Alisya Fazilin
1 year ago
Monday, December 8, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Radio Appearance By Jenn and Robert!
We are humbled to be invited as guests on a BlogTalk Radio show next Saturday, December 13th at 1030 a.m. Eastern time. You can listen at http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/
The BTR link will be at the top of the main column, and click on it to be taken to the show page. Go a few minutes early and register there, as there is a chat room that accompanies the show and you can interact with the show in chat, or you can call in just like regular talk shows.
Ken and Oliver over at The Liberal Lie are long time blog friends of both of us. In fact, it was through the blog over there that Jenn and I first met. Ken spotlights a new Blog Of The Month and Jenn's was highlighted one month, and I thought her title was intriguing - Jenn's Journey As A Conservative Chic - so I clicked over to find an interesting place on the net. I don't remember how long her site had been published, but neither of us had been there very long. It didn't take long and we were friends, each following the other's blog. Ken was a regular at both of our sites, and has already become a regular here. I have always valued his perspective, his words of support and encouragement, and CC is his current BOTM.
He has done a BTR radio show for some time, and has a nice following there. If you go to the BTR page from his page, then you can listen to archived shows. If you are hanging out Saturday morning, click over there and listen to Jenn and I muddle through this interview. It will be good practice, because we have already talked about a Conservative Convictions show of some type.
In the coming weeks, Ken wants to get the entire CC group on as guests, either individually or all together, and I promise interesting interviews and fun radio. As always, we enjoy your support and following, and the knowledge that you guys have taken ownership of this place too. Without you, we are just a few odd people typing to ourselves...Please join in the radio broadcast. Our part will be about 30 minutes at 1030.
Almost forgot - Don't go hunting Jenn's Journey. Jenn abandoned that site to create her Palace For A Princess. Our loss, because she had some amazing things there.
The BTR link will be at the top of the main column, and click on it to be taken to the show page. Go a few minutes early and register there, as there is a chat room that accompanies the show and you can interact with the show in chat, or you can call in just like regular talk shows.
Ken and Oliver over at The Liberal Lie are long time blog friends of both of us. In fact, it was through the blog over there that Jenn and I first met. Ken spotlights a new Blog Of The Month and Jenn's was highlighted one month, and I thought her title was intriguing - Jenn's Journey As A Conservative Chic - so I clicked over to find an interesting place on the net. I don't remember how long her site had been published, but neither of us had been there very long. It didn't take long and we were friends, each following the other's blog. Ken was a regular at both of our sites, and has already become a regular here. I have always valued his perspective, his words of support and encouragement, and CC is his current BOTM.
He has done a BTR radio show for some time, and has a nice following there. If you go to the BTR page from his page, then you can listen to archived shows. If you are hanging out Saturday morning, click over there and listen to Jenn and I muddle through this interview. It will be good practice, because we have already talked about a Conservative Convictions show of some type.
In the coming weeks, Ken wants to get the entire CC group on as guests, either individually or all together, and I promise interesting interviews and fun radio. As always, we enjoy your support and following, and the knowledge that you guys have taken ownership of this place too. Without you, we are just a few odd people typing to ourselves...Please join in the radio broadcast. Our part will be about 30 minutes at 1030.
Almost forgot - Don't go hunting Jenn's Journey. Jenn abandoned that site to create her Palace For A Princess. Our loss, because she had some amazing things there.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Monday Night Panel Chat - Economics
Join us Monday December 8th for a Live Blog event that you will find informative and educational! The event begins at 900 PM Eastern Time.
Other materials follow this announcement, so please scroll down and don't stop here!
A few points so you will know the format:
1) There will be a panel answering questions from the moderator. A question will be asked, and each panelist will have 1 1/2 minutes to give a response. Each panelist in turn will then have the same amount of time to respond.
2) A panelist may request time to respond to the others comments, with a 60 second allowance.
3) After each moderator question, a question will be given from the audience. Please submit your question just as you would for the chat room, and when it is time I will post it for the panel. You can address the question to one panelist, or the moderator will assign one.
4) After the formal panel chat, the chat room will be open for general chat.
5) During the panel time, the room will not be open for general chat.
6) With the chats at the site this week surrounding economics, several people have expressed their appreciation for the discussion and the "lessons" given from Craig. Please attend and participate, and there will be some good information as well as entertaining discussion.
Other materials follow this announcement, so please scroll down and don't stop here!
A few points so you will know the format:
1) There will be a panel answering questions from the moderator. A question will be asked, and each panelist will have 1 1/2 minutes to give a response. Each panelist in turn will then have the same amount of time to respond.
2) A panelist may request time to respond to the others comments, with a 60 second allowance.
3) After each moderator question, a question will be given from the audience. Please submit your question just as you would for the chat room, and when it is time I will post it for the panel. You can address the question to one panelist, or the moderator will assign one.
4) After the formal panel chat, the chat room will be open for general chat.
5) During the panel time, the room will not be open for general chat.
6) With the chats at the site this week surrounding economics, several people have expressed their appreciation for the discussion and the "lessons" given from Craig. Please attend and participate, and there will be some good information as well as entertaining discussion.
Guest Post by Patrick.......Death, Taxes and A Holiday
Death, Taxes, and a Holiday
Patrick Murray
Sane Political
Discourse
It's said that there are two things in life that are certain: Death and
taxes. Somehow I'm going to tie them altogether and make it make
sense. For those of you who haven't had the pleasure and insanity (despite
the name) of my blog, that's a bigger challenge than you'd imagine. But
with the $700 billion socialist sickness that I have kindly termed the Dastardly
Bastardly Bailout continuing to fester (and having trillions added), we're in
the process of making mistakes that will eventually cripple our company.
First, Principles First
The idea of the federal government taking taxpayer money to fix problems they
have caused with a myriad of idiotic programs and laws by bailing out companies
who messed up and didn't have sense to see the hole their benevolent Big Brother was digging for them should be anathema to anyone who possesses conservative convictions. We are
(supposed to be) a country that functions on free market principles and
individual responsibility. This means that when you succeed, you rake in
the dough. If you fail, you crash and burn. But since the days of
the Great Depression, the government has increasingly swept in as the
"protector" of people and companies. And the ways they have done this have
gone so far from the Founding Fathers' intent that we could power a city if we
hooked them up to generators. That's how fast they have to be spinning in
their graves.
Of that $700 billion flung out there by Congress, plenty has been happily
abused. But at this point, there's $350 billion still floating out there
uncommitted to specific companies. And to add insult (and the usual
Washington shuffle) to injury, the Bad Three automakers (AKA Oliver G, Oliver F, and Oliver C Twist) were back on the Hill, having spent a day driving their
hybrids up to make up for their private jet ride the first time (commercial
flights do go from Detroit to DC) just so they could stick their hands
out and ask for more (from $25 to $35 billion now). And there are some
lawbreakers... uh, lawmakers that want to tap some of the $350 billion left of
the DBB to do it.
"I Beg to Dream and Differ..."*
Enter Congressman
Louie Gohmert. He came up with a great idea to use up the rest of that
otherwise wasted money:
Here's the deal. We pay about $160 billion a month in deductions from our
paychecks (Income and FICA). His idea is to take the money already
committed to waste on suckling a failing business and just eliminating
everyone's taxes for January and February.
Imagine the advantages:
1. $160 billion pumped into the economy for those two months-- Instant growth
and debt reduction across the board.
2. There's no administrative costs, because the money never gets to
Washington!
3. In March, taxes come back and people realize how much money Washington is
sucking from them. There's a good chance it will make the Boston Tea Party
look like an ice cream social in comparison.
Now, like government, taxes are a necessary evil, as the legitimate functions of
government do have to be financed. But the temporary elimination the theft
of cash from the weekly wage earner will prime people for a change....
Save the Economy, Abolish the IRS
The change I'm talking about is the FairTax. I'm going to cover it in
brief here, but when you are wondering whether it can work, check out the
site: http://http//www.fairtax.org/ (apologies for having to look at Huck-a-Duck, who's hawking his
book there right now).
I discovered the FairTax through my incessant need to devour hours of talk radio
(Neal Boortz in this case). I heard about it for several months before I
finally got around to the site. I spent a couple of hours reading, and was
converted enough to send them money from my tax refund (and money was tight at
that time). The FairTax (a consumption tax) is absolutely in line with
conservative principles of limiting government and empowering the
individual.
Some highlights:
No paycheck deductions - I start with this one because this feature is
what will sell it come March and people have to pay these. Essentially, if
you get paid $8/hour, you get that much on your check (except state, local, and
personal deductions, of course). And the employers don't have to pay the
matching crap. Which means they can pay more.
23% - This is the absolute maximum amount of your income that will go to the
tax. If you made $2000, spent $2000, and were an illegal alien
(undocumented worker for you PC whiners), you'd pay $460 in taxes. For
those of us with Social security numbers....
The Prebate - This is a check from the government that offsets any
FairTax paid up to the poverty line. So by personal choices, you can pay
no taxes, or a whole lot of taxes. The prebate is paid based on members of
your household. If you have 3, you get the prebate for each
individual.
One-time taxing - The tax only applies to consumer items once. This
means used items are not taxed. Related to this is....
No embedded taxes - Businesses do not pay taxes. They take the tax,
turn it into a cost, and make us pay that. The FairTax eliminates that,
putting all the taxes in one place. This means that prices adjust to
remove the embedded taxes and are only added back in on your receipt.
Transparency - You can look on your receipt and see the FairTax.
$23 of every $100 goes to the FairTax (which is the average amount we pay
now).
Emasculating Washington - While Congress will have the power to adjust the
FairTax, what they won't be able to do is adjust the system to reward some
people while punishing others, control behavior, and deceive the people who
can't afford the accountants to hide their money. The obscene tax code is
one of the greatest powers that they have over all of us. Not so under the
FairTax.
For further info (and clarification of my highlights), here's the FairTax FAQ.
