perfect little beings of high value, extreme fragility, and modest expectations. When does this obsessive sheltering end? According to some Human Resource departments, it has reached the point where parents are calling the employers of their adult children demanding that they be treated with more respect. Apparently it was a successful tactic during their school years.

Once she grasps the importance of history and where we stand in relation to prior events of similar magnitude and duration, I want her to ask the obvious question: Can these boom years continue unabated? If the answer isn't a clear "yes" and there's no [biblical] Joseph stocking the silos with surplus, then it's time to learn to live with less, maybe much less. If things do become so economically severe that the toys and/or activities she uses to amuse herself become unavailable or too expensive, she will have to rely on imagination and creativity -  a life of the mind -  to create a fulfilling and meaningful existence. 

This can be accomplished cheaply through reading and contemplation. However, if we she's unaccustomed to challenging her intellectual faculties, she's in for some hard times. In "The Rhythm of Life" Matthew Kelly writes, "In the silence, we see at one time the person we are and the person we are capable of becoming... It is precisely for this reason that we fill our lives with noise, to distract ourselves from the challenge to change." If anyone doubts this I ask them to consider the recent riot at our local jail was triggered by the removal of radios from prisoners' cells.

I want her to realize that what "is" is not necessarily what "ought" to be. And that if "what is" can be changed for the better then change ought to be pursued; if it can't then it must be recognized and endured. But to attempt change for change's sake is an empty and, perhaps, dangerous gesture. Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas usually have bad consequences. However, one must be solidly grounded by a stringent moral code before presuming to tell others that they are in error - which is why the Platonic ideal is to see things as they are and to simply accept them. 

One current "bad" idea is the contention that positive change naturally follows additional education. While this may be applicable to some, a recent study of employers' hiring practices revealed that "...two-thirds reported rejecting applicants because of a lack of 'basic employability skills,' such as reliable attendance and punctuality." All the schooling in the world will not improve the employability of an individual who, when given the choice, chooses the deer stand over the job site.

There are just a few more specific things I would like her to have learned by the time her schooling is completed. I'll limit my reading list to two. The first would be a short piece of commentary written in 1914 by Elbert Hubbard called "Message to Garcia." It should be read once a year - by just about everybody. The second is a short Robert Frost poem, "The Road Not Taken." 

In the field of general education I believe there are some concepts and individuals which/who receive little or no attention, but which/who can be enlightening. Among them are: the Stockdale Paradox, the Law of Diminishing Returns, the Lorenz Attractor, the Pythagorean Theorem, Pascal's Wager, Moral Hazard, the Invisible Hand, Maslow's Theory Z, Occam's Razor, Kant's Categorical Imperative, the Code of Hammurabi, Wagner's Law, the Rule of Three, and, finally, the Trivium and Quadrivium. Individuals worth knowing include Wat Tyler, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Rose Wilder Lane, Daniel Shays, Horatio Bunce, G.K. Chesterton, Jonas Salk, Emily Dickinson, Eric Hoffer, Richard Feynman, John Taylor Gatto, and Albert Jay Nock.

Finally, there is an area of education I don't want her exposed to without prior consultation. It is in the realm of contemporary values. If the mandarins of education and their legislative princes feel the Christian values we try to instill in her should not be taught, I can accept that. However, should the administration decide to promote a set of values contrary to those already prohibited, we are going to have major problems. 

Let's not be genteel about this. Our children are in the public education system because the law demands it. The law further demands we pay for it through our property taxes. However, we are not entirely powerless and will demand (vehemently if necessary) that her "captivity" not include an indoctrination that includes alien concepts and theories. If any one set of values is deemed repugnant and prohibited, then all sets of values must be prohibited. To do otherwise, amounts to a tacit endorsement of those values no matter how benign the stated intention. 

We are asked to trust that our children are receiving the best the state has to offer and that recent results indicate improved performance. However, history reveals that past promises of a similar nature have fallen short. Additionally, the Cato Institute reports that in some states authorities have been known for "...setting standards as low as they can, defining proficiency as loosely as possible, and administering easy tests, thereby avoiding the law's penalties to the greatest extent possible while still claiming success." 

I don't know how high Tennessee has set the bar but if it's too low, the impact will still be felt 50 years from now. Can we really afford to tinker with a mediocre system hoping for marginal improvements? Or is it time to make radical changes, concentrating on the core, eliminating much of the extracurricular fluff, and make schoolwork hard work? I vote for the road less taken.

Dump Congress…let Hannity, Matthews, Madow, and O'Reilly look for productive work

It's likely that most have heard of the Ten Commandments; it's unlikely that most have heard of the Ten Thousand Commandments. The former, at one time, were used a guideposts to living a "moral" life. (I place quote marks around moral since morality, like so many quaint customs, is no longer seen as relevant to modernity). The latter is the title of a report issued every year and which tracks Congressional action (sic) and compares it to the issuance of "rules and regs" by a host of federal agencies.

For the most recent year Congress managed to enact 72 pieces of legislation. Federal agencies, lead by the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency slipped through 3,659 new rules. Total annual agency "rules and reg" cost to taxpayers: $1,863 trillion - to give that number some perspective, individual income taxes for the same period totaled $1.234 trillion.

(As an interesting aside, I checked through the different agencies and their rule making activity - right there at the bottom was the "Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board" with one (1) reg enacted.)

In addition to the enacted rules and regs, there are an additional 2,500 "proposed" regs awaiting a final go-ahead. There are also over 24,000 "public notices" regarding many of our daily concerns. Among these are issues of health care, education, energy production, finance, land and resource management, etc. It is imperative to understand that all these issues, as well as those under agency rules and regs, are written and implemented by groups of nameless, faceless, and unelected individuals  - many of whom have agendas of their own, many others who are otherwise unemployable relatives of known vote-gernerators.

These duties were originally deemed responsibilities of the Congress - yet Congress has a chosen to cede its legislative authority to these agencies (There is little use in appealing to the Constitutional relevance anymore, as it is being re-intepreted under a "living document" penumbra. As a result, it can mean one thing to a "wise Latina", and something quite different to an Irish dipsomaniac, or an Albanian dwarf, or a left-handed pole vaulter.)

Nevertheless, it is very apparent that, measured by productivity, our Congress is home to a bunch of shameless underachievers. However, that legislation which they do manage to enact is so horrendously written, so lengthy, and so sweeping, that no member that I am aware of ever read (or understood) the complete text of the Homeland Security Act or the Affordable Care Act. Complete texts of each bill (both of which ran to thousands of pages) were available to our congress people only hours before they voted and passed them.

