Operation Northwoods - 49 years later

Joint Chiefs of Staff 1962. Public domain work of US government.

Beginning with the title “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”, the Joint Chiefs of Staff set out to produce evidence of a phony attack to justify an invasion of Cuba in 1962. Among the "evidence," shooting down a civilian airliner, burning crops, and carrying out a terrorism campaign throughout Florida and even up to Washingotn DC are considered par for the course, acceptable prey for the beast. In a nation founded "For the people, by the people," a small intelligence elite contemplates killing thousands and blaming it on someone else to kill thousands more and gain influence with the grimmest of sobriety. Even law it seems is worthless to them. In typical bureaucratic fashion, the majority of the concern on the first page is with whose agency will be assigned responsibility for doing it.

Prior to the Freedom of Information Act, both this operation and an experimentation with human mind control known as MKULTRA were totally classified, with no clear timeline for the information to eventually be released. Even with such an act, many executive level documents can remain classified with a proper judicial review. However, in 1976, less then 9 years after the law had come in to effect that revealed these horrifying actions of our government, the "Government in the Sunshine Act" created the following exemptions:

1. Information relating to national defense,
2. Related solely to internal personnel rules and practices,
3. Related to accusing a person of a crime,
4. Related to information where disclosure would constitute a breach of privacy,
5. Related to investigatory records where the information would harm the proceedings,
6. Related to information which would lead to financial speculation or endanger the stability of any financial institution, and
7. Related to the agency's participation in legal proceedings.

That "protects" nearly all documents worth declassifying. As if this wasn't enough, further legislative and other actions have extended exemption 1 (Reagan, executive order 12356), created a new exemption for law enforcement (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986), increased response time deadlines to act requests (20 days instead of 10, Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1996) and restricted access to presidential records (Bush, executive order 13223). Later, a ban on foreign requests (Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002), further extending the deadline to 30 days (Open Government Act of 2007), and allowing reclassification of previously declassified work (Obama, executive order 13526) after undesirable requests were added to the bill. Later executive orders revoked some extent of 12356 and 13223, while the OPEN act also required extensive paper trails on redactions or deletions from declassified documents, but the fact that IT CAN BE DONE remains troubling.

Now it is true that some military materials really must be protected, but surely we can find a better, more legally protective phrasing then "Information relating to national defense"! What does that even mean? And why does law enforcement get a free pass, except for the case of harming a judicial proceeding? Wasn't law enforcements protection in clause (5) more then enough without this additional "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986" thingamajigger? And what, precisely, would "lead to financial speculation or endanger the stability of any financial institution"? Just how much would that cover, when one considers how many actions have an effect on the economy? And why do executive orders get to extend the act, should that not be the responsibility of congress?

The reality is that government will always be up to evil deeds, and the only thing that stands against them is the common people and interested parties. We must learn to "counter ambition with ambition" as James Madison phrased it. Secrecy except when 100% necessary is the best way government can thwart that process, and the best way that government can eventually take all power for itself. Even when it is necessary, it is a tragedy, and still harms our nation.

John F. Kennedy eventually rejected Operation Northwoods, but it was at his desk, ready to sign, and with the stroke of one pen thousands of innocent people would've died to start a pointless war with a nation that did not attack us. Since then, the act that released the information about Northwoods has been curtailed and limited by amendment after amendment from bill after bill and many executive orders. The court system would also be subverted to frame innocent men and women of bombings and murders. In the foulest of all corruptions, government would shatter law.

Northwoods showed once again, along with what Congress has done since, that the only one you can count on to look out for you is you, and that there are no limits to the cruelty and lies of an over-expanded government. There is no reason to believe that a Northwoods could not occur today, and even less reason to believe that man like Obama, unlike Kennedy, would sign it. Indeed, it is even possible that "Fast and Furious" may be part of such an operation, a thought that occurred to me immediately after it happened. Though I am not personally of the opinion that 9/11 was such an operation, and part of my reason for this comes from my own examination of Al Qaidas apparent game plan, it is easy to understand from whence the paranoia came. Truth is, we have much reason to be afraid, and more reason to act to end the tyranny of an oversecretive, overextended, legally subversive government, and to end this tyranny in the most law-abiding, peaceful way possible: at the polls. Just as the British did with HM James of York, so we can do with our own corrupt elites.

Bring in the Creditors!

Photobucket

One of the greatest problems with government worker unions is the lack of a check on power. In private business, unions can never extort too much out of customers, shareholders, and owners because the company must at least break even to continue paying them, but in government, as just happened with the 66% increase in income tax in Illinois, the ability to tax and extort the people allows union power to grow unchecked. That's why Hailing from Georgia is giving the following proposal of Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich two thumbs up:

First, as with municipal bankruptcy, it would have to be completely voluntary. This means that neither the federal government nor state creditors could push an unwilling state into bankruptcy, no matter how catastrophic the state's finances may be, as this would violate the U.S. Constitution's protection for a state's sovereign immunity.