Big Honkin' Finish
One of the first steps to making the government responsible and limited again is
to create transparency, both in spending and taxing. Until we can unify, we'll be caught between our personal benefit and
our principle, and the cluster that lives inside the Beltway will continue to
tentacle out like a demonic octo-pig, with a hand on every shoulder and a teat
in every pot. I believe something as simple and radical as the FairTax is
a first step. The tax holiday would help to accomplish that goal.
And it would be a better use of that thrice-damned** bailout than what our
"leaders" have come up with.
And remember, if we're loud enough, they might figure out that another stimulus
check is really not the answer.
(* bonus points for anyone that can name the song title, artist, and album I
snatched the above quote from)
(**double bonus points if you can get the TV show and character I get that
phrase from)
Patrick Murray
Sane Political
Discourse
It's said that there are two things in life that are certain: Death and
taxes. Somehow I'm going to tie them altogether and make it make
sense. For those of you who haven't had the pleasure and insanity (despite
the name) of my blog, that's a bigger challenge than you'd imagine. But
with the $700 billion socialist sickness that I have kindly termed the Dastardly
Bastardly Bailout continuing to fester (and having trillions added), we're in
the process of making mistakes that will eventually cripple our company.
First, Principles First
The idea of the federal government taking taxpayer money to fix problems they
have caused with a myriad of idiotic programs and laws by bailing out companies
who messed up and didn't have sense to see the hole their benevolent Big Brother was digging for them should be anathema to anyone who possesses conservative convictions. We are
(supposed to be) a country that functions on free market principles and
individual responsibility. This means that when you succeed, you rake in
the dough. If you fail, you crash and burn. But since the days of
the Great Depression, the government has increasingly swept in as the
"protector" of people and companies. And the ways they have done this have
gone so far from the Founding Fathers' intent that we could power a city if we
hooked them up to generators. That's how fast they have to be spinning in
their graves.
Of that $700 billion flung out there by Congress, plenty has been happily
abused. But at this point, there's $350 billion still floating out there
uncommitted to specific companies. And to add insult (and the usual
Washington shuffle) to injury, the Bad Three automakers (AKA Oliver G, Oliver F, and Oliver C Twist) were back on the Hill, having spent a day driving their
hybrids up to make up for their private jet ride the first time (commercial
flights do go from Detroit to DC) just so they could stick their hands
out and ask for more (from $25 to $35 billion now). And there are some
lawbreakers... uh, lawmakers that want to tap some of the $350 billion left of
the DBB to do it.
"I Beg to Dream and Differ..."*
Enter Congressman
Louie Gohmert. He came up with a great idea to use up the rest of that
otherwise wasted money:
A TAX HOLIDAY!
Here's the deal. We pay about $160 billion a month in deductions from our
paychecks (Income and FICA). His idea is to take the money already
committed to waste on suckling a failing business and just eliminating
everyone's taxes for January and February.
Imagine the advantages:
1. $160 billion pumped into the economy for those two months-- Instant growth
and debt reduction across the board.
2. There's no administrative costs, because the money never gets to
Washington!
3. In March, taxes come back and people realize how much money Washington is
sucking from them. There's a good chance it will make the Boston Tea Party
look like an ice cream social in comparison.
Now, like government, taxes are a necessary evil, as the legitimate functions of
government do have to be financed. But the temporary elimination the theft
of cash from the weekly wage earner will prime people for a change....
Save the Economy, Abolish the IRS
The change I'm talking about is the FairTax. I'm going to cover it in
brief here, but when you are wondering whether it can work, check out the
site: http://http//www.fairtax.org/ (apologies for having to look at Huck-a-Duck, who's hawking his
book there right now).
I discovered the FairTax through my incessant need to devour hours of talk radio
(Neal Boortz in this case). I heard about it for several months before I
finally got around to the site. I spent a couple of hours reading, and was
converted enough to send them money from my tax refund (and money was tight at
that time). The FairTax (a consumption tax) is absolutely in line with
conservative principles of limiting government and empowering the
individual.
Some highlights:
No paycheck deductions - I start with this one because this feature is
what will sell it come March and people have to pay these. Essentially, if
you get paid $8/hour, you get that much on your check (except state, local, and
personal deductions, of course). And the employers don't have to pay the
matching crap. Which means they can pay more.
23% - This is the absolute maximum amount of your income that will go to the
tax. If you made $2000, spent $2000, and were an illegal alien
(undocumented worker for you PC whiners), you'd pay $460 in taxes. For
those of us with Social security numbers....
The Prebate - This is a check from the government that offsets any
FairTax paid up to the poverty line. So by personal choices, you can pay
no taxes, or a whole lot of taxes. The prebate is paid based on members of
your household. If you have 3, you get the prebate for each
individual.
One-time taxing - The tax only applies to consumer items once. This
means used items are not taxed. Related to this is....
No embedded taxes - Businesses do not pay taxes. They take the tax,
turn it into a cost, and make us pay that. The FairTax eliminates that,
putting all the taxes in one place. This means that prices adjust to
remove the embedded taxes and are only added back in on your receipt.
Transparency - You can look on your receipt and see the FairTax.
$23 of every $100 goes to the FairTax (which is the average amount we pay
now).
Emasculating Washington - While Congress will have the power to adjust the
FairTax, what they won't be able to do is adjust the system to reward some
people while punishing others, control behavior, and deceive the people who
can't afford the accountants to hide their money. The obscene tax code is
one of the greatest powers that they have over all of us. Not so under the
FairTax.
For further info (and clarification of my highlights), here's the FairTax FAQ.
Big Honkin' Finish
One of the first steps to making the government responsible and limited again is
to create transparency, both in spending and taxing. Until we can unify, we'll be caught between our personal benefit and
our principle, and the cluster that lives inside the Beltway will continue to
tentacle out like a demonic octo-pig, with a hand on every shoulder and a teat
in every pot. I believe something as simple and radical as the FairTax is
a first step. The tax holiday would help to accomplish that goal.
And it would be a better use of that thrice-damned** bailout than what our
"leaders" have come up with.
And remember, if we're loud enough, they might figure out that another stimulus
check is really not the answer.
(* bonus points for anyone that can name the song title, artist, and album I
snatched the above quote from)
(**double bonus points if you can get the TV show and character I get that
phrase from)
Friday, December 5, 2008
Different.......... Yet Alike
I thoroughly enjoyed the chat yesterday. Besides getting to know everyone better (some, too much LOL) I learned something very important. We are all here for the same purpose, to bring back conservatism back to the GOP. What I realized though, is that we are all different. Our viewpoints take many different shapes and sizes. There is no one size fits all when it comes to conservatism. Some of the topics we came across last night was the importance of chocolate, and how to correctly say you all. Since we were surrounded by southerners, ya'll seemed to be the consensus. A few of the more important ones were the legalization of drugs, and the auto industry buyout. There were some really good debates with many varying opinions. I've always been rather stubborn when it comes to my opinions, (as some of you know) but what I have come to realize is that if you don't open up your mind you will never grow and mature as a person.
We've had a few people that have taken issues with the fact that opinions are like....well you know the saying. For the first time, I am actually thankful for all the different viewpoints presented. I've realized that to accomplish our goals we need to open our minds and really listen to opposing viewpoints. In the end, they might still be dead wrong....... but it will only strengthen our views and opinions, and if we come out with just one thing that we not have thought of then we are the better person for it. We need to respect the differences among us, and unite in the things that we have in common.
We are here to debate, discuss, and pursue the true definition of conservatism and only through that, can we accomplish our true purpose, bringing conservatism back to the GOP.
Monday Night Chat - Econ 101
Big news, and a big event here at CC! Monday night at 9:00 EST we will have a moderated panel chat with three panelists discussing an economics topic that touches you personally, and the country as a whole!
I will post some more information later today, as this will be a different format than this week's chat, but I know you are going to enjoy it! There will be an opportunity for you to address your questions both during and after the panel chat. In addition, we will have a panelist with a viewpoint that is not strictly conservative...it will give a wider perspective on economics issues and the panelists participating are intelligent people who give a great deal of thought to their positions.
Join us Monday! Spread the word!
And a side note, we now have a presence on Facebook as well...check the top of the sidebar for the link....It is a little bare right now, but it is w work in progress! Invite your friends there too!
I will post some more information later today, as this will be a different format than this week's chat, but I know you are going to enjoy it! There will be an opportunity for you to address your questions both during and after the panel chat. In addition, we will have a panelist with a viewpoint that is not strictly conservative...it will give a wider perspective on economics issues and the panelists participating are intelligent people who give a great deal of thought to their positions.
Join us Monday! Spread the word!
And a side note, we now have a presence on Facebook as well...check the top of the sidebar for the link....It is a little bare right now, but it is w work in progress! Invite your friends there too!
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Who Gets to Decide Who is "Normal"?
1 in 5 young Americans has personality disorder"
The article also stated that one expert said personality disorders may be overdiagnosed. Go to the link for the full article. You can actually read an article from MSNBC without suffering too much of a personality disorder.
What seems normal to one person may not seem normal to another. Two questions: Who's deciding what a personality disorder is? Do they have any personality disorders themselves? Are all psychiatrists personality disorder free? Okay... that's three questions. Sorry.
I've been tagged by Don's" mind. The tag requires that I post seven "odd" things about myself. it seems to fit in pretty well with this post.
I occasionally enjoy the whiff of Skunk when driving. I'm a woman who hates to shop. I don't like crowds, and after hearing about that poor man being stomped to death at a Wal-Mart, I'm thankful for that! I'm ambidextrous. I don't have a favorite color. I actually like Caster Oil. I like the smell of Cabbage. My favorite smell is gasoline. So... am I normal? Probably not. But what's normal, and as I said before, who gets to decide? Do I even want to be considered "normal"? I don't think so. We're all born with different abilities, and we all have different experiences that help make up our personalities. One man's "normal" is another man's "crazy as a loon", so I don't see how these studies can be made with any real accuracy.
