Sunday Funnies

A man staggers into an emergency room with two black eyes and a five iron wrapped tightly around his throat. Naturally, the doctor asks him what happened.

“Well, I was having a quiet round of golf with my wife when she sliced her ball into a pasture of cows. We went to look for it and while I was rooting around I noticed one of the cows had something white at its rear end. I walked over and lifted up the tail and sure enough, there was my wife’s golf ball… stuck right in the middle of the cow’s butt. “That’s when I made my mistake.”

“What did you do?” asks the doctor.

“Well, I lifted the tail and yelled to my wife, ‘Hey, this looks like yours!’”

Ethical Freeloading

I seem to recall the days when food stamps and similar government programs (anyone remember surplus cheese, peanut butter, and crackers?) were intended as a safety net to ensure that no one starved. Somehow they have morphed into give-aways where recipients can use our tax dollars to purchase all sorts of items that have little or no relation to basic nutrition. In fact, there is no resemblance between America's grossly obese freeloaders waddling down the aisles of stores filled with all manner of edibles, and those emaciated stick-figures from third-world hellholes that are literally starving to death.

We have now reached the point where some people object to even the mildest of restrictions being placed on government give-away programs.

Is it Ethical to Ban Food Stamp Users From Buying Soda?

In another move aimed at improving New Yorkers' health by regulation, mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced  a proposal to bar food stamp users from buying sodas with city funds. The proposed two-year ban, which is currently under consideration by the Department of Agriculture, is intended to combat obesity and diabetes. The mayor, who already banned trans-fats from restaurants and lobbied against excessive salt in foods, says the "initiative will give New York families more money to spend on foods and drinks that provide real nourishment." Though 57 percent of the city's adults are overweight or obese, the plan has met with skepticism from critics who it see as a paternalistic gesture.

I share the paternalistic concern to some extent, in that I don't think the government has any right to restrict what vendors sell or consumers purchase, as long as there is full disclosure of the contents. But it's one thing to be concerned about government interference with a private transaction between two consenting entities. It's another thing altogether to place reasonable restrictions on people receiving governmental largess.

Is This Really the Best Way? Time's Meredith Melnick details the opposition to the ban: "Not everyone agrees that restriction is the best solution. Advocates for the urban poor suggest that such a move would patronize and alienate an already stigmatized population. In 2004, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) rejected a similar Minnesota proposal to bar people from buying candy and soda with food stamps, because it perpetuated the stereotype that food stamp-users make bad food choices."

GMAFB.

We can't prevent food stamps from being used to buy candy and soda because it might hurt someone's feelings? What a crock of shit. And the fact that those porkers do in fact use food stamps for that purpose is not 'perpetuating a stereotype,' but rather confirming the notion that they do make bad food choices.

If people in a public program continually and demonstrably make poor choices, then it's time to limit those choices.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but for God's sake whatever happened to common sense?

Why Europe (And America) Still Doesn't Get Islam

I'm in the middle of a book by Ralph Peters: The War After Armageddon . It's an interesting fictional look at how a future all-out war between Christians and Muslims might unfold. The characters are well-developed, the action sequences are realistic, and the underlying premise is thought-provoking. If you like this type of novel I highly recommend it.

But that's beside the point. What caught my eye in the novel was this statement:

"After fourteen centuries of warfare between (Christianity) and Islam ... haven't we had sufficient proof that we can't co-exist?"

I happened to read that passage shortly after I read a column by Daniel Greenfield (from a suggestion by BMEWS).

Like an old car starting up on a cold winter's day, European governments have been slowly waking up to the realization that all those jolly Islamic people might be a problem after all. Unfortunately they don't understand the dimensions of the problem. To them the riots, the bombings and the murders are only part of a culture clash, with challenges no different than any other minority group. That is why they prefer to focus on schools and burqas, while ignoring the violence. The thinking is that this is still a cultural problem that can be corrected with 3 drops of educational indoctrination, and 6 drops of enforced integration for the natives whose discriminatory attitudes are just making things worse. The problem is that their model is wrong.

The Islamic problem is not merely a clash of cultures, but also a clash of civilizations. Had it been merely a clash of cultures, Europe would only be in the same boat as America. Troubled, but not immediately fatal. Instead Europe is facing a clash of civilizations. The cultural and religious dimensions of the conflict underlie a larger perception on the Muslim side, that they are fighting to expand the borders of the Muslim East, rather than trying to be accepted in the Christian West.

Here comes the money shot.

The problem is that Muslims believe that their way of life is morally superior, and that any system or institution that does not follow those laws, is invalid. Furthermore they believe that they have a duty to impose their laws on others in the name of their religion or honor.

That's the problem in a nutshell. I have no problem tolerating other people with different opinions or beliefs, as long as they don't interfere with me or mine.