Second, as with municipal bankruptcy, a new bankruptcy law would allow states in default or in danger of default to reorganize their finances free from their union contractual obligations. In such a reorganization, a state could propose to terminate some, all or none of its government employee union contracts and establish new compensation rates, work rules, etc. The new law could also allow states an opportunity to reform their bloated, broken and underfunded pension systems for current and future workers. The lucrative pay and benefits packages that government employee unions have received from obliging politicians over the years are perhaps the most significant hurdles for many states trying to restore fiscal health.

Third, the new law should allow for the restructuring of a state's debt and other contractual obligations. In a voluntary bankruptcy scenario, states, like municipalities, will have every incentive to file a reorganization plan that protects state bondholder claims and their ultimate recovery. States will evaluate their future access to bond markets and their prospective borrowing rates as they formulate the optimal restructuring plan. (LA Times)

Now states, like private industry, will have a genuine check on union power - the ability to eradicate their arrangements if negotiations bring them to the point of bankruptcy! And just like in private bankruptcy, it can be challenged in court if states are abusing the system. Not state courts though...

This is probably not going to work for the Federal Government, which has no singular higher authority to turn to for such dispute resolution, and so we recommend that this motion be accompanied by a BAN on federal unionization.

This conclusion is from the facts. The facts show two things: 1) unions in government work every bit as bad in practice as they do in economic theory, as the recent affairs of California and Greece attest to, and 2) municipal bankruptcy, which has been an option for cities, counties, and towns since the 1930's, has helped many a municipality, from NYC in 1975* to Orange County in 1994, to fix their affairs. In fact, in Orange county, the restructuring was so successful that they were able to repay 100% of the principal without raising taxes a dime, while instituting useful reforms to prevent a rehash of the events (ERisk):

The new Orange County investment policy statement establishes safety of principal, and liquidity, as the primary objectives of the fund, with yield as a secondary objective. More specifically it prohibits borrowing for investment purposes (ie, leverage), reverse repurchase agreements, most kinds of structured notes (such as inverse floaters) and derivatives such as options. The same document bans the treasury oversight committee and other designated employees from receiving gifts, and obliges them to disclose economic interests and conflicts of interest. The county treasurer now has to submit monthly reports to the investors and other key county officers that contain sufficient information to permit an informed outside reader to evaluate the performance of the investment programme.

Now it is true that for munie investors, who will now see their risk in investment substantially increased, this isn't 100% a good deal. However, this too in the end is probably a good thing, as it makes selling government debt much more difficult, requiring higher interest, and will thus discourage state governments from running their bills so high to begin with in the future. Sorry munies, but we have bigger responsibilities then investors who, whether they knew it or not, volunteered to take a chance. It's time to bring in the creditors, and with them, bankruptcy court!

*Note: NYC did not actually declare bankruptcy. Rather, mayor Abraham Beame, used the threat of it to coaxe a overextended teachers union to invest 150 million of its pension funds in municipal bonds. He then acquire a large loan from the federal government. Not long after, Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani began confronting NYC's debt problems, and largely solved them, and the days of over extension by NYC municipal unions were largely over for decades. (NY Times)

How Egypt can thwart the inevitable

Sherif9282, c.c. s.a. 3.0 unported

"[El Bradei] said a transitional period should take place before the nation prepared for an election." -The Washington Post

This is a disastorously naive sentiment, and frankly must be stopped! Eritrea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a multitude of other nations all claimed that they needed "time for things to settle down" before elections could be held, the result was elites with power gradually corroding and destroying the system set out to dry too long, and in the case of Eritrea declaring a permanent state of emergency. Right now, it needs to be recognized that no matter what Egypt does, 1) there will be problems, 2) there will be people, like that spokesman for the Islamic Brotherhood, who have a vested interest in screwing things up.

The longer you insist on "settling" is one more day for the elites of the past to ruin the prospects of the future. So how do you get around this problem? The same way you prevent a navy ship from sinking when it's been hit.

It's called compartmentalization, allow one portion of the ship to get filled with water without the rest of it filling up. Egypt CANNOT be a national government, at least not yet. I may not know too much about Egypt, but I know enough to know that, no matter what the situation, that idea can only end in dictatorship when in the hands of the evil, satanic men who lay in wait in every nation for their moment to steal and destroy. For when Egypt is national, only one compartment need fill up for all of it to go under!

Egypt should be run as locally as possible. City and county level in smaller areas, neighborhood level in Cairo and Alexandria. NO Egyptian government, for the moment, should be bigger then 100,000. 100,000 is not worth the trouble of the Islamic "Brotherhood", but 79 million certainly is! If a few 100,000 strong units fall, the rest can react, and the worst that can happen is a small local conflict that progresses towards a great resolution of peace, dignity, and freedom, but if all of Egypt falls all will end up right where they started, and the sacrifices of the brave will be in total vain.

