Locals may very well be watching what happens with this, as Bellingham City Council members have expressed interest in working with the state Legislature to change state laws that, city attorneys say, don’t allow local jurisdictions to ban guns in parks (because it’s not in the state law, and state law on this matter supercedes/pre-empts city law).
From the Seattle Times:
Seattle resident Bob Warden, who filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging Seattle’s ban on guns in parks and other recreation facilities, has filed for a preliminary injunction to prevent Mayor Greg Nickels from enforcing the ban.
In his request, filed Monday, Warden asks that the ban be lifted until his suit is resolved.
Warden, 44, carried a pistol into a West Seattle community center Nov. 14 to test the new ban, claiming it violates the U.S. and state constitutions and state law. When he was asked to leave, he did.
Read the full story, over here.
Read my story on Bellingham City Council members repealing the city’s gun ban in parks, right here.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:06 PM
As an avid fan of Left 4 Dead, I feel it is in our best interests not to ban guns from parks in order to maximize the potential for weapon spawn points for the survivors. When the Zombie apocalypse hits, I want to know the city parks will always be the place to go to reload and rearm, and especially to find that elusive extra pistol.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:35 PM
This “attorney” from Kent should have stayed in Kent.
Brandishing his weapon of choice around children should have the added bonus of getting his precious permit
revoked. He couldn’t even get arrested. Literally.He was refused entry (what with brandishing his gun and all),and basically had to arrange for himself to be arrested.
Hopefully,by insisting on pushing the issue, it will backfire on him beyond his wildest dreams.
Several charges,revocation of his precious permit,and court costs seems like a reasonable place to start.
The advocates will attempt to use the tired “if law abiding citizens are armed,say in a park,then they can thwart the criminal” argument.
The one debunked by the four police officers in Lakewood being gunned down in addition to the shootings at Ft.Hood.
I am looking forward to this guy’s day(s) in court,followed closely by his incarceration.
December 16th, 2009 at 7:27 AM
worst, learn what brandishing means. heck, learn a little about a subject.
kudos to bob, I don’t much like his tactics. but the injunction he filed was a good idea (he’s also a nice enough guy) help to force the issue now rather than wait (like the Second Ammend Foundation is doing). But he’s going for the constitutional argument, which really isn’t necessary with the state law (and the state AG) saying it’s an illegal law/rule.
I’m waiting for someone to using 9A.36.070 to file against nickels , that’d be awesome.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:17 AM
WE43,
Ft. Hood is a bad example because the general rule is that soliders on military bases are not allowed to carry weapons.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/11/the-folly-of-unilateral-disarm
December 16th, 2009 at 9:01 AM
We’s all knows gun free zones rules!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 16th, 2009 at 9:26 AM
The only person I know who goes around openly armed can’t resist the opportunity to take his gun out and show it off to everyone he knows. The old comparison of guns to a man’s body part is definitely what’s going on with my friend.
On the other hand, no one-especially my wife because she is dead set against them- knows that I own a gun because I keep it hidden and safe from children. I only bought it for the occasional bear that roams around my backyard and even though they still do, they don’t come near the house when I show myself and I have not needed to use it thankfully. So don’t think that I am not aware of what goes on with guns. I hunted from age 14 until I finally gave it up around age 35 because I get more enjoyment out of filming animals up close than I do tracking them down to slaughter them for the lame reason of the meat. That tired old argument aside, almost anyone who owns a gun eventually finds an excuse/reason to pull it out if not, god forbid, to use it to threaten or even wound or kill.
The reason we have so many shootings is because there are too many yahoos with guns. Carrying a gun because you’re worried about being in a one in hundreds of millions of times incident is paranoia. Using a gun to kill, even righteously, as anyone who has been in combat will tell you, is not something to be revered, encouraged or made more likely by carrying around a piece in your pants—especially at a park. Sadly, the only reason to carry one is because there are a lot of twisted shinbones buying and carrying them these days. That may sound contradictory and good justification to the closed minded, but the better scenario is if all the handguns and assault rifles were collected and turned into something else. The guy pushing this is a shinbone of the first order.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:27 AM
OK people of Bellingham, we know the police dept. is down 18 men. They acknowledge that their response time may now be as long as 45 minutes. Are you going to sit idly by and watch a violent assault happen right under your nose when you could have the means to stop such a crime in process? My vote is for the concealed carry permit every time - the responsible sort. Places where guns are not permitted become automatic easy targets for mass killings - college campuses, schools, army bases, ERs for example. Seems like a no brainer to me.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:32 AM
“brandish - exhibit aggressively; “brandish a sword”
display, exhibit, expose - to show, make visible or apparent; ”
Seems clear cut to me.
And nobody on the whole base besides the shooter were armed…seems unlikely.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Guns don’t kill people, but they make it easy for lunatics to kill people. The weirdos you have to worry about are those who are always worried about their gun rights and doing stupid things like pushing their issues by carrying their “joint extensions” to inappropriate venues. Save a life, like WE43 says, lock the jerks up.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Paranoia, exhibit B–I give you Madbee. That response time you quote is bogus. A violent assault like you describe would receive a much faster response, but that classic paranoid scenario you describe is about as likely as one winning the mega lottery 8 times in a row with the same numbers. Most gun battles last seconds and an untrained person, you believe is going to be able to assess a situation and respond correctly? What if you came in at the tail end of a situation where someone had been fighting for their lives and just disarmed their attacker and is now pointing the gun at them in self defense? I’ll bet that victim would end up your victim.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Lunatics don’t follow gun laws. So gun free zones simply mean that there are no responsible gun owners present. As AFY!!! said, those make great targets for the crazies.