I know the study focused on personality deficiencies that interfere with everyday life, but I still have my doubts as to the accuracy of it, probably because I hate to contemplate one out of five young people being nuts.
I'm going shopping today. :(
(Crossposted at Dragon Lady's Den.)
CHICAGO - Almost one in five young American adults has a personality disorder that interferes with everyday life, and even more abuse alcohol or drugs, researchers reported Monday in the most extensive study of its kind.
The disorders include problems such as obsessive or compulsive tendencies and anti-social behavior that can sometimes lead to violence. The study also found that fewer than 25 percent of college-aged Americans with mental problems get treatment.
The article also stated that one expert said personality disorders may be overdiagnosed. Go to the link for the full article. You can actually read an article from MSNBC without suffering too much of a personality disorder.
What seems normal to one person may not seem normal to another. Two questions: Who's deciding what a personality disorder is? Do they have any personality disorders themselves? Are all psychiatrists personality disorder free? Okay... that's three questions. Sorry.
I've been tagged by Don's" mind. The tag requires that I post seven "odd" things about myself. it seems to fit in pretty well with this post.
I occasionally enjoy the whiff of Skunk when driving. I'm a woman who hates to shop. I don't like crowds, and after hearing about that poor man being stomped to death at a Wal-Mart, I'm thankful for that! I'm ambidextrous. I don't have a favorite color. I actually like Caster Oil. I like the smell of Cabbage. My favorite smell is gasoline. So... am I normal? Probably not. But what's normal, and as I said before, who gets to decide? Do I even want to be considered "normal"? I don't think so. We're all born with different abilities, and we all have different experiences that help make up our personalities. One man's "normal" is another man's "crazy as a loon", so I don't see how these studies can be made with any real accuracy.
I know the study focused on personality deficiencies that interfere with everyday life, but I still have my doubts as to the accuracy of it, probably because I hate to contemplate one out of five young people being nuts.
I'm going shopping today. :(
(Crossposted at Dragon Lady's Den.)
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Chat TONIGHT, 9:00 PM EDT
Please join for a live chat session on Wednesday night at 9:00-10:00 P.M. EST.
Since we have a great group of regulars here, Jenn had an idea to make the first chat an open forum so that everyone can become acquainted. Since we want to make this as interactive a place as possible, it will be a great opportunity to hear about you! Also, we need to get some input regarding chat topics and preferences so that it is something worthwhile for you to attend. Please join us for an hour or even for part of the hour.
When you come to the site tonight, look below this announcement and there will be a large post. It will look different than the rest, and will have a "Play" button in the center. Click that play button to enter the chat. You will enter a name, and that is how your comments will be displayed.
A couple of notes about that chat:
1) The chat is moderated, which means that your comments won't appear until cleared by the moderator, unless I give change your settings to allow unmoderated comments. I will do that for as many as possible, but there is a limit on how many can be granted that instant transmission. It is the one real downside to this chat function.
2) Please refrain from anything uncivilized. I don't think anyone who is regular will create problems, but there are trolls and gremlins lurking from time to time.
3) Please be patient as I conquer the learning curve moderating the chat for a number of people. This chat function has been tested with just a few, but I am sure it will take a few minutes for me to get comfortable with the controls.
Enjoy! Please let us know your preferences for topics, times, days, and anything you think would make the blog better! Thanks for joining us tonight!
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
We Reap What We Sow
A Talking Paper on Economics Basics
By Sam Huntington
Introduction
While there are some of us who find history interesting, its only real value is that it teaches us valuable lessons from the past. We know from history that there are causes and effects; we understand that there are very often unintended consequences to causes, and that over time, one effect may in turn cause yet another. Often, causes and effects are not readily apparent, so we must rely on critical thinking to sort them out. In my opinion, we Americans don’t do so well in our critical thinking skills; if we were a nation of critical thinkers, our country would not be in its present financial mess.
Economics is both an art, and a science. There are two essential parts to this topic: theoretical economics, and practical economics. The people who deal in theoretical applications are mostly university professors who have never worked in the real world, so they are prone to argue the kind of nonsense promoted by Karl Marx. Practical economists, on the other hand, have had to sink or swim in the real world of financial management; they generally know what they are talking about, but even then, it is difficult to find economists who agree on either the causes or effects of economic decisions.
It is not the intent of this essay to restate the economic development of the United States; it would take too long and few people are even interested. Rather, I will attempt to illustrate important developments that produced our present economic situation.
Background
First, understand that money is a medium of exchange. Until recently, money had a value based on standardized weights and measures. Gold and silver coins, for example, contained a certain amount of this precious metal, often certified; its weight in gold or silver gave the coin its value. The problem with heavy coins, however, is that they are heavy and somewhat inconvenient to carry around, In early America, bankers sought to create paper money, gold or silver certificates; that way, gold and silver could be retained safely in banks while allowing people to exchange these certificates for goods and services. We called this paper money certificates because it was possible to present them to a bank, and receive gold or silver upon demand.
Not everyone was in favor of paper money, however. Thomas Jefferson, for example, warned us that “Paper is poverty . . . it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.” Over time, the US government removed currency from the gold and silver certificate standard; today, our money is simply paper. The point is that there is no longer a psychological attachment to money because it has no intrinsic value except that we can exchange this paper for some quantity of goods. If we still used twenty-dollar gold pieces, we would be less likely to exchange them for Chinese made goods at Wal-Mart. Mr. Jefferson continued: “The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals . . . it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.” Mr. Jefferson was right.
About Debt
Individual (consumer) debt has been with us for a very long time. It might have started with one neighbor borrowing a shovel from another and then giving it back later. If the borrower failed to give it back, ancient societies might have placed the borrower into bondage until “interest” to the lender was satisfied. Modern lending began in Italy during the 1300s; bankers loaned money, but demanded the payment of some amount of interest in addition to the amount borrowed. It was a penalty for borrowing . . . and it still is. Even so, consumer debt in the United States is a relatively new phenomenon, simply because until the 1920s, banks refused to loan money to middle class or poor people. When these people bought things, they had to pay cash for them; this means they had to save up their money first, and then make high-cost purchases.
But then merchants realized that they could expand sales by extending “credit” for the purchase expensive goods. Combined with exceptionally smart marketing techniques, merchants offered “time saving” conveniences, such as appliances: washing machines, refrigerators, gas or electric stoves and ovens, and electric irons. It was possible to buy them “over time.” Consumers had two options: they could put the product on interest free “lay-away,” or they could take the product home, make regular payments, and pay a surcharge for credit (interest).
Credit purchases involved some risk, however. By spending future income on purchases made in the present, there was always the possibility that a worker might lose his job and have no future income. It was a risk many people were willing to take, however. And under credit arrangements with local banks, car dealers could sell more vehicles. Under this system, car dealers profited, and so did banks. Interest rates were usually high (12% in 1928), but no one seemed to notice “over time.” During the Great Depression (1929-1941), the US government encouraged banks to increase loans for cars and homes, and in order to encourage more spending, government began to guarantee these loans.
Following World War II, with a massive increase of consumer goods, government backed loans helped to propel the United States into a consumer-based society. Veterans received government guaranteed loans and by the 1970s, there were six government agencies in the loan guarantee business. By 1989, the US government backed more than 40% of all home loans; they also guaranteed education loans, farms, and small businesses. But even that was nothing compared to the invention of the credit card. It began with Frank McNamara’s Hamilton Credit Corporation (The Diner’s Card, 1950), and rapidly expanded to American Express cards (1958) and Bank of America. Since federal banking law limited interest charges equal to that allowed by state law, bankers made deals with South Dakota and Delaware, permitting unlimited interest charges. And then credit card companies realized that they could charge less interest and make more money by increasing their debt — smaller interest charges on higher amounts, compounded over a longer period. They also made money by charging fees . . . late payment fees times the number of irresponsible borrowers equated to millions of dollars in pure profit.
Discussion
We must now confront two psychological factors: paper money with no intrinsic value, and plastic money, which is no more than an obligation to pay. Most people do not think much about this—they simply go through the motion of working for some number of dollar bills, which they in turn exchange for goods and services . . . most of which they don’t really need. And they use their credit cards regularly, which means, “debt accumulation.” Because it is convenient to use a credit card, people give no thought to accumulating more debt than they can pay off over several years.
Most credit card debt comes from large consumer purchases: televisions, cell phones, cell phone bills, iPods, and computers. People use their credit cards for gasoline purchases, groceries, medical needs, and even sending packages through the Post Office. Every time someone uses a credit card, they incur debt against future income. There are two glitches to this process however. People not only use one credit card to its maximum limit, they often have between six and ten credit cards, and each of those is used to maximum limit as well. The second problem is people do lose their jobs; when that happens, they no longer have the ability to pay off a mountain of debt.
Psychologically, using a credit card isn’t the same thing as pulling out a twenty-dollar bill to pay for purchases, and even that is very different from giving away a twenty-dollar gold piece. Plastic and paper is easy to dispense because we subconsciously know it has no intrinsic value. It is merely a utility. And even when we pay our bills, whether we do that using online services, or writing checks — it is only key strokes or valueless paper. Either process is only a utility to transfer earned income from one account to another. Again, the system appears to work very well up until there is no more income; or when the amount of debt exceeds income potential.
Monkey See, Monkey Do
Government has been acting exactly this way since the administration of Woodrow Wilson. One administration after the other has attempted to expand “services” through debt . . . spending future revenue (income) on government programs today. But now it’s much worse; we are spending so much money not even our great grandchildren will be able to pay it off. Like most Americans who have collectively incurred 1-trillion dollars of personal debt, our government is technically bankrupt. Note that government doesn’t create wealth, people do. What government does is tax people a portion of their income in order to spend money on a wide range of programs (most of which the federal government has no business being involved with in the first place).