A compartmentalized Egypt is an Egypt of the right scale, cooperation, and economic interest to gradually bring its problem to a resolution before the evil ones reach their seats. A unified Egypt is a big, slow, cumbersome target. Don't ever forget that.

We've Gone Too Far

"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.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Does it sound like a dream? It shouldn't. It's the first 10 amendments of your constitution, the Bill of Rights from the American Constitution, the Federal Constitution, the limits and powers of your supposedly constitutional federal government. When read like this, it's pretty clear what it says, but we never read it like this. We read the amendments by themselves, and thus we don't get it. We don't. We zero on one little piece, and pretend that the rest doesn't exist.

I realized this when I was looking at the Ninth Amendment (the ninth paragraph above) just now. It seemed so vague, so out there, so pecuiliar and unclear, but it talked about an "enumeration," which may not technically be a pronoun, but might as well be. It occurred to me that, while they may have been passed as 10 amendments, it is ONE bill of rights.

And then something else occurred to me. This amendment, this ninth amendment, is a direct response to exactly what the current "health care reform" is trying to do. There are people out there who want you to think that the founding fathers were playing a game of Simon Says, that because they didn't specifically say that you have right not to buy something, that the powers of "regulating commerce" could extend to every walk of your life, that the constitution is naught but a game of trick questions like those on an IQ exam. But the Founding Fathers, here's what they said:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That is what you call a rebuttal, a rebuke.

When we cross the line of deciding that we may decide what people buy, not to support something else that they own as in the case of environmental requirements against power plant owners or even accident insurance for car owners, but simply because they, the government, have "the power to regulate commerce," which to them means all your money, property and labor, not any freedom of yours, not any individuality of yours, just the all important interstate commerce. No life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for you, just the Commerce Clause. What will come next? What will come next? Will they order us to spend money at the mall during deflation? Will they order you to buy stocks and bonds when the market tanks to avoid "panic?" Will they force people to buy calculators to make checkout lines run faster? Will they force consumption at failing shops and restaurants? Will they make us burn our money and delete our bank accounts to counter inflation?

And when will it end? What happens when they decide that a baby cannot be born because a genetic defect would hurt the economy through the cost of caring for them?

We've gone too far. We need a new amendment. We need to strike down the commerce clause. Obviously the courts cannot be trusted to understand the intricacies of our own bill of rights, their sacred duty, so we must give them something plainer, something easier, something that they'll get, something that doesn't require the intelligence they appear to lack. Here's an idea:

"In the realm of commerce, the Federal Government may regulate only transportation and only those actively transporting goods or state agencies and for-profit businesses that deal directly with them and in no manner indirect."

This has gone too far. We are about to cross the line to unlimited government power, in the name of money, money, sad worthless money, not life, not happiness, not freedom or even decency, but money.

Our Current Murder Laws

Farmland of Bentley, North Dakota. Image by Andrew Filer, license cc 2.0 generic

One of the most critical of all laws is trespassing. Without it, property means nothing, hard work means nothing, and no one has any security at all, not even in their own home. It also protects something deeper and more sacred, a kind of respect that only can come from such borders and barriers.

One of the most sacred human rituals is the funeral. Yet, there are people out there who would let silly politics get in the way of the most important events in anyones life, one of the few things that truly demonstrate how valuable an individual human being is. There are people out there who see it as a moment to talk, to intrude, to threaten, to intimidate, and to steal from families and loved ones their chance to say goodbye.

It has long been accepted that when you trespass on somebodies land, you have the right to kill them, so when you trespass on somebodies very life and soul, shouldn't you have the same right? It may not be your land permaneantly, but as you're laying the body to rest, its your land, and your time, your last time together, the time to say goodbye, and why should you allow such foul and awful beings to contaminate that hollowed ground? Should they not clean away their foul footsteps with their very blood?

Obviously, no one should harm these people now. They are now entitled to the same sacred protection they denied others, and even if the law is not changed, it has a value to itself, so do not let our nation become lawless for that is even worse then this, but if Westboro protesters showed up to my funeral, I would hope my family would have the right to tell them to leave at the point of a gun, and if they don't, kill them as the common crooks that they are.

It is a travesty of justice that our current legal system does not allow such. This must change, and if you feel angry, if you feel upset, I ask you to, along side me, campaign for good laws, better laws in any way you can. Honor the dead by making sure that future dead are honored, and then their name shall be hollowed alongside those you have protected from such defilement:

"Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness!
You have relieved me in my distress;
Have mercy on me, and hear my prayer.

² How long, O you sons of men,
Will you turn my glory to shame?
How long will you love worthlessness
And seek falsehood? Selah
³ But know that the LORD has set apart for Himself him who is godly;
The LORD will hear when I call to Him.

⁴ Be angry, and do not sin.
Meditate within your heart on your bed, and be still. Selah
⁵ Offer the sacrifices of righteousness,
And put your trust in the LORD." (Psalm 4, NKJV)

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12: 21)

Do not be a hypocrite. God calls us not only to be right, but to be at peace, and to be peaceful to his creation, especially at the level of America and all of its citizens. Therefore, do nothing worthless, and do nothing against the law which has a value in and of itself, but seek to work with the law to make it better. We have a democracy, use it!

