tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64547050013510760422024-03-21T16:25:30.974-04:00Around the CapertreeWhere All Puns Are IntendedCapertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-40851635856065088552016-06-21T00:44:00.000-04:002016-06-21T07:25:51.121-04:00Preserving the Bargain: Why Principled Conservatives Stand Against Donald Trump<div class="MsoNormal">
There are many reasons why life-long Republicans are
appalled by the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump. At best,
he’s a vile, obnoxious lout, at worst, he’s a misogynist and a bigot. He
appears to have no real understanding of economics, foreign policy or
Constitutional Law. Trump is consistently inconsistent in his public positions;
up until the recent past he’s been more supportive of liberal politicians than
conservatives; and he has a tendency to attach himself to outlandish conspiracy
theories. Trump’s only real skill seems to be grabbing media attention which he
mostly accomplishes by being a spectacular, childish jerk. But these are all
reasons why any self-respecting Republican should recoil from the Trump
candidacy. For thoughtful, principled conservatives, abhorrence of Trump goes
deeper. In fact, it reaches the level of utter despair.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Believe it or not, there are people—a small subset of the
population to be sure—who know why they hold the political views that they do,
and can articulate their reasoning within certain general parameters of a
well-considered philosophy. For those who’ve deeply examined their beliefs and
care about vision and motives as well as strategies and outcomes, acquiescing
to the Trump-takeover of the GOP means unmooring from their ideological
foundation. And from a more immediate and practical standpoint, it means giving
up on “the Bargain.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Bargain is this: “Work hard, play by the rules and try to
live your life in a responsible manner and you’ll do well.” Principled
conservatives understand that the Bargain is irrevocably linked to the American
Dream. Thoughtful conservative leaders and thinkers have dedicated their
political wherewithal to advocating a system of government that is conducive to
seeing that the Bargain is honored. For the most part, the Republican Party has
been the operative agent of conservatives. Always woefully imperfect, the GOP
is now seeing its politicians thoroughly outmatched.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Barack Obama has masterfully overwhelmed his opposition by
an unrelenting rejection of the Bargain. No, in fact, it is more than a rejection,
he has pursued an aggressive reversal of its core principle. In Barack Obama’s
world, entrepreneurs and investors build nothing, but rather are greedy and
undeserving profiteers while those who avoid responsibility and eschew wise decisions are viewed
as ever-virtuous victims of oppression. Policemen carrying out their duties “act
stupidly” but violent felons are innocent martyrs. Hateful Islamic terrorists
are shielded from scrutiny and criticism but law-abiding citizens are demonized
for demanding their constitutional rights. The weird philosophy
espoused by Barack Obama expects respect and subsidies for people whose illegal
presence on American soil demonstrates utter contempt for our laws. And why not?
Obama himself picks and chooses which laws
to enforce or creates new ones at his whim. With each incident and incitement conservatives
react with outrage, but before they can find the actual principle worth
defending and articulate a thoughtful response, Obama has them wheeling to face
some new effrontery, barking and snapping at each other as much as at their
tormentor.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And as Barack Obama and his allies have turned the world
upside down, he is convincing our population that old rules no longer apply—
that the Bargain is no longer in effect. (No one is adequately arguing otherwise,
as we are so busy reacting to Progressive provocation.) Consequently, we are
goaded into playing the games of identity politics, fighting zero-sum battles where
interest group connections decide winners and losers, and learning that those
who tell the biggest lies most consistently get the biggest prize. Terrible as
it is, Obama’s efforts are paying off. For now, unknowingly (and quite ironically),
those who have enthusiastically turned to Donald Trump are subscribing to the
Left’s rejection of everything that made America great.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The famous “anger” being expressed by Trump’s supporters are
people who see Obama’s unfair world, but rather than demanding fairness, are
asking that the rules be bent in their favor. The Trump people no long believe
in American ingenuity, exceptionalism and world leadership, having instead
adopted the Progressives’ disdain for our strengths and desire for
protectionism and isolationism. Trump’s people have been successfully baited to
abandon the conservative ideal of a color-blind society and now happily
categorize enemies by their ethnicity. Neither Trump nor his supporters have
any love for the First Amendment when it contradicts their views, and just like
the Left, they would love to see it severely limited. Doubtlessly, the men and
women who support Trump have nothing but contempt for their alleged political
counterparts, but they have proven the wisdom of Nietzsche’s warning: "He who fights with monsters should be
careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss,
the abyss will also gaze into thee."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And this is the reason for my despair … and why I, a
conservative, can no more support Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton; they are
opposite sides of the same terrible coin, made of the same unprecious metal. And
if this man becomes the face of the Republican Party and if the twisted views
of the Left are merely repackaged to bribe disaffected former conservatives,
then the America that stood as a beacon to the world will be utterly without
hope. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-78928241746310877872016-03-30T15:06:00.000-04:002016-03-31T08:57:00.643-04:00Why There’s No Debating Trump Supporters<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t get into debates with cultists. I was once employed
by Scientologists, but there was never a debate about their beliefs versus mine. Cults avoid confronting people with secure
belief systems, preferring to prey on those who are emotionally vulnerable with
no spiritual and/or intellectual foundation upon which to find solid footing.
That wasn’t me, and as I was viewed as a likely “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person">suppressive person</a>,”
they just fired me.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though stressful at the time, looking back I value the experience.
I’ve always been fascinated by group psychology, especially as related to the different
types of cults: religious (Westboro Baptist Church, ISIS, Jim Jones’ Jonestown);
political (Social Justice Warriors, Environmentalists, White Supremacists); sports teams (as represented by <a href="http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9086566/harvey-updyke-sentenced-3-years-auburn-tree-poisoning">Harvey Updyke</a>). I would also include relatively innocuous groups like fitness freaks
or hardcore Trekkers. When you consider the people who comprise these groups,
you realize cultists simply aren’t people you try to debate … and you shouldn’t
let yourself be lured by the challenge. They won’t play by any recognizable standard
rules, because it’s just too important to them that they not lose. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You must understand that their whole world has been subsumed
by complete devotion to a messiah, fuehrer, an organization or an idea. Instead
of honoring Truth, they have found a new god to give their life meaning. Truth is
the great enemy of cultists; they will undergo amazing intellectual and
emotional contortions to deny what is real—casting aside their powers of observation
and reason as the very <a href="http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/18-9.htm">eyes that offend them</a>. And whereas the rational man concedes a point here or there,
or acknowledges a specific weakness in his argument because it is <i>true</i>, the cultist will never do this.
Thus unencumbered by truth or reality he can always claim “victory” in his own
mind; his fanciful world preserved. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though not as evil and dangerous as Islamic terrorists or (quite)
as deluded as Jim Jones’ followers, I’ve come to see Donald Trump’s supporters
as increasingly cult-like. This, I’m realizing, is why debating them is such a
waste of time. I observe Trump—note his sketchy past, hear his vile comments,
consider his ludicrous proposals and weigh his unrelenting megalomania—and wonder
how could any rational person possibly support this insufferable lout. But now
I understand that his sycophants are no longer rational. In defense of their
tin god, they have disconnected all the faculties that would allow them to see
Trump for what he truly is. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Trump’s cultists have subordinated their egos to that of
their master’s so that they, in a way, can become one with him. In return, his
proclamations of grandeur become <i>their</i>
affirmations of self-worth; his outlandish plans are adopted as <i>their</i> own brain-children; and perceived
slights against Trump are taken as the most <i>personal</i>
of insults. Trump’s apostles idolize him as flawless in his wisdom, purely righteous
in his endeavors, and fearless in his quests so that they too can claim a
little piece of his glorious divinity. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, not everyone who votes for Trump or speaks
out on his behalf is a cultist (yet). A few see the opportunity for profit in
adding their voices to the snake oil salesman’s sideshow. Other’s don’t really
know enough about anything to make a smart political decision. Some think it
would just be funny to elect an obnoxious reality TV show star as President. And
perhaps the largest portion of Trump supporters are those angry at not getting
their way as often as they would like, and now petulantly embrace chaos in
revenge. Yet without a doubt, there is a growing <a href="http://www.britannica.com/topic/SA-Nazi-organization">Brown Shirt</a> core of Trump’s legions—largely morphing from the fore-mentioned segments—who are anxious to serve their new savior without question. And I run across more and more of them every day.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I criticize Trump—revile
his childishly cruel antics and words or prosecute his flimflammery—I am not
out to change the minds of his fanatics. That’s well beyond my meager abilities acting alone. Instead,
I am lending my words to rouse the unafflicted among us so that one day,
together we might stage an intervention for these pathetic lost souls before it
becomes too late to save them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-44337039452131305112016-02-17T13:34:00.003-05:002016-02-17T15:30:08.404-05:00I Endorse Marco Rubio<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Understanding that my opinion has been sought by no one, I
nevertheless have decided to make it public who I intend to vote for in the
March 1, Republican Primary in Alabama. (This proves that Donald Trump isn’t
the only person driven to obnoxiousness by his ego.)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Some candidates I eliminated, and some eliminated themselves
by dropping out. (Carly, I would have voted for you!) None were perfect, and the
men who remain all have flaws of varying severity. Starting with those I find
least acceptable and working my way to the one I will ultimately vote for, here
are my assessments:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Donald Trump –</span></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> I don’t
know what he actually believes, and I have no idea what he would actually do if
(God forbid) he gets elected. But even worse as far as I’m concerned, he seems
to have based the viability of his campaign on the willingness of people
to condone the most stupid/nasty behavior to show they're angry about being let down by "The Establishment." Ironically, Trump's supporters are falling for the mother of all con jobs.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Dr. Ben Carson –</span></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
Like just about everyone else, I’m favorably disposed to like Dr. Carson.