What are the likely consequences to government’s inability to tax people who are no longer working? Like the errant hedonist consumer, our government increases spending even in the face of diminished revenues, and they do this by going into debt. Like consumers, government must pay interest on its debt, but rather than 20% of say, $10,000.00 . . . the government is paying 10% on $10 Trillion. This obligates the American taxpayer to pay the principle and interest, of course . . . but even worse, the amount is so large that our great-grandchildren will be paying it off. It also means, eventually, much higher taxes for everyone. Our government is currently borrowing money from foreign governments to sustain outrageous spending. How can the United States maintain its internal security and national sovereignty when it is so close to outright bankruptcy?
Tying up Lose Ends
When people aren’t working, they aren’t spending. When they aren’t spending, there is a decrease in the demand for goods. When people no longer demand products, companies who make those products start laying-off their workers. An increase in unemployment means a substantial (exponential) decrease in spending and a concomitant decrease in tax revenues. Recently, Congress announced that since gasoline has dropped to less than $2.00/gallon, it would increase its federal excise tax by forty-cents per gallon. Don’t worry though . . . this is the hope and change everyone voted for.
This country is well on its way to economic collapse. I wonder what people will do with all of their expensive high-definition television sets when they have no place to live because they lost their jobs, when they can no longer afford to make their mortgage or rental payments. I wonder what people intend to do with their Lexus or GM Tahoe vehicles that carry upside-down balances: where people owe more than their toys are worth. I wonder how people will react when they finally realize that the federal government is no longer standing there with a safety net.
The number one rule of good government should be, “First, do no harm.” It may also be fitting to consider the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Government does great harm when, in attempting to provide a wide range of human services to the American people, it tramples on the Constitution of the United States. As we have seen, the road to hell in this case is extraordinary debt and the loss of national sovereignty to foreign creditors.
If this realization finally takes hold, people will understand that it isn’t the purpose of government to provide safety nets. People would not be losing their jobs right now if government had not intruded in areas that are not the business of the federal government. Similarly, people might also realize that had they not spent themselves into oblivion, they would have real savings to sustain them through periods of economic recession.
Recommendations
It is time to learn the lessons of history, even if only recent history. Federal spending on programs that clearly fall outside the purview of constitutional intent of federal government must stop. But there are only three options to stop that wasteful, meddlesome spending: (1) States must tell the federal government to “butt out” of areas that our founders intended to be within the realm of states’ rights. (2) American voters must demand that their elected officials focus more on reduced spending than increasing taxes; enough is enough. We do not need a federal department of education, or Indian affairs, or any number of other programs that do little more than spend our money, and (3) the federal government must acknowledge that they do not have all the answers to the problems that confront us.
Presently, there are more than 26 major federal departments . . . all of them arguing for a percentage of your hard-earned income. These huge bureaucracies employ hundreds of employees who do little more than gobble up our tax dollars. They are very much like the charity organizations that spend enormous sums of money on everything but the charity they advertise. Every dollar collected by the government represents a dollar less available for spending, saving, or investing. Beyond the budget, your federal government has spent $2.7 Trillion on “bail out” provisions; and half of that is money borrowed from foreign governments.
The cost of our consumerism is at hand. Your debt is about to catch up with you. And so too is government debt . . . only it will plague you for the rest of your life, your children’s lives, and for two generations beyond that. There is a long-term solution, though . . . but it must start today with a reorientation in the way we think about money and our economy: Debt is bad even when necessary (such as mortgage loans). High debt places people in a bondage situation: they must work for n years in order to pay off their loans. And because of our artificial monetary system, over-use of plastic credit cards, and uncontrolled government and consumer spending, we are no longer in control of our economic destiny.
By Sam Huntington
Introduction
While there are some of us who find history interesting, its only real value is that it teaches us valuable lessons from the past. We know from history that there are causes and effects; we understand that there are very often unintended consequences to causes, and that over time, one effect may in turn cause yet another. Often, causes and effects are not readily apparent, so we must rely on critical thinking to sort them out. In my opinion, we Americans don’t do so well in our critical thinking skills; if we were a nation of critical thinkers, our country would not be in its present financial mess.
Economics is both an art, and a science. There are two essential parts to this topic: theoretical economics, and practical economics. The people who deal in theoretical applications are mostly university professors who have never worked in the real world, so they are prone to argue the kind of nonsense promoted by Karl Marx. Practical economists, on the other hand, have had to sink or swim in the real world of financial management; they generally know what they are talking about, but even then, it is difficult to find economists who agree on either the causes or effects of economic decisions.
It is not the intent of this essay to restate the economic development of the United States; it would take too long and few people are even interested. Rather, I will attempt to illustrate important developments that produced our present economic situation.
Background
First, understand that money is a medium of exchange. Until recently, money had a value based on standardized weights and measures. Gold and silver coins, for example, contained a certain amount of this precious metal, often certified; its weight in gold or silver gave the coin its value. The problem with heavy coins, however, is that they are heavy and somewhat inconvenient to carry around, In early America, bankers sought to create paper money, gold or silver certificates; that way, gold and silver could be retained safely in banks while allowing people to exchange these certificates for goods and services. We called this paper money certificates because it was possible to present them to a bank, and receive gold or silver upon demand.
Not everyone was in favor of paper money, however. Thomas Jefferson, for example, warned us that “Paper is poverty . . . it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.” Over time, the US government removed currency from the gold and silver certificate standard; today, our money is simply paper. The point is that there is no longer a psychological attachment to money because it has no intrinsic value except that we can exchange this paper for some quantity of goods. If we still used twenty-dollar gold pieces, we would be less likely to exchange them for Chinese made goods at Wal-Mart. Mr. Jefferson continued: “The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals . . . it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.” Mr. Jefferson was right.
About Debt
Individual (consumer) debt has been with us for a very long time. It might have started with one neighbor borrowing a shovel from another and then giving it back later. If the borrower failed to give it back, ancient societies might have placed the borrower into bondage until “interest” to the lender was satisfied. Modern lending began in Italy during the 1300s; bankers loaned money, but demanded the payment of some amount of interest in addition to the amount borrowed. It was a penalty for borrowing . . . and it still is. Even so, consumer debt in the United States is a relatively new phenomenon, simply because until the 1920s, banks refused to loan money to middle class or poor people. When these people bought things, they had to pay cash for them; this means they had to save up their money first, and then make high-cost purchases.
But then merchants realized that they could expand sales by extending “credit” for the purchase expensive goods. Combined with exceptionally smart marketing techniques, merchants offered “time saving” conveniences, such as appliances: washing machines, refrigerators, gas or electric stoves and ovens, and electric irons. It was possible to buy them “over time.” Consumers had two options: they could put the product on interest free “lay-away,” or they could take the product home, make regular payments, and pay a surcharge for credit (interest).
Credit purchases involved some risk, however. By spending future income on purchases made in the present, there was always the possibility that a worker might lose his job and have no future income. It was a risk many people were willing to take, however. And under credit arrangements with local banks, car dealers could sell more vehicles. Under this system, car dealers profited, and so did banks. Interest rates were usually high (12% in 1928), but no one seemed to notice “over time.” During the Great Depression (1929-1941), the US government encouraged banks to increase loans for cars and homes, and in order to encourage more spending, government began to guarantee these loans.
Following World War II, with a massive increase of consumer goods, government backed loans helped to propel the United States into a consumer-based society. Veterans received government guaranteed loans and by the 1970s, there were six government agencies in the loan guarantee business. By 1989, the US government backed more than 40% of all home loans; they also guaranteed education loans, farms, and small businesses. But even that was nothing compared to the invention of the credit card. It began with Frank McNamara’s Hamilton Credit Corporation (The Diner’s Card, 1950), and rapidly expanded to American Express cards (1958) and Bank of America. Since federal banking law limited interest charges equal to that allowed by state law, bankers made deals with South Dakota and Delaware, permitting unlimited interest charges. And then credit card companies realized that they could charge less interest and make more money by increasing their debt — smaller interest charges on higher amounts, compounded over a longer period. They also made money by charging fees . . . late payment fees times the number of irresponsible borrowers equated to millions of dollars in pure profit.
Discussion
We must now confront two psychological factors: paper money with no intrinsic value, and plastic money, which is no more than an obligation to pay. Most people do not think much about this—they simply go through the motion of working for some number of dollar bills, which they in turn exchange for goods and services . . . most of which they don’t really need. And they use their credit cards regularly, which means, “debt accumulation.” Because it is convenient to use a credit card, people give no thought to accumulating more debt than they can pay off over several years.
Most credit card debt comes from large consumer purchases: televisions, cell phones, cell phone bills, iPods, and computers. People use their credit cards for gasoline purchases, groceries, medical needs, and even sending packages through the Post Office. Every time someone uses a credit card, they incur debt against future income. There are two glitches to this process however. People not only use one credit card to its maximum limit, they often have between six and ten credit cards, and each of those is used to maximum limit as well. The second problem is people do lose their jobs; when that happens, they no longer have the ability to pay off a mountain of debt.
Psychologically, using a credit card isn’t the same thing as pulling out a twenty-dollar bill to pay for purchases, and even that is very different from giving away a twenty-dollar gold piece. Plastic and paper is easy to dispense because we subconsciously know it has no intrinsic value. It is merely a utility. And even when we pay our bills, whether we do that using online services, or writing checks — it is only key strokes or valueless paper. Either process is only a utility to transfer earned income from one account to another. Again, the system appears to work very well up until there is no more income; or when the amount of debt exceeds income potential.
Monkey See, Monkey Do
Government has been acting exactly this way since the administration of Woodrow Wilson. One administration after the other has attempted to expand “services” through debt . . . spending future revenue (income) on government programs today. But now it’s much worse; we are spending so much money not even our great grandchildren will be able to pay it off. Like most Americans who have collectively incurred 1-trillion dollars of personal debt, our government is technically bankrupt. Note that government doesn’t create wealth, people do. What government does is tax people a portion of their income in order to spend money on a wide range of programs (most of which the federal government has no business being involved with in the first place).