The sole reason I’m not presently a gun owner, nor likely ever will be, is due to my spouse’s revulsion to them. Gun laws I can fight, but I’ve learned not to take on the significant other in this area. I would recommend anti-gun advocates take their message to individuals (and their spouses) rather than advocating for increased regulations and restrictions.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Sorry for the off topic, but this argument is going to be around forever and it is always going to be just as ridiculous and circular.
What has me riled today is R’s believing the new WSJ poll that shows 47% don’t want this health care bill and only 32% do is somehow a nod to their point of view. What 47% don’t want is this bill because it is not strong enough and has no public option other than the pittances that the lobbyists have allowed. When this 47% gets to the polls, they are not going to be looking for obstructers (R’s) to vote for–they will be looking for fresh, more committed Democrats who aren’t such wussies they will waste their time trying to get a bunch of dunderheads on board in the name of that illusory bi-partisan bill.
Maybe we do need to throw all these righties in re-education camps. It certainly does appear that education is like broccoli to some of them, they never touch the stuff…Just kidding, sort of….
December 16th, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Jurgen,
Welcome to my ongoing frustration. If you don’t support the present plan you are immediately labeled as not supporting health care reform in general. This has been Obama’s goal all along. If you support his plan you support health care reform. If you support some other plan you are against reform. That is of course not fair to those on the right and left who support real reform but it does lump us into the same camp. There is no illusion that this will be a bipartisan bill. At this point it’s simply trying to make it out the gates as a Democratic bill.
I can’t believe you are still blaming “righties” on this? Do you mean Democratic “righties” who are holding up the bill? You probably could throw all the Democratic righties into a re-education camp lead by Howard Dean. They’d probably going willingly.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Well, if we’re going to stray from the specific guns-in-city-parks issue to gun laws themselves, let me posit a scenario:
The constitution was not written in 1776 but 1950, and as such the second amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear nuclear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Now it’s legal to carry personal nuclear weapons, for self-defense. The rationale is that if someone else goes on a nuclear explosion spree, you can use your own personal thermonuclear device to stop him. Places that don’t allow nuclear weapons, such as schools and colleges, are defenseless targets so people should be able to carry nuclear weapons in these places to defend themselves from other crazies with nuclear weapons.
Essentially, everyone is in a mutually assured destruction situation like the U.S. and Soviet Union, and this is how the peace is maintained, through personal Cold Wars.
Well obviously, that isn’t how things are, and I doubt anyone wouldn’t be glad that it isn’t. Personal nuclear weapons are banned everywhere. Does this mean that everywhere is a target now? No, actually there has never been a case of a personal nuclear weapon killing anyone. We have such draconian laws against anyone owning nuclear anything that it’s next-to-impossible to even look at a nuclear weapon, much less use one for personal self-defense.
How does this relate to guns laws? With guns being widely prevalent, we are essentially using mutually assured destruction as a form of personal self-defense, like the nuclear weapons. But like making the world safe from personal nuclear weapons, it would require draconian gun laws in order to reduce/eliminate MAD self-defense. Anything less than making guns next-to-impossible to obtain for anyone can prevent crazy people from getting their hands on them. And it wouldn’t necessarily make daily life any safer; just like in the absence of nuclear weapons, crazy people default to guns, most likely in the absence of guns crazy people would default to bows and arrows or swords.
Though I think defending oneself from bows and arrows or swords would be a lot easier than trying to dodge bullets.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Why does someone conceal carry, because a cop is to heavy to carry!
Having just recently gone thru firearms training and many of my fellow classmates being law enforcement, the one story I kept hearing over and over agin is how they mainly now a days are cleaning up the mess after the incident, not preventing it.
IMHO if you got the number of conceal carry permits that have been issued in this county/city, you might just be surprised at the number, and the last thing the very vast majority who have those permits would ever want to do is brandish what they carry cause I think that in itself would be a reason to have that permit taken away.
If you listen to this 911 call and study what happened in this case then without a doubt a reasonable person will only conclude that if this lady was not armed, very bad things would have happened to her:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/earlyshow/main5949873.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsStory+%28Most+Popular+Stories%3A+CBSNews.com%29
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 16th, 2009 at 10:50 AM
well worst, I’m glad washington courts, the law and common sense all disagree with you.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:01 AM
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs:
http://www.sheepdogammo.com/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=6
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 16th, 2009 at 11:12 AM
“Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum
est”
Lucius Annaeus Seneca “the younger” ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 16th, 2009 at 11:31 AM
To me it would be the epitome of avoidance and denial to not think that the fact that we own more handguns than any other country in the world and the fact that we have more incidences of citizens killing each other using handguns than any other country in the world are somehow not related. That means there will never be enough guns even if little Johnny comes sliding out of the womb packing heat. MAD for sure.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Hammer, we have some pretty goofy Dems too. Yet if the Republicans weren’t going great guns on stalling and not cooperating to get reform at all, the conservative Dems would not feel emboldened, IMHO. No doubt Dems have shinbones as well and sometimes use them in their thought processes.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:44 PM
someguy apparently has some late breaking news thats not hit the papers,yet.