Want to pray five times a day? No problem, as long as your wailing screechy call to worship doesn't drown out my Willie Nelson.

Want to fast during Ramadan? No problem, as long as you don't close What-A-Burger.

Don't want to drink alcohol or caffeine? No problem, as long as you don't keep me from my morning eye-opener or my evening nightcap.

Don't want to eat pork? No problem, but don't get between me and my bacon.

Unfortunately, Islamists don't see it that way. And therein lies the problem.

Most minorities will adapt to a host country, one way or another. However a minority that expects to be a majority, that sees itself as the vanguard of a moral, religious and national force reclaiming territory in the hands of immoral infidels for Allah-- is not going to adapt. Instead it will expect the natives to adapt to it. 

That brings us back to those fourteen centuries of conflict between them and us. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. 

Please go read Greenfield's column. He explains this in much more depth. And then go read Peter's book. At first you'll think "No way this could happen," but once you start to really think about it you'll begin to feel just a touch unsettled...

Dedicated To CharlieDelta

CD, this one's for you...

For those of you that don't get it, go here and read the comments.

Crime and Punishment

I've posted before about the absurdity of blindly following rules without applying a little judgment and common sense. It seems no one is listening.

Seven-year-old Samuel Burgos was expelled from school for one year, with the possibility that it might stretch to two years, for bringing a clear plastic, spring-action toy gun to school.

He never threatened anyone with it. He never even took it out of his book bag ("Samuel said that he was playing army with his friends one weekend, and he decided to hide the toy gun from his brother, so he placed it in his school bag. He went to school on Monday and said that he forgot he had the toy with him").

Samuel, now 8, has been out of school for almost a year. His parents have home-schooled him since he was expelled...

"He has been deprived of an education. My son made a mistake, and they kept him out a year," said Samuel's mother, Karen Burgos.

And it may be longer than that before Samuel is permitted to rejoin his classmates. A hearing will be held this month as his family fights his expulsion. Because the school board's order has not yet been finalized, his punishment could be extended into next year.

"I miss my friends," Samuel said.

Samuel spends his days playing baseball and practicing his studies with his parents. He should be in third grade now, but he's already missed most of second grade and may find himself two years behind by the time this matter is resolved.

"This is a 7-year-old child," said Kathy Christie of the Education Commission of the States. "This is a case where it was not brandished. It's a plastic gun. ... It just seems a long time to penalize a young man like that, a long time to take him out of that educational experience."

During their son's expulsion, Samuel's parents were offered the chance to send their son to an alternative school. The school, for "at risk" kids, has about 200 students in kindergarten through 12th grade.

"We said this is not an option, this is unacceptable," Samuel's father said. "I cannot, as a concerned parent, send my child, to a correctional school...

It should be noted that this took place in Broward County, Fla., which is a democrap stronghold.

It's also the same county where voters couldn't figure out the infamous butterfly ballot.




Pretty friggin' complicated, isn't it?

I guess the powers-that-be in Broward County find it easier to blindly follow rules and regulations ("Ve vere chust following orders, mein herr") then to take into consideration the impact on seven-year-old kids.

If Samuel didn't have any issues before this, it's much more likely he'll have a few afterward.

To repeat: there is nothing so uncommon as common sense.

A Graveyard Of Good Ideas

The U.S. Congress is where good ideas go to die. A large part of the problem is the arcane rules under which it operates - especially the Senate.

Those who hold the Senate in low esteem can get a sympathetic ear from some of the chamber's newest members. These lawmakers also are fed up with the Senate's ways and would like to change them.

"A graveyard of good ideas" is how freshman Democratic Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico sees his new workplace. "Out of whack with the way the rest of the world is," says another Democratic freshman, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado. "Just defies common sense" is the impression of Sen. Claire McCaskill, a first-term Democrat from Missouri, in describing the filibuster-plagued institution.

Actually, I'm okay with the filibuster rules. Anything that serves as an impediment to passing more hare-brained legislation is a good thing.

What I do object to, however, are the bizarre rules that enable those bozos to run the place like their own little fiefdom. Three examples: holds, earmarks, and amending bills.

Holds are a parliamentary procedure that allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. This can be done in secret, thus hiding the identity of the senator who placed the hold. Cowards who lack the courage of their convictions...

Earmarks are a legislative provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Congresscritters use earmarks to facilitate gorging themselves at the public trough by funneling pork-laden funds and projects back to their home districts in order to get themselves reelected.

As for amending a bill, it should be a simple process. If the amendment is related to the bill, allow debate and a vote. If it's not - for example, Harry Reid's egregiously political amendment tying the Dream Act (immigration reform)  to the recent defense appropriations bill - then it shouldn't be allowed. In short, no omnibus bills.