(There are groups actively seeking to make it mandatory to provide ample time for all bills be read before being voted upon. Apparently, it's considered impractical.)

A final observation: members of the legal profession dominate in both houses, yet it's impossible to find a lawyer who won't insist that you MUST carefully read any legal document BEFORE signing it. Yet these clowns merrily ignore their own cautions and saddle us with legalisms that, to this day, remain undisclosed.

Congress ought to be disbanded. Members of both houses have shown their loyalty is to the party  leadership, and not to their constituencies. They leave the really repulsive rule making and regulation writing to legions of non-descript paper-shufflers, thereby immunizing themselves from charges of bad government.

Congress doesn't work because its members don't. 535 additions to the unemployment roles will go all but unnoticed, except by the madmen and women who populate the networks and make public discourse so ugly and incomprehensible.

Barry and Kerry ignore history

There seems to be a remarkable degree of complacency over the recently negotiated "agreement" with the Iranians over their nuclear capability (or lack of it). Barry posits that "…I'm keeping all options on the table but if I can do it diplomatically, that's how we should do it. And…that, for sure, is the preference of the American people."

Speaking as one of those "American people," baloney.

My opposition isn't based on the current Iranian regime or its leadership. Rather, the history of negotiated settlements with Muslim leaders, especially when they've been the weaker party, has been one of total failure. These failures can be attributed to "taqiyya", a negotiating stance taken by Muslims which allows them to lie to "infidels" to protect themselves.

Allied with taqiyya principle is that of kitman, a tactic which allows Muslim negotiators to engage in un-Muslim behavior as a ruse to fool the infidels. This may involve the consumption of alcohol or the eating of pork - one who so indulges, comforts himself that he remains "mentally" committed to the tenets of his beliefs which, because it is done in the spirit of advancing Islam, absolves him of the transgression.

As Abu Bakr, himself a military leader, put it: "If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation for my oath." (Bukhari 78:618)

Nor do these mental and moral gymnastics end there. The most prominent tactic is that of the hudna or "treaty of convenience." It originated with Muhammed himself when he negotiated a 10-year treaty with Mecca (the Treaty of Hudaibiya). Within two years, Muslim forces broke the treaty and overran Mecca. They claimed that the attack was legitimate as an ally of Mecca attacked an ally of theirs. However, once the treaty had been established, the caravans once again began moving in great numbers… Muslim forces "waylaid every caravan from Mecca (for since the truce, traffic with Syria had again sprung up) and spared the life of no one.”

The precedent was set and duplicity in negotiations has become part and parcel of Islamic treaty making and breaking. (Doesn't anyone ever notice the frequent Mid-East "cease fires" that occur - only to be followed up some time later by "surprise" attacks by Islamic forces or rockets? Cease fires are nothing more than periods of re-armament and propagandizing.

Muslim scholar, Bassam Tibi explains: "In this sense Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Koranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims."

A further refinement of taqiyya is the "we were attacked" justification. As many things Muslim, an attack can come in a variety of guises. Cartoons featuring Muhammed, the banning of the burqah, or supporting Israel are just a few of the actions that have prompted retaliation.

As Bat Ye'or notes in her must-read "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis", it was almost fifty years ago that French scholar Charles-Emmanuel Defourcq "explained that according to the juridicial concept of jihad, war was the normal state of relations between Muslims and Christians. All…treaties between them were called 'truce treaties.' (6th edition, pg. 33)"

Under these conditions there has not, is not, and will not be a lasting peace with Islam. Those who indulge in the effort are wasting their time and affording the opposition an opportunity to improve their position - until such a time when they once again feel they have an upper hand, and hostilities WILL break out.

And I believe we've had enough of this "religion of peace" baloney (or globaloney) that's swept the world (or at least the political and journalistic portions). Following is a partial listing of Islamic peace initiative in JUST the middle portion of the 8th century:

635: Battle of Bridge, Battle of Buwaib, Conquest of Damascus, Battle of Fahl.
636: Battle of Yarmuk, Battle of al-Qādisiyyah, Conquest of Madain.
637: Conquest of Syria, Conquest of Jerusalem, Battle of Jalula.
638: Conquest of Jazirah.
639: Conquest of Khuzistan. Advance into Egypt. Plague of Emmaus.
640: Battle of Babylon in Egypt.
641: Battle of Nihawand; Conquest of Alexandria in Egypt.
642: Conquest of Egypt.
643: Conquest of Azarbaijan and Tabaristan (Mazandaran).
644: Conquest of Fars, Kerman, Sistan, Mekran and Kharan. Assassination of Umar. Uthman ibn Affan becomes the caliph.
646: Campaigns in Khurasan, Armenia and Asia Minor.
647: Campaigns in North Africa. Conquest of the island of Cyprus.
648: Campaigns against the Byzantines.
659: Conquest of Egypt by Muawiyah I.
660: Ali recaptures Hijaz and Yemen from Muawiyah. Muawiyah I declares himself as the caliph at Damascus.
670: Advance in North Africa. Uqba bin Nafe founds the town of Kairouan in Tunisia.[4] Conquest of Kabul.
672: Capture of the island of Rhodes. Campaigns in Khurasan.
674: The Muslims cross the Oxus. Bukhara becomes a vassal state.
711: Conquest of Spain by Tariq ibn Ziyad and of Transoxiana by Qutayba ibn Muslim.
712: Conquest of Sindh by Muhammad ibn Qasim
717: Beginning of the Second Arab siege of Constantinople. Death of Sulayman. Umar II becomes Umayyad Caliph. Pact of Umar.
718: End of the Second Arab siege of Constantinople.
721: First Turgesh invasion into Transoxiana
725: The Muslims occupy Nîmes in France.
732: The Battle of Tours in France.
742: The Muslim rule restored in Qairawan.
746: Battle of Rupar Thutha, Kufa and Mosul occupied by Marwan II.
751: In the Battle of Talas, the Abbasid armies defeat Tang Dynasty of China.
759: Abbasid conquest of Tabaristan.

Check out each of the following centuries and discover for yourself just how peaceful Muhammed's descendants have been.

Barry and Kerry (the former in trouble, the latter out of his depth) needed some "good news" and a pause to catch their collective breath. The good news just isn't that good (especially as there is Democrat grumbling over the agreement) and although a pause is much more enjoyable in Hawaii, the rest of the world (unlike our Congress) doesn't just doze off while Barry putts around the islands.