Unfortunately, supporting him violates my rule against voting for anyone who
knows less about important issues than I do. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">John Kasich –</span></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> I really
like Kasich on a human level. He seems to have managed to
spend most of his life in politics and still hold onto his
principles—which are basically to be a good, decent and fair human being. He is
what used to be called a ‘statesman.’ In other words, Kasich is Dudley Do-Right … and
the Clinton machine would leave him tied to a railroad track. Even if elected, Kasich
would be outnumbered about 1,000:1 by Snidely Whiplashes. It’s likely the
Democrats would steal his lunch money every day of his term, and they’d rob all
the working people’s money as well … along with every other individual right that
Constitution-loving Americans hold dear. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Jeb Bush –</span></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> Jeb prefers
smaller government solutions to liberal ones—I think. He’d probably be
a competent president. But a leader needs to have an idea of where he wants to
take the country, not just making sure the “trains run on time.” Reagan had
that, and say whatever you else you want to about him, so does Barack Obama. I’m
afraid Jeb would only want to “fix” the BO Railroad, when what we need to do is
blow it up and set off in a completely different direction. On an emotional
level, Jeb is also like choosing something other than what you really want. He’s
the healthy-choice meal, or the girl you can get to go with you to the prom
rather than the one that makes your heart go piddity-pat. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Ted Cruz –</span></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> Here’s
the attractive ‘bad boy.’ Simply based on a checklist of issues, I’m most in tune
with Cruz. He has a nice libertarian streak. He has the greatest raw intelligence
of any candidate running for president (on either side). Cruz also has that ‘vision
thing’ I’m looking for. Those are important enough considerations that I can
overlook the fact he doesn’t have executive experience and that he’s only a
first-term Senator. Given Risk vs. Reward, I might even be willing to bet he
could overcome the tidal wave of opposition from the Democrats’ attack dogs in
the news and popular media. (He’s got the data-mining thing going on!) The
problem? Well, I don’t like the sneaky stuff he pulled with Ben Carson in Iowa—not
so much that he did it, but that he tried to pass it off as an unfortunate
error and coated a dirty trick with a saccharin apology. In general, Cruz seems a
little too Clinton-like for my tastes … character matters (or at least save the
rough stuff for the general election!). Plus, his voice gets on my nerves. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">And that leaves …</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Marco Rubio –</span></b><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> I
remember when Rubio, as a Tea Party Conservative, basically ran Charlie Crist
out of the Republican Party. (BTW, Crist may still be running. This week, I
think he’s with the Bull Moose Party.) Next to Cruz, Rubio is the most reliably
conservative Republican still in the race. And by conservative, I mean for
limited government, pro-Constitution, supportive of the rule-of-law and willing
to fight terrorism. The biggest knock against him was his “Gang of Eight”
gambit in favor of immigration reform. Yeah, it irritated me too, but being a
principled conservative doesn’t </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">always</span></i><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
have to foreclose the possibility of a U.S. Senator trying to make legislation.
At the time, Rubio was new to the Senate and probably naively believed Barack
Obama and the Democrats could be trusted on anything. Since then, he has had
about four years to learn any deal with Obama is a bad deal for America. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">As with Cruz, Rubio’s lack of experience on the national
stage or executive experience still bothers me. But I actually understood what
he was trying to say (over and over and over) during his debate meltdown with Chris
Christie. His point was that you don’t need to have a lot of experience to be
effective, by pointing to what Obama has been able to do after just a single undistinguished term in the Senate. Unfortunately, Rubio
got lost also trying to infer that he’d be an effective force for good, whereas
Obama has put his efforts into attacking anything that makes America
great. (Yeah, the argument is still a bit too complicated to follow). I believe
I can usually trust Rubio to make good decisions for our country. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In reality, Rubio’s ethnicity probably won’t help him much with the Hispanic
vote—the illegals will still vote for Hillary or Bernie. However, he’s
definitely the most attractive candidate the Republicans can muster for getting
a better share of the all-important, low/no-info vote. And I think he’d acquit
himself fairly well in the general election after going through preliminary trial-by-fire from his fellow candidates in the GOP nomination process. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Rubio’s electable, I mostly trust him, he’d make
a fairly good president and … most importantly, he’s the best we have to choose
from. </span><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-52674011063488607542015-06-23T12:49:00.000-04:002015-06-23T19:53:00.434-04:00Yes, Let's Lay the Confederate Flag to Rest<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Some conclusions bring
no emotional satisfaction.<o:p></o:p></i><br />
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img src="http://www.bndflagpoles.com/750_500_csupload_42887081.png?u%201747286463" height="213" width="320" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<o:p><br /></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My father, John Carroll, was a masterful story-teller. As a child, I loved hearing his true-life
tales of what is was like to grow up in the Depression-Era South. (I will
always regret not having the foresight to tape-record my dad’s recollections
before he passed away.) While I can still remember the gist of his stories,
most of the details that made his words so vivid are lost to me. Part of a one
saga that I can remember, however, was actually handed down to my father from
his grandfather, Stephen Carroll. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It goes like this: My great-grandfather, a private in the
Confederate Army, along with a wounded comrade, had become separated from their company. With the Yankees closing in, the two soldiers managed to escape detection by climbing a tree. How they did this, with one of them being shot, I
don’t know. But I do recall my dad conveying his grandfather’s fear of being
discovered as the Union soldiers set up camp right below their hiding place. Holding his comrade in his arms, Stephen Carroll
had to remain quiet and motionless as the sun set and then throughout the
night—afraid the entire time that the wounded man would moan or cry out in
pain. I can imagine his relief as the enemy army moved out the next day. I recall nothing of the narrative about how
he got back to his unit or what became of the injured man. Whatever else happened,
it remains that Stephen Carroll came home from the war and fathered many
children.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This family story is one that long personalized the Civil
War for me. Most of my life, I have been able to see this bequeathed memory in
the fabric of the Confederate battle flag. But is that still possible? Though the recent
murder of nine people in Charleston had little (or nothing) to do with the
flag, honest horror has instigated controversy over the pre-eminent symbol of
the Old South. Prompted by the debate, I have re-examined my own regard for the
Stars & Bars. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Stephen Carroll, like most of the men who fought for the
Confederacy, was too poor to own slaves. “Rich man’s war, poor man’s fight,”
supposedly was the saying. Was he a
dupe? Perhaps. It’s hard enough to put a positive spin on fighting to preserve
an institution as evil as slavery, but what can you say about fighting for such
a way of life … and not even gaining benefit from it? Then again, I doubt if my great-grandfather
would have agreed that he was fighting for the right to own slaves. He probably saw it as a matter of protecting
his home from an invading army. Regardless
of individual motivations, one fact stands: If the Confederacy had survived,
slavery would have continued in Dixie. If
one can romanticize the South’s war effort, it’s only because the rebels were
defeated. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>If you can romanticize
…</i> that brings me to a vital point. For many people, romanticizing is quite impossible
to do. Seeing a Confederate flag might cause <i>me</i> to think of my ancestor fighting bravely (if misguidedly), but what
can African-American citizens see other than their ancestors’ degradation? Not asking this question has been my
ongoing failure. And now I must also wonder why those whose ancestors fought for
the United States, or were oppressed by slavery, should acquiesce to honoring <i>my</i> forebears’ treasonous insurrection. Maybe
there’s a place for memorializing family stories such as mine, or enjoying pretty
fictions like <i>Gone with the Wind,</i> but
it is a very small place … and certainly not at state capitols. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Once, it may have been possible to rehabilitate the Stars &
Bars into something innocuous. For example, think of it painted atop the
General Lee on <i>The Dukes of Hazzard—</i>symbolizing
fun-loving resistance to authority. Unfortunately,
the window for transformation was small and closed well before that silly TV
program aired. The Battle flag had
already been re-enlisted by the likes of Ku Klux Klan, segregationist
politicians and also countless petty racists in resistance to the Civil Rights
struggle. Today, those of us with an inclination to appreciate the Confederate
flag, find ourselves among vile companions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The most painful question though, is whether bad people
(even creatures like Dylan Roof) wrongfully appropriated the flag … or was it
really theirs all along? Bravery in defense of hearth and home aside, I’ve
reluctantly concluded that any nobility in the Stars & Bars was ultimately
obliterated by the inherent corruption among the causes it served. Now, like
the aging portrait of Dorian Gray, the ugliness can no longer be denied. Sadly, I must accept that the Confederate
battle flag is not what I wanted it to be. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-58940708536679868162012-11-07T09:46:00.000-05:002015-11-21T11:51:39.013-05:00Despair and Disgust<span style="font-family: "calibri";">It wouldn’t be accurate to say America—the Home of the Free
and Land of the Brave—died last night. Rather it was more like seeing a cancer
patient choose the disease over remission, or perhaps watching a drug-addicted