Can you provide the latest details on what must be late breaking info on this case? Did he win??
You’re talking as if he prevailed in his cases.
Common sense dictates that you share this info!
December 16th, 2009 at 1:14 PM
We have a very bad habit in this country, we do it with so many things over and over agin, and it does not make things better but worst. If we have laws against being irresponsible then those very laws should not be punishing the responsible.
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley,
raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally
superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker
got that fatal bullet wound.
AFY!!thresheepdog!!!
December 16th, 2009 at 1:24 PM
legally, carrying a gun (including openly) is not brandishing.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I must respectfully disagree with bikerbob. As a fan of Dead Rising and seminal documentaries like Dawn of the Dead, it is obvious that it is in our best interest to build more shopping malls and parking lots.
While we can reasonably disagree on whether or not a firearm is a more effective weapon against a corpsified zombie than baseball bats, hockey sticks, mannequin torsos, garden tools, musical instruments, trash cans, riding lawn mowers and magic smoothie recipes… I can’t ignore the unimpeachable empirical evidence:
You can survive the zombie apocalypse without a firearm, but you can’t survive a zombie apocalypse without a shopping mall.
The founding fathers foresaw many things, but the zombie apocalypse wasn’t one of them. Which is why the right to convenient retail shopping outlets wasn’t included in the Bill of Rights.
And remember, guns don’t kill people. And they don’t kill zombies, either. The zombies are already dead, see. But if you shoot a zombie in the head, it will usually take the zombie down. Then there are vampires, who just get real mad if you shoot them with guns… which doesn’t make sense because if guns can’t hurt them then why do they care…? But they start chasing you and stuff, and totally won’t listen to reason and won’t stop chasing you even though there are many other people who are easier to catch who aren’t running. So there’s that. And don’t even get me started on werewolves…
In conclusion, I support Dan McShane’s appointment to the vacant County Council seat.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:54 PM
The headline not only is incorrect as it should read “Seattle gun owner(not owners) tries to halt…” The headline writer and the Seattle reporter got it wrong as well, as the man resides in Kent. Not a big issue,but traveling to a city in which you don’t reside,specifically to challenge their laws is a factor.
Can you imagine the locals here putting up with someone who doesn’t live here coming to challenge our ordinances? The posts to this blog would be record breaking.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:03 PM
But Apexman, just for future reference are the silver bullets good on either the werewolves or the vampires or both?
BTW, IMHO the best zombie load is the 12 gauge #00 buckshot!
But you know, those water guns (filled with holy water in Dust till Dawn) appears to be something everyone should have in theirs gun cabinet!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 16th, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Apexnerd–
So long as firearms are never banned from shopping malls, I’m with you.
Actually I’m for gun control laws. In my previous example, given the choice between gun-induced MAD or draconian gun laws, I’d take draconian gun laws as the lesser evil.
Btw, your point brings up an interesting question: Why didn’t Valve include a shopping mall in either L4D 1 or 2? Does Dead Rising have a copyright on zombie shopping mall computer games?
December 16th, 2009 at 4:01 PM
When a city violates state law, every citizen of the state has grounds to challenge the city.
(worst, there are more then just bob with a lawsuit, one of them has the person that did the actual footwork to rid us of our illegal city ordinance).
I couldn’t remember the cases off the top of my head earlier regarding brandishing. They are State vs Casad and State vs Spencer.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Who has the lowest crime rate and why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 16th, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Government provided semi-automatic weapons and ammo to every man, woman and child. What is this some kind of conservative dream?
December 16th, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Lowest crime rate? Easy one, no need to link.. Vatican City of course.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:37 PM
I’d say Antarctica has the lowest crime rate… and there’s a treaty that says there can’t be any military presence, so it’s also pretty much gun-free as well.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Sorry WE43, there have been three murders at the Vatican that we know of and they were by handgun and crimes of passion.
There has only been one suspected murder recently at the South Pole and that was suspected to be by methanol poisoning.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Wherever humans get together they just can’t resist brutally killing each other now and then, often with handguns.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Dude, that was The Da Vinci Code.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Well, we were just sarcastically referring to zombie movies as documentaries and video games as prognosticators of the future…
December 17th, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Sorry Apex, but this is not storybook fantasy, this is real life. The Commander of the Swiss Guards and his wife were killed by a junior officer who then took his own life–in 2003. Sorry to clutter up your fantasy world with reality.
December 17th, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Biker, what is it with all the vampire and zombie movies, etc. lately? I don’t get it. Is there not enough horror in the world that we don’t get enough of it and have to create even more outrageous mutations to satisfy our urges. I never got Goth either.
Is it a defense mechanism whereby we create fantasies so horrible that we create some insulation that will hopefully surpass the horror we all are called upon to confront at some time in our lives–usually at the end?
Why is there air?
December 17th, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Since I’m the only one here anymore, let me change the sheets.
The press is reporting the travails on the health care bill as an ominous end to Obama’s Health Care Plan. Now right there that’s silly, because the plan that is failing on many fronts now and that Howard Dean thinks should be killed is only the Senate Bill. He says rightly, chuck it and go to reconciliation on the house bill. He is not saying, as the press is reporting, chuck health care all together or go back to square one. And the majority of those who oppose the present Senate bill are those who want a stronger bill, not a return to the idiocy of the last decades.We simply have to go back before the squabbling, overblown Pharma and insurance owned Senate contributed nothing but the insurance industry’s wettest of dreams.