What are the likely consequences to government’s inability to tax people who are no longer working? Like the errant hedonist consumer, our government increases spending even in the face of diminished revenues, and they do this by going into debt. Like consumers, government must pay interest on its debt, but rather than 20% of say, $10,000.00 . . . the government is paying 10% on $10 Trillion. This obligates the American taxpayer to pay the principle and interest, of course . . . but even worse, the amount is so large that our great-grandchildren will be paying it off. It also means, eventually, much higher taxes for everyone. Our government is currently borrowing money from foreign governments to sustain outrageous spending. How can the United States maintain its internal security and national sovereignty when it is so close to outright bankruptcy?
Tying up Lose Ends
When people aren’t working, they aren’t spending. When they aren’t spending, there is a decrease in the demand for goods. When people no longer demand products, companies who make those products start laying-off their workers. An increase in unemployment means a substantial (exponential) decrease in spending and a concomitant decrease in tax revenues. Recently, Congress announced that since gasoline has dropped to less than $2.00/gallon, it would increase its federal excise tax by forty-cents per gallon. Don’t worry though . . . this is the hope and change everyone voted for.
This country is well on its way to economic collapse. I wonder what people will do with all of their expensive high-definition television sets when they have no place to live because they lost their jobs, when they can no longer afford to make their mortgage or rental payments. I wonder what people intend to do with their Lexus or GM Tahoe vehicles that carry upside-down balances: where people owe more than their toys are worth. I wonder how people will react when they finally realize that the federal government is no longer standing there with a safety net.
The number one rule of good government should be, “First, do no harm.” It may also be fitting to consider the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Government does great harm when, in attempting to provide a wide range of human services to the American people, it tramples on the Constitution of the United States. As we have seen, the road to hell in this case is extraordinary debt and the loss of national sovereignty to foreign creditors.
If this realization finally takes hold, people will understand that it isn’t the purpose of government to provide safety nets. People would not be losing their jobs right now if government had not intruded in areas that are not the business of the federal government. Similarly, people might also realize that had they not spent themselves into oblivion, they would have real savings to sustain them through periods of economic recession.
Recommendations
It is time to learn the lessons of history, even if only recent history. Federal spending on programs that clearly fall outside the purview of constitutional intent of federal government must stop. But there are only three options to stop that wasteful, meddlesome spending: (1) States must tell the federal government to “butt out” of areas that our founders intended to be within the realm of states’ rights. (2) American voters must demand that their elected officials focus more on reduced spending than increasing taxes; enough is enough. We do not need a federal department of education, or Indian affairs, or any number of other programs that do little more than spend our money, and (3) the federal government must acknowledge that they do not have all the answers to the problems that confront us.
Presently, there are more than 26 major federal departments . . . all of them arguing for a percentage of your hard-earned income. These huge bureaucracies employ hundreds of employees who do little more than gobble up our tax dollars. They are very much like the charity organizations that spend enormous sums of money on everything but the charity they advertise. Every dollar collected by the government represents a dollar less available for spending, saving, or investing. Beyond the budget, your federal government has spent $2.7 Trillion on “bail out” provisions; and half of that is money borrowed from foreign governments.
The cost of our consumerism is at hand. Your debt is about to catch up with you. And so too is government debt . . . only it will plague you for the rest of your life, your children’s lives, and for two generations beyond that. There is a long-term solution, though . . . but it must start today with a reorientation in the way we think about money and our economy: Debt is bad even when necessary (such as mortgage loans). High debt places people in a bondage situation: they must work for n years in order to pay off their loans. And because of our artificial monetary system, over-use of plastic credit cards, and uncontrolled government and consumer spending, we are no longer in control of our economic destiny.
Cross-post: Praesidium Respublicae
A Summary of BBC, AP and NYT Coverage of Mumbai
Youth, disturbed by US aggression in the Middle East and Central Asia, protested attacks on the Muslim faith in Mumbai last week. Some western travelers, many of whom traveled there to exploit the conditions of poverty, created by the largest democracy in the world, including US and British citizens as well as citizens of Israel, were inadvertently harmed by the series of protests, . It is feared that the government of India may have harmed the youth, in an overreaction to their protest. International aid organizations, the Pakistani government and the United Nations are demanding to know the condition of the young men seen carrying the symbols of struggle and resistance in various videos released late last week and over the weekend. Unnamed sources assure us that any civilian casualties were random and most likely due to Indian government ineptness.
Who in Tarnation is Gayle?
I'm a conservative blogger and have been blogging at http://www.myrepublicanblog/ for approximately four years. I used to post every day, but life has managed to get in the way of such tenacity and I've found I have to slow down. Time passes too darn fast!
We own a farm in the country and my closest neighbors are far enough away where I can't see them, which both my husband and I appreciate. It's not that we don't like people, we just don't like people barging in at all hours of the day and night. My husband is a Vietnam Vet and retired Army. Our children are all grown and on their own. We've moved so many times I can't remember them all, but we're here on the farm in Texas to stay. We grow corn and milo in the summer and wheat in the winter. We go to Church on Sundays and do volunteer work locally. Although it would probably not be appreciated by the PETA people, I shoot wild hogs when I find them because they destroy our crops and kill other small animals, like our outdoor cats. I also will shoot a rattlesnake or a water moccasin on sight. No... I don't lose any sleep over it. When I go fishing I keep what I catch unless I go over the limit. I'm not "politically correct" but I am always polite unless treated with rudeness. I love America and am extremely proud of it. I realize we have our faults, but there's no other country on earth where I'd rather be. I always realized how lucky I was to have been born here, and I pray every night when I go to bed that the liberals don't screw it up too terribly!
We own a farm in the country and my closest neighbors are far enough away where I can't see them, which both my husband and I appreciate. It's not that we don't like people, we just don't like people barging in at all hours of the day and night. My husband is a Vietnam Vet and retired Army. Our children are all grown and on their own. We've moved so many times I can't remember them all, but we're here on the farm in Texas to stay. We grow corn and milo in the summer and wheat in the winter. We go to Church on Sundays and do volunteer work locally. Although it would probably not be appreciated by the PETA people, I shoot wild hogs when I find them because they destroy our crops and kill other small animals, like our outdoor cats. I also will shoot a rattlesnake or a water moccasin on sight. No... I don't lose any sleep over it. When I go fishing I keep what I catch unless I go over the limit. I'm not "politically correct" but I am always polite unless treated with rudeness. I love America and am extremely proud of it. I realize we have our faults, but there's no other country on earth where I'd rather be. I always realized how lucky I was to have been born here, and I pray every night when I go to bed that the liberals don't screw it up too terribly!
Welcome To Another New Team Member!
Gayle joins us from myrepublicanblog.blogspot.com. She is another who has maintained her own blog for some time. Jenn had the idea to invite her some time ago, and while I suspect that she was getting a little swamped with this testosterone laden blog, Gayle is a welcome addition with her reality based perspective.
Looking forward to hearing more from her soon! She will be posting her own introduction soon, and while her presence may be rare during the holidays, she will be a great contributor as we move into a new year!
Welcome Aboard, Gayle.
Looking forward to hearing more from her soon! She will be posting her own introduction soon, and while her presence may be rare during the holidays, she will be a great contributor as we move into a new year!
Welcome Aboard, Gayle.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Hello
I am Craig Bardo and I am humbled by the invitation to join Robert, Jennifer (if I may), Truth-Pain and Sam. Perfunctorily, I am a married, father of 5 and a business owner, who resides in Nashville. Who I am is what I believe. I grew up liberal blaming America first, self-absorbed, ungrateful, unmotivated but blessed beyond knowing. I went to church once, on Easter as a child and maybe one other occasion. I was an athlete and played basketball for eventual national champion, Indiana University, but was ineligible to play because of poor grades. I joined the Navy and grew up a little. I saw how truly blessed we are to be born and live in the greatest country in the history of earth and wondered why people lived the way they did elsewhere. I finished college at The Citadel and while there met a man who set me on this path to conservative thought. His name is Dr. Walter Williams of George Mason University, who was a guest speaker for the college's Greater Issues series. My economics professor took an interest in me and arranged an audience with Dr. Williams before he spoke. I asked him questions from my liberal perspective that he batted down with such ease that motivated me to learn more.
Questions I had included: Why not help poor black families with welfare? Why not have people who earn more, pay more in taxes? Why not make corporations pay more taxes and why not regulate business more? Why shouldn't affirmative action be expanded? Why with all of the (supposed) unfairness in this country do we continue to prosper? I assumed and had been taught that it was the work of evil white men, scheming, as it were, to keep a brother down. I also made the most important discovery of my life in this period of inquiry. I discovered that there is someone who always looked past my many, many faults and saw my need. He is known by many names, The Lily of the Valley, The Bright and Morning Star, The Rose of Sharon, The Way, The Truth and the Life, Redeemer, Savior, The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, A Rock in a weary land, A Balm in Gilead, The Alpha and the Omega, The Great I Am and when I can't call him anything else, I call him Jesus. I hope you don't mind if I talk about him from time to time, I'll try not to preach, I won't preach, but sometimes I get excited.
Back to the inquiry... what I discovered in my search for reasons why we prosper here in America and why there is an uneven prosperity here didn't yield simple answers but it did yield a direction and a set of unassailable principles, principles that those that established the experiment that we call America had studied, understood and had the fortitude to be willing to die for and more importantly live by. The key to our prosperity is what John Locke said. He said that a man ought to own himself and the fruit of his labor and intellect, that he should not be subject to the whims of a monarch or a tyrant. He reasoned that the role of government should be to protect a man's life, liberty and property. He argued that being able to dispose of property (real property, personal property and contract rights) as one wished (owning it) is the key to liberty. As it turns out, it is also the key to prosperity.