loved one ignore the pleas of interventionists and stubbornly remain on the broad
and winding road of self-destruction. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Instead what died, died in me—and that was hope for this
country. I see no path to a better tomorrow. In a world where envy is rewarded
and initiative reviled, those who produce will see the futility of their
actions and surrender to the undeniable appeal of self-interest. (What dog,
being tortured and consumed by fleas, might not prefer to become a flea
himself?) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">As the entrepreneurs, explorers, inventors and creators—many of whom are also misguided enablers
in our sad drama—become fewer and fewer, we shall become a nation of hoarders,
thieves and bandits. Only the bullies or well-connected will survive, and
corruption will become the pre-eminent virtue. The government shall rise as the
foretold beast to apportion shares of a rotting carcass to those most willing
to pay obeisance. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Of course, this will not happen overnight. I am 51 and will likely
be in my grave before the convulsive death of this not-so-brave world (with
such pathetic people in it!). But I expect to be more and more harnessed and
harassed by the state. With one more Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice, the
First and Second Amendments of the U.S. Constitution will be lost. The Commerce
Clause will be stretched beyond absurdity, and Congress will decide to regulate whatever
aspects of our lives it so pleases. When Congress declines, this president (and
surely also those that follow) will simply issue “executive orders” to see his
will done. Or maybe the unfettered bureaucracies will invent new mandates of
their own. When there are complaints, enticements or exemptions will be
dispensed to just enough demographic groups or special interests to keep the
ruling class in power. For the individualists, or those who turn to something
other than government for affirmation and reward, there will only be more and
more hardship and servitude. Of course, when the rulers have acquired enough
power, the fleas will have to go back to work and again produce to please their
new masters. (I fervently hope that some of today’s Occupy Wall Street types
are still around to get to meet THAT 1%!) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">For now, and while I can, I will turn my back on the sad
state of affairs that unfolded last evening. (Unfortunately, when the drug
addict that refuses treatment is also the mayor, police chief and justice of
the peace, there is only so much you can do to escape his madness.) But for
what cold comfort it brings, I will pass through the stages of grief for the
country that was, and move on. After all, there remain many things actually worth
caring about until my time ends. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">I must accept that the USA was nice while it lasted. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.shmoop.com/animal-farm/benjamin-donkey.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "calibri";">Donkeys live a
long time</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-60657132894575187312012-06-30T14:15:00.000-04:002012-06-30T14:15:30.178-04:00In (Possible) Defense of John Roberts<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
Sometimes good people do bad things.
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And sometimes good people do bad things for good reasons. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And that leaves us to decide whether the good reasons may
eventually make up for the bad thing. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of
the U.S. Supreme Court to save Obamacare from the ignominious death of
unconstitutionality that it so richly deserved. He did this, by getting a majority
of the court to pretend it’s a tax. Everyone (outside a few “compounds” in
Idaho, perhaps) agrees the federal government has the power to tax.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It was a decision that seemingly came out of nowhere. All
along, no one who supported Obamacare called it a tax—Obama himself vehemently insisted
it is NOT a tax. Of course that didn’t stop him from taking his typically
undeserved victory bow with comments that boiled down to: “Hey, it’s a tax! Who
knew? Anyway game’s over, I won and would someone please destroy the instant
replay tapes?” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Practically everybody thought that if Obamacare was going to
be found legal it would be under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which
gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That poor old clause has already been horribly warped out
shape by the desire by some to expand the role of government way beyond
anything imagined by the Founding Fathers. But this would have been the first
time it was twisted to describe something a person DOESN’T DO (not buy health
insurance) as “interstate commerce.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If the Federal Government could regulate inactivity, there
was nothing it could not compel people to do. Limited-government types were
justifiably terrified by the prospect. So in what could only be described as a “deal
with the Devil,” Roberts gave the Left their Obamacare. But he also did a Jean
Luc Picard impersonation with the Commerce Clause: “This far, but no farther!” (A
reference to the Borg invasion … you have to be a Trekker.) </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now some are saying, “Yeah, but now can’t Congress just call
anything a tax, and have government do anything it wants to us, anyway?”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Theoretically yes. But Congress doesn’t like calling something
a tax, even when it is. (“Let’s just call that a fee instead, uh, for
investment purposes.”) So that would leave it up to the courts to repeat the
Chief Justice’s imaginative wordplay in the future. Yes, it if it walks like a
duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, the Supreme Court <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">can</i> always declare it’s a horse. But
that doesn’t mean every other duck that comes along has to also be called a horse.
I suspect Roberts was expecting (hoping) this would be one-time-only wackiness.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But why not just do the right thing and put Obamacare out of
our misery by joining the side of the court that has a little respect for the
U.S. Constitution? That’s what conservatives and libertarians wanted. “We had
this!” they cry. “Why John Robert, oh why did you betray us?” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I believe Roberts was worried that “sometimes when you win,
you lose.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The noise-makers on the right side of the political spectrum
(led by Fox News and Talk Radio) can more than match up with the noise makers
on the left (the mainstream “news” media and Hollywood) when a debate is hot,
primarily because common sense and the facts almost always favor the Right. But
the Left is built to win in the long-term. A majority of the country may have
wanted the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare, but that would have been <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">today</i>. Roberts was worried what the public
would think of his court a few years from now.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If Roberts had stayed in the real world with Justices Scalia,
Alito, Thomas and Kennedy, we would have heard incessant weeping and gnashing
of teeth from Obama and liberal Democrats that it was a purely partisan
decision. (Stuck-in-concrete left-wing Justices Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor and
Ginsburg are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">never</i> partisan, don’t
you know?) The hue and cry would also have been echoed by all the White House’s
propaganda organs like the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York
Times, </i>ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN … etc. The Right would be enjoying a sigh
of relief that Obamacare was dead at the very moment the Left was launching a
full-scale attack on the good guys of the U.S. Supreme Court.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And the attacks wouldn’t have stopped … ever. Their
manufactured rage would have calmed down, true, but Phase Two of the assault
would have been carried on by overwhelmingly liberal academia and popular media
always repeating the lie that Obamacare died—not because it was
unconstitutional—but because five judges were “conservative.” And when a lie is
repeated often enough, and few know or care to remember what actually happened,
that lie becomes accepted as fact. (Case in point: The lie that the Supreme
Court “stole” the 2000 election for George Bush.) </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t think Roberts wanted that to happen to his court,
not over Obamacare, anyway. No one wants to see their life’s work falsely maligned
in history.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And I also want to believe that Roberts realized the rule of
law could only win—for a while anyway—if the next president who puts justices
on the courts is NOT Barack Obama. The nation couldn’t afford to have the Right
celebrating victory with the Left declaring all-out war. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think Roberts made a calculation: For the price of one
idiotic court decision, he’d save his court from defamation, saddle Democrat politicians
(like Florida Sen. Bill Nelson) with their awful Obamacare and energize the
lovers of liberty to fix matters in November. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then with a few good court appointees for