Julian Assange Must Follow the Example of Christ

US Supreme Court Building. By Duncan Lock, license cc asa 3.0 unported

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." -Matthew 18: 6, the word of our Lord

One of the reasons folks have a hard time understanding espionage laws is they see law as about morality, they see law as about preventing immoral behavior and punishing the wicked. But that is not what government is for, nor has it ever been for that. The purpose of law is to resolve disputes, to settle differences in a manner that is open, transparent, fair, and respectful to the rights of everyone involved.

The fact is that the government has a real difference with Julian Assange. They had secrets, Julian released them, they had protocols, Julian broke them, and now they're friends can't trust them, they can't look at each other, spies and envoys are fleeing, and the worlds mightiest powers and superpower know not how to handle their own states. Right or wrong, this is where things stand.

Now, there are countries that don't utilize Espionage laws much. Israel and Russia both immediately come to mind. Both, instead of finding and prosecuting spies in a court of law, send out secret assasins, with ice picks, guns, poisons, and all manners of traps, destroy the peace, and when they find their victim, leave no trace of him, and give him not a second, not a minute to answer for his sake. If they make a mistake, too bad, the wrong person is dead. They don't tell his or her family either, and all the citizens are left questioning what happened to their fellow man. Without a doubt, if Americas ability to try spies in a court of law is interfered with, they will have to, for the sake of preserving their government, resort to much the same.

Julian, we all know what you stand for, or at least say you do, transparency, but what you fail to see is that this law is also created for transparency, and in fact, the most important kind of transparency, the ability of individual citizens to see what they are charged with, and society to see what happens to them, along with the ability of all to make their decisions in a conscious, responsible manner. You have angered a lot of powerful people, and if you continue to be successful, you will anger only more. If you do not turn yourself in now, you will be bodybagged, and no one will ever hear from you again, but if you do turn yourself in, whether you are imprisoned or killed, you will be so before the common man and all eyes to see, and all minds to know how arguments are settled in a civil society.

Civil Disobedience is a fine and honorable thing, but it involves taking the consequences of your actions, in part so that fights don't get out of hand. Lets face it Julian, if you die the wrong way, something else dies with you, but if you die the right way, transparency only grows, and you can speak for your own defense in court, and stand by your actions, and speak, for all the nation and world to hear, about your values and what you find right. And you will go to jail, and possibly even be put to death, but if you stay out there on your own running, people who are very good at this stuff will get to you, and they will kill you, in a way that destroys everything that you stand for.

There were four Roman soldiers who confessed a faith that their commander could not stand. He had them put in to a freezing lake, and said that if any of them gave up their faith, they would be given a warm bath, but if they didn't, they would be left there to freeze to death. Three of them stayed there, holding hands as brothers, to die the whole night through, but one just couldn't stand it anymore, and came out, and renounced his faith. And yet, all four of them died that night. Tell me Julian, which one will you be? Will you join your brethren of all the other convicts at jail, and spread the light of wisdom and righteousness to the people you are called to, or will you die shamefully at the hands of a foreign spy, possibly even painfully, as a former KGB agent died not long ago.

Two thousand years ago, a visionary far greater then yourself, or anyone now alive, was crucified above a hill in Calvary. He didn't fight the police when they came to get him, and he didn't complain about his fate either, nor did he lie in court to get off easy. He accepted what he had came to do, took his cup of sorrows in Gethsemane, and went up that hill cross in hand for all things to come to pass. Julian, if you really do care about transparency to the extent that you claim, you must do likewise. The worse thing that could happen here is for America, already weakened, to be hamstrung by those who think they know better, and with them, all the world to where espionage laws can no longer truly exist. They are an important part of transparency. Law isn't about what's right or wrong - it's about a peaceful, serene society that is transparent and honorable, and when you accept this, you can have your fate handed to you fittingly, and become the hero you were born to be.

Update 12/6/2010 - It seems, according to AOL News, Assange has done a wicked and cowardly thing. Holding over 1.4 gigabytes of what Assange considers worthy secrets, Assange, rather then turn himself in as he should, is withholding them, and thus his objective, from the public as a bargaining chip to secure his freedom. If this is how it appears, Julian has much to be ashamed of.

Food for Thought

How has your state done at creating a good environment for business? This manufacturing oriented business magazine has ranked all 50 states and the district of columbia based on their business environments. Check it out.

Article Critique

Open Clip Art Library. Public Domain.

I am not posting this post to the top of my blog list, as it is not, in my mind, 100% original, even though I have violated no laws and plagarized no one in writing it. Rather, it is a critique, and not wanting to be subservient to anyone, I will not post it, under any condition, to the top of my list.