Another Scotsman, Frances Hutcheson, wrote later that there are certain rights that are inalienable. Thomas Jefferson, being a widely read and well educated man, combined the natural law/rights concepts of Locke, Hobbes, Hutcheson and others into what Dr. King would call on the steps of the Washington Mall, "the magnificent words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution." "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The wisdom contained in that one sentence is the key to America's unprecedented freedom and prosperity.
I have learned that all of the do gooder schemes of the uninformed do more harm to those they purport to help than had they been left alone, that the unintended consequences of social engineers and tinkerers is more detrimental to the fortunes of America than a direct assault on those the programs are designed to benefit. I look forward to sharing my observations and getting your feedback.
Questions I had included: Why not help poor black families with welfare? Why not have people who earn more, pay more in taxes? Why not make corporations pay more taxes and why not regulate business more? Why shouldn't affirmative action be expanded? Why with all of the (supposed) unfairness in this country do we continue to prosper? I assumed and had been taught that it was the work of evil white men, scheming, as it were, to keep a brother down. I also made the most important discovery of my life in this period of inquiry. I discovered that there is someone who always looked past my many, many faults and saw my need. He is known by many names, The Lily of the Valley, The Bright and Morning Star, The Rose of Sharon, The Way, The Truth and the Life, Redeemer, Savior, The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, A Rock in a weary land, A Balm in Gilead, The Alpha and the Omega, The Great I Am and when I can't call him anything else, I call him Jesus. I hope you don't mind if I talk about him from time to time, I'll try not to preach, I won't preach, but sometimes I get excited.
Back to the inquiry... what I discovered in my search for reasons why we prosper here in America and why there is an uneven prosperity here didn't yield simple answers but it did yield a direction and a set of unassailable principles, principles that those that established the experiment that we call America had studied, understood and had the fortitude to be willing to die for and more importantly live by. The key to our prosperity is what John Locke said. He said that a man ought to own himself and the fruit of his labor and intellect, that he should not be subject to the whims of a monarch or a tyrant. He reasoned that the role of government should be to protect a man's life, liberty and property. He argued that being able to dispose of property (real property, personal property and contract rights) as one wished (owning it) is the key to liberty. As it turns out, it is also the key to prosperity.
Another Scotsman, Frances Hutcheson, wrote later that there are certain rights that are inalienable. Thomas Jefferson, being a widely read and well educated man, combined the natural law/rights concepts of Locke, Hobbes, Hutcheson and others into what Dr. King would call on the steps of the Washington Mall, "the magnificent words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution." "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The wisdom contained in that one sentence is the key to America's unprecedented freedom and prosperity.
I have learned that all of the do gooder schemes of the uninformed do more harm to those they purport to help than had they been left alone, that the unintended consequences of social engineers and tinkerers is more detrimental to the fortunes of America than a direct assault on those the programs are designed to benefit. I look forward to sharing my observations and getting your feedback.
Welcome To A New Team Member!
An exciting announcement today regarding a new author here at CC. In our commitment to making this a place for serious discussion and quality content, we are pleased to welcome Craig Bardo (CB) to the team!
Craig comes to us from Nashville, TN and has authored his own blog (http://www.financialmarketmeltdown.blogspot.com/) for some time now. He brings to the table economic expertise as well as the perspective of a business owner. His acceptance has been highly anticipated, and I know that you will find his work a value added as you make your rounds through here each day.
Look for his own introductory post in the coming days. Make sure you take a minute and visit his site and see where he has been discussing the economic issues of the day.
Again Craig, Welcome Aboard!
Craig comes to us from Nashville, TN and has authored his own blog (http://www.financialmarketmeltdown.blogspot.com/) for some time now. He brings to the table economic expertise as well as the perspective of a business owner. His acceptance has been highly anticipated, and I know that you will find his work a value added as you make your rounds through here each day.
Look for his own introductory post in the coming days. Make sure you take a minute and visit his site and see where he has been discussing the economic issues of the day.
Again Craig, Welcome Aboard!
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Who the hell is Truth-Pain?
Dear Fellow Bloggers,
Allow me a brief post to introduce myself. As the founder and main writer for “Truth-Pain Emporium” (http://www.truthpain.blogspot.com/) I’ve been recklessly (some say) rendering opinions and editorial blasts on many topics since 2006. Most of my posting have been on political themes but I do wander off and post on the virtues of watching lizards lick their eyeballs from time to time. One cannot ever confuse my style or content with those Bloggers having serious penmanship or depth of knowledge. Social Sense or Benning's Writing Pad, I am not. I don't even dare call myself a writer, but a social commentator who happens to express it via the written word as my abilities best allow me. When my friends Robert, Jenn and Sam invited me to bring my arsenal of landmines to their garden, it required a brief (yikes…) biography so that the gathered conservative masses could know a little of what makes my Twinkies really frost. So here we go …
I am an Independent voter, with conservative / libertarian leanings, who at times thinks that anarchy mixed with a benevolent Dictatorship is not such a bad idea. I am not a person who buys into any party platform line in absolute alliance. I believe in making the case the case that one can parse ideology to fit your moral or philosophy compass. In my yute, er youth, I was a Democrat because my family mostly was that. Then I turned Republican because I had a severe aversion to communism and thought the only way to defeat the USSR-driven ideology was through the iron-fisted foreign policy of Ronald Reagan. Then I went off the reservation completely and converted to Libertarian thought. Yes I was even baptized and took first Communion in the social-liberal/fiscal conservative dogma. If that description has you confused, it gets better.
I would pile-on to all of you the history of Messier Truth-Pain's life since he was a guppy swimming in his father's pants, but do you really want to know about my childhood in New York, New Jersey and (gasp!)
- 1969: My nine-year old goober butt sits perplexed at the grainy black and white image of Neil Armstrong hopping down from the ladder of the landing craft onto the Moon’s surface. The first memory I have of my mind having a semblance of critical thinking. ["hmmm, Americans are cool and groovy people!"...]
- 1973: I’m 13 years old sitting in my mom’s Miami home, and instead of playing with my rock em’ sock em’ robots, I was glued to the Watergate hearings [“who is this John Dean guy anyway? and boy, Plumbing sounds like a great career choice...”]
- 1975: The images of blind-folded American hostages taken by militant students in
- 1978: While applying on-masse to a federal college grant (true story, I swear), my (Puerto Rican) public-finance High-School Counselor, tells 400+ kids to put “0”, or zero as our parents income so that we could get the top amount in the available BEOG (later Pell Grant) funding. […“hmmm, somebody has to be paying for this, why is my counselor asking me to lie about my parent’s income? Are we Puerto Ricans THAT special?”]
- 1980: Ronald Reagan was the first truly inspirational public figure that I can remember. Nobody else could have awoken me from the late 70’s “malaise”. His theme of “Morning in
- 1985: I attended a Libertarian seminar in
- 1992: The first year I began to listen to talk radio. Limbaugh was the only guy on the right, but I had a myriad of left-leaning talkers in the
- 2001: September 11th. I remember rocking my 4-month old daughter to sleep in her mechanical rocker, while watching CNN replay the tumbling down of the twin towers and being scared, truly scared, for the first time in my adult life. The world to me has not been the same since. I remember spending the next month online sucking up everything about Islam. Before that, the last time I seriously thought about it was when Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali.
- 2005: The year the GOP party lost me completely. Not conservatism, just the party. I could not understand how a party that shoved “No child left behind” and expanded Drug benefits worth tens of billions down our throat could have won re-election. Was Bush a conservative? Angry and hell-bent confused I searched the web for Forums where I could discover other like-minded persons such as myself and I blundered into “bloggers” […”what kind of idiots are these people who think they can editorialize about news and actually expect people to stop by and comment? The hubris!”]
- 2006: I turn into an above-stated idiot and launch my own blog, not expecting one comment to come my way. Surely nobody would think the rantings of and ex-Democrat, ex-Republican, ex-Military and living in the People's Republic of Kalifornia were serious enough to consider thought-provoking, right? Boy was I surprised…
I tend to mask my anger and dysfunctional logic with irreverent humor and satirical camouflage. My writings are so grammar and syntax-dyslexic that I am surprised some of my fellow bloggers have not awarded me the prize for “Person most likely to make the English language obsolete all by himself”.
At the end of the day, I am –like most of you-, a native-born American who loves his country, wants to change what is good slowly, and what is bad a bit more rapidly; and who may prefer different roads in the pursuit of my happiness. I try, repeat, try to look at things pragmatically and through the prism of others before I park my cannons on their front lawn and lay waste to their ideology-orchids. I was last in line when God was handing out politically-correct genes,… and then he kicked me out of heaven altogether for beginning to doubt him in the first place.
Having said all that, I am humbled at anyone who graces my opinions with their time and banter. I hope my musings can add to the mission of this blog, not detract from it.
Onward …
Saturday, November 29, 2008
A New Generation
A guest post, by Mustang
Kathleen Parker’s recent article in Jewish World Review does a good job assessing the average American’s understanding of civics, and she was equally credible tying this lack of understanding in to our recent presidential elections. She does overlook one or two things, however. The first is that American education today is precisely where socialist educators wanted it to be from the beginning of their efforts ninety years ago. We cannot expect the American people to choose wisely (from a conservative point of view), when liberal educators have been busily dumbing down our children for more than three generations. I agree American voters did not choose wisely in the past election, but they do have a right under our Constitution to throw off the manacles of freedom in exchange “free” government programs. Our forefathers didn’t trust popular wisdom, and this explains why they created a republic, rather than a democracy.
Last week Victor Hanson wrote a typically exceptional essay, during which he reminded us, “Failure is not an option.” I had to laugh. Failure is most certainly an option. It has always been an option . . . just not one that we older Americans selected for our Nation, our families, or future generations. Failure is always possible, and perhaps even likely in the most difficult endeavors. But we should note the difference between the failure of men who tried to do well, but fell short, and those who failed because they were lazy, inept, or corrupt. Republicans failed when they promised us smaller government, when they reneged on their contract with America. One cannot achieve smaller government while maintaining massive spending, and I think spending less is the key to conservative, smaller government.