The press is also reporting that all this is an ominous threat in the midterms. But again, since the bulk of the frustration is not that Congress and the President are being too aggressive in their agenda, (all the whining tea bagging and town hall bull aside)but that they are being too timid in pushing the agenda that we all voted for when we elected them. We may get different Dems but no one is flocking to the party of “no” and lunatics. It is an absolute fantasy of some pundits that this country is ready to go back to the policies that got us in such dire straits by voting in any more pseudo conservatives. IMNSHO
December 17th, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Lowest crime rate? Easy one, no need to link.. Vatican City of course.
Unless you count Jewish Art Treasures, Nazi Gold and Naughty Priest Protection.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Actually it’s the South Pole
December 17th, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Alright, I’ll let it slide this once.
Just don’t let it happen again.
December 18th, 2009 at 7:54 AM
Actually it’s the South Pole
Unless you count illegal whaling.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Well yes, if you throw in clubbing baby seals, penguins and killing whales the Pole is a bloodbath. In fact, both Poles. Also, legal murder is still murder. Whaling is totally unnecessary murder. But I think we were talking human murder by other humans. Though we’re in deep shinola if fauna starts packing heat. We’d be done and deserving-ly so. I think if there is an after life we’re all going to be confronted by all the rodents, insects, mammals and other fauna we callously offed or ate over the years. It’s only we who thinks a superior being selected us to be the master species. Maybe that is a big mutation the spirit on high is passing judgment on in the after life. After all, he/her/whatever spent more time perfecting other species than he/whatever did on just ours and didn’t do a very good job at that. Think about it all you hunters.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Maybe we just somehow escaped from the reject bin.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Has anyone seen Avatar?
Been out of town, but I did find something that should go good with your lunch for all of you Tea Party lovers here on this here blog!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/12/17/tea-party-movement-tops-established-parties-nbc-wsj-poll-despite-biased-
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 18th, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Interesting Tiger story!
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke16-2009dec16,0,2923714.column
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 18th, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Sam Taylor has given up even trying to control the thread!
Attica, Attica, Attica!!!
December 18th, 2009 at 9:04 PM
It’s so unlike him to not even make a little show for control.
December 19th, 2009 at 9:25 AM
So has Sam been furloughed? Got the flu? Finally just got tired of us?
So, anybody, like me disgusted by all the Republican whining and lying on the tube this am? They chose not to be part of reform and so they should just go away and STFU.
December 19th, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Better get back here Sam before I go off on one of my colorful tirades pushing the envelope of civility.
December 19th, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Not even a nibble. Check the Obits next.
December 19th, 2009 at 10:07 AM
So I’ll try a different tack. Sam, you may find this astonishing for a guy who was banned in Poughkeepsie for so long and still walks a fine line, but I am sick and fed up with trying to read the comments sections at all the stories. I still refuse to do the sign up thing but I’m astonished that those who are allowed to comment are allowed to use hate speech, personal attack, profanity and general incivility almost exclusively with no repercussions. I think they should all be sent to you for re-education. They will most certainly err and then be banned and that would be a good thing. There is no intellectualism at the story sites. One must first posses an intellect and many of them seem to have been in the wrong line when that was passed out. I wish I could recall the snappy phrase about converts being the most adamant about their new religion, but as a convert to your idea of civility, and having seen it in action I can only laud you for your insistence. That said, I am sure I will continue to toe the line at times, but I have found this new way of interacting to be far more credible than all the mindless grousing that is allowed over at the story sites. I also appreciate the caliber of people who frequent your blogs. I know, I probably should have told you to sit down before telling you this, but I thought it would rock you back from wherever you have been hiding.
December 19th, 2009 at 2:10 PM
I hope Sam is OK and that everything is all right.
I thought I might add my two cents to something Jurgen said above:
During Sam’s absence, I spent some time interacting with the story comments, and I really must say that I am also appalled.
The right-wing conservative blather found in the comments — which is most often little more than a simplistic, yet heartfelt, reiteration of talking points from Limbaugh, Beck, and Fox news — plainly shows the level of ignorance in our society, the gullibility of the masses, and the power of propaganda to shape peoples’ worldviews, perceptions, interpretive frameworks, and public opinion.
Furthermore, the comments to Herald articles amply demonstrate people’s penchant for believing that which is patently false. It is quite astonishing to witness people’s propensity for harboring beliefs that are wholly unsupported by even a shred of empirical evidence. All of this, of course, demonstrates the power of the cultural milieu to influence, or even determine, people’s subjective realities.
To substantiate the insidious nature of right wing punditry, here is a synopsis of some of the claims I have read in the comments:
“Obama is a unpatriotic Kenyan-born Muslim Marxist who pals around with terrorists and seeks to destroy the nation from within!”
“Global warming is a hoax, and Al Gore is an environmental con man and profiteer!”
“Obama is a socialist who is taking over the county by nationalizing the banks, automobile companies, and healthcare!”
“Healthcare reform is the first step to Nazi fascism and a totalitarian conspiracy to enslave the nation, while killing old people with death panels!”