President Romney, he’d never have to go through this foul business again.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A risky move. I hope it was worth it. </div>Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-86954398851247529182011-06-17T18:33:00.001-04:002011-06-17T18:34:33.888-04:00Barack Obama Wants You Weak, Afraid and DependentDuring the 1988 presidential campaign, then Vice President George H.W. Bush once explained to former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, “Competence makes the trains run on time, but ideology tells us where they’re going.” Today, we’re seeing how wrong-headed governance can drive the American Dream over a cliff. Indeed, it seems that when candidate Obama spouted “Hope and Change” in 2008, he really meant, “Today you may have hope, but I’m going to change all that!”<br /><br />Oh sure, we should give the president credit for ordering Osama Bin Laden killed (as Mr. Obama so frequently reminds us) but truly, didn’t he simply do the same thing to the terrorist leader that he’s been doing to our economy for the past two and a half years? After massive spending that’s saddled us with trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see, Mr. Obama is essentially firing bullets between eyes of our nation’s future. I ask, couldn’t we have found a less expensive way to drive unemployment up from 7.8 percent in 2008 to the 9.1% rate at which it now stands? <br /><br />But is President Obama really incompetent? Or perhaps, unfortunately, he has been a bit too good at doing exactly what he intended. Yes, like most Democrats — and specially those acquainted with the Chicago Way — Mr. Obama readily throws opens the public purse to pay off his friends, just as he also unabashedly wields the power of government punish rivals. But Mr. Obama also gives us corrupt Chicago-style patronage with a purpose. If there exists a healthy, burgeoning economy and a vibrant private sector, the roadblocks to prosperity become few and far between, meaning the role of government becomes diminished in our lives. But for someone who is ideologically driven to see the power and authority of the state magnified; for one whose sense of ego and purpose is intrinsically tied to having dominion over his fellow citizens, self-sufficiency is an appalling proposition. <br /><br />When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, it devastated the poor people who most rely on government direction and support for their very survival. In the wake of that natural disaster, and with federal, state and city governments incapable of response, there was no aid for the hapless men, women and children who had been crippled and left stranded by a malignant dependency. <br /><br />Witness Barack Obama’s vision for America.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-56278545595133653192011-06-04T13:28:00.012-04:002011-06-04T13:52:03.173-04:00Three Questions for Barack Obama<p>If given the opportunity to interview the man who was elected to the presidency in 2008, I would very much like to ask him the three following questions:</p><ol><li>Do you believe that the free enterprise system has been and continues to be the engine for this nation’s economic growth and the primary source of prosperity for America’s citizen?<br /><br /></li><li>Do you believe that an individual has the first and best claim to use of the wealth and property he or she honestly acquires—either through hard work, wise investment or good fortune — and that the wealth-producing productivity of private citizens should be commended and encouraged so that they will be free from dependence upon others for their well being?<br /><br /></li><li>Do you believe that all individuals should be treated equally before the law, and that there should be neither advantage nor disadvantage administered by the state on account of race, creed, sex or religion, and that every person has an inalienable right to hold and peacefully express their beliefs on any and all subjects without fear of reprisal from the law or its agents? </li></ol><p>As for myself, I would answer each question with a resounding and unqualified “yes!” I suspect that Mr. Obama would also answer affirmatively, but then he would spend quite awhile explaining why none of these ideas are acceptable in practice.</p><p>In any case, actions speak louder than words and certainly none of Mr. Obama’s policies or pronouncements implies much commitment to the beliefs I’ve outlined in my three questions.<br /><br />And what I find most troubling is that not only are these my beliefs, history has also shown these concepts to be fundamental to the American ideals. Therefore my question for others would be: "How could I possibly support the presidency of any man who holds to a counter and alien ideology?"<br /></p><p>Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-62729796475678350512011-01-12T22:10:00.005-05:002011-01-12T23:09:46.045-05:00No, I Will Not Be Silenced<p class="MsoNormal">I don’t know to what extent a lot of average folks are paying attention to the Tucson shooting side-show—that effort by liberal pundits, activists and politicians to cast conservatives and Tea Party types as indirectly responsible for the horrific murder of six people (including a federal judge and a nine-year old girl) as well as the terrible wounding of a Democrat congresswoman and 13 others. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Yes, of course, a single madman was responsible, but you’d never know that if “Progressives” had their way. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Basically, this is their game plan: Having lost the public debate about the direction the country should take (as evidenced by the utter repudiation of loser-centric liberal policies in the recent elections) the Loony Left desperately wants to avoid a similar outcome in 2012 by making sure only one side has a voice going forward — theirs. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span>Baselessly claiming that conservative talk radio, Fox News and Tea Party activism is to blame for causing a crazy man to do something violently crazy is the Left’s grotesquely exploitative plan. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Think I’m wrong or perhaps overstating the situation? Look at this way: The objection the Left raises is to people rebelling against status-quo, liberal policies like ObamaCare. It’s obvious that quelling dissent helps keep the disastrous legislation (and executive orders) of the past two years in place. Make no mistake; while they’ll swear they simply want to keep discourse civil, they really just want anyone who disagrees with Lord Obama to keep their mouths shut. You know the drill: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”</p><p class="MsoNormal">I pray that conservatives and libertarians won’t be cowed by this rank intimidation. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Barack Obama is an arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, empty suit pursuing idiotic polices in service to a hopelessly foolish political philosophy. He, his minions, allies and supporting self-interested interest groups must be opposed with all the vigor and to the fullest extent that the law allows. I sincerely feel to do anything less would be a disservice to my conscience and my country. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Lock and load! (Metaphorically speaking, of course.) </p>Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-14615239190066287602010-07-24T23:42:00.011-04:002010-07-26T14:33:25.037-04:00What's Really at Stake<em>Recently George Steinbrenner passed away, and because this year (and this year only) there is no death tax, the Yankee’s owner, shipping magnate and philanthropist was able to bequeath the entirety of considerable fortune to his heirs … as he saw fit. That thought delights me. For as the legendary economist Milton Friedman once wondered, why is it better for a wealthy man to spend lavishly on himself, indulging in every whim, than leave too much money to his children?</em><br /><br />I don’t have any children, but I have many friends who are wonderful, loving parents, and certainly I was once a child myself, so I’m still well acquainted with the concept of mothers and fathers “doing” for their offspring. In fact, as far as my circle of friends and family is concerned, anything less than total commitment to their children’s welfare is completely unfathomable. And surely, among life’s pleasures for these people, is giving a gift to a child that will utterly delight the young one.<br /><br />Now imagine if such a special moment were interrupted by a brutish third party who steps in and announces, “That gift is much too nice. I’m going to insist on something of lesser value for your child.” Unfortunately in this scenario, the entity is so powerful that you have no choice but to surrender a portion of your little one’s joy.<br /><br />Here then is the question: If it would disturb you to be stopped from giving your child as fancy a toy as you would like, how much worse would it be if this same interloper stopped you from aiding your child with a better education, better health care or — worse still— the life skills and moral character to flourish on their own.<br /><br />Ultimately, that is the effect of wealth redistribution as favored by the current regime in Washington. And don’t doubt for a moment that Barack Obama and his associates truly want to keep middle-class parents from providing for their children at the best of their ability. Consider leftist opposition to anything other than government/union-run schools, their grab to limit and ration medical care, and an unrelenting assault on the values that made the nation great—namely individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.<br /><br />The magnificent thing about capitalistic, free-market economies and the liberty to make choices is that corresponding societies afford the greatest opportunity for upward mobility (or perhaps more to the point, a much enhanced ability to live a life based on one’s own priorities). For now, the vast majority of Americans (not just the super rich) have access to products, services and entertainments that their grandparents could not have imagined. This includes “doing” for your children, which is another legacy of "free minds and free markets."<br /><br />But shouldn't we be willing to do with a little less, even for our children, if it means meeting the needs of the poorest among us? I would agree, if I believed that was the goal of left-wing politicians, but it isn’t. Instead, they want power ... and assuming the mantle of charity is merely a means to their ends. Some may want power for personal aggrandizement and some may want to “do good” but make no mistake, they want to rule. To achieve their goal, they seek to corner the market on much of the things that middle class people so readily have at hand. Once you understand this, you’ll understand why Barack Obama is so hostile to economic liberty and free enterprise.<br /><br />This is the patronage system—Tammany Hall or the “Chicago Way.” If you want good healthcare, to send your children to the best schools, a home in a nice neighborhood … too bad! Your ability to get these things through your own efforts will be put out of your reach, regardless of how hard you’re willing to work or the talent you possess, or yes … even raw luck. (And is luck so bad? Don’t we all, on occasion, fantasize about being lucky?) Instead, you’ll need to show obeisance to the proper authorities, grease a few palms … maybe join the SEIU (the Party).<br /><br />It is the hope of the statists to make us all dependent on the government for everything. And unless you want to be like the most pathetic of Hurricane Katrina’s victims, (waiting to be rescued because they never learned self-reliance) you will need to learn to adoringly chant something like “Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm! Barack Hussein Obama!”<br /><br />And we will, because good parents will do anything for their children. Even wear the chains of slavery.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-84552204734910083352010-07-10T16:22:00.011-04:002010-07-10T17:07:52.348-04:00Barack Obama’s War on Responsible AmericansIf you’re someone who works hard to provide well for yourself and your family, tries to instill good values in your children, endeavors to live an honorable life … and hopes to occasionally reap some rewards from all your hard work, I have bad news: You aren’t among Barack Obama’s constituent groups.<br /><br />And if you know anything about Chicago-style, patronage politics, you know that you’re either with the Machine or you’re food for it.<br /><br />Seriously, can anyone name a single policy endorsed by the current administration that makes it easier to do any of the things mentioned in that opening paragraph?<br /><br /><strong></strong><strong>Provide for your family?