Make way for single pay - Pt. 2

On October 23 I suggested that Obamacare was a ruse to lead us to Fearless Leader's ultimate dream: Single Payer Medical Coverage. The Daily Beast chimes in:

"Could anger at the Obamacare rollout make Americans more receptive to a kind of Medicare-for-all system? That's what activists are hoping – and they're plotting a state-by-state fight. As the rollout of Obamacare clunks forward, activists who opposed the law from the beginning say it is time to seize the moment, to tear down the current healthcare edifice and start anew, especially now as frustration with the law's implementation is reaching a peak.

"On Monday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced the American Health Security Act, which would require each state to set up a single-payer healthcare system and would undo the exchanges that have plagued Obamacare. Meanwhile, various state-led efforts are under way that advocates hope will sweep the country statehouse by statehouse, as soon as lawmakers see the advantage of a single-payer system."

The article goes on to suggest that the possibility "is gradually becoming more mainstream among the Democratic establishment…"

Meanwhile, as more and more individuals discover what their actual cost will be, and as more and more Millennials refuse to buy in, Barry's soon to be off on a 17-day vacation in Hawaii…the First Family reimburses the government for what the airfare would cost - you pay for the rest.

Last year (2012) similar trips and other expenses charged to the tax-payer by the Obamas logged in at $1.4 BILLION.

For a guy who doesn't know what the hell his subordinates are doing, he does know how to live and spend lavishly.

Gravity: another plotless light show

I make a habit of avoiding movies, even on Senior Citizen day. Most are too expensive, too long, too visual, and too short of the one component that makes a good movie: a good story.

Let's be real about this. Space Odyssey, another sic-fi space adventure, at least offered a more interesting character than George Clooney in HAL, the computer. It also had a plot that, at various stages, suggested a creation story, an evolutionary theory, and a man vs. machine confrontation. The film does feature Sandra Bullock, though, who performance is the movie's only highlight.  Gravity is just another disaster film, piling one unlikely adversity upon another upon another: BUT they occur in zero gravity, with the Earth as its backdrop, and (drum roll) in 3-D!!!

Totally Awesome, Dude!!!

Screenwriter,  Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men) adopted this story from a screenplay his son had written a number of years earlier. However, the script was hardly a script - it was more an outline of events (colossally tragic events) all to be shot (if possible) in lengthy"single takes." Which, more than anything else, explains the raves Bullock is receiving - she survived an endurance test and maintained her character - what little we know of that character.

As an early reviewer put It: "This character needs someone with some serious acting chops…This draft of Gravity – whichever draft it is – is pretty average. Despite that, I still think this is one of the microscopic sampling of subpar screenplays that can actually make a great film."

And: "While I know this is going to play out much more excitingly on screen, on paper it’s like watching Groundhog Day…" Another reviewer really nailed it: "The other criticism at this point, which goes along with the thin characterization of Ryan, is that the action is repetitive and unleavened by any humor. But if the technological ambition that is rumored for the film turns out to be true, this could still be a showstopper."

And so it has turned out to be: a real showstopper. But so, too, was Space Odyssey. While it also relied on some fairly advanced (for that time) special effects, the storyline came from Arthur Clarke, a very proficient creator of science fiction that featured plot, substance, and well-defined characters you cared about (or hated). Gravity, on the other hand, is a movie remarkable only for its technological achievements and selection of Sandra Bullock (rather than Scarlett Johansson). There are Oscars for those categories: "Special Effects" and Best Actress.

Best Movie? Hardly.

All hail the party of the downtrodden

Several years ago I was looking through my grand-daughter's fifth grade history book. At the time her class was covering the New Deal and I thought it would be instructive to see how it was covered. Like most modern histories it was overwhelmingly laudatory over FDR's policies and there long-term benefits. As the narrative proceeded it mentioned that things hadn't changed remarkably in the initial years but by 1937 "things were looking better."

I turned the page, expecting to find a continuation of the topic. Instead there was a new chapter entitled "World War II." My grand-daughter and any other young person whose knowledge of American History ended with the fifth grade, would most likely spend the rest of their lives convinced that the New Deal was a roaring success. Only a few of the inquisitive would have gone on and learned that many of the programs were failures, others ruled unconstitutional, and still others remain on the books like vampire bats with an eternal meal.

When Barry was elected in 2008, it wasn't unusual to see a headline or column bruiting the idea of a "new" New Deal, as if this is just what the nation needed. My history education was significantly different. Not only were several semesters of American History required but many of those who taught it were sold-out advocates of FDR. Our junior year teacher, Ray Baker, went beyond advocacy and approached worship.

However, at that time, a fairly well educated high school junior, if he was paying attention, quickly discerned that the teaching had ended and the indoctrination had begun. A group of us made it our mission to go beyond our equally biased text book and do some independent research. Sure enough, there were some chinks in the great man's armor and we quickly brought them to Mr. Baker's attention.

I'll credit Baker with this: he didn't shut us up but engaged us in spirited debate. This does not happened today - the modern student who decides to engage his professor/teacher is very likely to pay a heavy penalty. It's very sad, but the modern university professor is rarely open to debate - many I would wager have had little exposure to the "other side."

As a result, the image of FDR remains much as his earlier biographers pictured him: a wealthy nobleman who stepped down from his Hyde Park Olympus to minister to the masses. Interestingly enough, we have another paragon who has descended from a different Hyde Park, making an attempt to save the nation from its baser instincts.

Trumpeting the battle cry of his party, "equality for everyone," Barry is attempting to build another social Utopia, counting on his supporters to recall the glory days of FDR and his progressive fore bearers. Which is enough for me to do a reconstruction of that period and that party and the many blessings it and they have brought upon us.

First, let's go back to pre-Civil War days to see how the party developed it's enduring love affair with the downtrodden. In 1846, a first-term, Democrat representative, David Wilmot , proposed that no funds be approved for war against Mexico without the express understanding that any new territory gained, would be slave-free. The resolution sped through the House with support from all sides, but once it hit the Senate, the southern contingent, with enough votes to successfully filibuster it, prevailed. Guess the party of those Senators.

Our next historical stop will be in the Progressive era, the time we chose to elect a full professor to the presidency. Woodrow Wilson, as governor of New Jersey established his "progressive" credentials by signing a bill which made it mandatory to sterilize criminals and the mentally retarded. Elected to the top spot and with the support of W.E.B. Du Bois, Wilson was sworn in on March 4, 1913. A little over a month later, at the suggestion of Post Master General Albert S. Burleson, a Texan, that the railway mail service be segregated.