“Obama czars” are a shadow government of Marxist, socialist radicals and communists who are conspiring with ACORN!”
“Obama is a racist who hates whites and wants to take your guns!”
Of course, all of this is complete and utter hogwash. Indeed, there is not one iota of evidence to support any of it. Yet, all too many conservatives have evidently been suckered into believing such mendacious prevarications.
In my opinion, the cultural narrative being propagated by right-wing radio and Fox News is far from a benign rush for ratings. Rather, the pack of lies being perpetrated by the fanatical right is more likely a calculated and seditious attempt to simultaneously divide the nation, destroy the progressive movement within the Democratic Party, undermine the very nature of democracy in America, and paralyze the ability of our democratic institutions to govern the nation. Indeed, right-wing extremism has recently taken a dramatic turn for the worse, and it is extremely dangerous.
Instead of providing a public forum for such destructive nonsense, the Herald should continue to present the facts and do everything possible to promote evidence-based critical thinking skills. Like other newspapers across the county, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, the Bellingham Herald should eliminate article comments.
December 19th, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Word!
The scary thing is these folks actually seem to want a civil war. That is certainly what they are fomenting and sedition is too polite a name for it. If so much just closed minded, blatant stupidity didn’t go along with this, then it would be too serious to even try to ignore.
It would appear that the dumbing down of America has attained it’s goal. It’s no surprise it afflicts those on the right the worst, they after all, seem to want to be the ones who cling stubbornly to ideas and philosophies that most of the world has come to view as elitist, unjust, discriminatory,dated and often downright evil.
Yet you have to love how they can self im-Palin themselves and be roasted on their own pitards. What’s hard to love is they have no clue or self deprecation.
December 19th, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Todd2,
So those with whom you disagree about politics are ignorant, stupid, or possessed of low motive.
You, on the other hand, are enlightened, well-informed, educated for sure, and motivated only by the best interests of us all.
Do I have that right?
December 19th, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Just sayin”
December 19th, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Jurgen,
You wrote, “roasted on their own pitards…”
You’re not “roasted” on your [own] pitard(sic). You are “hoist” with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
December 19th, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Davesix,
As a scientist, I am only satisfied when my beliefs are supported by at least some semblance of empirical reality. Always, we must entertain doubt and weigh the merits of our convictions against the best available evidence.
Without a healthy skepticism and a critical eye, humans run the grave and all too common risk of becoming closed-minded zealots, or prejudicial demagogues, who are fearful of being confused by the facts.
When people are too willing to believe that which is demonstrably false, they become malleable. And, once the public mind and the body politic have become sufficiently susceptible to manipulation and regimentation, we are all in danger.
December 19th, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Todd2,
You wrote, “…Without a healthy skepticism and a critical eye, humans run the grave and all too common risk of becoming closed-minded zealots, or prejudicial demagogues…”
So I’m wrong. You think that those with whom you disagree politically are gullible, lacking in judgement, closed-minded, and prejudiced. You also think that they are susceptiible to “manipulation and regimentation”. Do you have an example in mind? Who is attempting to “regiment” the populace? The TEA party? Obama?
Who?
Who puts us in danger?
Or did I read your post incorrectly?
December 19th, 2009 at 9:11 PM
I’m curious about your assertion that your ” beliefs are supported by at least some semblance of empirical reality. Always, we must entertain doubt and weigh the merits of our convictions against …”
So tell me, please, about the emipirical reality that supports the doubts you have, as I presented them in the post above.
I may have missed them, but I’d be interested in your “convictions”. Can you tell me what your core beliefs consist of, as they relate to government and civil life?
By the way, I believe in free men, free markets, the rule of law, and private property rights. I believe in the Constitution of the United States as it was written.
That’s pretty simple, and very brief.
You might disagree with me…
December 19th, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Thanks for the editorial/proof reading comment Super Dave. (It is hoist, or hoisted, on one’s own petard; or blown up by one’s own defective and unreliable bombs or devices. Roasted was a stupid error, so thanks for noticing and caring.)
I guess anyone can be right about something now and then.
December 19th, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Jurgen,
We might disagree about many things…
December 19th, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Close minded would be believing that your interpretation of the Constitution is more correct than the learned interpretations of scholars that differ with you. It’s a living document open to interpretation which is why we have lawyers and judges. To assert it’s logic can only be tortured to fit the whims of the Tea Party, is a good working definition of absurdity if not stupidity. There is nothing simple about it.
The lawless Bush years must have severely chafed at your sense of the rule of law.
You must obviously be angered by the lack of civil rights afforded gays if you believe in freedoms. Good on you for supporting gay marriage.
You must be totally horrified by the corporate/capitalistic system right now since it has nothing to do with free markets.
Private property rights really are extremely subjective, so I’m not sure what you mean by that. Maybe you can expand to just what these supposed property rights are?
December 19th, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Jurgen,
I disagree with the term “living”, and many don’t “differ with me”, even if they don’t “differ” with you.
Tomorrow, happily.
I’m going to bed.
you might be surprised about my answers to a couple of the questions that you asked, which I think you thought were loaded, in terms of my point of view.
“… horrified…”
Indeed. I think that a whole lot of people should be on their way to jail, and that the Congress is corrupt. Almost irretrievably corrupt. Very few members of Congress are motivated by the interests of their constituents. Rick Larsen certainly isn’t.