One of the basic functions of Congress is to produce annual funding bills that keep the government operating.  These bills, known as appropriations bills, fund the respective sectors of the federal government – for example, one bill funds the Justice Department, another funds the Interior Department, and so on.

But by the end of last year, the Democrat-led Congress failed to approve nine of the total 12 appropriations bills.  Subsequently, the government has operated under a temporary measure, known as a “continuing resolution,” until Congress approved the remaining funding bills.

Instead of taking up these appropriations bills individually, the Democrat majority bundled the remaining ones into a massive, pork-laden $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill.  Like the previous year, this bill was unveiled just as the temporary continuing resolution was about to expire.  In other words, it was presented on a “take it or leave it” basis: approve this bill, or risk the government shutting down.

This political threat pressured members to approve a bloated spending bill quickly, leading to wasteful spending.  An omnibus bill corrupts the appropriations process, which was designed to ensure that individual spending bills could be carefully scrutinized and amended.  Bad bills can be opposed, good bills supported.  With an omnibus package, good provisions are coupled together with bad ones, and legislators are forced into an “all or nothing” position.

Kicking out the incumbents - ALL the incumbents - is a good start. But that should be coupled with meaningful reform of the rules under which congress swindles fleeces operates. Otherwise we end up with the same old mess.

One Down, One To Go

Following up on a previous post:

A paroled burglar was convicted Tuesday of murdering a woman and her two daughters during a night of terror inside the family's home in a well-to-do Connecticut town.

Steven Hayes, 47, was convicted of capital felony, murder, sexual assault and other counts by a jury that heard eight days of gruesome testimony. The verdict triggers the trial's second phase, beginning Oct. 18, in which the same jurors will decide if Hayes should be executed or face life in prison.

Jurors, who saw photos of the victims, charred beds, rope, ripped clothing and ransacked rooms, wept at times during the eight days of testimony.

A medical examiner described a painful and panic-stricken smoke inhalation death likely suffered by Michaela. Seventeen-year-old Hayley's injuries suggested she was burned as she tried to flee.

Hayes' co-defendant, another ex-con named Joshua Komisarjevsky, faces trial next year and also could be sentenced to death.

If there was ever a case where the death penalty is justified, this is it. "Hayes, still reeking of gasoline, gave an emotionless confession to police..."

He should be 'reeking of gasoline' the day they strap him into the electric chair. With luck there'll be one little spark that will put him through the same torment he inflicted on his innocent, helpless victims.

Jesus would forgive him, but Jesus is perfect.

I ain't.

Rot in Hell.

Smoke This

On Sep. 29 the Cincinnati reds clinched their first playoff berth in fifteen years. They celebrated by drinking champagne and smoking cigars.

In their own locker room.

Where no members of the public were present.

Of course, the celebration was televised. And that led to this.

The Cincinnati Health Department will investigate the Cincinnati Reds for violations of the state smoking ban after people complained players smoked cigars indoors while celebrating their National League Central Division title Tuesday night.

Five people called a statewide smoking ban complaint hotline ... Those complaints were sent to the city health department today for investigation. (Reds owner Bob ) Castellini will get a letter soon notifying him of the alleged violation.

Oh my aching butt.

These guys were smoking victory cigars to celebrate a championship - a ritual that occurs, at least in Cincinnati, once every 15 years. They were in an isolated location, where no one from the public was present, or even allowed. And some whiny little wimps finked on them to the feds city health department.

The get-a-life losers didn't even have the balls to sign their names. The protests were all filed anonymously.

How does a bunch of happy ballplayers lighting up stogies in their own locker room affect someone watching it from miles away on their television? Whatever happened to Mind Your Own Business?

Just another example of the government overreaching into areas where they don't belong.

If we're not harming anyone just leave us the hell alone.

Why is that such a difficult concept for liberals and the government to understand?

Almost Right

I have mixed feelings about Thomas Friedman. One the one hand, I think he's an excellent observer of geopolitical trends. His early works, especially the books From Beirut to Jerusalem, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, and The World is Flat did a wonderful job of examining and explaining social and economic factors that have shaped today's world. Where he fails, IMO, is in interpreting those trends. Case in point:

In a recent column he is quite perceptive in identifying the factors driving the public's unhappiness with the current state of the Union. He also pinpoints the underlying problem that manifests itself in that unhappiness.

The issues that upset the (Tea Party) movement — debt and bloated government — are actually symptoms of our real problem, not causes. They are symptoms of a country in a state of incremental decline and losing its competitive edge, because our politics has become just another form of sports entertainment, our Congress a forum for legalized bribery and our main lawmaking institutions divided by toxic partisanship to the point of paralysis.

However, Friedman then goes off-track by miscasting and denigrating the Tea Party movement.