Comforting himself with the thought that he had made “no promises in particular to Negroes, except to do them justice…”, Wilson did away with merit appointments for civil service jobs, required all applicants to provide a photo, and, for the next 35 years, those African-Americans fortunate enough to get a postal job, worked in the back room. (April 11, 2013, was the centenary of this moment but I don't recall a celebration…strange.)

Going further, Wilson saw that “the old political formulas do not fit the present problems: they read now like documents taken out of a forgotten age.” Going even further than today's moderns, Wilson asked for “permission — in an era in which ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to Darwinian principle.”

Although that was never accomplished we did get the Fed, the income tax, Prohibition, and the 17th amendment…more accomplishments that no one celebrates. Guess the party of Woodrow Wilson.

Now we approach that most pivotal time: the Great Depression, the New Deal, and the wizard FDR. 
The picture one gets is similar to that of grade school or high school history text books. They paint a rosy picture of the era, its accomplishments, and its enduring quest to elevate the "common man." But to get a more balanced appraisal of the era, it's essential to avoid the hagiographers and search out a real historian. Ira Katznelson fits the bill with two books: "When Affirmative Action Was White" and  “Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time.”

Katznelson's labors are not attempts to diminish FDR but to accurately frame the conditions that drove the legislation that came out of his administrations. Putting it briefly and bluntly, successful legislation needed the support of Senators from the South…in 17 states segregation was still legal and these 34 Senators were able to block any legislation. Guess which party these Senators represented.

Some examples of what legislation was passed and is still considered remarkable are the labor laws of the New Deal and Fair Deal. Millions of workers secured minimum wages, maximum hours, Social Security, and the right to join industrial as well as craft unions. African Americans, on the other hand, missed out as the southern contingent saw to it that farm workers and household workers were denied these protections - of course, a substantial number were African American (In the spirit of equity, I have to point out that a majority of eligible white southern voters, the poor share-cropper and field worker, were also denied Social Security and the ballot as many could not pony up the poll tax.) .

(This "minor" withholding also initially cost working African-Americans [and impoverished whites] years and years of lost contributions to Social Security, as neither employee or employer were required to set money aside. In the longer run, with ever-increasing payouts, the losses were, and are, truly significant.)

Later even the GI Bill, despite the universal eligibility for the benefits offered, was written to make it possible to deny benefits to blacks. This was accomplished by allowing benefit approval to be administered locally - without national oversight. As a result, these benefits, including home loans (fully guaranteed by the federal government) were also refused to people of color. The education benefits of the GI Bill also wound up being dead letters as the segregation in higher education continued.

Even with the vote for GI's, the south prevailed. The 1944 Soldier Voting Act was to give every troop   a say in the upcoming election. However, with Senator James Eastland and Rep. John Rankin of Mississippi writing the bill, it stipulated that absentee votes be counted only in states where the governor and state legislatures approved the use of the federal ballot. Guess which states didn't approve. Name the party of their Senators.

What Katznelson saw as “a notable, even extraordinary, attainment,” was despite contrary developments in Italy, Germany, and Russia, the U.S. kept a strong legislature - although, at various times, both FDR and Truman attempted "to shift authority from the legislative branch to the executive." This may seem an unnecessary exaggeration, but upon assuming office,  George Kennan, who would later do much to shape American policy toward Russia and the Cold War, came to the conclusion that the U.S. would be more successful as an "authoritarian state." Walter Lippman, a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper columnist and one-time adviser to Woodrow Wilson, informed FDR prior to assuming office that “you may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers.”

The next great period of dominant liberalism occurred in the '60s - years still viewed by many as the truly great years of the "American experiment." While the years 1932-1952 saw an unbroken string of one-party majorities in both houses and in the White House, Eisenhower brought in change. He waged no wars, built a substantial highway system, sent troops into Little Rock to enforce integration, and selected Earl Warren to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ("the biggest fool mistake I ever made.") It was a selection that would usher in a new wave of liberal intellectuals anxious to put their theories into practice.

JFK appeared to be the dream of the left: young, handsome, articulate, a war hero, a great speaker, and a Harvard grad. However, he quickly found himself, and his armed forces, involved in Berlin, Cuba, and Cuba again (during his 2-1/2 years in office I was asked to visit my Draft Board on three separate occasions - he might be your hero, he's not mine). On the civil rights front he dithered; on one of the days immediately preceding his assassination, the Chicago Tribune ran a front page cartoon showing Kennedy, as a football player, being called for two penalties; the white referee flagged him for "pushing," the black referee flagged him for "holding."

The LBJ years were fantastic for the left as they once again gave the nation two houses overwhelmingly dominated by one party. However, civil rights remained a real stumbling block for much the same reason it had been for FDR: southern Senators were still a power to be reckoned with, but with a little less clout than before. Nevertheless, the inter-party debates and personalities demonstrated the party's views on integration.

Here are a few quotes from the era - all from members of the same party:
“Today the Negro story and the American story fuse and blend . . . the two currents will finally mingle and rush as one great stream across the uncertain and the marvelous years of the America that is yet to come” as “the American Negro [claims] his freedom to enter the mainstream of American life.” - Name the president and his party

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
- Name the president and his party

"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union."
- Name the Senator and his party

"President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill ... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill." -
Name the Senate Majority Leader, later President, and his party

"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
- Name the one-time Senator, Attorney General, and assassinated Presidential candidate and his party

"Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."
- Name the South Carolina Senator, later 1984 candidate for nomination for President, and his party

"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation."
- Name the Connecticut Senator who, along with Barney Frank, authored a major piece of financial legislation, and his party

LBJ, of course, had his problems, too. Not the least of which was Viet Nam, the draft, the Gulf of Tonkin, the guns-and-butter agenda, Medicare, Viet Nam, Bobby Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover, Viet Nam, Bobby Kennedy.

But his major initiative was the Voting Rights Act of 1964. The Bill passed and it has been considered a grand piece of legislation, mad possible only through a one-party super-majority. Or was it?

Let's look at the voting record for that Bill:

House bill (FOR-AGAINST):
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24  (85–15%)

Senate bill (FOR-AGAINST):
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84–16%)

Conclusion: if the Northern Republicans had been as bigoted as popularly characterized, they could have successfully filibustered it, as their southern predecessors did.

Interesting Note: One year prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Bill, the Senate also passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963. which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. Howard Smith of Virginia chaired the House Rules Committee and hated the Civil Rights Bill. In an effort to get it defeated he added an amendment prohibiting sex discrimination. Later another representative observed that "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights...he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights."