December 19th, 2009 at 11:05 PM
We all search for simplicity, but there is nothing simplistic about any of your four tenets. Volumes have been written on the concept of freedom, free men, free markets, property rights, and the rule of law. So when you say you have a simple philosophy, that couldn’t be further from the truth. You have decided to ponder some of the most complex ideas known to man.
The Constitution was were never meant to be static. That is the beauty of it, it can be amended and interpreted to reflect the changing mores of society while laying out and adhering to broad goals and principles. Yet through over half of our history it has been twisted to keep women from voting, slaves as slaves and to deny civil rights. At no time in our history has it been the be all and end all to anyone. It is simply a guide and a point of reference. What is constant is it’s ability to lay out a system of dealing with living together as a nation that respects it’s citizens as free entities rather than chattel and seeks a fair balance. We have found it hard to live up to that “simple” language for most of our history.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Got to be more careful when I cut and paste.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:16 PM
“We all search for simplicity, but there is nothing simplistic about any of your four tenets. Volumes have been written on the concept of freedom, free men, free markets, property rights, and the rule of law. So when you say you have a simple philosophy, that couldn’t be further from the truth. You have decided to ponder some of the most complex ideas known to man.”
What you said!
Simplicity for the simple!
Also,
a great cut-and-paste job.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Davesix wrote, “You think that those with whom you disagree politically are gullible, lacking in judgement, closed-minded, and prejudiced.”
Not at all. I disagree politically with a great many open-minded, reasonable, and intelligent people.
Rather, I said those who believe our president is an “unpatriotic Kenyan-born Muslim Marxist who pals around with terrorists and seeks to destroy the nation from within” and other such unsubstantiated viewpoints, are often “gullible, lacking in judgement, closed-minded, and prejudiced.”
Incidentally, I feel similarly about those who believe in ghosts, alien abduction, chiropractic adjustments, sasquatch, the healing power of crystals, or other delusions. Thus, right-wing fanatics by no means have a monopoly on superstitious nincompoopery or ignoble doltishness.
I am still formulating a reply to your questions about who is seeking to influence public opinion and about my political beliefs, but I’ll post something soon.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Right wing fanatics do not have the corner on the lunatic market for sure. I have some very credible, intelligent left wing friends in positions of responsibility and respect who believe in the whole Building 7 conspiracy–you know the government blew up the Twin Towers. I was astonished to hear this, sort of like when, as a child, I discovered my very centered Aunt had an under the bed stash of True crime and Detective Mags she actually believed everything she read in and she also loved the Enquirer.
But my Aunt wasn’t trying to use her penchant for fantasy and the absurd to justify her political views or discredit the President. If they just rounded up the birthers and the religiosos at C St. it would be like a high colonic for the body politic.
Also the Congress, I seriously doubt, is any more corrupt than it has ever been. Wherever you have power and wealth, corruption is not far away, we are humans after all. But Congress as a whole is a noble venture, if we lose that sense of civic purpose we end up bitter and marginalized from society, espousing views based on fallacies and trying to find the simple convenient answer (read rationalization) that always obscures the complicated truth.
December 20th, 2009 at 7:59 PM
I am still writing, but in the meantime, I will offer this tidbit:
“As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”
– U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
December 20th, 2009 at 8:29 PM
……….this is not my beautiful country…… oh yes it is, Same as it ever was…..
December 20th, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Sam is alive, saw his post over at the Ward Nelson site.
December 21st, 2009 at 8:49 AM
What Ward Nelson site?
December 21st, 2009 at 9:35 AM
The council appointment discussion which focused a lot on Ward. We just hadn’t heard from you in a while……
December 21st, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Oh … you mean the blog post. Gotcha. I was confused, when you said “site” I thought there was some type of Nelson Web site out there.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:40 AM
And, yes, sorry for being quiet. I’ve been out sick. I still am sick but in the office, though i’m debating if I should go home and rest more. still not feeling very well.
December 21st, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Go home and get better ole man!
Your need to be bright eyed and bushy tailed for the next two weeks! Lots of partying to be had!!!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 21st, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Have you been vaccinated against both flues, seasonal and swine? I hate being sick. Luckily I don’t get many seasonal colds, (one short one every two years or so)and am not around kids that much. But I’m in a risk group and started religiously getting vaccinated. So far so good he says, while knocking on his noggin.
Tale of two sets of grandparents: One set lives close by the children and grandchildren and the other lives 150 mi. north in Bellingham. Guess which set is constantly plagued by colds and every bug to come along?
December 21st, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Nope, I’ve never gotten a flu shot before, Jurgen. My wife did get the seasonal flu vaccine awhile back, but I didn’t.
December 21st, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Davesix,
My answer to your question about my political beliefs has mushroomed to over 5 pages, which is far too long for this blog. So, let me quote something I recently encountered, which pretty accurately summarizes a few of my sentiments:
“Our nation has been hijacked by oligarchs, corporations, and a narrow, selfish, political, and economic elite, a small and privileged group that governs, and often steals, on behalf of moneyed interests. This elite, in the name of patriotism and democracy, . . . has systematically destroyed our manufacturing sector, looted the treasury, corrupted our democracy, and trashed the financial system. During this plundering we remained passive, mesmerized by the enticing shadows on the wall, . . . We remain tempted by mirages, by the illusion that we can, still, all become rich. The corporate power that holds the government hostage has appropriated for itself the potent symbols, language, and patriotic traditions of the state. It purports to defend freedom, which it defines as the liberty to exploit. It sold us on the illusion that the free market was the natural outgrowth of democracy and a force of nature, at least until the house of cards collapsed and these corporations needed to fleece the taxpayers to survive. Making that process even more insidious, the real sources of power remain hidden. Those who run our largest corporations are largely anonymous to the mass of the citizens.” (Hedges, C., 2009. Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle. New York: Nation Books.)