There are actually two Tea Party movements in America today: one you’ve read about that is not that important and one you’ve not read about that could become really important if the right politician understood how to tap into it.

The Tea Party that has gotten all the attention, the amorphous, self-generated protest against the growth in government and the deficit, is what I’d actually call the “Tea Kettle movement” — because all it’s doing is letting off steam.

The Tea Kettle movement can’t have a positive impact on the country because it has both misdiagnosed America’s main problem and hasn’t even offered a credible solution for the problem it has identified. How can you take a movement seriously that says it wants to cut government spending by billions of dollars but won’t identify the specific defense programs, Social Security, Medicare or other services it’s ready to cut — let alone explain how this will make us more competitive and grow the economy?

IMO he oversimplifies and underestimates the Tea Party movement, viewing it through liberal-colored glasses. However, he goes on to partially redeem himself by prescribing a solution for what ails this country.

The important Tea Party movement ... understands this at a gut level and is looking for a leader with three characteristics. First, a patriot: a leader who is more interested in fighting for his country than his party. Second, a leader who persuades Americans that he or she actually has a plan not just to cut taxes or pump stimulus, but to do something much larger — to make America successful, thriving and respected again. And third, someone with the ability to lead in the face of uncertainty and not simply whine about how tough things are — a leader who believes his job is not to read the polls but to change the polls.

Democratic Pollster Stan Greenberg told me that when he does focus groups today this is what he hears: “People think the country is in trouble and that countries like China have a strategy for success and we don’t. They will follow someone who convinces them that they have a plan to make America great again. That is what they want to hear. It cuts across Republicans and Democrats.”

To me, that is a plan that starts by asking: what is America’s core competency and strategic advantage, and how do we nurture it? Answer: It is our ability to attract, develop and unleash creative talent. That means men and women who invent, build and sell more goods and services that make people’s lives more productive, healthy, comfortable, secure and entertained than any other country.

Leadership today is about how the U.S. government attracts and educates more of that talent and then enacts the laws, regulations and budgets that empower that talent to take its products and services to scale, sell them around the world — and create good jobs here in the process. Without that, we can’t afford the health care or defense we need.

Or that eliminates the laws, regulations and budgets that prevent the country from moving forward.

This is the plan the real Tea Party wants from its president. To implement it would require us to actually raise some taxes — on, say, gasoline — and cut others — like payroll taxes and corporate taxes. It would require us to overhaul our immigration laws so we can better control our borders, let in more knowledge workers and retain those skilled foreigners going to college here. And it would require us to reduce some services — like Social Security — while expanding others, like education and research for a 21st-century economy.

In other words, it will require a very smart, subtle and focused plan to use our now diminishing resources in the most efficient way possible to get back to our core competency. That is the only long-term solution to our problem — to grow our way out of debt with American workers who are more empowered and educated to compete.

Any Tea Party that says the simple answer is just shrinking government and slashing taxes might be able to tip the midterm elections in its direction. But it can’t tip America in the right direction. There is a Tea Party for that, but it’s still waiting for a leader.

Interestingly, this mirrors in part an earlier post by Col. Nick Rowe.

What we (the Tea Party) need in 2012, though, is someone who is legendary - a strong business or military leader with youth, charisma, and vitality.

They both make a lot of sense to me. The open question is who fits that job description. So far I haven't seen anyone, with the possible exception of N.J. governor Chris Christie, who comes close.

Any suggestions?

Rot In Hell

If ever anyone deserved the death penalty, it's these two.

Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, we should ensure all their rights are protected. Yada yada yada.

If the allegations are true, they should meet their fate in a timely manner that is consistent with the suffering their victims experienced. Not vengeance, just justice.

(Note: the following account is a composite I created based on news stories from here and here.)

Two Connecticut men charged with killing a woman and her two daughters in a 2007 house invasion inflicted unimaginable terror on a model family that had enjoyed their final pleasant summer day together, prosecutors told a jury during closing arguments Friday.

The killings took place in the New Haven suburb of Cheshire early July 23, 2007. The home of William Petit, his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and two daughters was invaded in the middle of the night by Steven Hayes and co-defendant Joshua Komisarjevsky, prosecutors say.

(State Attorney Micheal) Dearington said it all began on a classic summer day in which the Petit family went to church. Dr. Petit went off to play golf with his father, and his wife and daughters had gone to the supermarket, which is where authorities say the two defendants saw the family as a potential robbery target and followed them home.

After dinner, the girls chatted and laughed together and watched "Army Wives." Hayley had been accepted into Dartmouth and both girls were active raising money to fight multiple sclerosis which their mother, a nurse, suffered, Dearington noted.

Connecticut State Police Detective Anthony Buglione, who interviewed Hayes after the crime, has testified the duo broke into the home and beat Petit with a baseball bat and tied him up in the basement.