We are now experiencing another incarnation of the dissatisfied liberal left. Once again, with super-majorities in both houses, they pushed through a piece of legislation which at the time, and now, is still opposed by a majority of Americans - a majority that's growing bigger daily as the real details of the bill act become apparent.

The current President is heavily supported by voters of color who have been sold the line that his party has been the one that has delivered. Despite a history of double-dealing and double-crossing, the party insists these groups "owe" him their support - they have been taught a history much like the one my grand-daughter experienced. Along with other smaller groups who for various social and financial reasons, have adopted the cloak of victimhood, and signed on to his great quest, there is a good chance my grand-children and yours will be saddled with another over-sized mandate which will not be effective or affordable.

But the votes, as usual, are being purchased with food stamps, housing allowances, welfare checks, disability allowances. Additional votes are being sought through a new immigration bill which will present newcomers with many of features enumerated above as well as a ballot and eligibility for Social Security payments. And as these goodies become more available, we are witnessing the undeniable emergence of a young, white (largely male) underclass, not too anxious to work or do much more than "kick-back." Many are into drugs, many still live with Mom and Pop, and many are, at best, semi-literate.

None of this bodes well for the country or its would-be leaders. Once the grasshoppers triumph over the ants, the leeches will assume power and we will, at long last, all be equal.

Make way for single pay

In retrospect, it may well be viewed as one of the cleverest legislative coups in U.S. history. From his earliest days, Barry has pitched the single-payer program as the ideal "solution" to the health care problem. Unfortunately (for him), it was a non-starter - far too many examples of that approach failing wherever it's been instituted.

However, a similar program, masquerading as a "compromise" between single payer and what is currently in place, had a chance - a slim one that would require a House majority and a Senate composed of at least 60 party-line Democrats. And it all came together with Minnesota's strange recount which ushered in the lamentable Al Franken.

From Day One, the proposal variously known as the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, or Justice Roberts' Rule of Disorder, never achieved majority approval among the American populace. Today it is losing even more public support. Why? Look at the following Barry quotes:


“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

“For people with insurance, the only impact of the health-care law is that their insurance is stronger, better, and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”

“If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less.”

“I want to be very clear: I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade.”

“Health care reform will cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

But don't expect an apology...


Guys who find inspiration in the words of Saul Alinsky and who pal around with Jeremiah Wright, Billy Ayers and Bernie Dohrn don't apologize.







But they do plan. And if one wanted a Single-Payer plan but realized it wasn't achievable, why not push a compliant Congress into passing a piece of legislation that had similar characteristics. Then, once done, and clearing the Supremes, get your in-house gremlins to cobble together one of the lengthiest, most mind-boggling set of regulations possible - running some 22,000 pages.

Then, to top it off, give the regs (through a no-bid contract) to a Canadian subsidiary of an American outfit which already has a history of incompetence. Overpay them by hundreds of millions of dollars (enough to carry them through until the next government project), then delay giving that company all the regs until very late in the game and, guess what? You have a monumental screw-up...one so bad that even several among your brain-dead majority (but not Dick Durbin!) begins asking questions. Despite Hollywood intellectuals like Robert Redford and Chris Noth playing the always-convneient race card, support continues to dwindle and change becomes unavoidable

So a new program, one that's a reasonable facsimile, must be put in place - after all, a "majority" voted for "change." And it will be saved in the form of a "substitute" Affordable Care Act. It will look remarkably like a Single-Payer plan. It will pass through both houses as the Democrats maintain their majority in the Senate (with plenty of support from the Bobby Corker wing of the GOP). The GOP may well keep the House, but the party, lacking a Pamela Harriman, will remain incapable of taking advantage of the Dem's perpetual vulnerability. Only the remaining Tea Partiers will keep the faith (but the Supreme Court will most likely rule they "lack standing."

And Barry, once out of office, will undoubtedly leverage his success into headman at the UN or, dare I say it, chief of the New World Order. One thing is for sure - he will not go away. He will prove to be such an egregious interventionist, that Jimmy Carter and Billy Clinton will appear to be shy and retiring elder statesman.

(Of course, my predictions for Barry's future are growing a little dimmer every day as he has managed to tick-off the leaders of China, France, Germany, Russia, Brazil, and many others. But, who knows, he might be their man, sent here to deliver that "Arch Duke of Austria moment" when the whole world is thrown into disorder and the Four Horsemen of the Central Banks take charge.)

"Fear Not" - best ever scriptural advice

This sage bit of wisdom is used something like 200 times in the Holy Bible. I don't usually make references to the Bible as its mere mention, or that of its chief New Testament protagonist, Jesus Christ, might drive scores of unbelievers into paroxysms of doubt.

Nor do I often use the phrase "Holy Bible" - though it is more correct. I do so here because I can't help but notice that whenever Barry refers to the Quaran, it is to the "Holy Quaran" - with the appropriate guttural "R."

But "fear" is the topic and there's plenty of it being spread around. The partisan networks are its natural home but the financial news channels are running a close second. Unfortunately, if one bothered to take the time and make an effort, he (or she) would discover that most of the financial fear-mongers have "skin in the game."

Regardless, of the final draft, these people make a lot of money when the markets are open - but there's "A-Lot-Of-Money" and "A-Hell-Of-A-Lot-Of-Money." With a Clean Bill (sic) these sanctimonious twits will realize the latter. The nation may go broke, medical care may revert to that found in Bangladesh (expedited by the disputed, but accurately-named, "death panels"), the unemployment numbers (already in the stratosphere) will go higher, and those that hunger daily will have more company. And the new agreement, despite these minor caveats, will be characterized as a "solution." Unfortunately, however, it is structured will need to be addressed once again in a matter of months. The Tea Party will not be responsible for that.

Keep in mind, all of that will occur with a "compromise" solution (accurately translated, that means your usual, forever-in-office Republicans have, once again, capitulated to Chicago's Mugger-in-Residence. However, these sad deprivations will be attributed to the Tea Party which, in different venues, has been characterized as a "troublesome minority within a minority" to a Fascist movement intent on overthrowing the government.

Whoops, there's good old Harry Reid announcing "an agreement" has been reached and Ted Cruz the newest target of the left, announcing he will not filibuster. Time to cut this short and go sell or short some of those outrageous high flyers with little or no earnings - more later,

But, remember, "Fear not." This nation will continue on, not because of its leadership, but in spite of it.

