so says Eric here.

Blast From the Past

Leave it to Tom to bemoan the correlation between the price of gas and the price of ass.

The news is next.

A man, a legend, a way of life. Learn it, love it, live it. With half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.

I said I was going to continue the discussion that we had going last week and we shall. We’ll start the week off slow and let it build. I might even throw a personal post or two into the mix.

I have a very simple questionnaire that I would like to put to you. I suggested to Dan that he post it, but I’m taking my idea back. Sorry Dan. Before we get into that, I have a funny little story I have to tell you.

How Amy Got Played
Some of you may recall the strange affair of How Tom Got Played written, directed, produced and staring our dear friend ehowton. Well, I must tell you good people that I have done one better then that. You see, our dear friend Amy got played. And here’s how.

When she was still living with her folks, I almost sent her anonymous flowers as a joke. However, there was a lot that was going on in her life at the time, so I backed down. I later told her about my plan and asked her how she would have covered it. She said she would have dealt with it. I made her a promise that I would indeed send her flowers.

Well, about a month or so ago, she emailed her new snail maid address. I asked her if I should be on this list. She said she didn’t see why not. So…I sent her flowers anonymously, but delayed the shipment until the following week so that she wouldn’t make any connection. I waited and waited and waited for her to blog about it. But she didn’t. Finally, my curiosity got the better of me.

I called the flower shop to see if the flowers had been delivered. I was told their side of this story:

Oh yes! I know what I can tell you about!

I seem to be a magnet for anonymous gift givers.

All last week, my roomie and I missed a delivery from the FedEx guy. Finally on Friday, Amanda ran down and picked it up…thinking it was a package she had been waiting for. I got a phone call mid-evening. “Amy? You know that package we had to pick up? It wasn’t for me. It’s yours.”

I was slightly puzzled and curious. “All it says on the outside of the box is that it’s from Hallmark.”

Naturally my curiosity was piqued even further. With me egging her on, Amanda pulled over on the side of the road right then and there and opened the box.

It’s contents?

A small-ish teddy bear, and a bouquet of flowers. A card accompanied the gift, but it bore no signature. Amanda & I have both torn the packaging inside and out trying to solve the mystery of the gift giver’s identity with no luck.

Is that not strange?

When I was on the phone with the flower company, they told me that they could send out a replacement package at no charge since the flowers would probably be wilted. I had them sent the next Saturday. Here is her version of what happened.

I’m officially annoyed.

A second floral package arrived on my front porch this morning…the contents identical to the package from two weeks ago. Same flowers (only these were white daisies instead of yellow), same pot for putting them in, same teddy bear, same card.

And still anonymous.

I’m feeling stalked at this point.

If the sender’s intentions were to impress me with their thoughtfulness, they have succeeded only in scaring me and making me suspicious of every person I know. Note to any future would be admirers/thoughtful people: never send flowers anonymously unless you plan on following it up very shortly thereafter with revealing your identity.

I called that afternoon. I got the return call Sunday evening and spilled the beans. Reactions are awaited.

You don’t know Jack
I devised a little quiz that I thought would be effective for Dan’s site. Here it is:

1. Do you know the difference between the Religious Right, Christianity, Republicans, Conservatives and Conservatism?

2. What is wrong with being Conservative?

3. Can you point to a specific situation in which Conservatism does not work?

4. Can you point to a specific situation in which liberalism worked?

5. Why is it the case that overwhelmingly the youth of today claim to be liberals?

6. Can you list and fully explain a liberal core belief?

7. Why does it seem an injustice to make someone work hard and earn their possessions/societal rank?

We will start with this questionaire for the week. In my next post, I will respond to your questions as well as reveal my thoughts on Iraq and North Korea.

Until next time.

My friends, I want you to know that I plan to keep up the current political discussion that has been ongoing on this blog. Be that as it may, I do have something I have been holding I would like to share with you and see what you think. This is a lengthy post, but one that I think needs to be visited. I will build on this subject later. The original text comes from this thread on the IMDB boards. Our current political discussion will continue on the first of the week. This text is unedited and therfore may contain spelling and gramatical errors.

Allow me to be the contrarian. My hope is that reason will prevail over emotion and that those who respond to me can place their patriotic affinity for Lincoln on the backburner and discuss objectively his political career, the nature of the North-South conflict, and politics in general. Please accept my apology in advance if this seems too formal or if my indulgence in history is overbearing. My only hope is to convince some of you to look at the man and his career in a different light, hopefully a more objective one.

The birth of the United States is rooted in the natural right of secession expressed in the Declaration of Independence. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, at least 3 states (Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York) expressly reserved the right to leave the union in their ratifying documents should conditions warrant such an action, namely if the federal government overstepped the political authority to which it was delegated. This was not radical or revisionist history, but the common understanding of the nature of the Union. Such an understanding was conceded to the antifederalists at the time of ratification by Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and others who continually promised that the federal nature of the union was to remain intact and the “people” must express their ultimate form of political sovereignty in the form of state ratifying conventions and accept the new constitution.