According to the testimony, the two men then went upstairs and found Hawke-Petit and 11-year-old Michaela Petit asleep in the master bedroom. After tying Hawke-Petit to her bed, they led the girl to her room, tied her to her bed and put a pillowcase over her head, Hayes told Buglione.

They then found 17-year-old Hayley Petit in her room and did the same, he said.

After finding a bank account that contained $20,000 to $30,000, they decided to have the mother go to the bank in the morning and withdraw money from her account, Buglione testified.

Hayes is accused of taking Hawke-Petit to the bank while Komisarjevsky allegedly stayed behind. When Hayes and Hawke-Petit returned with the money, the two men allegedly set the home on fire and fled.

Prosecutor Gary Nicholson said it was impossible to recreate the fear the two girls, 11-year-old Michaela and 17-year-old Hayley Petit, felt when the men tied them to their beds and poured gasoline on or around them before setting their Cheshire house on fire.

"Hayley and Michaela Petit knew that the end was near," Nicholson said. "They knew they were about to die."

Inside the home, authorities said, Hawke-Petit, 48, was found raped and strangled. Her two daughters, one of whom had been sexually assaulted, had died of smoke inhalation. Petit, the sole survivor, escaped to a neighbor's home.

Words fail me. I can't imagine what went through the minds of Jennifer, Hayley, and Michaela as they laid there tied up with pillow cases over their heads. Add in rape, and being doused in gasoline, and their terror becomes unimaginable.

Rather than go into a long rant, I'll keep it simple. If Hayes and Komisarjevsky are truly guilty of what they're charged with, then I hope they rot in Hell for all eternity. After, of course, spending several years in prison getting raped by assorted gang and biker types, and then burned to death.

More On The Falcon Lake Shooting

Follow-up to an earlier post about an American boater shot and killed by suspected Mexican drug cartel members...

I don't know what's going on with the San Antonio Express-News and their on-line reporting of the man shot by Mexican thugs while jet-skiing on a Texas-Mexico lake, but I'm beginning to wonder. It's either incompetence (quite likely, based on the website's general lack of reliable search engine, inconsistent and unreliable archives, and general all-round clunkiness) or pandering to Mexican interests. I suspect a combination of the two.

In any event, it's disappointing to say the least when I get a more complete account of the incident from a British outlet - the Daily Mail Online - than I do from the nearest 'major' newspaper. Two examples:

In the 10/2/10 print version of the Express-News there is a paragraph in the story that quotes a Mexican government representative as denying any knowledge of the incident: "We inform you that we do not have any information related to the incident. We don't have any comments to add. Have a nice day" (p. 11A).

In the 10/3/10 print edition the story states "American authorities are having to rely on Mexican police, who said they were unable to search as their boat's engine was missing" (p. 3B).

Neither of these statements appear in the stories on the paper's website.

Both of them expose the Mexican authorities as bungling clowns

• No information. "Have a nice day"??? When investigating a murder???
•  'Sorry, señor, but our boat, it has no motor. Maybe mañana'.

Of course, comparing the Mexican authorities to bungling clowns is unfair to the clowns. At least they're trying.

For the most part, I think the San Antonio paper is okay - not great, but not bad. But they do tend to tiptoe around anything that might embarrass or offend Mexico and Mexicans. That's unfair to responsible journalists everywhere (that is, if there are any responsible ones left), unfair to the paper's readers, and ultimately unfair to Mexico and Mexicans themselves. Hiding or sugarcoating the truth doesn't help anyone.

In a related vein, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and osama-oops-I mean-obama, the two government officials most directly responsible for protecting the American homeland and the safety of American citizens, stated ... well, actually they haven't said anything about this. Their silence tells us everything we need to know about them. I'd include them in the 'bungling clowns' category, but again, I don't want to insult the clowns...

UPDATE:

More Smuggling Tunnels Discovered

On Thursday (Sept. 30), the Border Patrol was filling an underground tunnel that had been discovered right under the immigration  checkpoint in Nogales. But even before the concrete was poured to make that tunnel inoperative, another subterranean passageway was discovered a block away.

Over the last four years, at least 51 unauthorized tunnels, or more than one a month, have been found in the two border cities. Some are short, narrow passageways that require those navigating them to slither. Others are long, sophisticated underground thoroughfares strung with electric cables and ventilation hoses.

One high-end tunnel found in 2005 farther west in Calexico, Calif., originated in the master bedroom of a Mexican home and extended to a garage on the American side. It had a phone line and air conditioning, and the authorities estimated that dozens of truckloads of dirt had to be removed to build it.

Grenade attack in Mexico injures 14, including 8 minors.