Barry arms the street urchins

Apparently dis-satisfied with the progress being made by his right-hand man, Rahm, in Chicago, Barry has used his executive privilege to improve matters in Africa. There exists a statute entitled the Child Soldiers Prevention Act (CSPA). It was passed to prevent offering military assistance to those enlightened countries which, lacking popular support, arm their children (some as young as eight) to enforce their dictates.

Apparently none of these children, unlike Trayvon Martin, remind the Prez of his youthful self. As a result the girls and boys of Chad, South Sudan, and Yemen will now be able to carry American weapons (perhaps even assault rifles) in an unending quest to blow away various enemies, friends, relatives, and strangers.

It may "take a village" to raise a child, but one glib, well-dressed Chicago ward healer can have them blown away with the stroke of a pen - with nary a squeak from Sharpton, Jackson, or the presidents-in-waiting, Biden and Hillary.

Meanwhile, Congress has voted to ensure that the "non-esential" 800,000 federal drones not miss a paycheck.

Harry and Barry: shut-down engineers

Just a quick observation and one made on numerous other venues (with the exception of the major media and it half-witted step-sister, NPR): the House if fully within its rights to withhold funding for Obamacare. The House, and the House alone, determines funding. The current House majority (which, unfortunately, appears to be losing its nerve) has approved every other spending requested by Harry and Barry - and presented it to the former for approval. It has been rejected and, hence, the "shut-down."

Absent a package that includes EVERYTHING Harry and Barry want,  ALL governmental functions have ceased - this is called "negotiation."

The House was given this power because it was originally assumed that this body, being closer to its electors, would be more responsive to its will. And so it has become with the advent of the much-maligned Tea Party. Because of their responsiveness, they have called "extremists." And in an age when the electorate is considered important only when ballots are to be cast, following the will of your constituents is, indeed, extreme.

Absent that, the parks, monuments, and the giant money-sucking bureaucracy gets shut down for a matter of days (weeks?). In the past, it has not been unknown for these individuals to have been reimbursed for "lost wages" - which are not (when compared to the average working man and woman's income) insubstantial. Toss in public employee benefit packages and were talking about federal employees realizing twice the income as their employers - the tax-payers.

For clarification, I am not a member of the Tea Party and have no intention of becoming one.

"I'm only really happy when I'm really, really angry!"

I haven't posted in quite some time. I had the entire month of August in which there were no mandatory events or other pressing obligations. I spent much of it watching TV and marveling at America's fastest growing commodity: anger. An ongoing anger that seems to characterize Americans of all stripes - but it's a different kind of anger. It's the type of anger that brings these individuals happiness. And it seems to be the only thing that makes them happy.

They've become Anger-Holics (AHs) and they've been a source of aggravation  for much of my life - with apparently few skills and outside interests, their sole purpose, beyond finding new things to be angry about, is broadcasting that emotion to all who care to listen - and to quite a few who don't. They cannot be shut-up and despite their insistence on talking your ear off, never stop to lsiten. Everyone is exposed to them - if you're not aware of them, you ARE one of them. Unfortunately, we've reached a point where the "contented few," the present-day remnant, are hopelessly besieged by unstructured rantings from marginally coherent products of the public schools.

For the most part, AHs are the kind of guys and gals who once were docile and soft-spoken; yet as we teach more and more individuals that their opinion is "as good as anyone else's", the tenor of our discourse has changed - as a result we have many among the formerly meek insisting on their inheritance now.

As a result, when offended by some bureaucrat, store clerk, or waitress, they turn into madding machines of verbal vengeance. To hear them tell it, they bullied their meter reader, Wal-Mart manager, or middle school principal into abject fear. Two weeks or months later they'll tell you of a new villain brutalized by new and improved tongue lashings - with few exceptions, the assaults are verbal, as the written word remains a serious obstacle. 

At first, these individuals evolve slowly  - new converts need time to search out agreeable (and volatile) source material. Novices, then, cultivate their initial causes with the patience of an orchid breeder. The truly addicted kvetcher discovers a new cause every other day.

Eventually, our progressive malcontent finds solace only in grand national, worldly, or galactic transgressions. The bigger the problem and the more unlikely it is to respond to their appeals, the more avid they become; through this bizzarre process, our AHs achieve some kind of temporary anger-happiness nirvana - the stay is, of course, short-lived as happiness has become a strange and uncomfortable emotion. So, our dedicated AHs quickly move on to another "unacceptable" transgression.

These "transgressions" are frequently real, but occasionally imagined; they can spring from the imagination or, more and more often, through governmental design. Governments, both local and national, have a vested interest in channeling these consumed individuals away from their representatives and towards a strawman or woman. Hence many of our current bureaucracies are not in place to actually solve the problems that naturally spring from prejudicially wrought legislation. 

Bureaucracies are a diversion. And their purpose wasn't truly apparent until Tom Wolfe unmasked it in 1970 with his book "Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers." The book is actually a two parter - the first is devoted to that late fathead, Leonard Bernstein, and his groveling admiration of the Black Panthers; in the second part, Wolfe describes how politically appointed stand-ins (Flak Catchers) are subject to daily verbal beatings (Mau-Mauing) by - you guessed it - a slew of AHs.

I eventually saw a Flak Catcher in action. It occurred during an early '90s Q&A session in a northern suburb of Chicago. Rumors were rife that Mayor Daley (the younger) had plans to build a new runway at O'Hare. He dennided it, but suburbanites learned quickly that a Daley promise was as good as gold in the city, but meant nothing elsewhere. 

The suggested take-offs and landings would have directed even more flights above our already over-overflown suburb. For close to three hours, one after another of these AHs stepped to the podium and repeated, more or less, exactly what the person before him had stated and what the individual following would reiterate. 

But it really made them feel better - and the editor of the local paper, being no dummy, carefully noted who spoke, and faithfully listed their names in the next edition. It just does not get better than that for the novice or professional AHs! 

The Flak Catcher? He walked out of there completely unfazed. Things had changed from the early days. I'm assuming there are special schools with specially trained (or naturally born) verbal abusers (closet AHs?) acting like Marine DI's who spend the day scorning and denigrating these individuals until there able to face the raging public (they probably make great husbands/wives).

But things have improved dramatically for the AHs. Talk radio kicked it off and still gets bigger. Almost anyone who can call in without using obscenities can speak his mind; the radio personalities, often cut from the same angry cloth can be anything from well-informed to hopelessly stupid. It really doesn't matter, though, as the topics covered and the arguments made have been made over and over again…there is no new ground. 