In the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions Jefferson and Madison, although taking a moderate stance against the growing power of the federal government and not advocating secession (as some of their colleagues did), asserted that the authority to interpret the Constitution lay with all parties of the contract – the federal branches as well as state governments and the people. Essentially, the federal government’s power was derived from the power delegated it by the states themselves. The key point made by Jefferson and Madison at this time was that the federal government, a creation of the states, could never become the final arbiter of its own powers. The states had to serve as the final check on centralized authority to preserve the federal system.

This state’s rights doctrine (which would later be mistaken as a pro-slavery stance) would later be invoked at the Hartford convention when Northerners themselves threatened secession. There was no condescension from the Republicans and people of the South, for it was commonly understood that, while it may be a stupid move, it was with in their authority to do so.

Not suprisingly, at the onset of the Civil War British newspapers seem puzzled a the conflict as America was founded upon the principle of secession they printed.

Northern states threatened secession multiple times – over the adjustment of state debts, the whiskey tax, the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War. At no point was violence ever threatened by the federal government or was there any serious political debate about the legitimacy of such an action.

In fact, 3 weeks after Lincoln’s inauguration Congress put forth a bill that would make secession “illegal”. The obvious presumption is that, at best, secession was a grey area and at worst, it was clearly a natural right. For if it were cut-and-dry unconstitutional, then there would be little need for legislation to make it illegal.

The doctrine that secession was in effect unconstitutional by default was presented by Daniel Webster but received very little attention. It was not until Lincoln came to office that there was any public discussion on the matter, and what little there was was devoid of constitutional and historical exposition. Lincoln’s argument essentially claimed that the South was wrong because they were seceding due to their disapproval of an election (which he could not logically apply to the states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas who voted down secession but then left the Union when federal troops marched into Virginia). From this stance Lincoln simply refused (as historians would later) to discuss the constitutional aspects of secession in any meaningful detail. He simply asserted he was correct and that was that.

(Ironically, once the federal government realized they would have to argue in court the constitutionality of secession in order to convict Jefferson Davis, they dropped the case immediately. One suspects they knew the argument against secession was specious.)

The real question to ask is…why? Why was holding the Union together so crucial to Lincoln? Few historians ask this and if they do, the answer is a nationalistic, patriotic diatribe that says very little very loudly. It’s a good question though, and one that deserves the context of 19th century political movements.

Classical liberalism was on the retreat and giving way to rising nationalism in Europe and the growth of unitary, centralized states. Unification movements were underway in Italy, Germany and other countries in Europe. In fact, British newspapers at the time can be found comparing Lincoln’s actions with the Tsar of Russia, attempted to force an uppity Poland to remain a part of the Russian empire. Nationalistic fervor, which carried to its extreme would lead to World War I, was also alive in the States. The 19th century was an era of increasing federal power, calls for war against Britain and France, actual war with Mexico, increased national involvement in economic activity, and “manifest destiny”, which would result in outright genocide against natives who got in the way. It was a time of growing unitary states and for crushing independence movements or the zeal for self-government.

Lincoln earned his spurs in such a political climate. He was a Whig party member and staunch advocate of Henry Clay’s American system. He was a lawyer for the railroad, a master political maneuverer, and proponent of an “active” federal government. He rose through the ranks politically because of his support for Northern protectionist policy and internal improvements, not because of any anti-slavery position.

The truth is that northern black codes during Lincoln’s time were as harsh as Jim Crow laws in the South after the war. Among the laws on the books in Massachusetts was a provision allowing for the public flogging of visiting blacks overstaying the duration of their visit. At one time Ohio expelled all blacks and no free blacks were allowed in the state of Oregon. Lincoln’s home state of Illinois prohibited blacks from intermarrying with whites, severely restricted their property rights, and even prohibited them from congregating in public. As a member of the state legislature Lincoln supported these laws and voted for them. At no point in his political career (until he ran against Douglas) did Lincoln take any view out of the mainstream on slavery, black equality, or any other racial issue. Of course, this makes him no different than anybody else back then (save Abolitionists), but that is precisely the point.

The Republican party was formed not as an anti-slavery party (as is commonly taught), but in order to continue the Whig party platform of the mercantilist policies of Hamilton and Clay. Because the Whig party split up in part over the slavery question the new Republicans decided to handle it differently this time. On the slavery question their stance was essentially this: oppose slavery in principle, tolerate it in practice, and take a hostile stand towards abolitionists. However, they also were much wiser to take into consideration geography as well. When Lincoln spoke to crowds in the East, he adamantly stood on the platform of protectionism. Lincoln’s campaign poster for the 1860 election is quite clear – protectionism and free soil. In the Midwest (where there were many farmers who were naturally hostile to high tariff levels), the discussion centered on slavery expansion into the territories. Being closer to the territories, this would be a hot button issue for politicians like Lincoln and Douglas. Lincoln naturally opposed slavery expansion into the territories, but not for the idealistc reasons that are often attributed to him. He adopted the free soil position, which was that slaver labor would crowd out free white labor. In states that had harsh laws restricting the rights of blacks, this is what they wanted to hear. Lincoln’s words:

“The territories…should be kept open for the homes of free white people.”