The other day, I watched a YouTube video with Mary Katherine Ham participating in a Heritage Foundation forum. The entire focus of the discussion surrounded the question of how to attract younger voters to the conservative camp. They discussed video presentations and ‘chic’ gadgets, and massive text messaging ala Barack Obama. I suppose that’s our direction these days. But I wonder how much substance one can possibly put in 140 characters of text messaging? Not much; but then, how much substance can younger people retain for more than thirty seconds? As I listened carefully to the discussion, it suddenly dawned on me these people were discussing almost everyone in the United States below my age bracket. The “new generation” consists of people content to know, rather than to understand . . . they would rather amuse themselves with video games than read a book.
The new conservative leaders are people like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindel, and Mark Sanford . . . and while they may recall Ronald Reagan for his contributions, they speak of Reaganism as something that occurred in the “olden days,” somewhere around time when Davy Crockett “kilt his self a bar when he was only three.” I cannot help but wonder if Ham’s post-election discussion would have pursued a different track had John McCain not demonstrated how irrelevant or “out of touch” older people are.
I wish the new generation luck, of course. The new conservative leaders will be dealing directly with people who are the product of liberal education, who do not know the fundamentals of American government, and true to form, don’t really care. Liberals, of course, understand it is easy to lead the ignorant . . . and this is why I believe so much effort has gone into dumbing down the American people. Conspiracy theories always raise eyebrows, but I can find no other explanation why extraordinarily expensive school systems are only able to produce woefully uninformed people who lack the capacity of critical thinking. Well, it did seem to work well enough for socialists in Europe; we Americans just happen to be the last great society to trade government oppression for human dignity and liberty.
After the new generation of conservative political leader finds out how to send text messages, wrap themselves in attractive packaging, and learn how to speak to vast crowds in small sound bites, I hope someone will do something important for the American education system, if it isn’t too late. Since only thirty-four percent of the American electorate is conservative, the failure of our new political leaders to woo moderates toward traditional ideology can only mean one thing: the end of conservatism.
Cross-post: Social Sense
Kathleen Parker’s recent article in Jewish World Review does a good job assessing the average American’s understanding of civics, and she was equally credible tying this lack of understanding in to our recent presidential elections. She does overlook one or two things, however. The first is that American education today is precisely where socialist educators wanted it to be from the beginning of their efforts ninety years ago. We cannot expect the American people to choose wisely (from a conservative point of view), when liberal educators have been busily dumbing down our children for more than three generations. I agree American voters did not choose wisely in the past election, but they do have a right under our Constitution to throw off the manacles of freedom in exchange “free” government programs. Our forefathers didn’t trust popular wisdom, and this explains why they created a republic, rather than a democracy.
Last week Victor Hanson wrote a typically exceptional essay, during which he reminded us, “Failure is not an option.” I had to laugh. Failure is most certainly an option. It has always been an option . . . just not one that we older Americans selected for our Nation, our families, or future generations. Failure is always possible, and perhaps even likely in the most difficult endeavors. But we should note the difference between the failure of men who tried to do well, but fell short, and those who failed because they were lazy, inept, or corrupt. Republicans failed when they promised us smaller government, when they reneged on their contract with America. One cannot achieve smaller government while maintaining massive spending, and I think spending less is the key to conservative, smaller government.
The other day, I watched a YouTube video with Mary Katherine Ham participating in a Heritage Foundation forum. The entire focus of the discussion surrounded the question of how to attract younger voters to the conservative camp. They discussed video presentations and ‘chic’ gadgets, and massive text messaging ala Barack Obama. I suppose that’s our direction these days. But I wonder how much substance one can possibly put in 140 characters of text messaging? Not much; but then, how much substance can younger people retain for more than thirty seconds? As I listened carefully to the discussion, it suddenly dawned on me these people were discussing almost everyone in the United States below my age bracket. The “new generation” consists of people content to know, rather than to understand . . . they would rather amuse themselves with video games than read a book.
The new conservative leaders are people like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindel, and Mark Sanford . . . and while they may recall Ronald Reagan for his contributions, they speak of Reaganism as something that occurred in the “olden days,” somewhere around time when Davy Crockett “kilt his self a bar when he was only three.” I cannot help but wonder if Ham’s post-election discussion would have pursued a different track had John McCain not demonstrated how irrelevant or “out of touch” older people are.
I wish the new generation luck, of course. The new conservative leaders will be dealing directly with people who are the product of liberal education, who do not know the fundamentals of American government, and true to form, don’t really care. Liberals, of course, understand it is easy to lead the ignorant . . . and this is why I believe so much effort has gone into dumbing down the American people. Conspiracy theories always raise eyebrows, but I can find no other explanation why extraordinarily expensive school systems are only able to produce woefully uninformed people who lack the capacity of critical thinking. Well, it did seem to work well enough for socialists in Europe; we Americans just happen to be the last great society to trade government oppression for human dignity and liberty.
After the new generation of conservative political leader finds out how to send text messages, wrap themselves in attractive packaging, and learn how to speak to vast crowds in small sound bites, I hope someone will do something important for the American education system, if it isn’t too late. Since only thirty-four percent of the American electorate is conservative, the failure of our new political leaders to woo moderates toward traditional ideology can only mean one thing: the end of conservatism.
Cross-post: Social Sense
Friday, November 28, 2008
Crime and President Obama's Agenda: A Talking Paper
Introduction
On President-elect Obama’s website there is a list of items on the agenda for his administration. As I perused these items, I noticed that there was no listing for addressing the issue of crime and the impact on society. I think as President, Obama has an historic opportunity to address a few specific social issues that no President has been able to address in the past.
The issue of crime is on that impacts all of us. Have you ever planned a trip around certain areas of town? Not shopped in a particular location after a certain time? Have you ever looked at the person behind you in line and thought they were reading your credit card number? While perhaps you have not been a direct victim of crime, you are an indirect victim because it influences your lifestyle or life habits.
As a black American and with the support in the election of the national black community, Obama can speak to the causes and solutions of crime. He could speak honestly about the breakdown of the family, the inner city mentality that can become self-perpetuating, the lack of priority on education not from the system but from the individual, and the problem of street gangs. Both the left and the right are off track when it comes to issues of crime. The right believes in retributive justice where punishment is the goal. The left believes in restorative justice and interventions. The solutions, like most other things in life, can be found somewhere in the middle and through a combination of approaches.
Background
A relatively recent, yet not new focus in criminal justice is Community Oriented Policing, or COPS. If the new administration would take advantage of their unique ability to address issues honestly this approach could be encouraged at the national level and as a national priority.
Sir Robert Peel, known as the father of modern policing, believed in a set of nine principles for law enforcement. These principles led to the Metropolitan Police Act of London that established the first full time, professional police agency in 1829. One of his principles held that the community is the police and the police are the community. Peel meant that the police are part of the community, as they live and socialize in a place with the people who expect their service. They are also citizens, who have concerns about their neighborhoods and schools and businesses. The fact that London was to have a full time police service did not excuse the other members of the community from participating in the public interest and of assisting the police.
Community Oriented Policing (COPS) is not a program, but a philosophy. The philosophy takes Peel's principle and applies it to the entire community, and in places that have effectively implemented COPS, to the larger system of government and civilian agencies and services. COPS seeks a partnership between the community, the police, and other stakeholders (social service agencies, municipality departments such as Human Resources or sanitation, medical and psychological services) to find solutions to the problems in the community. This can include community corrections and social service programs such as the much maligned "Midnight basketball" programs. COPS programs seek to improve the quality of life for the entire community on many fronts, not just in arrests and enforcement. Law enforcement, in the perfect theoretical model of COPS, intervenes in problems before they become criminal problems.
In many places, COPS is a symbolic solution. COPS cannot be effective if a police department initiates a "Community policing officer" or a COPS Bureau. COPS must change the very focus of policing from traditional policing where officers ride around their district waiting for a call, to a very interactive style of policing that returns police officers to foot patrols and meeting business owners and other citizens.
In 2005, I had occasion to interact with the Metropolitan Police of London. It was after the terrorist attacks on the London Transit System, and the Metropolitan Police had begun to institute a COPS bureau that placed officers within each of 647 neighborhoods in Metro London. Those officers were responsible for the activities in the neighborhoods, and interacted daily with the people of the community. It has received significant support from Londoners, and had already returned good intelligence on criminal activity. It will take a couple of years to see if the advances in crime prevention are statistically supported, but the initial results proved very positive. While not the intention of the action, it also provides a good source of information for counter-terrorism purposes.
COPS can be many things, depending on the level of commitment on the part of those who implement programs under an overall umbrella of the police culture change. If a department is only making feel-good efforts to latch on to the fad, there will be little result. If a department actually attempts to change its management style, positive results can be achieved. An example of this is in New York City, where William Bratton was the head of the Transit Police. He instituted a "Fixing Broken Windows" style that sought to clean up the subways and increase enforcement of petty crimes. The graffiti was removed, turnstile jumpers were prosecuted, officers increased their presence in the system, and petty crimes were not tolerated. Through the efforts of the department that went outside the realm of traditional policing, the NYC subway system has become among the safest in the world.
Fixing Broken Windows
The noted criminologists George Kelling and John Q. Wilson published "Fixing Broken Windows", which was an approach to crime that suggested that the police can have success by enforcing petty crimes, and therefore setting standards that everyone understands. This theory was brought about by an experiment conducted by a sociologist in two locations, Palo Alto, California and New York City. In NYC, a car with a broken window was placed in a curb. Within hours the vehicle had bene vandalized, and within a week children were playing in it and it had been stripped of everything meaningful. The car In Palo Alt was placed with all windows intact and it was ignored. For days the vehicle was observed and no notice was taken of it sitting on the roadside. It was only after the sociologist broke the window that the car attracted the same attention as in NYC.