Then the geniuses behind publishing and website creation developed the "blog." No longer were AHs held at arms length by call-screeners. Now any clown with time on his hands (who me?), a random thought, and knowledge of a keyboard has access to the "world." He proceeds to foul the bandwidth with poorly developed thoughts that once, thank the Lord, would never have seen the light of day. 

But among these, there will be a few (very few) real gems. Other bloggers will re-post and maybe, just maybe, a piece will be good enough to get a mention by one of the Major Bloggers (I count as "major" any blogger who brings in enough cash to buy a six-pack and a pizza every week) or picked by some media maven like Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington, a liberal-turned-conservative-turned liberal…she's a woman of strong beliefs.

Now, of course, AHs can really move into the major markets with the Fox, CNN, and NBC networks airing nightly free-for-alls with calls, tweets, and emails invited and (occasionally) read on the air. Add in my least-favorite venue, the Court TV crowd and their "legal experts," and you have enough topics of human arrogance and depravity to satisfy a world filled with AHs. 

We cannot leave the AH issue without a mention of You Tube and similar outlets that allow almost anyone to broadcast their AHs thoughts visually. In many, many cases these broadcasts are reminiscent of the old "Gong Show" - but with less polish. Will it never end? I doubt it. The destruction of the Tower of Babel has borne its ultimate fruit. We are doomed to speak to each other without understanding, without wanting to understand, and without listening. 

Grand plans from the Far North and Far East

For several years I was an occasional visitor to the Twin Cities as my younger brothers and sisters grew up there. I loved the visits and the people. If they received 3 feet of snow with 20 foot drifts they grabbed shovels, snow blowers, tractors, and whatever else was of use, and made the roads passable in a remarkably short period of time. School closings rarely lasted more than a couple of days, grocery stores weren't pillaged as long-time residents knew that events like this, while not uncommon, were ones for which one planned in advance. No one bothered to call FEMA, nor the president, nor the National Guard. 

Minnesota's citizens stand in sharp contrast to the New York's insular broadcast bobble-heads and their daily auditors who seem to view every dusting as a major event. A three-inch snowfall borders on an Oedipal tragedy and merits a query to the mayor's office about possible school closings. Simultaneously, a network lesser-light appeals to the National Weather Service for confirmation that the inconvenient inclemency is a product of global warming. (Apparently there's nothing "natural" about East Coast natural disasters - somebody or something is always at fault and "somebody" - meaning "somebody else" -  must always pay.)

Politically, Minnesota has far more in common with her liberal East Coast brethren. The state's Farm Labor Party has given the nation presidential hopefuls McGovern, McCarthy ("Clean Gene"), Humphrey, Mondale, and (maybe) Jessie Ventura; nor can we forget erstwhile comedian Al ("the 60th vote") Franken, Keith Ellison (the House's first Muslim member), and the state's home grown Charlie Weaver, Garrison Keillor. Little wonder then that Michelle Bachmann is viewed as some sort of alien creature (an experience common to many women of the right) - fresh perspectives, unlike fresh air, aren't always welcome.

(Several years back I read an article which noted that cabbies at the Twin Cities' airport were refusing to provide rides to passengers toting duty-free liquor, or accompanied by a dog - apparently the drivers' Muslim faith [approximately 70% of the drivers are Somali immigrants] these as terrible breaches. As a result [and because so many of the cabbies are followers of Islam], quite a few potential riders waited for inordinate periods of time before latching on to a non-Muslim hack [others, fortunate to get a ride, were dumped off well before their destination when their indignant driver learned of the "contraband."] I wrote one of my brothers concerning this and he responded that it was no big deal and that "there are more important things to worry about.")

Apparently not. The city council attempted to pass an ordinance that cabbies unwilling to carry alcohol-bearing or canine accompanied passengers would "top" their cabs with a specially colored light. However, even the good people of MSP, realizing that whether its tail is braided or not, a horse's ass is still a horse's ass, refused to accept these accommodations and now violators can be suspended. 

Nevertheless, this new social program will be instituted, funded, and put into motion. Its "successes" will be well publicized but difficult to quantify, and its shortcomings well disguised and difficult to identify. Some countries are famous for their multi-year plans - which, by the way, are rarely successful. For comparison's sake I chose to look at the most recent Chinese 5-year plan (initiated in 2011).

The Minnesota 30-year plan (as currently laid out) is broad in scope, short on detail, and leaves expectations unaddressed. The Chinese plan is far broader, significantly more detailed on many more socially important topics, and clearly stipulates goals.

Comparative Goals

Minnesota - in Black

Chinese - in Red

1. Preservation protects natural areas and resources for use and enjoyment today and into the future.

Chapter 49: Deepen the reform of price of resource products and fees for environmental protection

2. A vibrant and globally competitive economy creates opportunities for residents and employers.

Chapter 53: Actively participate in global economic governance and regional cooperation

3. Land use, development patterns and infrastructure align to make the best use of public and private investment.

Simultaneously promote industrialization, urbanization and agricultural modernization. Industry should support agriculture, city should support countryside,

4. Housing options give people in all life stages and of all economic means viable choices for safe, stable and affordable homes.

Chapter 35: Improve construction of affordable houses

5. A multi-modal transportation system safely and reliably connects people and freight with destinations in the region and beyond. 

Chapter 12: Construct comprehensive transportation system

6. A resilient region minimizes its contributions to climate change and is prepared for the challenges and opportunities of a changing climate.

Chapter 21: Actively cope with global climate change

While we in the states typically remain uninformed of any program's goals (even if they are enumerated and published - in comprehensible English), their authors and supporters thrive on them for years. 

China, by contrast, takes a very dim view of failure - especially expensive failure (are there any other kind when bureaucrats run a program?). Lengthy jail sentences and death are not uncommon. No one especially cares if the culprits are swell fellows and members of elite country clubs, or graduates of elite schools, or products of elite couplings. And they definitely don't care if the condemned are lawyers - China prefers engineers to lawyers in that the former rarely find multiple correct answers to straight-forward questions.

The economic future: 6 headwinds, 4 incorrect forecasts, and 2 options

Every once in a while I find among my readings something that brings joy to my heart: an opinion piece (by someone much brighter than myself) which supports a contention I recently advocated. Several weeks back I put forward the idea that we live in a "hockey stick" period of human economic history - that the progress that this country has become accustomed to, and that many believe will continue, is in fact a great anomaly...a one-off event that will never again be repeated and is already fading. 