</strong> Unemployment hovers around 10% largely because Obama’s profligate spending, eagerness to raise taxes and aggressive moves to regulate every aspect of the economy have so spooked businesses that they are afraid to invest or hire.<br /><br /><strong></strong><strong>Try to instill good values in children?</strong> Attempting to bribe one politician with various favors to not run against another one; judicial appointments and a Department of Justice that judges people not by their character but by the color of their skin; government bail outs for bad behavior (personal and institutional) … those are some of examples that Obama is setting for America’s youth.<br /><br /><strong>Endeavors to live an honorable life?</strong> Look at the cast of miscreants with whom Barack Obama is associated: Low-life felon Tony Reznik, domestic terrorist William Ayers, “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, the gang from ACORN, SEIU goon squads … if honor was money, they couldn’t come up with a nickel between the lot of 'em! Birds of a feather, I always say.<br /><br /><strong>Hope to occasionally reap some rewards from hard work?</strong> Forget about it! The Teleprompter in Chief has plans for your money and it doesn’t include you! Some of your cash is earmarked for people who lead irresponsible lives with no interest in looking out for themselves or their children. (But they vote!) Then he also wants to pay off unions for their support and muscle (the Brown Shirt Brigades of the Obama-Nation). And of course the ruling class itself desires more and more perks and power! Buying votes and controlling everything is expensive. That’s not going to leave a lot of money left over for the people who earned it. Sorry.<br /><br />Even big banks and corporations are more cherished by Barack Obama and his ilk than the average middle class family. Forget what you've always heard about socialist being for the "little guy." They see no real upside to being for the middle class or small business owners. Not when "too big to fail" policies enable Obama's thug-ocracy to extort more and more concessions against freedom that feed the downward spiral toward mass servitude.<br /><br />Yeah, face it. If you’re a decent, hardworking American citizen, you fall well below illegal aliens in Barack Obama’s pecking order. And in fact, just because you have the temerity to want to take care of yourself and your family, make your own decisions and build your own future, you dare reject the chains of slavery.<br /><br />Barack Obama wants to destroy your ability to make a better life for yourself than would be possible by solely relying on government. To that end, his policies are all about lowering your expectations and limiting your options. And as long as you cling to those things (as you might cling to your faith or other freedoms) you are an enemy of the Anointed One.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-13657376406078329422010-07-02T16:30:00.010-04:002010-07-02T18:10:20.454-04:00Independence Day ThoughtsIf engaged in a political debate, how I assess my "opponent" might well include his or her view of citizen “rights.” And frankly, I have a hard time taking too seriously anyone who declares we have a "right" to things like healthcare, or housing, or even food.<br /><br />Now I’m not saying that as a society — or better yet, as individuals —we shouldn’t be concerned that our fellow human beings have the basic (or even some of the not-so-basic) necessities of life. But one person’s moral imperative to share is another person’s waste of effort (or money). And the simple and unassailable fact is that no one has a right to anything that another person has to provide.<br /><br />There is a reason why Thomas Jefferson said we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” or why we speak of the “Natural Rights of Man.” We make our way in this world with life (a heartbeat), liberty (an ability to choose between options) and a desire for happiness (as we individually define it). You don’t have to ask anyone else for these things. Others (usually the government) can take them away from us — liberals are very keen on curbing that “pursuit of happiness” thing — but absent outside interference, an Inalienable Right is the normal state of affairs from the moment of our birth.<br /><br />Or think of it this way: If you lived on an unchartered island all by yourself, you would most assuredly have your Inalienable Rights. By contrast, anything else you want on that island, you’re going to have to acquire all by your little lonesome.<br /><br />But I must admit that there is also a question as to why any rights <em>at all</em> should be respected. After all, why should the government (whether a monarch or the people collectively) be constrained from preventing us from exercising our Natural Rights. What if they have a good reason? I can only (and perhaps lamely) say it is my preference to only render unto Caesar what came from Caesar, and consult with the Provider as to what I do with everything else. But accept that rationale or not, we are left with either very few rights or none at all. And “none at all,” definitely rules out a such occasionally suggested “rights” as paid vacations or bilingual education.<br /><br />Putting aside the sillier claims, I am especially pleased that our Constitution didn’t stop with protecting the few inalienable rights Jefferson cited in the Declaration of Independence. The law of the land says that government can’t deprive us of property without compensation, it isn’t allowed to keep us from worshiping as we see fit, or forbid us from hanging out with people of our own choosing … to name a few additional protections from tyranny. Yet notice, once again, that those Constitutional Rights are not what someone must give us, but rather are existing abilities and freedoms that shall not be taken from us.<br /><br />Some people are bothered by the limits on what government may rip away — leading them to say that our governing document is full of “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf7DU9ywQ4">negative liberties</a>.”Of course, what those people see as a negative (government shall not, or Congress shall make no law … etc.), I see as a positive (yes, <em>I</em> may!).<br /><br />We can debate about what is fair or not fair, what will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, or what Jesus would do. But as for what constitutes a Right — unless you were born with it — you shouldn’t expect anyone to give it you. And if it is your birthright (perhaps your only birthright), you might want to be careful not to let anyone take it away without a fight.<br /><br /><strong><em>Happy 4th of July!</em></strong>Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-1789844194798196042009-09-15T23:51:00.007-04:002009-09-16T00:50:55.641-04:00There's No Other Explanation ...For as long as I have considered such things, I have believed as Thomas Jefferson said, “That government governs best that governs least.”<br /><br />When I was 14 years old, I sent two weeks allowance to Ronald Reagan’s unsuccessful 1976 presidential campaign to wrest the Republican nomination from President Gerald Ford. In high school, during Mrs. Sellers’s weekly current events discussion, (at the height of the farmers' protest movement for 100% price supports) I argued that farmers had no more right to government subsidies than any other business person.<br /><br />During my college years, I debated with political science professors that we should eliminate about 75% of the federal government. In speech class, I spoke in favor of right-to-work laws (in opposition to unionization) and against the government-sponsored pyramid scheme known as Social Security. Also while in college, one of my greatest Eureka moments came when I read economist Milton Friedman’s <em>Free to Choose</em>, perhaps the best defense of limited government and the free market ever written.<br /><br />As a newspaper columnist in the mid 1980s I was a consistent libertarian-conservative, espousing a limited government approach to every issue: in favor of legalizing marijuana, pro-gun rights, against mandatory seat-belts, defending private property rights, against minimum wage laws, supporting tax-cuts … and always an ardent supporter of the First Amendment.<br /><br />My views haven’t changed much. An 8x10 framed color photo of Ronald Reagan hangs on the wall over my desk. I still subscribe to <em>Reason</em> magazine (since about 1984) which carries the slogan, “Free minds and free markets.” I’m a registered Republican and have been for more 25 years. During that time I’ve voted for Libertarian candidates a few times, but only ONE Democrat. (Gladys Chapman, the supervisor of elections in Bay County, FL always spoke slowly in concise, grammatically correct sentences, and as a reporter I appreciated that.)<br /><br />Before the 2008 presidential election, I took a quiz to see which candidate I should support. Out of all those men and Hillary (about 20 hopefuls there were, I think) Barack Obama was dead last. He and I saw eye to eye 8% of the time. Today, I heard that Obama called Kanye West a “jackass.” As far as I can tell, this is the first position he’s taken since becoming president that I agree with.<br /><br />Yet apparently none of all that matters … not my political philosophy, my party affiliation, my understanding of economics or the lessons I’ve drawn from history.<br /><br />No. You see, apparently the real reason I oppose Barack Obama’s agenda for America is because I’m a racist. For all the folks to the far left of sanity, no other reason will do.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-76702168434279514162009-08-05T10:21:00.006-04:002009-08-05T16:08:01.462-04:00Why I'm a Global Warming SkepticThere are several reasons I don’t believe in man-made global warming. What follows are the biggest of these (though there are others not mentioned).<br /><br />First, the warmest year in the U.S. during the past 120 or so years was in 1934. I’ve heard 1998 supposedly came close … but no banana. That means global warming has had 75 years to break the record (with the aid of tons of CO<span style="font-size:78%;">2</span> emissions) and still can’t do it. Does warming not really mean warming?<br /><br />Apparently not. Since the aforementioned 1998, world temperatures have leveled off and in fact, since Al Gore’s 2006 <em>Inconvenient Truth</em> propaganda film, have declined about three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit. That may not sound like much, but it’s more than half the entire temperature rise since modern climate record-keeping began around 1880. Oh, you didn’t know that — that all the horrible global warming which is supposedly killing polar bears and threatening to sink Florida beneath the waves, amounts to one single degree Celsius from 1880 to 1998? Hype is an amazing thing when done well. And this why the preferred term has become “climate change.” (When I was a kid, “climate change” was what we referred to as “weather” or “seasons.”)<br /><br />I’m also put off by the cultic behavior of the strongest adherents of man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. Try this, whenever you here the term “global warming” or “climate change” from an AGW alarmist, mentally substitute the word, “sin.” I thought about substituting “Earth” with “God” but Gaia is a wimpy little deity who’s constantly threatened by her creation. Essentially her only line of defense is to die and take the human race with her. Nevertheless, the AGW faithful gives the Taliban a run for the money in the intolerance department.