“Is it not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?”

“What I most desire is the separation of the white and black races.”

“I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I … am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

In fact, when Lincoln became President he went out of his way to reassure the South that the institution of slavery would remain untouched:

“I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

“Where slavery is already established by law and custom slavery can remain and it would be criminal to subvert it.”

In his inagural, Lincoln expressed support for an amendment which would forever prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery.

Here we have a man who had spent his entire political career fighting tooth and nail for a protectionist system, who never spoke politically on the slavery question until 1858, saying these things. There is nothing in his actions that would indicate he was in any way, shape, or form a cut above his political rivals altruistically. There is simply no evidence.

There is evidence, however, of his support for centralized mercantilist policy – national banking, protectionist tariffs, internal improvements. These are all policies which are prerequisites for national power. Lincoln spent the bulk of his political career vehemently fighting for these causes.

Another quote:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

Slavery he would compromise on, the breakup of the union he would not – because the union was necessary for his policies. The vast majority of federal revenue came from the South itself – through excessively high tariffs (which by themselves nearly caused secession in 1828). At one point in the 19th century the South was paying nearly 90% of all federal taxes. This money was being spent on internal improvements primarily in the North in the form of canals, railroads, etc…Should the South leave the union they would take these taxes with it, a point not lost on British newspapers at the time. In fact, a free-trade zone in the South would cripple Northern industry – Lincoln’s most important constituency. Out the door would go the funding for the improvements, political favors, and scandalous railroad-building fiascos. The money flow was of extreme importance to the Republican nationalistic plans.

For this reason Lincoln said in his inaugural address:

“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.”

Lincoln promised that force would be used to collect the “duties and imposts”. There would be no compromise on collecting the tariff.

For that reason it is likely that there was no federal response as numerous properties (at least eight) in the South were taken over by Confederates. It was not until Ft. Sumter came into the spotlight that federal force would be used. Ft. Sumter was the major hub of foreign trade and was where large amounts of tariff duty was collected. If Lincoln lost Ft. Sumter then no more tariff. Of course, the South’s attempt to attack Ft. Sumter was a huge and costly mistake, but there can be little doubt that Lincoln was more interested in Ft. Sumter than other places.

The point of all this is not that Lincoln was evil…it was that he was a politician, with ambitions that can be found in just about any other politician. To think that Lincoln’s centralist goals, which he cultivated over his entire political career, do not factor into his decisions to hold the union together by force is illogical. As a politician he had a constituency to which he was beholden, and he acted to satisfy that constituency.

And he acted unconstitutionally – numerous times. Among these acts were the imprisonment of Maryland state legislators so they could not vote in favor of secession. When one member, John Merryman, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln ordered the commanding officer of the prison to refuse. After the Chief Justice sent a federal marshal the officer refused again. When Chief Justice Taney wrote out his opinion that the actions were unconstitutional Lincoln made preparations to have Taney himself arrested. Lincoln’s reply was that he had the final say as to whether those actions were constitutional or not. A far cry from James Madison’s opinion.

Among his other acts:

declaration of martial law (later struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)

calling forth the militia and fighting an undeclared war for 3 months without Congressional approval (this action prompted 4 more states to secede)

censoring of telegraph lines

confiscation of private property

nationalizing of the railroads

suspension of habeas corpus

imprisonment of 30,000+ anti-war northerners without trial (among them Francis Scot Key’s grandson – sent to Ft. McHenry no less!)

shut down numerous northern newspapers (100+) that opposed the war

deported a member of Congress, Clement Vallandigham, for opposition to Lincoln’s war policies

You can argue that these policies were “necessary” because of “a time of war” but for heaven’s sake don’t say they were “constitutional.” If they are, point to the provision in the Constitution that grants these authorities.

What did the South get for attempting to separate from the Union? They got total decimation – war on civilians and civilian property. Because they were evil slaveowners? No… only 10-15% of southerners owned slaves and in every major battle there were non slave-owning confederates fighting against northern slave-owners. They were smashed because they challenged federal authority and threatened the power of centralized government. Europeans watched in horror as northern generals (many of whom would participate in the Indian campaigns) carried out the complete destruction of the South.

To be sure, the South was far from perfect, but let us be honest about the motives of the federal government and of its leader, Abraham Lincoln. As I said before he was a politician and as the war progressed and the radical wing of the Republican came to power, Lincoln changed his tune so as to be swimming downstream with the political current. His rhetoric became one of an abolitionist, the wing of the party that would butter his bread from then on. His speeches focused on slavery, equality of blacks, and emancipation. What do we make of this? Are we to forget his 30+ years of protectionist politics and accept this as a spiritual awakening? Maybe. But we need more evidence, and the only evidence we have to counter the mountain of evidence that Lincoln was first and foremost a mercantilist is, unfortunately, his own speeches, and an Emancipation Proclamation which freed no slaves and was ridiculed in Europe.