Update 10/12/2010: CNN writes an inferior version of the same article I am critiquing.

I am normally a huge fan of the Guardian. They are quite possibly the greatest left-wing newspaper in the world, with high quality artistic prose, good summaries of important stories, and honest, intelligent editorials from a rational leftists perspective. However, this particular editorial I cannot endorse.

It executes, among other things, a major "No True Scotsmen" fallacy (LOL, it's from Britain) in deciding that opposing people who made irresponsible decisions with their money IS opposing the working and middle class, when these are the very people that the Tea Party seeks to save from growing government inteference, high taxes, a lack of choice and freedom, and worst of all, the stifling of their very spirit as Americans, the spirit that the working-class and the middle-class love more then anyone, their storge, in their darkest hour, keeps them alive, and like a little girl wanting to throw a wildcat in a cage to "take care of it," people like Obama would deprive them of the thing these people love most. The Tea Party, like the working class, opposes the bailouts to bankers and high-flying corporate aristocrats that steal the futures of working class children.

The Tea Party also opposes the partisan industrial complex that was best summarized by Anarchists 6 years ago who chanted, on the eve of the 2004 election, "Bush, Kerry, are the same, the only difference is the name." The PIC has been a curse to the entire continent of North America for many years now, and, among other things, endorsed the spending, corruption and ruinous habits that have both deprived our working class of their jobs and threatened their say in the workings of our democracy, while ruining the careers of politicians, like the Late Washington Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, who sought to correct the course of our nation from this horrific treason against democracy.

Many readers of this editorial will excuse the errors by saying, "well, they are a far-right doctrine, just like Fascism," and my response to them will be, "no, actually." Here again we have a fallacy of definition. "Right-wing" has been redefined tremendously since the 1940's, is a term whose meaning changes nearly every year. To correctly assess similarities between the Tea Party and the doctrine of Fascism we would have to use the definition of Right-wing that fit Fascism, a definition that includes a state-endorsed aristocracy and elite, collectivization and tyrannical nationalism, the very things that the Tea Party opposes with a passion.

And again the editorials errs by saying, accusingly, "But polling shows that when it comes to poverty, the elderly and education, if anything people want to do more rather than less." For once in a long time, a Gaurdian article has referenced a Washington Post article that is its superior. While it is true that many Tea Party members would be very pleased if certain measures were taken on behalf of the poor, the elderly, and our education system, it is also true that the Tea Party, as a noncentralized grassroots organization very much of the Anarchist spirit, can change course very quickly, and once those who threaten the ability of government to handle its responsiblities well have been politically destroyed, from Republican Mike Castle in Delaware to Democrat Harry Reid in Nevada, the Tea Party can change course quickly, and wield the same power that put Christine O'Donnell on Delawares ballot to assure that our poor are taken care of reasonably well. Like the Great Hordes of Genghis Khan, maneuvers, formations and armor mean nothing to the Tea Party readying for battle on its grassroots steppe and out of its hundreds of buckskin tents.

The ability to make compromises will prove crucial at such a point in deciding whether the Tea Party can survive such a maneuver, though the public opinion and grassroots apparatus alone assure that an attempt will be made, but here I resort to a great French mathematician named Pascal. The worse thing that could happen is that, after destroying these particular Democrats, the Tea Party splits up, and new Democrats (but new ones) ascend to the congressional leadership. If such happens, we have made a powerful statement of the ability of the American people to hold their politicians accountable, and our new liberals will be more rational and responsible, perhaps more like the Guardian when they haven't gone crazy, when they ascend to congressional leadership. The best thing that could happen, on the other hand, is the people destroying the political party as we know it for good, and replacing it with true civic involvement at all levels of legislation. Perhaps even if they do split, they will proceed to conquer the two American parties and subject them to their barbarian rule.

Thus, either way, a Tea Party member wins his wager. Even the conservatives among them will appreciate a more fair and reasonable liberal hand should that happen, and all will appreciate the people rising to leadership if that should happen. Either one of these would be an acceptable goal of and by itself, and they are the set of possibilities. Thus, my congressional democrats - check... mate.

Mike Castle and how to win as a Republican in a rural Yankee state

Downtown Dover, Delaware, Photo by Tim Keiser, under license c.c.a.s.a 2.0 generic

His list of priorities, as listed on his website, are as follows: "Fighting for Delaware", "Jobs", "Energy Independence", "Good Governance", "Education", "Supporting Our Troops", and "Healthcare", in that order and stated in that fashion with bullet points, and lengthy, folksy, passionate discourses below. His opponents are not listed in any particular order, but instead can be selected from a drop down menu, and include "Economy", "Education", "Energy", "Environment", "Financial Reform", "Health Care", "National Security," and finally, "Offshore Oil Drilling", which last time I checked is not a major revenue source for the state of Delaware - stated profesionally, technically, scholastically, transactionally, and without any reference to the state he seeks to represent.