December 21st, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Todd2, that sounds like the first footnote to the first paragraph of an epic novel. Can you distill your core values down to about 75 words? I understand if you can’t.
I’m just mostly impressed that you’ve spent a day composing a response to Dave6.
I hope he appreciates the effort.
Get yer flu shots people.
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Jurgen,
The mental exercise prompted by this thread is, indeed, turning into a rather lengthy tome.
75 words? I tried, and failed, but here’s 117 words from the larger draft:
Currently, our government more resembles a kleptocratic oligarchy or a plutocracy, rather than the democratic republic envisioned by the founding fathers.
Thus, I am broadly in favor of measures that will increase democracy and decrease the undue influence of special interests in both our economy and in the affairs of state. Strong laws must be enforced against collusive arrangements between special interests and government.
I suppose you could say I am a left-leaning progressive, social democratic reformist who emphasizes the importance of individual liberties. Generally, I support most of the provisions contained in the 2008 platform of the local Whatcom County Democrats, and don’t find much to quibble with in the platform of the national Green Party.
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Well I hope you’re enjoying yourself. Personally I don’t think Super Dave deserves the effort. Besides he’s back in hiding.
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Actually, I am enjoying myself. This writing effort is forcing me to clarify the reasons behind my political beliefs, which is all good.
December 23rd, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Todd2,
“…It sold us on the illusion that the free market was the natural outgrowth of democracy and a force of nature, at least until the house of cards collapsed and these corporations needed to fleece the taxpayers to survive. Making that process even more insidious, the real sources of power remain hidden. Those who run our largest corporations are largely anonymous to …”
They’re not anonymous, but they do fleece the taxpayers, because the Congress, pushed by Henry Paulson, Bush’s Treasury Secretary, did not make them pay. They were bailed out, freed to continue to pay obscene bonuses in following years. As a result, it will happen again. They need to be personally responsible for their actions, and they have not been so. I have no use for the concept of “too big to fail”.
This was by far the worst action of the Bush Presidency. I faulted President Bush for deficit spending, and I think that a single veto of a spending bill might have altered the course of the Republican dominated Congress. The tone-deaf Republicans were properly cahsiered by an electorate of Congressional largesse.
Democrats, swept into power by a disaffected right and a promise of change, didn’t learn the lesson that propelled them there. They elevated hard-left policy and a Washington-centric penchent for spending into a whole new art form.
It’s a mistake.
They’ll learn.
Next year.
But only if the Republicans have learned the lesson, and I don’t think they have.
The star chamber inside the beltway is too compelling. They don’t get it.
They are all corrupt, and they care not a whit what their constituents think.
It’s going to be an interesting year.
If Citigroup makes its numbers for 122 quarters and then is bankrupt and in need of a bailout in the 123rd quarter, why doesn’t someone in charge get to stand in the dock and defend his actions in cooking the books and managing the company on its path to disaster?
(Under the overview of Timothy Geitner as chairman of the New york Fed, by the way.)
Jurgen,
You wrote, “The lawless Bush years must have severely chafed at your sense of the rule of law.”
They might have, but, yours is a BS rhetorical question. If you’d rephrase it, alleging specific violations of the law, citing both the law and the person whose rights were supposedly violated, I’d respond. As it is, take a hike.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Todd2,
“Currently, our government more resembles a kleptocratic oligarchy or a plutocracy, rather than the democratic republic envisioned by the founding fathers.”
Big money and big politics have become an unholy marriage of interests. Big money engages in rent-seeking, and big politics enables them in return for “campaign contributions”, which are thinly disguised bribes.
Among the enterprises so favored are the “green enterprises”, companies engaged in permanently uneconomic enterprises, dependent on Congressional handouts for their very existence. Included here are wind farms, which can never exist, now or ever in the future, without tax preferences, purchase mandates, and investment tax credits. Because they are so fashionable, nobody but me complains. Wind farms and ethanol refineries stand as monuments to the failure of government to pick a winner as an investment. Government in that role always picks the loser. They don’t pay, because they’re betting with stolen money. Your money.
As the government makes that bet, it creates a constituency, which makes the stupidity impossible to terminate. I could continue, but you know…
December 24th, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Hey Super Dave, it’s only a blog comment site, there’s not enough room. Besides, the assault on the Constitution and rule of law by the previous administration is well documented enough. Go look it up for yourself, if you’re that clueless.
It is truly a dark, surreal and frightening world you live in isn’t it What with a conspiracy around every corner, a world gone mad on useless green, a government that never responds to your fringe notions, big money wedded to big politics a revelation, total corruption everywhere, only you see the truth and can fathom the cure– you wait by the phone and no one calls.
Where in the world are there wind farms that aren’t cranking out clean power standing idle as monuments to failure?