It is upon these late speeches that most historians draw when attempting to portray Lincoln as a saint. Harry Jaffa’s Father Abraham comes to mind. They tend to ignore his earlier, more revealing, political career.

Let us be honest here. And let’s be fair – there is some DiLorenzo bashing going on here. If you haven’t read his book, which some in this thread openly admit, then it is illogical to dismiss it. It is also illogical to dismiss his views due to his anarcho-capitalist tendencies. That is called ad homonim. For an honest discussion, find out where in his book there lacks support for his conclusions instead of dismissing him because he speaks contrary to the mantra of the Lincolnian cult.

Alright many good points, but let me make some brief rebuttals

1. Can you not agree that people can change? I mean before the war lincoln had little if any encounters with slaves or african americans, yet after meetings with Frederick douglass and demonstrations made by black union soldiers that they could fight had to have some effect on him, that they were not as inferior as he might have thought to be, because in 1865 he finally let out that black americans might gain the right to vote.

2. While it was not illegal, secession was still viewed by many (north and South)as an act of rebellion and many prominent figures were admantly opposed to it including Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. With this in mind I don’t find it at all surprising that Lincoln himself viewed it as such, and also firmly believed it was his right to preserve the Union. As you pointed out earlier it may have been a grave mistake on the confedrate’s part to open fire on Sumter, don’t you think that it was somewhat inevitable that war would still have broken out? I certainly can’t see the two living peacefully as separate nations.

3. Suspending the right of habeus corpus was legal, its in the constitution itself Section. 9.

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Of course whether or not the souths attack on Sumter waas an act of rebellion is a matter of opinion, Lincoln firmly believed it was and in accordance suspended habeus corpus, as he said himself “I must suspend one part of the constitution in order to preserve the rest”

Yes I do believe that people can change and I left that possibility open. But in light of his earlier political career we cannot conclude that a change of heart was the reason for the change in his political stance towards slaves and northern blacks. The political winds had severely shifted towards the end of the war and it would have been political suicide for him to go against it.

I believe that his primary political goal of cementing mercantilism into the American system of government cannot be discounted. And as pleasant a thought as it may be to assume he changed, the only evidence we have of this comes from his own mouth. Even towards the end of the war, Lincoln offered amnesty to the South suggesting that slaveholding Southerners may keep their slaves. His objective was to preserve the union at any cost.

Whether or not secession was seen as rebellion is beside the point – we know it was seen that way by many people. The question to ask is whether it was the intention of the founders that the union be based on coercion or not, and there is ample evidence to suggest that the compact was voluntary, some of which I presented in my post. But of course Lincoln is going to say they have no right to secede, because that is all he can say about it. That doesn’t make him correct, though.

Whether or not war would have broken out between the North and the South if there had been no federal intervention to prevent secession is an interesting question. Yet the answer would not speak to whether or not secession was justified or Lincoln’s motives. The very fact that Lincoln would not allow this to occur is the significant point. Lincoln said in his inaugural that he was going to collect the tariff by force if necessary, and he did.

On the habeas corpus issue, that section (9) grants no authority to suspend habeas corpus. All powers granted must be enumerated in the Constitution, according to Madison. That section acts as a prohibition, and not a positive grant of power.

But, you may say, it implies that the power is granted. While I disagree with this mode of constitutional interpretation, let me point out that the section 9 you point out is in Article I, which relates to Congress and the powers of Congress, not the president. This was Taney’s position when he declared the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional by Lincoln. If anybody can suspend habeas corpus, it would have to be Congress, as the limit on that authority is contained in a section dealing with Congressional powers. If the presence of Article I section 9 referes to an executive power, then a positive grant of that power must be found in Article II. It is not.

Thank you for your reply.

When I look across the fruited plain, I don’t like what I see in the yute (youth for those of you in Juanita) of America. I read a lot of blogs and I found one that I know is an accurate cross section of said yute. Our friend Blurbzy is back in the news, and this time she’s really put on her thinking cap. I responded and the issue’s text is in its entirety is below.

to be or not to be…..
so i’ve been thinking …..well i was thinking last night and this morning….that law has been interesting me very much lately. my mother made a comment a few weeks ago when i got a ticket saying that maybe i should look into going back to school for it…and i brushed it off…..but last night as i watched nancy grace on tv….and teh topics being discussed got me so enraveled in the tv conversation that i wanted to jump thru the tv and debate on the topics…and prove that the runaway bride is a complete psycho should not get a penny! so i’ve been thinking if i go back how long will it take??? how long will it be before i can be a lawyer and put slimebags like that behind bars and pay for their bullshit crimes! im tired of them always getting away with it and getting away with lighter sentences or nothing at all or stupid probation….come on now…. i saw a criminal plead guilty to a lesser crime jsut to get out of jail more quickly. that is just bullshit! i am starting to doubt our justice and legal systems i am beginning to think they are corrupt…and are not out to serve the people….but themselves…and prime example….the damn president! ugh i can’t wait for his term to be over!!!!! i am so mad right now i have to walk away…. i will be back shortly i need a breather!