Now, to be fair, this is not displayed on a separate page, but directly on a menu on home, and if you click the "issues" button up top instead of viewing the drop down menu (which you will see first), it goes to a page with little boxes surrounding each issue and stereotypical pictures of what people would think of when they consider that issue, but in no picture is Delaware clearly seen, and your eyes go all over the page, and every time that the words "Delaware" or "Delawarean" are used, they are in small print, below the more important "Energy", "Economy" and "Education"s that are many times their size. The picture of Coons, gazing seriously with the eyes of a hawk, could just as easily be used in a newspaper advertisement for a law firm.

For some time now, Harry Reid has been asking local Democrat senators, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), to forsake whatever their constituencies might want for the sake of passing progressive national legislation. When they ask about their own voters, he offers earmarks, and money, to essentially bribe whatever constituency he feels needs to be pulled along. [Source] He points to the use of Republican filibusters as a common enemy, and whips all of them together to march lock step lock step in favor of the agenda that the party as a whole has advanced. Coons mentions Delaware only as a part of the larger whole, like: "Delawareans, as well as the entire country, have felt the effects of the current economic climate." Ad libs off of that phrase could capture the entirety of both Coons', Reids and Pelosis platform.

Like Andrew Jackson before him with his decision to evict a peaceful and economically successful native people, the Cherokees, from the state of Georgia without Georgias consent, Coon sees not 50 individual states, but a larger agenda that he (hopefully) sees Delaware benefiting from, but never the main focus of. Castle has not once taken his eyes off of Delaware, and you can see his very website swelling with state pride.

A full profile of the election from the NY Times seems to show very little optimism on the part of democrats in Delaware, with the appointed replacement to Biden not seeking a full term, nor Bidens relatively popular Attorney General of a son, and RCP shows Castle ahead of Coons by double digits. Castle has been Delawares sole house member for 17 years, and is a moderate Republican used to routinely working with Democrats. More importantly, I suspect, is that he is a true Delawarean, while Coons is the executive of Delawares largest, northernmost and urbane county, essentially an extension of Philadelphia, with nothing in common with the remainder of the state, and no real care for it. The democrats, like Pelosi and like Coons, have lost themselves in the dream, and this will hurt them among rural northeastern townspeople, who clearly believe in representatives representing.

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 2: Parable of the fruits and the nuts

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"And when the Republican Candidate for Governor of California comes, on the second of November, carried on the backs of lobbyists and wearing a tacky turtleneck sweater, she will divide the Californians, and in her bowl will be the fruits, and in her mouth will be the nuts.

"And she shall sayeth to the fruits as they look on in their simply fabulous sunglasses while their gay partner holds their hand and massages their left shoulder, "curse you oh fruits, for I was hungry, and you cancelled my welfare checks, I was naked, and you let me escape prison for streaking, I was in the hospital, and you cut my Medicaid, I was in prison, and you caused the prison library to be sold to Half Price Books."

"But Meg Whitman, when did we do any of these things to you?"

"Assuredly I say to you, when you overspent at the ballot box, you did it to me."

"Then she shall sayeth to the nuts as they hold their combined King James Bible and AK-47 maintenance manual, "curse you oh nuts, for I was trying to break the strikes, and you stopped me, I was trying to lower taxes, and you increased them, I was trying to build a fence on the border, and you turned the ground in to quicksand."

"But Meg Whitman, when did we do any of these things to you?"

"Assuredly I say to you, when you made yourselves look ridiculous, you made me look ridiculous."

"And then everyone, including Meg Whitman, shall inherit a hell called modern day California. There shall be 20% unemployment rates and a considerable number of ruined political careers, and even the wild animals shall consider them an abhorrence and a disgrace."

A Very Special Conversation

Image by Andrew Braithwaite, license cca 2.0 generic

This is a conversation I've been tracking from the Politico community and one other source:

Obama [1]: "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted -- for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom."

Then Dodd talks about his "long, rugged path":

Senator Dodd [2]: "My patience is running out, I’ve extended the hand. I’ve written provisions in this bill to accommodate various interests. But I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting the other side is a suggestion somehow that this is a partisan effort." (para. 2)

[They are spreading] "outright falsehoods” [which are] “now being repeated by people who should know better and frankly do know better." (para. 3 end)


Then these comments come flying at Dodd, and at the commenters:

Commenter 1: "Democrats...THE PARTY OF NO." [3]

Commenter 2: "Why not cut them out of the loop entirely on all issues? Their stated intransigence is equalled only by their political ignorance in condemning themselves to a long spell of superminority irrelevance."

Commenter 3: "The American people are sick and tired of the GOP's refusal to GET TO WORK."

Commenter 4: "Dodd is both a crook, and in charge of this bill."

Commenter 5: "D-day (roasted rats) is coming at a poll near you 11/7 !"

Commenter 6: "The Republican Party is not interested in governing unless it calls the shots."

Commenter 7: "How can anyone take the GOP seriously when all they're doing is trying to block reform be rehashing the same stale GOP talking points they used with health care?"