<br /><br />And a final big reason I’m skeptical of AGW is that I don’t trust the people pushing the theory. I think governmental funding and fear of being politically incorrect has utterly corrupted much of the science that purportedly proves AGW. (The United Nations? Really? People are actually taking the U.N seriously … about ANYTHING!?!) I believe the big companies that are “going green” are looking for ways to make a fast-buck, and liberal politicians are using this “crisis” as an excuse to bring huge portions of the economy, as well as how individuals live their lives, under government control. I don’t like people who use fear to stampede folks into making a rash decision.<br /><br />Today politics is all about fear. George W. had the terrorists of course, (who actually DID kill about 3,000 people in New York). Two wars and the Patriot Act later though, I have to admit there may have been excess in the response. But today we have Barack Obama who sees “weapons of mass destruction” every where he looks — in the banking industry, with car manufacturing, in healthcare and threatening the environment.<br /><br />I adored Ronald Reagan as president. He never played on people’s fears. Talk about “yes, we can” … now that was Reagan! Return the nation to economic prosperity? Yes we can! Defeat the evil empire of communist oppression? Yes we can! Be proud of ourselves again as a people? Yes we can! He did it all, and he did it by pushing an agenda of individual freedom and personal responsibility at home, and strength and determination abroad. By contrast, when Obama says, “Yes we can” he means we can turn our back on the economic system that has made America the wonder of the world; we can strip away the liberties that our Founding Fathers tried to protect with the Constitution; and we can forego Reagan’s shining city on the hill for an intermittently wind-powered hovel in government-run housing. Yes, we CAN be miserable!<br /><br />Obama and his like-minded, left-wing cohorts in Congress will have “misery for all” as the new closing line for the pledge of allegiance. And I’m absolutely convinced AGW alarmism is a major front for making Obama's dream a reality.<br /><br /><strong>Coming soon: But if I Did Believe In Man-Made Global Warming, Here’s What I Would Do</strong>Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-42337700278146797292008-07-21T22:42:00.008-04:002008-07-22T00:48:51.808-04:00And now for something completely different ...<em>I'm tired of writing about Backtrack Oblahblah, but nothing else really comes to mind, so I've dug up some of my poetry.</em><br /><br /><span style="color:#663366;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">My Fish is Swimming Upside Down</span></strong><br /><br />My fish is swimming upside down<br />And bumping into stuff.<br />He is my fav'rite goldfish<br />But this has gone on long enough!<br /><br />I think maybe he's just tired<br />From swimming ev'ry day.<br />I let him sleep with me last night,<br />And hoped he'd be okay.<br /><br />I think my fish went right to sleep<br />Though it's pretty hard to know.<br />Fishies never close their eyes<br />So when they sleep it doesn't show.<br /><br />When I got up this morning<br />I put him in his tank.<br />When mommy changed my covers,<br />She said my pillow stank.<br /><br />Now my fish is mostly floating<br />As he bobs from side to side.<br />Still he's quite a friendly goldfish<br />And he gives a snail a ride.<br /><br />Daddy's looking at my goldfish.<br />He's got a funny frown.<br />Now he pats me on the shoulder<br />And he says, "Come here, sit down."<br /><br />He sets me up upon his knee,<br />And he says it's okay to cry.<br />He says, "For everything their comes,<br />A time to say goodbye."<br /><br />He tells me lots of other things<br />That I don't understand.<br />But it doesn't really matter,<br />Cause my my daddy held my hand.<br /><br />Still at first I didn't like it<br />But dad knew what to do.<br />So when it's time to go to Heaven,<br />I hope someone will flush me too. </span><br /><span style="color:#663366;"><em>-- Capertree</em></span>Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-86259534705832730522008-07-09T14:37:00.004-04:002008-07-10T13:15:18.015-04:00Is It Truly That Hard to Stop Smoking?I’d been puffing away for the past 13 or so years — probably up to a pack and half per day. About 12 days ago, I decided to quit. No great revelation led to my decision nor was I persuaded to give up cigarettes by friends, family, or some random public service message. I was nearly out of cigarettes and had a dentist appointment the next day. Since I was getting my teeth cleaned, I figured I could help keep them that way if I stopped smoking.<br /><br />I’ve had one lapse. The evening that I officially stopped, I had three cigarettes left. About four days later — about two-thirds of the way through ten hours of boring newsletter editing — I gave in and smoked one of those three remaining cigarettes. Then I destroyed the other two.<br /><br />The addiction part has been less difficult for me to get over than the habit. There was some irritability during the first few days and some unusual restlessness, but with the exception of that one instance, I haven’t been exactly climbing the walls in desperation. What has been most stressful is missing the ritual of lighting up. I find myself looking for my ash tray when I sit my favorite chair. Or when I’m writing, I keep wanting a cigarette because that was how I worked. (Even though frequently a cigarette could end up becoming just one long ash if I was really into what ever I was doing.) I also miss having a cigarette after a meal or when I conclude some project or activity. That desire is becoming less pronounced with each passing day, and now I can’t imagine buying any more cigarettes.<br /><br />To be honest — given the great pain and suffering I was led to believe would descend upon me — I’m most surprised at how easily I’ve stopped.<br /><br />(My dad smoked heavily for about 50 years then he decided to quit cold turkey. His method was keeping a pack in his shirt pocket, but whenever he felt the urge, he would “put off” smoking for a little while. Thus, he kept putting it off until he didn’t want a cigarette anymore.)<br /><br />I think a big problem is that there’s not very many people with a vested interest in saying it’s not that hard to quit. Makers of smoking cessation products (i.e. nicotine patches, gum, etc.) need you to believe it will be difficult to stop so you’ll buy whatever they’re selling. Tobacco companies can strategically appear to support smoking cessation programs, but by hyping how hard it is to quit, they may actually be discouraging their customers from trying. Government agencies and other do-gooder types aren’t ever going to be happy unless they can convince all of us we’re hopeless incompetents who really shouldn’t be trusted to tie our own shoe laces. Their constant message is “life is hard and scary, and you need professional (or government) help to make it through."<br /><br />As for the people who stop smoking? What’s the incentive in saying it’s easy? People congratulate you for quitting. Friends and family are supportive. If you’re rude to someone, you can blame it on nicotine withdrawal. You can eat more … because everyone knows quitting cigarettes leads to weight gain.<br /><br />Most importantly, if you fail at quitting … well, you know, “it’s very, very hard to quit.”<br /><br />I’m thinking though, it we really wanted people to quit smoking we’d stop saying how hard it is. Rather than fawning all over the person who decides to stop, we should note that only a weak and pathetic loser would give in to such an illogical temptation.<br /><br />I know it sounds a bit cruel. But really, if you lead people to expect failure, you end up getting it a lot more often than you should.<br /><br />Still, if anyone wants to congratulate me, go ahead. I really won’t mind.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-11857131912562074672008-06-16T00:09:00.001-04:002008-06-16T00:15:28.978-04:00The Plus One FactorI am tired of writing about (against) Barack Obama. So today, I’ve decided to post my “mathematical formula” proving the existence of God.<br /><br />This is probably ridiculous since I only passed Algebra I in high school (on my second attempt) because I made the teacher laugh. But if you can follow along my thought process, you may find this interesting. And if you can point out where my theory is obviously BS, please let me know.<br /><br />Otherwise, enjoy your impending headache.<br /><br /><div align="center"><strong>The Theory</strong><br /><br /></div>The number line is infinite — both as positive and negative integers.<br /><br />We could express this opposite "ends" of the number line like this:<br />-∞ and ∞<br /><br />All other numbers (x) fall in between these opposing expressions which could be expressed like this:<br />-∞ < x< ∞<br /><br />More importantly, (and I don’t know how to express this) the relative value of x compared with -∞ is infinitely "greater than." And in this the equation, the relative value of x compared to ∞ is infinitely "less than."<br /><br />Therefore the relative value of x is both -∞ AND ∞. The two simultaneous values cancel each other out, leaving a relative value of zero. (The same could be said for both ends of the spectrum in relation to each other.)<br /><br />Though we're considering the number line in this equation, the equation holds for any thing in the universe which could in any way be measured (by weight, volume, mass, length … etc.). Regardless of how large something is, you could imagine it being larger. At the same time, no matter how small something is, you could imagine it being smaller. (Simply think half the size, or twice as big.) This puts anything that one can measure in the same predicament as x on the number line — that is relatively "infinitely larger than" or "relatively infinitely smaller than" and thus having an overall relative value of zero.<br /><br />So everything in the universe has a relative value of zero next to a value that is, itself also zero. It follows logically then that nothing in the universe exists!<br /><br />However, it's clear to me (at least) that in what we take for the physical world, something does exist.<br /><br />Thus, there must be some value outside the universe that gives all things reality, that --- by its presence in our net zero universe --- brings all things into existence. I call this the +1 Factor.<br /><br />God.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-33301162287180441812008-06-01T13:54:00.008-04:002008-06-01T20:49:35.596-04:00Stop Climate Change: Let’s Stay with Spring!The effects of global warming are undeniable. Just three months ago, I could walk a mile or so to the nearby CVS Pharmacy for a carton of cigarettes and barely break into a sweat. Normally I drink diet cola exclusively, but after the trek today I came home soaked with perspiration, gasping for air and actually craving <em>water</em>. Bleeggh!