and i am back~~~
so back on the topic of law….and things going on right now….and sports players etc…

i dont’ get how please tell me how is it that an NFL player or an NHL player or NBA player whichever you choose….makes more than a dr. who is trying to find a cure for cancer? and y is it that these NFL plasyers cry oh 2.6 million isnt’ enough i need to support my family they are hungry…..get the fuck out of here who are you kidding????? they should be foreced to give away a portion of their money to feed the needy the REAL needy!or the dr who just saved your ass brought you back to life and did crazy amazing things to kep you alive????can someone please explain how actresses and actors make more money than the man or woman……who is finding medicines for terminally ill people???? i dont’ get how do we let entertainment over rule our health and well being???? i am in serious thought mode today and the world is making me angry…here i am 25 and wise beyond my years….where is everyone else? are we all too ashamed to stand together to speak out about our lives our world our freedom???? or do we think we are the only ones who think this way so we never speak up… i really wanna get something going like a petition or something i am not quite sure yet…but we young americans need to unite for the sake of our children and our childrens children….do we want them growing up with the bullshit we have on the news???? look at korea or china whoever it is with this nuclear crap….that is bullshit…. we shouldn’t even need nuclear crap to keep people of another race under control. let them be let us be….as the land of the free home of the brave…take care of the damn US! stop trying to save all the other nations and their problems and when they dont’ listen we dont’ have to go a bombing and blowing up…..do they not see that is the only reason the ones that hate us only hate us cause we are cocky??? take care of our starving our poor our homeless….our needy children….then if we can help others…HELP not dictate! i swear… someone needs to speak up and my one little voice isnt’ loud enough….any suggestions???

ok back to work and i’ll be back of course in a few mins or an hour…

ok back again
i also am thinking that maybe once you hit a certain $ amount that you should have to hand over the rest….like you max out….who could possibly need 32 billion dollars….???ever in a lifetime???? i thought iwa s about needs??? u need shelter food etc…and then wants….yea u can use 32 billion for a lot of wants….but come on now don’t u think enough is enough?????

ok be back heading to go grab lunch!

This is the most insane blog entry I’ve ever read. First of all, if you are in thought mode as you claim, you’d realize that you are just acting on your over-charged emotions and are not thinking clearly or logically.

If you want to be a lawyer fighting for justice, that’s great! More power to ya! I support and will support you in this decision. But it wouldn’t be right of me to tell you that if you are a defense lawyer, you make more money if you win. Consider someone who is being tried for murder and you know that they will get the death penalty if the verdict comes back “guilty”. If you get your client off the hook, you can charge whatever you want. Why? You just saved his sorry ass, that’s why! All he has now in a sense belongs to you. I say this so that if you do go to law school and succeed in graduating, in order to stay true to your original premise as stated here, you would always have to be on the prosecution. Congratulations!

As for sports fans and actors making more then doctors, it’s really a crying shame isn’t it? Well, I got bad news for you: people would rather be entertained and inspired rather then be stuck with needles. And they want someone else to pay for it. What am I talking about? I am talking about the fact that people will spend money to go see a movie or watch a sport, but they think that someone else should pay for their heath care “because it’s too expensive”. What a ridiculous notion! Why is it that someone other than you should pay for a service that you and you alone will enjoy? Where does it stop? Should someone else pay for your car? Your house? Escort service? Where does one draw the line?

What makes medicine so expensive in the first place is greedy people who think they are just losers of life’s lottery and the only way to reach the top is to screw the winners of life’s lottery. How do they go about this? They sue doctors. Let me explain.

Let’s say you go to the doctor and get treated for something. The treatment is successful in that you are cured of the ailment that initially made you go to the doctor, but now there is something new wrong with you. Your solution? Sue the doctor. It must be the doctor’s fault because you didn’t have this new symptom/problem before you went to see the doctor.

Grated, there is a time and place for malpractice suits, but did you know that every doctor has to ensure himself from the get go? I bet what you didn’t know is that there is no discount on health insurance for doctors even though they are in the medical field. So–and get this–the doctor has to pay CYA (that’s Cover Your Ass for those of you in Juanita and we’re discussing malpractice insurance here) insurance in order to perform his job, then he has to turn around and buy coverage in the eventuality that some illness befalls him. How incredible! Yet I don’t here anyone screaming how it isn’t fair for the doctor. If anything, they just want to screw the physician more because “he has more money then me. Therefore, he must be a winner of life’s lottery.”