Commenter 8: "SORRY, THE PARTY OF NO LABEL BELONGS TO REPUBLICANS SOLELY!

NO TO AMERICANS BENEFITS

NO TO HEALTH CARE REFORM

NO TO BANKING REFORM"

//Caps make the world a better place.>>

Commenter 9: "REALITY BE DAMNED!"

Commenter 10: "These people aren't interested in facts, WWE. They lie, even to themselves. To recognize what Republicans are doing woudl be, for the Republican minions, the same as recognizing their own gullibility and stupidity. They MUST ignore the facts. If they didn't, they'd lose whatever little self-esttem they have left after lifetimes of being left behind and walked over and ignored because they are too stupid to understand the world."

Okay, this isn't the entire discussion, but you get the idea.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:

Feel free to question the use of any source or context of any quote from source:

[1] Obama Inaugural Speech, paragraphs 7-9, source: CNN.com; http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20/obama.politics/index.html

[2] Carrie Burdoff Brown, "Chris Dodd threatens to cut GOP out of financial reform talks," http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35800.html, 4/14/2010

[3] Message board for [2], http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35800.html#commentsform, first 20 comments

Confusion, Clarity and Responsibility

Taken during Heatlhcare Speech. Public Domain, work of Executive Office of the President of the United States employee Lawrence Jackson.

I was talking to a friend over the phone about Mass-Transit today and he just kept on saying, "Expert studies... Expert studies... Expert Studies...." I would ask him questions about the studies and this same refrain would commence again. "I won't debate you." Right, like the kind of Expert Studies that Brain Scientists once used to claim African Americans were too inferior to have equal rights...

There's a problem with the reasoning of trust. Actually, there are several problems:

1) You don't know if the person was actually promoted based on merit.

2) You don't know if the school he was educated at or the circle of friends influencing him has been systematically skewing all who listen to them.

3) You don't know if his intentions are good, and when you give him immense power based on "expertise," you also invite the corruption that comes with power, thus it becomes less likely that his intentions are good. "Perhaps, Maybe, Someday" my friend.

In a democracy, voters are solely responsible for the decision they make at the booth. If an expert cannot back up what their "expert opinion" gives you with reasoning and evidence, we should discard their claims on the grounds that 1) they clearly aren't interested in educating the American people and 2) for all we know, their opinion may be bigoted, biased or corrupt. We are responsible for our decisions, which brings me to another subject.

The democrats wrote a health care bill many hundreds of pages long. Now let me ask you, what voter has time to sort through several hundred pages of revised on a continual basis legal mumbo jumbo? And now, they complain (including Obama[footnote below]) that people have misrepresented what they wrote. They may or may not be true, I don't have time to look at the bill and even if I did I would probably have to read it several times to completely understand it (the Supreme Court perhaps may take two times to understand it) but the fact is, they are the ones who made it too long for the American people to read. Thus they brought these interesting times on to themselves. If they are unwilling to make Washington accessible to the voter who is responsible for it, the voter must hold it against them, or we will have a tyranny of those "in the know." Just like a student who does his homework perfectly but is unable to turn it in must receive a zero from his teacher, regardless of whether the dog ate it or not, for the teacher knows that it would otherwise be in the students best interest to make the homework extra tasty!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote:

I invite you, my readers, to inspect this piece of evidence yourselves. If you believe I have erred in my use of it (I'm human too believe it or not) feel very free to speak up:

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple." Paragraph 4 from top-page 4 of Obama Health Care Speech, New York Times reprinting (page 4 given for ease of reader analysis.)



Revision 3/17/2009:

I have decided to remove one of the two images in this post. It wasn't that good.

Reforming the Congress

It seems to me that every year, in between the two-party pressure to conformity, the seniority system for committee appointments, and the growth in Federal Spending and loose construction of our favorite "living document," the US Constitution, the beliefs of common Americans and local and state governments only decline. The fact that Senators are no longer elected by State Legislatures, but instead by the hodge podge of the population of an entire state, has not helped. Nor has the fact that, despite massive improvements in communications technology that our founders would not have considered practical, we still refuse to enact a national initiative process.

To ratify our reforms to congress, we need only use state legislatures. With 3/4 (38 states) of state houses on board, we could amend the constitution without a single congressmen supporting us.

First, we need to appeal the amendment that made the people of the state elect their Senators. When state legislatures are kept out of national politics, they have no hand in the federal checks and balances, making them helpless against institutions that would earnestly deprive them of their power. With state legislatures in power, the states will once again have a voice in DC.

Second, a national initiative process. With a certain number of signatures collected in a certain amount of time, a bill written by common citizens could appear on the ballot for election by all Americans. To quicken this process, and give federal power to cities and counties, local governments could sign the petition to put an initiative on the ballot by way of their councils, thus signing up all their citizens. They could not affect how they vote on the actual ballot, but they can make them vote to put it on the ballot, making them powerful sounding boards and gaurdians of local interests.