John Mauldin has written a free weekly market letter for well over 10 years and one which I have followed faithfully. What I enjoy about Mauldin is not that he is always correct (although his record is better than most), but that he is always ready to concede that he has made mistakes and will recount them and search for elements he may have overlooked. 

In his most recent column he recounted the results of a paper published by Dr. Robert Gordon of Northwestern University. I could recount the highlights as I see them but you'll find an excellent synopsis here, or the original paper, which is actually a very good read, can be found here. 

So, just a few high points for those who dislike reading lengthy papers but which won't be found in the synopsis: on page six (6) of his paper he has shown two graphs, both of which demonstrate a "hockey stick" formation similar to those I used previously - unlike mine, though, Gordon continues his into the future and is bleak.

Gordon also supplies (pages 16-18) "six headwinds" that future generations must deal with if we are to avoid a diminishing standard of living. However, on page 15, Gordon provides some hope by giving four examples of recent "innovation pessimism" that have provenly woefully incorrect (including one from IBM's Watson and another from Microsoft's Gates).

And, finally, to demonstrate the relative importance of recent innovations with those of the past, the good doctor asks us to choose from two options:

With option A you are allowed to keep 2002 electronic technology, including your Windows 98 laptop accessing Amazon, and you can keep running water and indoor toilets; but you can’t use anything invented since 2002.

Option B is that you get everything invented in the past decade right up to Facebook, Twitter, and the iPad, but you have to give up running water and indoor toilets. You have to haul the water into your dwelling and carry out the waste. Even at 3 a.m. on a rainy night, your only toilet option is a wet and perhaps muddy walk to the outhouse. 

Which option do you choose? 

Afterthought: In his analysis, Dr. Gordon does credit World War II production as a factor in America's economic growth. However, I adhere to my contention that much of the sustained growth that followed the conflagration is attributable to the fact that every other major industrial power was crippled and required many years to rebuild the competitive industries we deal with today.

A confederacy of eunuchs

Due to re-districting we were to get a new Representative in the 2012 election. Although he would be new to us, he was a long time member of the House and his "new territory" now included us. To get an idea of what to expect, I attended a luncheon to hear him speak. It was a surprising and enlightening experience. Traditionally, Congress persons display a certain amount of restraint when speaking of their colleagues, regardless of their obvious stupidity or venality. 

However, in an unexpected departure from the usual "let me introduce myself" script, this gentleman took the gloves off and bluntly stated that a goodly number of his fellow representatives were less than bright. He frequently employed "clowns" as a descriptor and generally lamented the ignorance with which they approached legislation.

Although he artfully avoided specifying individuals or party, there seemed little doubt that he, like many in the "beltway", had come to the same conclusion: the arrival of the Tea Party contingent has been nothing short of a national disaster. (He may well have adopted this "no-name" strategy in conformance to Noam Chomsky's warning that "ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error.”)

Unsurprisingly, the congressman's public and scathing view was, and is, shared by the establishment elite. His case was further buttressed by a host of recently published and similarly themed books ("It's Even Worse Than It Looks", by Mann & Ornstein, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do", by Robert Draper, "Beyond Outrage", by Robert B.Reich, and "The Party is Over", by Mike Lofgren). 

Rarely have so few been so demonized by so many.

In any event, it's apparent that the (real or feigned) respect House members at one time showed each other, at least in public, has been thrown over for a newer, more aggressive, in-your-face approach. Long gone are the carefully researched position papers and informed debates which provided a rich mix of facts, history, and (occasionally) accuracy.  It seems important to figure out why this has developed and if, in fact, a functioning government is still possible.

If one studies what the House was been in the distant past and what it has evolved into, it's impossible to overlook that this body has lost (or given up) much of it's power and authority. The growth of the executive branch (the Imperial Presidency) is one factor. Back in '96 a Republican Congress and a Democrat President worked long and hard to create the first welfare reform package. Contrary to forecasts of terrible consequences, the new programs worked well. 

Yet, in one day, an Executive Order by the current President re-established the old, failed programs. Other signs of House (and Senate) weakness has been the abdication of the power to declare war, which was followed by a threat to unilaterally raising the debt ceiling, and, most recently and flagrantly, the refusal to implement part of the Obamacare package. (Under Article II, Section 3 he is required to implement the entire bill; not revise, amend, or line-item veto as the spirit moves him.)

While the Executive Order has been increasingly utilized to usurp powers constitutionally granted to the House (and Senate), the greatest loss of power has been though Congress' voluntary abandonment of authority to "regulatory agencies." 

Figuring that some issues were just to tough, complex, or time consuming, the country has had foisted upon itself the EPA, FDA, TSA, USDA (with 20 sub-agencies within it), the Dept.of Commerce (with 17 sub-agencies), Dept. of Defense (with 32 sub-agencies) and the list goes on and on. 

Each agency is staffed by unelected individuals, many with their own agendas, who dictate new regulations that carry the force of law. It's understandable that so much work has to be delegated, but to give agencies powers that were specifically meant to be held by Congress is a cynical dodge. Elected officials can be dumped for passing bad legislation; unelected bureaucrats cannot...many cannot even be fired.

Then, of course, there is "party discipline." Sam Rayburn of Texas, Speaker of the House for many, many years, gave each incoming freshman representative of his party one piece of advice: "If you want to get along, go along." And they did. Those that didn't faced many difficulties: in committee assignments, in getting their legislation to the floor, in receiving party re-election funds, and they're chances of becoming targets should redistricting become an issue.

Unfortunately, this approach worked, and worked well. As a result, many constituents found that the views they wished their midwestern representatives to promote in D.C., took a back seat to the views favored by New England party leaders - many of them with substantially different interests and goals. The "house of the people" became a house held hostage. Matters reached a new low in representative government when the other party, under Newt Gingrich, adopted the same process.

Then 2010 rolled around and enough citizens, aggravated at the apparent unresponsiveness of their representatives, threw many of them out and ushered in the Tea Party. A delicate balance had been disturbed and the both parties, used to newcomers adjusting to them, failed to realize that these "clowns" - these yahoos - actually believed in what they had declared and weren't interested in compromises. 

It is questionable whether the Tea Party will linger, prevail, or fail. Members of both parties are working against them and the "fascism" so feared by Chomsky may soon be stomped out. But for a brief period they have served as reminders that doing the people's business is serious business and that "a promise made is a debt unpaid."

For a brief period this collection of vagabonds has added a dose of virility to a confederacy of eunuchs.