This charge is bogus. Doctors didn’t become doctors overnight. You don’t go into medicine because it’s lucrative, you go into medicine because you want to help people. It’s the same thing with teachers. Teachers seemingly don’t get paid that much (when one is looking at yearly salaries, this is true, but most get a 2-3 month vacation during the summer, plus sick days and holidays during the school year, so all in all, the salary is on par) and they have to baby sit a bunch of whiny, ungrateful, degenerate kids who think they already know it all. You don’t hear anyone complaining about the bad work environment or the stress that kids put on teachers.

Let’s take a look a celebrities, shall we? First of all, acting and sports are not an easy profession. What you see as glamour is anything but. You see a lavish, opulent and indulgent lifestyle. What they see is having to wear this piece of jewelry, but not the one they really like, because they are a spokesperson for the company. They have to wear certain clothes or drink certain drinks. Going out in public is always a hassle because no one will leave you alone. You see a big house in Beverly Hills that is worth millions of dollars; they see a house that is overpriced and therefore overtaxed. The only reason that houses in Beverly Hills cost so much is not that the houses or the land have that much value; no, the price tag comes from who your neighbors are and the standard of living you are required to live up to.

You may think that acting is just showing up on set and getting paid too much money to look pretty all day. That is certainly not the case. I’ve been involved in a few meager productions and, as far as real life goes, probably shouldn’t bring them up. My point is that I’ve been around long enough to know that acting is hard work. Yes, when in finally comes time to do your thing, it can be fun and you’re finally getting to show off for the camera. But it’s 16+ hours a day getting into and out of make up, having your hair styled, interviews, autographs, pictures, pictures, pictures, and more pictures.

One doesn’t just walk on set and have every line memorized and stand in the right position looking the right way at the right time on demand. No, acting, just like any other skill has to be practiced. The reason that acting looks so easy is that these people are professionals i.e. they are masters of their craft. If you are truly talented (read, experienced) at something, even though it may still be a lot of work to you, you make lit look like it is the easiest thing in the world to do because it is your passion. The same is true of sports stars.

You suggest capping the amount of money that a person can make, stating that ” i also am thinking that maybe once you hit a certain $ amount that you should have to hand over the rest….like you max out….” There are a number of reasons that we don’t do this. In particular, if you take away one’s incentive to produce, how does the good get produced? In a more plain and concise English, without a motivation, why would a person engage in an activity? If I can only make so much money developing a technology or producing a good or service, the most I will produce of that good or service is equal to the profit at your cap.

For example, let’s say that you want to cap HD TV companies (and let’s not forget that companies are owned by people) profit at $100 million. Let us say that it cost $1000 to produce a unit and that the sell each unit for $3000, giving the company a $2000 per item profit. This means that they will only produce 50,000 HD TVs. Now then, HD is not yet ready to become mainstream, but will be in a few years. Regardless, there is much more than 50,000 Americans, much less the number who want to own HD TVs. According to your plan, only the first 50,000 in line get TVs. Would you like to take a guess at which end of the spectrum will buy these units? You got it! There will be more people of so-called wealth buy these TVs then there will be poorer people. We have seen that by your own admission, you wish for poorer peoples such as yourself to suffer because it’s not fair that rich people can afford things that poorer people can’t. By capping income, only those currently with money will be able to afford luxuries whereas the poor will do without. Perhaps you would like to adjust your thinking on this issue?

You claim that we don’t need nuclear weapons to prohibit nations that you can’t name like North Korea. Though you claim “i am 25 and wise beyond my years”, you have missed a very important lesson that has occurred within your lifetime. I am sorry that you were too young to understand what the arms race was all about and that you have not taken the time to become a student of history.

You see, the whole idea behind the arms race was the application of a little economic gaming theory that kept the world from choosing general nuclear war. The idea is as follows: whoever has the most nuclear weapons not only has first strike capability, but also has a better survival rate. Again, I will explain this for you.

Let us suppose that there are two countries, A & B. Let us suppose that A has much more nuclear missiles (technically, they don’t have to be nuclear, but that is for another discussion). If A strikes first, it will take out at least some of B’s missiles. Since B will have fewer missiles after the attack, and had less missiles before the attack, A has the advantage in what will inevitable be a nuclear exchange.

Again, let us assume that A has more missiles. This time, B strikes first. Though B can take out some of A’s missiles, A will have more then, if not the same amount of missiles as B at the end of the initial attack and will be left with a fuller arsenal of retaliatory options. Ergo, A has the advantage.

Having just explained the above scenario, I will now proceed to explain how this affected you during your lifetime. There were two nations, the United States and the Soviet Union. Each nation wanted to be the biggest superpower in the world. In order to be the biggest superpower, you have to be able to either take out the next biggest superpower or be able to get them to come to a negotiated peace. (Note that negotiated peace treaties have been shown on every occasion to be ineffective, even if said treaties did enjoy a short lifetime.)