<br /><br />I guess it’s my own fault. I was one of those Floridians who mastered the difficult task of casting a ballot to help give George W. Bush his 517-vote margin of victory here in 2000. Gosh, if only the Democrats on the Florida State Supreme Court had been successful in achieving a count they liked, it wouldn’t be getting warm in June.<br /><br />Yeah, I know 1998 was more of a scorcher, but that doesn’t count because Bill Clinton was president. And most of that heat was generated by the Monica Lewinsky scandal anyway (which, as everybody knows, was a Republican-orchestrated circus). And yes, 1998 was tied by 1934 but hello? … FDR.<br /><br />Still it remains a fact that the temperature has skyrocketed an astronomical one degree Fahrenheit globally during the past 120 years or so. A few dips and rises along the way, sure, but overall it’s still about a whole degree hotter (or almost back up to where it was 74 years ago). And when you eliminate the sun as a potential source of heat for the Earth, maybe 0.05 of that one degree is attributable to non water vapor greenhouse gases — some of which are produced by people. It’s outrageous that after two terms in office, George Bush has done nothing to get us back to the really cool Nixon-Carter years. Deny that, dammit!<br /><br />Of course, global warming is only part of the problem … especially since we’re currently in Year 10 of a suspected global <em>cooling</em> cycle. (We may want to hold off on publicizing this until a Democrat becomes president.) Rest assured it will be much, much hotter again, probably in about 20 years (or about the time the GOP finds its way back from the wilderness). Today the preferred term for impending doom is “climate change.”<br /><br />And climate change is going to continue unabated unless we Americans renounce our sinful ways. No more air conditioners, no more cars, no more light bulbs that produce light. Unless <em>we</em> change, you can count on fall, winter, spring and summer giving us rain, snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts (thaws and freezes and big gusty breezes!). It’s all going to take place <em>somewhere</em> — like it’s never happened before.<br /><br />So act now to stop the seasons, vote Obama08!<br /><br /><strong>Note:</strong> <em>I didn’t bother sourcing my facts because I’m lazy, not because they aren’t true. Just take my word that I’ve done some research and reached a consensus. Plus, I used a computer to write this. End of debate.</em>Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-42149714026230333162008-05-24T12:16:00.005-04:002008-05-24T13:34:45.744-04:00I Won't be Going for this 'Strain'I first became impressed with Michael Crichton as a novelist after reading <em>Andromeda Strain</em> sometime in the early 1980s. I remember that I bought the paperback at a used book store in Auburn while I was in college. I didn't have cable so I read a lot more back then.<br /><br />In short, the sci-fi novel is about an alien microbe that comes to Earth as a highly deadly and rapidly spreading virus. What I liked about <em>Andromeda Strain,</em> as well as subsequent Crichton books that I've read (<em>The Sphere, Congo, Jurassic Park, State of Fear</em>), is the level of scientific knowledge woven into this author's stories. In addition to a getting a good tale, I learn things.<br /><br />A few years later when I finally got cable, I saw the movie adaptation of <em>Andromeda Strain.</em> (Sometimes I'll watch a movie version even after reading the book, but never the other way around.) I guess it was filmed sometime around the mid 1970s ... I could look it up, but don't feel like it. I thought the movie was pretty good, though not great. The nitty-gritty of the "science stuff" just doesn't translate very well to film. But there was something about the movie that I found very refreshing: there were no hot babes or hunky guys.<br /><br />If I remember correctly, there was a core group of about five scientists and only one of whom was a woman. She was overweight, wore horn-rimmed black glasses and was probably in her early 60s. The guys were all average looking, down to David Wayne (the only actor whose name I know). Wayne was probably in his 60s as well, and I doubt he was ever considered a classic leading man. They were what "real people" look like.<br /><br />I been catching promos lately for a re-make of the movie to be aired on <em>A&E</em> sometime soon --- maybe this weekend. Sure enough, it seems the new version will be going for the GQ meets Cover Girl look when it comes to casting a majority of their roles.<br /><br />Last night I watched a horror film where the main character was an alcoholic sheriff. Think of a boozehound sheriff and you might think of Robert Mitchum or Dean Martin in a couple of westerns with John Wayne. (There were two John Wayne movies that were essentially the same film, just different actors and a different title --- neither of which I remember.) Maybe Mitchum and Martin cleaned up pretty well, but they were far from glamorous in those films. They looked liked you'd expect alcoholic sheriffs to look.<br /><br />Not true of the "hot young chick" in the film I saw last night and I found the casting to be ridiculous --- way more unbelievable than a 900 year-old <em>Aliens</em>-ripoff monster killing everyone in a conveniently isolated tiny Southwestern town.<br /><br />I won't be watching the latest version of the <em>Andromeda Strain,</em> though I'm sure the special effects will be much better. I feel I owe some loyalty to the fat old lady scientist in the first film ... as well as the legions of not-so-attractive folks who do most of the work in the real world, leaving entertainment fluff to the beautiful people.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-20378398439197978292008-05-04T00:27:00.000-04:002008-05-14T09:54:41.902-04:00What's that song about?One of my favorite musical artists is Enya. She is an astonishing talent: a lovely vocalist and amazing muscian (she composes and plays all the instruments on her albums).<br /><br />She sings in English, Gaelic and sometimes Latin.<br /><br />When I hear one of her songs in a language I don't understand, I usually imagine I have a sense of what she is singing about ... with mixed success. There was one, entitled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00122961E/ref=dm_mu_dp_trk12?ie=UTF8&qid=1209875652&sr=1-1">Smaoinim</a> that I pretty well pegged as being about someone dying. Another one, called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001227ILO/ref=dm_mu_dp_trk4?ie=UTF8&qid=1209875652&sr=1-1">Ebudae</a>, I thought was a song about going into battle, but instead it was about washing clothes. Eh, win some, you lose some.<br /><br />Muzak is like hearing a song in a foreign language, except the words have been replaced by notes played on a musical instrument.<br /><br />Now, have you ever noticed how many truly good people aren't affiliated with any religious faith? Some of them are atheists.<br /><br />It is my belief that such people "hear" the music but not the words. They're listening to heavenly Muzak. And I think the tune they're hearing is beautiful enough to affect their whole outlook on life.<br /><br />But they're missing the words. To a certain extent we <em>all</em> do ... so we make up some to fill in the gaps. So while it's nice to have so many music lovers, I do think we often have too many people just humming or possibly thinking about fighting when they should be more concerned with the wash. (If you've read some of my other posts, you'll see I'm consistently guilty of this.)<br /><br />To get the words right, you really need to get in touch with the Composer. Of course, before you do that, you have to acknowledge that there is one.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-64674458142085152752008-05-02T14:07:00.001-04:002008-05-03T13:45:34.097-04:00Evil's PurposeHumans are the only creatures on earth capable of imagining a Perfect Existence — our primary desire.<br /><br />From an individual’s perspective, a perfect existence would be one where he has authority to establish Order by controlling all things (with obedience to nothing) and in turn having every wish (of his own choosing) gratified.<br /><br />There are two components in the quest for absolute gratification: Liberty and Order. The vast majority of people grudgingly go along that Perfect Existence is not possible in the physical world. Because we are not alone, most of us understand we must compromise some aspects of the Liberty and Order components. Liberty becomes the province of Self, whereas Order is that which is imposed. Because we are simultaneously ourselves and the imposed upon, we seek a comfortable balance between freedom and security. This is the Great Compromise, and also, I believe, the practical essence of the "Golden Rule."<br /><br />Rational people, accepting that Perfect Existence is beyond human capabilities, therefore seek the Perfect Balance between Liberty and Order. Establishing the parameters of such a balance is itself, establishing Order, yet this Order ideally preserves a significant amount of Liberty.<br /><br />Depending on their circumstances, experiences, and instruction, individuals have different assessments of where the balance between Order and Liberty should be struck. To the extent that we feel secure or are confident in our abilities to resist chaos, the more we lean toward the Liberty side. The weaker or more threatened that we feel, the more attractive imposed Order becomes.<br /><br />The lure of Perfect Existence, however, remains at the core of our being. It is a temptation to go to political extremes in search of Liberty or Order, so that one can achieve the other extreme as well. We can see examples of the latter in the form of robber barons who oppose regulation or laws in order to become “king of the jungle” and ultimately “buy happiness.” The other is the despot who runs the strictest police state, but he indulges in every whim. For both parties, the greater their success, the more they come to resemble one another.<br /><br />Perfect Existence is attainable, but only through complete subjugation of self to God. In surrendering to God, union of our spirits takes place. Being one with God, we have ultimate liberty, and have achieved eternal, immutable perfect order. This is the Holy incarnation of the Primary Desire. Unfortunately it is the false version that most often motivates us.<br /><br />There are two evils. The First is the desire to establish order for self aggrandizement. “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” Isaiah 14:14 (King James Version). It is the pursuit of the Primary Desire ... but without God.<br /><br />The Second Evil is subjugation of self to Order that is not God. Not knowing God, and out of hopelessness and despair, we might place our faith in anything other than ourselves; viewing ourselves as essentially worthless. We have seen the effects of extreme subjugation demonstrated by people who commit atrocities only because they were instructed to do so. Or it may be seen in given one’s self over to the rule of drugs.<br /><br />In this world, there is a sublime dynamic at work in that the First Evil is at war with the Second. Tyrants fall because inevitably abject subjugation becomes too much for the individual to bear — self interest drives rebellion.