According to witnesses, gunmen in two vehicles stopped near the building, and one person stepped out, took some steps, and threw the grenade in an area where families were walking by. 

It was the fourth grenade attack in Monterrey this weekend.

Friday, three grenade explosions were reported in Monterrey: one in front of the justice center, one at a prison and another near the U.S. consulate there.

Mexico drug violence claims 34 lives in two days.

Yet another wave of killing blamed on drug rings in Mexico has claimed 34 lives in two days, authorities have said.

The killings took place between Friday and Saturday overwhelmingly in Mexico's north, close to the lucrative US drug market.

Okay, I'll stop now. You're probably as tired of reading about this as I am of posting about it. It's just so tragic...

Sunday Funnies

It was a late Saturday night...

The wife and I were sitting around the breakfast table one lazy Sunday morning.

I said to her, “If I were to die suddenly, I want you to immediately sell all my stuff.”

“Now why would you want me to do something like that?” she asked.

“I figure that you would eventually remarry and I don’t want some asshole using my stuff.”

She looked at me and said: “What makes you think I’d marry another asshole?”

Begone You Rogues

When I left the corporate world and went back to school to become a professor, I toyed with the idea of getting my Ph.D. in history rather than business. Then I found out what the salary differential was between the two disciplines and quickly beat feet back to the business school. But I retained my fondness for history.

One of the benefits of living in the San Antonio area is that T. R. Fehrenbach has a weekly column in the local rag. T. R. is an acclaimed historian and author. In addition to a number of works on Texas history, he also penned Greatness to Spare: The Heroic Sacrifices of the Men Who Signed the Declaration of Independence, the mostly unknown story of what happened to the Declaration's signers.

When they said "We pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" they weren't kidding. Many were pursued and captured by the British. Others either had their land seized and property destroyed by the English, or donated it all to the Continental Army. Several had family members imprisoned or killed. We certainly don't see that type of dedication among today's politicians.

Anyway, in last Sunday's paper Fehrenbach drew a parallel between Oliver Cromwell's dissolution of the English "Long Parliament" (it was elected in 1640 and kept itself in place until 1653) and the current U.S. congress.

Sit back and enjoy.

On 20 April 1653 Oliver Cromwell dissolved the English “Long Parliament” (elected in 1640) with a short, oft-quoted speech:

“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

“Is there a single virtue now remaining among you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man among you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

“Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd ... In the name of God, go!”

The future Lord Protector was backed up by a platoon of musketeers; the members went.

Later revolutionary settlements provided for fixed parliamentary terms and regular elections, a practice carried over to our Congress in the Constitution. Which leads me to the 1st Congress of the United States, arguably our best.

This body faced a massive task, to flesh out the bare bones of the Constitution with a working government. Like George Washington, it had to go where no man had gone before. On the whole it did a world-class job, most of which still stands. Better yet, 40 percent of the 1st Congress quit. It served one term and went home.

Perks were few then; Washington, D.C., was not yet built; and the idea of paying elected officials pensions would have made voters take down the rifle from over the fireplace.

The professional politician was a 19th-century invention. As the Founders designed, creating large districts that made it difficult for men lacking names or deep pockets, many members were country gentlemen. Their fortunes, friends, and interests were back in the states, the real nation.

As to whether current congresses resemble Cromwell's Long Parliament depends on the philosophy of the beholder; however, my mind is drawn to a popular contemporary broadside depicting Cromwell's rout of the House, in which he declares:

“Begone, you rogues! Ye have sat long enough.”

True enough then, truer than ever now.

Iraq South

I work several days a week on the Texas-Mexico border. I have a concealed carry license, and I go armed whenever and wherever it's legal. I also have a boat, and usually take a marine (stainless steel) shotgun when I go boating. But I doubt if either would do me much good if I came up against two boatloads of gunmen armed with black rifles.

Gunmen presumed to be Mexican drug operatives opened fire on Thursday on a couple riding water skis on the binational Falcon Lake reservoir, possibly killing the husband and sending the woman fleeing frantically to the U.S. side, authorities said.

Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez said the couple had crossed to the Mexican side when they came under a spray of bullets by two boatloads of men. The man, 30, was shot in the head and his wife said she fears he is dead.

“They saw them approaching and started revving it up back to the U.S. side,” Gonzalez told the Associated Press. “The guys just started shooting at them from behind.”

The shooting follows reports in May that boaters in the famed bass fishing oasis were at risk of being shaken down by “pirates” lurking on the Mexican side.

The 60-mile-long Rio Grande reservoir is shared by the United States and Mexico, and, due to its location along sparsely populated Starr and Zapata counties, it is believed to be a favorite location for trafficking drugs.

Thursday’s reported shooting comes during what may be the most deadly and prolonged streak of Mexican drug cartel violence in memory.