Shortly after World War II (this was the war where Hitler and the Nazis murdered six million Jews in concentration camps), the Soviet Union or Russia, a communist nation, wanted to defeat the United States. The United States had just deployed two nuclear bombs over Japan, beating the Soviet Union to the creation and deployment of the bomb. However, the Russians did produce nuclear weapons and began to stockpile them, per the above scenario. Likewise, so did the United States.

Now, there came a time when a man, an actor no less named Ronald Regan became President of the United States. Under his administration, he increased the defense budget and began to stockpile nuclear weapons at an asymptotic rate. In turn, the Soviet Union did its best to match the United State’s stockpile. But the United States continued to stockpile weapons. They did so until the economy of the Soviet Union (which was a socialistic economy that would not let the market rule itself) could no longer afford to stockpile weapons.

At the end of the arms race, the Berlin Wall (a wall that kept people enslaved in East Germany from defecting to West Germany where they could be paid for their labors and live in peace and the pursuit of happiness) was torn down. This marked the defeat of the Soviet Union. In the years that followed, the Soviet Union once again adopted the name of Russia and eventually opened it’s doors to Capitalism and Christianity.

The moral of the story was that it took the stockpiling of nuclear weapons (which was not the only factor, mind, but a very important one) to end the arms race.

You claim, “we shouldn’t even need nuclear crap to keep people of another race under control.” Had you been paying attention to the news, this isn’t about the United States being antagonistic, but rather North Korea being antagonistic. The situation basically boils down to a spoiled kid (Kim Jong Il) who wants to be recognized as someone of importance when in the vast configuration of things, he is as irrelevant as is Bin Laden. (Please see this post where I explain how and why Bin Laden is irrelevant). The issue here isn’t racism. The issue is national recognition. Both you and Kim Jong Il would do well to study and learn from the Soviet’s debacle.

“the damn president! ugh i can’t wait for his term to be over!!!!!” I wonder, is that an original thought? Pray tell, why do you hate “the damn president”?

For one who claims to be “25 and wise beyond my years”, you lack knowledge and the ability to think for yourself. Furthermore, you show a lack of historical context and an understanding of basic economic principles. I will give you an “A” for effort, but that is all. You need to spend some time researching and cultivating sound, intelligent arguments to support your opinions. And for what it’s worth, it wouldn’t hurt if you took a grammar class and learned how to write the English language. I trow it will propel you eons in your law career.

My friends, do bear with and indulge me for a little while. If the title of my last post meant nothing to you, then neither will the title to this one. Here in Smallville, there is not much to write about. Hopefully there will be something to talk about soon.

I suppose I have a few movies to properly review and should do so soon. We’ll see. I love to review as much as you love to read them, but be aware that I cannot get energy and cognitive thought to line up here of late. Perhaps I should look into an occupational change, but unless I can be granted a dream by the Make a Wish Foundation, I seriously doubt that will happen any time soon.

I know that to most all of you, especially you Eric, I have just written in hieroglyphics. Your patient indulgence is all I ask before I reveal all in my good time, given that there is perhaps several more chapters left to write in the continuing saga.

Good night and good luck.

Greetings friends, conversationalists and music lovers all across the fruited plains. I am your Xanga blogging host for life, not retiring until everyone agrees with me, not retiring because everything I say is right.

There is so much I want to say and so little desire to sit here and be meticulous and write it. I just wished that I could think it and be done with it. As always, greetings to those of you just joining the readership.

Well, well, well. I opened my web browser this morning and low and behold, what is the news? drax0r is getting married. (story). Congrats to ya, old boy! And may I say on behalf of everyone here that we hope you and Jess have a long, productive, happy marriage? Boy, it’s still kinda weird thinking about you being married.

In other news, Frank sent me this link about a month or so ago and I have wanted to comment on it ever since. No, I have not done any poking around and investigating into the nature of the charge. What I do know is that just like so many times anon is that Rush is right. Let me ‘splain this to you.

Let us assume for the moment that Ben Laydean (that’s bin Laden for those of you in the great state of West Robert C. Byrd) was killed in 2003. You are now the Secretary of Defense. What do you do? Do you go out and tell the world that Ben Laydean is dead? If you do, the terrorists release another tape “proving” that Ben Laydean is alive, if only to the drive by media. If you don’t proclaim him as dead, you get drivel from the Left claiming that you have failed accomplish your mission. The answer to this conundrum? Don’t mention him.

This is exactly what the Bush Administration has done and rightfully so. Since shortly after our departure from Afghanistan in 2003, we’ve yet to hear a peep out of Ben Laydean. If he is still alive, he sure as hell ain’t drumming up overwhelming support, so what’s the harm in just keeping him out of the news?

Yet we have all this hand-wringing from those on the Left that Bush has failed to accomplish the mission and that we should have already left Iraq. These are the people who are delusioned into thinking that wars really don’t exist, that Bush is Satan incarnate, the American military is the Great White Evil and that Capitalism’s objective is to screw everybody over. Q & A Time: Why should we listen to this group of people and play their mind games ultimately succumbing to them? THERE IS NO REASON IN HELL WHY WE SHOULD SUCCUMB TO THEM.