The theory is that if the small things are prevented from happening, and not tolerated, the larger things will not follow. In other words, when small crimes are tolerated, it creates an atmosphere that larger crimes are also tolerated.
COPS programs are intended to do more than just gain information. It can be a wide effort to improve the community through the presence of law enforcement working with citizens to improve the quality of life. COPS brings in resources before it is necessary to arrest an incarcerate someone. It is an attempt to work with people to improve life, as opposed to working with people to simply arrest criminals and solve crimes. The sociological theory posits that if the police and other agencies interact with the community to prevent problems, and then the police quickly deal with the problems that arise, then crime will decrease because of an environment of productivity and positive approaches. People will receive services and assistance before their needs become a case number in the criminal justice system.
Recommendations:
1) President Obama should use his unique opportunity to honestly discuss the problems of crime and social issues in the inner city. Michelle Obama could use this as her focus during the next four years, and be a strong voice for progress.
On President-elect Obama’s website there is a list of items on the agenda for his administration. As I perused these items, I noticed that there was no listing for addressing the issue of crime and the impact on society. I think as President, Obama has an historic opportunity to address a few specific social issues that no President has been able to address in the past.
The issue of crime is on that impacts all of us. Have you ever planned a trip around certain areas of town? Not shopped in a particular location after a certain time? Have you ever looked at the person behind you in line and thought they were reading your credit card number? While perhaps you have not been a direct victim of crime, you are an indirect victim because it influences your lifestyle or life habits.
As a black American and with the support in the election of the national black community, Obama can speak to the causes and solutions of crime. He could speak honestly about the breakdown of the family, the inner city mentality that can become self-perpetuating, the lack of priority on education not from the system but from the individual, and the problem of street gangs. Both the left and the right are off track when it comes to issues of crime. The right believes in retributive justice where punishment is the goal. The left believes in restorative justice and interventions. The solutions, like most other things in life, can be found somewhere in the middle and through a combination of approaches.
Background
A relatively recent, yet not new focus in criminal justice is Community Oriented Policing, or COPS. If the new administration would take advantage of their unique ability to address issues honestly this approach could be encouraged at the national level and as a national priority.
Sir Robert Peel, known as the father of modern policing, believed in a set of nine principles for law enforcement. These principles led to the Metropolitan Police Act of London that established the first full time, professional police agency in 1829. One of his principles held that the community is the police and the police are the community. Peel meant that the police are part of the community, as they live and socialize in a place with the people who expect their service. They are also citizens, who have concerns about their neighborhoods and schools and businesses. The fact that London was to have a full time police service did not excuse the other members of the community from participating in the public interest and of assisting the police.
Community Oriented Policing (COPS) is not a program, but a philosophy. The philosophy takes Peel's principle and applies it to the entire community, and in places that have effectively implemented COPS, to the larger system of government and civilian agencies and services. COPS seeks a partnership between the community, the police, and other stakeholders (social service agencies, municipality departments such as Human Resources or sanitation, medical and psychological services) to find solutions to the problems in the community. This can include community corrections and social service programs such as the much maligned "Midnight basketball" programs. COPS programs seek to improve the quality of life for the entire community on many fronts, not just in arrests and enforcement. Law enforcement, in the perfect theoretical model of COPS, intervenes in problems before they become criminal problems.
In many places, COPS is a symbolic solution. COPS cannot be effective if a police department initiates a "Community policing officer" or a COPS Bureau. COPS must change the very focus of policing from traditional policing where officers ride around their district waiting for a call, to a very interactive style of policing that returns police officers to foot patrols and meeting business owners and other citizens.
In 2005, I had occasion to interact with the Metropolitan Police of London. It was after the terrorist attacks on the London Transit System, and the Metropolitan Police had begun to institute a COPS bureau that placed officers within each of 647 neighborhoods in Metro London. Those officers were responsible for the activities in the neighborhoods, and interacted daily with the people of the community. It has received significant support from Londoners, and had already returned good intelligence on criminal activity. It will take a couple of years to see if the advances in crime prevention are statistically supported, but the initial results proved very positive. While not the intention of the action, it also provides a good source of information for counter-terrorism purposes.
COPS can be many things, depending on the level of commitment on the part of those who implement programs under an overall umbrella of the police culture change. If a department is only making feel-good efforts to latch on to the fad, there will be little result. If a department actually attempts to change its management style, positive results can be achieved. An example of this is in New York City, where William Bratton was the head of the Transit Police. He instituted a "Fixing Broken Windows" style that sought to clean up the subways and increase enforcement of petty crimes. The graffiti was removed, turnstile jumpers were prosecuted, officers increased their presence in the system, and petty crimes were not tolerated. Through the efforts of the department that went outside the realm of traditional policing, the NYC subway system has become among the safest in the world.
Fixing Broken Windows
The noted criminologists George Kelling and John Q. Wilson published "Fixing Broken Windows", which was an approach to crime that suggested that the police can have success by enforcing petty crimes, and therefore setting standards that everyone understands. This theory was brought about by an experiment conducted by a sociologist in two locations, Palo Alto, California and New York City. In NYC, a car with a broken window was placed in a curb. Within hours the vehicle had bene vandalized, and within a week children were playing in it and it had been stripped of everything meaningful. The car In Palo Alt was placed with all windows intact and it was ignored. For days the vehicle was observed and no notice was taken of it sitting on the roadside. It was only after the sociologist broke the window that the car attracted the same attention as in NYC.
The theory is that if the small things are prevented from happening, and not tolerated, the larger things will not follow. In other words, when small crimes are tolerated, it creates an atmosphere that larger crimes are also tolerated.
COPS programs are intended to do more than just gain information. It can be a wide effort to improve the community through the presence of law enforcement working with citizens to improve the quality of life. COPS brings in resources before it is necessary to arrest an incarcerate someone. It is an attempt to work with people to improve life, as opposed to working with people to simply arrest criminals and solve crimes. The sociological theory posits that if the police and other agencies interact with the community to prevent problems, and then the police quickly deal with the problems that arise, then crime will decrease because of an environment of productivity and positive approaches. People will receive services and assistance before their needs become a case number in the criminal justice system.
Recommendations:
1) President Obama should use his unique opportunity to honestly discuss the problems of crime and social issues in the inner city. Michelle Obama could use this as her focus during the next four years, and be a strong voice for progress.
2) President Obama should direct the Department of Justice to expand the current training programs for local law enforcement agencies. A COPS coordinator could be appointed to serve in each large city to oversee the implementation of COPS. The current structure of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) located at each U.S. Attorney’s Office already presents a relationship between federal and state/local agencies.
3) There should be bottom up review that evaluates all social service organizations at the federal and state level. These organizations should be structured to work with law enforcement and the other agencies in a COPS approach.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Comment Of The Week
One of our objectives here at CC is to rally conservative bloggers so that we are not individual voices crying out for attention, but a loud voice consisting of many. Another goal is for us to have an interactive site so that everyone can claim some ownership in what we are doing, so we have a new feature that we hope will meet those goals!
Every week, collectively, we will pick one comment that best represents our goals of defining, explaining, educating, and discussing conservatism. There have been some interesting and insightful comments, and many are worth noting! Once selected, the person who has the spotlighted comment will then be the guest writer of the week, if he so desires. The guest post will be published on the following Saturday. Contrary opinions are encouraged, and sometimes the guest writer may be someone who isn't conservative, but challenges our thoughts and principles. There won't really be a process, it will be completely arbitrary and subjective....At the moment, the person who sends me the best leftovers from Thanksgiving will probably win....lol
If you have questions, email one of us or catch us online in the chatbox.
Keep reading below this post....Don't ever stop at the top comment, as there may be more!
Every week, collectively, we will pick one comment that best represents our goals of defining, explaining, educating, and discussing conservatism. There have been some interesting and insightful comments, and many are worth noting! Once selected, the person who has the spotlighted comment will then be the guest writer of the week, if he so desires. The guest post will be published on the following Saturday. Contrary opinions are encouraged, and sometimes the guest writer may be someone who isn't conservative, but challenges our thoughts and principles. There won't really be a process, it will be completely arbitrary and subjective....At the moment, the person who sends me the best leftovers from Thanksgiving will probably win....lol
If you have questions, email one of us or catch us online in the chatbox.
Keep reading below this post....Don't ever stop at the top comment, as there may be more!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving!
Turkey Day Humor..........
Thanksgiving Divorce
Eddie in Dallas calls his son in New York just before Thanksgiving and tells him, 'I am sorry to tell you but your mother and I are going to divorcing. I just cannot take any more of her moaning. We can't stand the sight of each other any more.' I am telling first, Eddie, because you are the eldest, please tell your sister.
When Eddie calls his sister Julie, she says: 'No way are they getting divorced, I will go over and see them for Thanksgiving.'
Julie phones here parents and tells them both 'You must NOT get divorced. Promise you won't do anything until I get over there. I'm calling Eddie, and we'll both be there with you tomorrow. Until then, don't take any action, please listen to me', and hangs up.
The father puts down the phone and turns to his wife and says. 'Good news' he says, 'Eddie and Julie are coming for Thanksgiving and they are both paying their own way.'
The man who forgot to buy a turkey for Thanksgiving
It's the day before Thanksgiving, and the butcher is just locking up when a man begins pounding on the front door.
'Please let me in, 'says the man desperately. 'I forgot to buy a turkey, and my wife will kill me if I don't come home with one.'
'Okay, 'says the butcher.' Let me see what I have left.' He goes into the freezer and discovers that there's one last scrawny turkey left. He brings it out to show the man.
'That's one is too skinny. What else you got?' says the man.
The butcher takes the bird back into the freezer and waits a few minutes and brings the same turkey back out to the man.
'Oh, no, 'says the man, 'That one doesn't look any better. You better give me both of them!'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them....... John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