<br /><br />Conversely, even the most seemingly utopian society will crumble, as some individuals come to desire more for themselves than others. And this should not be regarded as a loss. Perfect Existence, apart from God is The Great Lie. The failure to build our own Garden of Eden, as well as the fall of the most brutal dictators, brings us back to reality.<br /><br />For temporal world, the twin evils of Selfishness and Subjugation to unholy authority drive us back to the Great Compromise.<br /><br />And for the eternal world, the competition of evils is the mechanism drives us to seek God’s Kingdom.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-26034703929852354862008-04-14T23:38:00.000-04:002008-04-15T00:15:54.672-04:00It would be in your best interest …Have you ever received an unsolicited suggestion as to what choice you should make? Doesn’t it sort of tick you off — even if you know they’re probably right?<br /><br />Let’s say you’re a bit on the heavy side and you’re in a cafeteria line eyeing the Boston crème pie versus the peach cobbler.<br /><br />Now imagine a total stranger (just for the heck of let’s say it’s a tall, lean, handsome, impeccably dressed African-American man) who says, “If you must eat dessert, you should have the sugar-free Jell-O.”<br /><br />Any two-word responses come to mind?<br /><br />We expect guidance from friends and family, whether it’s requested or not. They are emotionally invested in our welfare, so they get to exercise a “shareholder’s” two-cent option. Plus, they often know a good bit about us and our situation. The people who are dear to us — and we to them — also know something about our values and interests. They might know, as in our hypothetical situation that you’ve been on strict diet for six months and today, and today only, you planned to celebrate the milestone loss of 30 pounds by having dessert.<br /><br />But regardless of your reason for wanting to eat something you “probably shouldn’t,” one thing you can be most positive about is that the busybody in line with you is probably more interested in trying to run your life than in keeping you “heart healthy.”<br /><br />Oh sure, he may truly believe the world would be a better place if everyone would just shut up and do as he says. But remember, it will still be his vision of utopia, not yours. Maybe you think fat and died-happy at 70 beats 93 years old and drinking wheat grass juice, but any time you go against his grain, you upset the applecart of his ambition which is to make the rules.<br /><br />Now as annoying as that stranger would be, imagine if he was in charge of the whole federal government and all the police powers that go with the job.<br /><br />Now I’m not suggesting that you’ll be arrested for eating Boston crème pie if Barack Obama becomes president. (He may tax it, but that’s really not the point.) But what I am saying is that he doesn’t know a huge portion of this nation’s population and doesn’t understand the values of these people. Instead he “reasons" that they clutch their Bibles in one hand and their guns in another because they’re ignorant rubes who lack his omniscient erudition.<br /><br />In Obama’s mind, we do not share his worldview because we are wretched, oppressed and misled. It is so clear to Him that we need His guiding light to lead us to the Promised Land.<br /><br />He becomes disappointed when we don’t “get it.” You see, He is all wise and all benevolent. The “O” (be sure to say it with the appropriate touch of awe) knows what’s best for everyone. Once we submit in unity to His wisdom, Paradise will come to our land. We will finally, and at last without bitterness, beat our guns into plowshares, cast off the bonds of religiosity and welcome our “undocumented worker” friends without rancor or remorse.<br /><br />Oh, who knows? The “O” may actually be wisest leader since Solomon, so go along if you want. As for me, I’m eating my pie.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-41147722113268727512008-04-13T13:23:00.000-04:002008-04-13T13:31:24.983-04:00Bringing in the SheavesLast night, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Night-Hunter-Robert-Mitchum/dp/B000035P5R/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1208105529&sr=1-1"><em>Night of the Hunter</em></a> appeared again on TCM. I watched it through the first hour before switching channels. I’ve seen it many times and own the DVD, so it wasn’t like I was missing out on a golden opportunity to see the film to its conclusion.<br /><br />Robert Mitchum plays a murderous sociopath on the trail of stolen money. Masquerading as a preacher, he marries the widow of the robber, assuming correctly, that the woman’s children (a boy and a girl) know where the money was hidden.<br /><br />After killing his new wife (leading to perhaps the most haunting image ever set in celluloid), “Preacher” comes after the children. But they escape by taking a boat down a river. Eventually they are given refuge by a loving but stern old woman, Mrs. Cooper (played by Lillian Gish), who makes it her business to offer sanctuary and guidance to lost orphans. And that’s “lost” in the spiritual sense as well.<br /><br />The 1955 movie is often categorized as <em>film noir</em> and was produced in black and white, but there is no gray area to the characters: Good is good. Evil is evil. Innocence is innocence. Foolish is foolish … and foolish people are in abundance.<br /><br />I can understand why it was essentially a box office bomb at the time of its release. This is an allegorical tale and the message is never diluted by nuance. It must have been difficult for Mitchum to play “evil” and absolutely nothing else. Students of film probably recognize certain stylistic elements, but I just call it “weird.”<br /><br />I love the movie though, and I find the climatic showdown between Preacher and the Mrs. Cooper to be perfectly satisfying. Despite his treachery and viciousness, it’s made clear that he can’t stand up to her in a one-on-one match-up. That’s why Evil always goes after the weak.<br /><br />There is one scene that struck me as odd the first time I saw it, however. Preacher is laying siege to the old woman’s home as she waits, on guard, inside. He begins singing, “Bringing in the Sheaves.” Mrs. Cooper sings along.<br /><br />At first glance, this might suggest the duality of Good and Evil, or perhaps they’re kindred souls who took different paths. But I don’t think so. Coming from Preacher, the spiritual is blasphemy. And rather than recoiling in disgust, Mrs. Cooper meets the challenge and reclaims the song by singing it as well.<br /><br />Through the centuries, atrocities have been committed while in the trappings of religion. This has led many decent people to turn away, and never sing “the song” again. Mrs. Cooper wouldn’t do that. She never gave an inch and rather than losing her faith to an ultimately wretched creature, she stood firm and crushed him.<br /><br />And more …Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-79846992527513602342008-03-20T11:10:00.000-04:002008-03-20T19:04:42.147-04:00Pay Me Instead<span></span>Let me make one thing clear: I think <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf">anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is pure hogwash.</a><br /><br />On the other hand, any effort that cuts our dependence on foreign oil would be a very, very good thing indeed. Imagine a world where the sand that covers Saudi Arabia is worth more than the thick black liquid beneath. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?<br /><br />This leads me to the issue of carbon credits and so-called "cap and trade" — a bad idea whose time may have come. You may be somewhat familiar with this if you’ve heard how our <a href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf">climate-alarmist-in-chief Al Gore</a> or AGW sycophant Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pay for carbon credits to off-set the fact that they can’t bring themselves to live with the kind of energy restrictions they demand of everyone else. From what I understand, it’s currently a self-imposed duty that funds the planting of trees somewhere.<br /><br />Some well-meaning but misguided people (the most dangerous folks in the world) as well as some plain old socialists (who changed colors from red to green), would like governments to make these cap-and-trade schemes mandatory. Governments or people would see a limit on how much they should use. If you use more than your allotted share, you pay a tax. With the plans I’ve heard about, this would mostly result in rich nations sending money to Third World nations where it would undoubtedly line the pockets of thuggish dictators and their kleptocracies.<br /><br />But instead of planting trees in Brazil (under the voluntary plan) or filling the Swiss bank account of who ever is in charge of plunder and murder in some African country (that would be a UN plan backed by international law), we (in the U.S.) could transfer the payments to individuals in our own country.<br /><br />Schwarzenegger, who takes a private jet from Los Angeles to Sacramento to fulfill his duties as the Governator, could send his payments to me. My “carbon footprint” certainly can’t be very big. I live in a tiny apartment (the whole thing is probably smaller than one of Al Gore’s walk-in closets) and work from home. When I do drive (on average less than 600 miles a month) my car gets a very fuel-efficient 33 mpg.<br /><br />Afraid I’d just use my additional income to move into a bigger home and take fabulous trips? What if we put the money into tax-free retirement accounts? After all, the Ponzi scheme that is our Social Security System is bound to break down — probably sooner rather than later. It’s not like the ivory-tower liberals who love the idea of a carbon tax are going to be eating dog food in their old age, but they could help those of us who most likely <em>do</em> have Alpo in our future.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454705001351076042.post-26067544760564759762008-03-10T12:32:00.000-04:002008-03-10T23:15:51.363-04:00I Hate Daylight Savings TimeThe clocks moved forward an hour this weekend. As someone who doesn’t even get sleepy until 2:00 a.m. (that’s 3:00 a.m. now) the idea of getting up an hour earlier just so I have a better chance of hearing the birds chirp is about as appealing as a dental root planing.<br /><br />Oh yeah, we also get an extra hour of sunlight in the afternoon. Big whoop. It won’t be long until it is 95 degrees outside and humid. Sure as heck wouldn’t want to miss out on any of that!<br /><br />What I don’t understand is why we call something “Standard Time” if we only get to enjoy it about four months out of the year? I mean, if we have to do something a certain way about two-thirds of the time (as god-awful as it is) isn’t that pretty much “standard.”<br /><br />I realize there are way too many annoying people (read: <em>morning</em> people) wedded to DST to have any hope of getting rid of it, but maybe we could at least change the names so they make sense. I propose changing Savings Time to "Standard" (I’d prefer something profane, but I know that wouldn’t fly.) Then we could change Standard to "Blessed."<br /><br />After all, we do get to have Blessed Time over the major holidays … giving us another reason why the Christmas season is the most wonderful time of the year.Capertreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14416682122181277231noreply@blogger.com0