In May, the Texas Department of Public Safety reported several incidents of pirates shaking down U.S. boaters. The robbers in at least one case posed as Mexican federal law enforcement, searching fishing boats for guns and drugs and then demanding cash at gunpoint.

The DPS issued a statement warning people not to cross to the Mexican side of the lake. Boaters were encouraged to file a float plan with family members.

“The robbers are believed to be members of a drug trafficking organization or members of an enforcer group linked to a drug trafficking organization who are ... using AK-47s or AR-15 rifles to threaten their victims,” it said. “They appear to be using local Mexican fishermen to operate the boats to get close to American fishermen.”

Has it really come to the point where we need the U.S. Navy to patrol the Rio Grande River and associated lakes? Unfortunately, it looks like that's the case. This is what those bozos in congress don't understand. It is literally a war zone along the border.

So far most - most, but by no means all - of the violence has been confined to the Mexican side. However, it's starting to flow northward. And the cartels' tactics are starting to become more and more like the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan: car bombs, beheadings, wanton disregard for women and children, targeting law enforcement and first responders, and more. In fact, there are indications that islamic terrorists are entering the U.S. by crossing the Mexican border.

This is one of my hot buttons. I grew up in South Texas, and in my younger days worked and played on both sides of the border. But even though I spend a few days every week in a border city, I haven't gone across in a number of years. It's just not worth it. And that's tragic. There is - or was - some excellent places to have drinks and dinner over there that are suffering economically.

So what to do? Unfortunately, there are no simple answers to a complex situation.

And this leaves the United States with a strategic problem. There is some talk in Mexico City and Washington of the Americans becoming involved in suppression of the smuggling within Mexico ... This is certainly something the Mexicans would be attracted to. But it is unclear that the Americans would be any more successful than the Mexicans. What is clear is that any U.S. intervention would turn Mexican drug traffickers into patriots fighting yet another Yankee incursion. Recall that Pershing never caught Pancho Villa, but he did help turn Villa into a national hero in Mexico.

The United States has a number of choices. It could accept the status quo. It could figure out how to reduce drug demand in the United States while keeping drugs illegal. It could legalize drugs, thereby driving their price down and ending the motivation for smuggling. And it could move into Mexico in a bid to impose its will against a government, banking system and police and military force that benefit from the drug trade.

The United States does not know how to reduce demand for drugs. The United States is not prepared to legalize drugs. This means the choice lies between the status quo and a complex and uncertain (to say the least) intervention. We suspect the United States will attempt some limited variety of the latter, while in effect following the current strategy and living with the problem.

If I were king, the first thing I would do is strengthen border security, if only in self-defense. Then I would take a long hard look at legalizing marijuana. The mob shootouts in Chicago pretty much ended after Prohibition was repealed. Of course, that led to a culture of corruption in that city that ultimately resulted in one barack hussein obaba being elected President. So maybe I should rethink that...

(Sorry for the lengthy post, but like I said, this is one of my hot buttons.)

One Picture Is Worth 1000 Words

Jack Cafferty Read My Mind

Cafferty puts into words what I've been thinking for quite a while. Many people, myself included, don't see anything to be gained by electing the same old tired retreads over and over. After all, they're the ones who got us into this mess. Why should we expect them to get us out of it?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's no wonder the Tea Party has the traction it does.

House Democrats voted Wednesday to adjourn so they can go home and campaign for the midterm elections. There is no budget, there is no decision on what to do about the Bush tax cuts that expire January 1. There is no willingness to confront any of the pressing issues they are paid to deal with.

You see, our lawmakers are cowards. They don't want to have to vote before an election. Could be bad for them. To hell with the American people. At the end of the day it's all about them.

They're getting ready to leave town - again - and won't be back for five weeks.

Before heading out, the House is expected to vote on a measure to keep the federal government operating through December 3. That's necessary because they never bothered to pass a budget.

Here's the problem: Large majorities of Americans disapprove of Congress and only one in four people trust the federal government to do what is right always or most of the time. But when they enter the voting booth, they re-elect the same people over and over: the people who are taking this country right down the drain.

See the tagline above under the blog header.

This year there are signs that the midterm elections might be particularly brutal for the party in power, the Democrats. Experts think the Republicans have a decent chance of picking up the 39 seats needed to take control of the House. The experts also say Republicans have an outside chance of gaining 10 seats to control the Senate.

Things are bad for the Democrats all over, but especially in the Midwest.

One Republican pollster says that part of the country will be a "killing field for Democrats this year."

Here’s my question to you: Why would you vote for any incumbent?

I can't think of a single reason...