With these two major reforms, the State, the City, and the common citizen could be once again heard in Washington, DC.

Making Keynesianism Work

The Hoover Dam, whose hydrolectric power arguably built Southern California and whose Irrigation makes fruitful much of the Southwest.

Source: National Parks Service and NARA, public domain.

DC Beltway, courtesy of Wikimedia user Jumpy, public domain.

Perfect example of a worthy, but expensive, Keynesian type construction project.

Obama's "Keynesian" stimulus has been a failure. To see exactly how much of a failure, let us just consider Obama's own statement that "there will be no easy fix" from a few months ago. Keynesian stimulus, is, by it's very definition, an easy fix. It is about "stimluating" the sagging demand instantaneously to put the economy back on level. If long-term is what we were concerned about, we'd have nothing to be concerned about, as currency movements and demand changes, like those we saw last year, cannot destroy the economy permaneantly as prices do (slowly) adjust. Thus, the goal was not met.

When you also consider the cost to the "businesses" we were trying to save through this stimulus, the picture is even bleaker, as they will end up paying nearly every cent towards the debt that was used to give them this "easy fix," and to no positive result. Still, it is not entirely Obama's fault, but the fault of a legislative system whose lengthy regulatory structure and impossible land purchasing requirements do not currently make Keynesian stimulus very hard.

When Eisenhower was facing a severe recession in 1952, he built the Interstate Freeway from city to city to clarify routes, shorten travel, increase capacity and further the city radius of all of America's metropoli. Though the bill was large (trillions in todays dollars,) the vast improvements to every kind of productivity and prosperity paid for the freeway many times over. In between the increased spending relieving the death pressure of America's industrialists and the promise of future returns that these larger cities promised for those same businesses and others, this stimulus worked. Of course, Eisenhower was both extremely popular and extremely capable at arm-wrestling what he wanted out of congress and pretty much anyone else, which is part of why this worked. Also part of how he got schools desegregated.

Similarly, in the 30's Hitler brought Germany out of its depression using the Audobohn and millitary and industrial economic stimulus. Of course, Hitler was a dictator. And FDR provided some relief (though not quite as effective) with his many WPA projects, including the triborough bridge in NYC and the very last subway tunnels to be built in New York, and the hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest, Southwest and Tennessee River areas. Of course, FDR made himself a dictator.

One of the common themes of all these projects is that they promised future returns on the investment today to back the current consumption. Otherwise, business sees that, while they have more customers today, they are the skeleton on the banquet table, as tomorrow they will be taxed in full the bill for their prosperity today. What is there response? Well, continue operating today, and plan to shut down (partially or completely) before tomorrow. Or at the very least don't expand production. Best of both worlds and one of the easiest, cheapest shrewd maneuvers anyone can pull off. This previous article discusses the flaws in greater detail.

Only trouble is, we couldn't build effective projects as the planning would take too long and the regulatory and buying process too complex for the money to be spent when it is needed. As a result, we had to build "shovel ready" bridges to cheap easy to buy wilderness. This is a very common problem, a predictable problem, and one that can be easily solved ahead of time, but only ahead of time.

See, you make a list, a list of all the various projects that should be built in the near future but are too expensive to be built when times are good, like the Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel in Seattle, the Second Avenue Subway Line in New York, some new freight rail to handle additional capacity in Chicago, and maybe some new mountain passes or brand new interstates to link more of the countryside in to the metropoli.

First, you get all permits cleared years ahead of time. Have the town hall meetings, have the local voice, but do it while times are still good in the summer of comfort long before the decisions have to be made. Then, if it passes, you buy the land that the project requires, rent it out temporarilly until construction begins (and hold the rent money to pay for the project), and then, when the economy tanks, you evict the tennants within a week (they knew this from the moment they rented, and get a discount for their inconvenience), destroy the properties, and begin construction right away.

Lastly, you use non-traditional Ancient Egyptian style construction methods that exchange the efficiency of gradual construction for the speed of mass-building, erecting your structures in less time with more people employed, distributing the money more quickly and effectively. It is more expensive in accounting terms, but in economic terms is so much more effective as a stimulus that the books likely (though I have not worked out the numbers myself, so please do so before jumping off a cliff) balance. This last aspect was not done by Nazi Germany or Eisenhower, but was to a very mild degree done by FDR with the Hoover Dam, to his credit.

The rental helps with the keynesian process, as it is not the level of consumption but the difference in consumption that creates mayhem, and holding back some currency that tennants pay in rent to pay for the project later on shallows the wound. The speed, of course, also helps with the keynesian process, spending the money more quickly.

This way, the projects can begin within a week of the economy hitting the tank, and they will be the valuable kind that America needs, rather then "shovel-ready" bridges to towns with less then 200 people that spend plenty of money but build little long-term gain.

Uptown Platform, NYC, courtesy of Adam J. Sporka. In the opinion of some, the New York Subway built the city.