Granted, I know that there has been news that supposedly bin Laden ultimately died of Typhoid fever. (story). Well yip yip yip yip yip yahooooo! The point is Osama is and has been irrelevant for quite sometime. He was a useful idiot that got us into the Middle East to finally clean up the mess that was started in Gulf War.

School shootings
Howton’s blogging arch-nemesis Dan has been reporting to us over the past couple of days about the various school shootings. While that’s all fine and dandy (pardon the pun), he (Dan) has offered no viable solution to the situation unlike these fine gentlemen were able to here. Be that as it may, I want to help you understand the situation a bit better give you a viable solution. In order to do this, we need to tackle a much larger problem.

Let’s take this great nation as our example. Some of you may remember an event called 9/11. For those of you who don’t know what 9/11 is, you may now leave this blog. The number one question after the attack was, “How do we keep the country safe?” Some people had ideas. Others wrung their hands. Still others looked to their great savior, the government for an answer. The generally accepted idea at the time was to hire and put in place many security officers across this great nation. That sounds fine on paper I’m sure. However, let’s play a little strategy game, shall we?

Let’s say you are the Supreme Commander (I’m using erroneous titles for dramatic purposes here) and are charged with the task of safeguarding this entire nation. Let us also assume that you and your family’s lives hang in the balance on this one, i.e. if there is another attack and there is damnage of any kind done because of said attack, you and your family die. Now then, tell me, What course of action would you take in securing this great nation?

It is not possible to have a security officer on duty 24/7 at each stream, building, landmark and otherwise valuable piece of property across this great nation. Furthermore, even if said scenario were possible, there is no way that they could be prepared for everything. You could be attacked from the sky. You could be attacked from a missile launched from somewhere halfway across the world. How do you defend and secure everything in the nation?

I do not ask this question glibly. But I must stoop to such a juvenile and elementary level because so many people are void of thought processing capabilities. To me, there is only one viable solution: hunt down and kill the terrorist instead of waiting around for the terrorist to come kill you. What is so difficult for the masses to understand about all of this is beyond me. This is not a pre-emptive strike. No, not only is this self-defense, it is also the proper and only sane course of action. By eliminating the troublemakers, the threat of trouble is also eliminated.

Tell me, how much brain power did that take?

So we have a situation, namely school shootings. How do we deal with it? We take the shooters out. Would it be possible to have enough security at every school to thwart every attempt of gunpoint hostage and mass murder? No. Some have argued arming teachers. That is an amusing thought. I would at this point remind you that it is the Second Amendment that enforces the first and armed teachers would be able to demonstrate this point much more effectively if armed, but the problem remains that the teachers are therefore potential gunmen themselves. What would make for a more immediate effect, I think would be the strict enforcement of the death penalty and making the attempting of and actual gunpoint situation a capital offense with an execution schedule of immediate. That’s right. Don’t even bother holding them in jail for twenty years. If you so much as threaten to hold up a classroom or bring a gun to school, you get the fast lane to meeting O’le Sparky. I suppose after no more then three attempts, if someone was going to hold a school up, they would shoot themselves during the attack. Now then, if teachers were also armed so that the fucker was bound to die anyway, even if it was only some of the teachers, a would be assassin would be playing roulette. The only variable in the game would be how and when he died.

Dan, Theologian Man
So now we come to the part of this blog entry where we talk about Dan. I just don’t get Dan. All he ever does is write a few paragraphs and then asks a question. He never advocates an opinion. He never comes out and takes a position. Rather, he just farts in the wind and too many Xangas tell him that they heard said flatulent. What I want to know is what drives Dan to write as he does on his site. I mean, what is it that makes him post ten times a day about random events and never respond publicly to comments or take a side on the issue. Unless he is a pollster and this is a quick and effective way for him to get data for his poll so he can write it and get out of the office, where is the great kick or jolly in TheTheologiansCafe? Can someone answer this for me?

Take his Tortilla Chips post as an example:

Imagine for a moment that you are eating at a restaurant with some friends. Imagine that this is one of those restaurants that provides tortilla chips and dip with the meal. Now imagine that you and your friends must share the same basket of tortilla chips.

Imagine that you love your friends but you question whether their hands are clean.

Do you eat out of the same tortilla chip basket as your friends?

I propose the following post in response:

Imagine for a moment that you are reading your friends’ blogs. Imagine that some of these blogs serve no purpose at all and do nothing to serve the masses other then allow for a yes or no vote on an issue that will not lead to a resolution.

Do you continue to support and read your buddy’s blog by commenting and telling him you like his blog even though it drives you nuts?

I suppose the only good that Dan’s site serves is it is a place for the truly insane to have their thoughts heard. For example:

I’ve been one of the biggest advocates of getting the current administration out of office. Now I’m to the point that I’m not sure how much it matters. I’d rather leave this completely capitialistic society, and work my ass off for something else. It’s sad that capitialism requires that some fail, in order for the system to work.