ACORN Lives

It should come as no surprise that the Department of Housing and Urban Development's recently released inspector general's report found that ACORN engaged in massive fraud. ACORN was reported to have corruptly funneled taxpayer dollars to its affiliates, paid excessive and unwarranted salaries to ACORN staffers out of HUD grant funds, used taxpayer funds to pay salaries to terminated ACORN employees, and engaged in money laundering. The scathing report recommends that funding for ACORN's still operating housing affiliate be terminated immediately.

What's that, you say? You thought ACORN funding had been cut off last year, after videos surfaced of ACORN staff advising undercover investigators how to evade federal tax laws and other statutes? So did I.

However, it turns out that the de-funding of ACORN was only temporary. Like the Bush tax cuts, there was an expiration date. Like the Bush tax cuts, the decision to extend or let expire is fast approaching (it's Oct. 1). Unlike the Bush tax cuts, you won't hear a word about it in the lamestream media.

(Sources and images here , here , and here .)

Legislative games like this are just one more reason we need sweeping reforms in our legislative process. Those reforms won't come about unless we elect people whose first priority is solving our problems, not getting re-elected.

And Two More

In addition to my prior item mentioning Peter's two captivating posts, now comes Col. Nick Rowe with two outstanding posts of his own. The good Col. provides us with a couple of examples highlighting just how out-of-control the nanny liberal state can get right here in the good ol' U. S. of A.

First we have a substantial list of all the goodies that the 50% of us who do pay taxes subsidize for the other half.

Second is a particularly disturbing case of the beneficiaries of public largess suing because they couldn't turn a profit on their publicly-subsidized houses. 

Of course, all this takes place in San-friggin'-Cisco, which as we all know is part of the People's Republic of California. But it's still technically part of the U.S., so we should be concerned that this blight might spread.

You know, after finding all these gems today I just might stop writing myself and confine my efforts to compiling and aggregating. Sure would be easier...

Two Home Runs

Congrats to Peter at Bayou Renaissance Man. He hit two home runs today. 

One illustrates the cold hard economic reality facing this country unless we drastically - and I mean DRASTICALLY - change the tax system, entitlement programs, and government spending. Little tweaks here and there, like extending the Bush tax cuts, won't matter a tinker's damn. We need true hard-core fundamental reform.

The second builds on the SEIU-backed voter registration shenanigans currently being uncovered in Houston. It paints a chilling picture of massive, wide-spread organized voter fraud in this country's 4th largest city. Peter also questions why these schemes are invariably in favor on the democraps.

Both posts are well-done and well worth checking out.

Neither Academic Nor Professional

This year Sept. 11 fell on a Saturday. Since early September also marks the start of the college football season, there were numerous tributes and remembrances of 9/11 at games across the country. Most were occasions for Americans to honor the fallen and express their pride in their country. However, at least one college administrator was offended on behalf of Muslims.

The vast majority of 9/11 observances in this country cannot be seen as politically neutral events. Implicit in their nature are the notions that lives lost at the World Trade Center are more valuable than lives lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere; that the motives of the 9/11 attackers had nothing to do with genuine grievances in the Islamic world regarding American imperialism; and that the U.S. has been justified in the subsequent killing of hundreds of thousands in so-called retaliation.

The observance at Saturday’s football game was no different. A moment of silence was followed by a military airplane flyover; in between, Block-I students chanted “USA, USA.” This was neither patriotism nor remembrance in any justifiable sense, but politicization, militarism, propaganda and bellicosity. The University is a public institution that encompasses the political views of all, not just the most (falsely) “patriotic.” Athletic planners should cease such exploitation for political purposes. They might at least consider how most Muslim students, American or otherwise, would respond to this nativist display; or better, Muslims and others that live their lives under the threat of our planes, drones and soldiers.

The overwhelmingly white, privileged, Block-I students should be ashamed of their obnoxious, fake-macho, chicken-hawk chant, while poverty-drafted members of their cohort fight and die in illegal and immoral wars for the control of oil. University administrators need to eliminate from all events such “patriotic” observances, which in this country cannot be separated from implicit justifications for state-sponsored killing.

David Green,

University Academic Professional

Sigh ... where to begin? My reservoir of outrage is dangerously low at this point. I can only shake my head in dismay and wonder what the hell has happened to this country over the last few decades.

David Green is part of the administration at the University of Illinois. More specifically, he is a Research and Policy Specialist in something called the Institute of Government and Public Affairs. I've posted before regarding my disdain for university administrators. They are the parasites of the academic world: "they neither toil nor spin." But this loser carries it to an extreme.

David Green should get down on his knees every night and thank the good Lord above that he lives in a country where he is able to express such views openly and freely. And while he's at it he should give thanks for the same people he denigrates who make it possible for him to spout such loathsome nonsense.

It's bad enough that I have to defend myself now when people find out I'm a college professor. After this maybe I'll just say I'm a piano player in a whore house.