Where were these Dems swept into power by the right wing? Man you need to change your dosage. It’s going to be another long seven years for you.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Dave wrote, “Democrats, swept into power [and] elevated hard-left policy.”
Don’t let Fox News pull the wool over your eyes, Dave. Your statement is patently false. We haven’t seen a hard-left policy initiative in this country since FDR.
December 24th, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Thanks to all the happy posters that say all the things I’d like to say - except don’t.
December 26th, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Citiazen,
Go ahead! I’d be happy to clear the obviously polluted air.
Todd2,
“Your statement is patently false. ”
So refute it, big guy! Your statement, which is an opinion, doesn’t rise to that level, does it?
Quoting me, sort of, you wrote, “Democrats, swept into power [and] elevated hard-left policy.”
(That refers to your statement, to the effect that mine is “patently false”of course. Let’s see: They injected about $800 billion into a failing banking system, and assumed substantial control over that system. They took over, in syndicalist fashion, two of the largest automobile manufacturers in the country and delivered control to the unions that bankrupted them in the first place. They proceeded toward a takeover of the healthcare system in purely partisan, leftist, fashion.
They’ve claimed the right to control CO2 emissions by the EPA, as a foil for the passage of Cap-and-trade legislation, which, if passed, would cripple the economy. I could go on, but I have…
Jurgen,
“It is truly a dark, surreal and frightening world you live in isn’t it [sic].”
Why don’t you support that with a quote and a question, rather than a baseless allegation?
Here’s the deal: Every time I post an opinion or a question, your replies are about my post or my question, and I don’t give a rip about your (very often less than focused) opinion of my opinion, and neither does anyone else here. Why don’t you stick to the issues instead of making my comments the issue?
“you[sic] wait by the phone and no one calls.”
You wish!
I’ve been out of town, and I’ve been busy, but I’m connected wherever. You are welcome to call, but you don’t have the courage, do you? 360-389-2519. Anytime. Anywhere I am.
Anytime.
Give me your number and I’ll post a personal greeting for only you.
December 26th, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Davesix wrote, “[democrats] injected about $800 billion into a failing banking system”
Sorry Dave, but you can’t hang the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the TARP program on the Democratic Party, because the financial bailout was largely Henry Paulsen’s doing, under the Bush Administration. Furthermore, the subprime mortgage crisis was largely due to over-zealous marketing of predatory adjustable rate mortgages that were legalized under a major initiative of the Reagan Administration — the Garn – St. Germain Depository Institutions Act — which was also a major factor in the Saving and Loan debacle of the late 1980s.
Davesix also wrote, “[democrats] assumed substantial control over [the banking] system.”
The initial bailout of AIG was an $85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and it was made with very few strings attached. Similarly, TARP funds also had very few strings attached and even relatively little Congressional oversight.
The idea that Obama is “taking over the banking system” is malarkey. For example, AIG has received more government assistance than any other financial institution, yet take a look at AIG’s board of directors:
Harvey Golub — Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, American International Group
Robert Benmosche — President and CEO, American International Group
Dennis D. Dammerman — Former Vice Chairman of the Board, General Electric Company
Harvey Golub — Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, American Express Company
Laurette T. Koellner — Former Senior Vice President, The Boeing Company
Christopher S. Lynch — Former Partner, KPMG LLP
Arthur C. Martinez — Former Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, Sears, Roebuck and Co.
George L. Miles, Jr. — President and Chief Executive Officer, WQED Multimedia
Robert S. Miller — Executive Chairman, Delphi Corporation
Suzanne Nora Johnson — Former Vice Chairman, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Morris W. Offit — Chairman, Offit Capital Advisors LLC
Douglas M. Steenland — Former President and Chief Executive Officer, Northwest Airlines Corporation
All of these persons are well-connected corporate oligarchs, and there is nary a governmental administrator or policy wonk among them. Granted, there have been efforts to limit or reform executive compensation, but to limited effect.
Davesix continued, “[democrats] took over, in syndicalist fashion, two of the largest automobile manufacturers in the country and delivered control to the unions that bankrupted them in the first place.”
According to the New York Times, General Motors was failing so badly that, by the fall of 2008, GM was “reduced to begging the federal government for the cash it needed to stay afloat. In December, it received $9 billion in federal aid at the order of President George W. Bush. In March 2009, President Obama forced out G.M.’s chief executive, Rick Wagoner, rejected the company’s restructuring plan and gave it 90 days to transform itself into a leaner, smaller company and win deep concessions from its unions, suppliers and bond-holders. In the end, those creditors balked and Mr. Obama’s auto task force became convinced that the protection of bankruptcy court would give the best shot at creating a viable company. The bankruptcy papers were filed on June 1,” and GM emerged from bankruptcy nine days later.
“In its bankruptcy petition, G.M. said it had $82.3 billion in assets and $172.8 billion in debts. . . . President Obama, speaking on June 1, described the federal officials as “reluctant shareholders,” but called the bankruptcy and federal aid the only way to avoid an economic calamity. . . . American taxpayers will invest an additional $30 billion in the company, atop $20 billion already spent just to keep it solvent as the company bled cash as quickly as Washington could inject it. Whether that investment will ever be recovered is still an open question, although the president said he was optimistic, and that Washington really had no choice.”
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_motors_corporation/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=General%20Motors%20&st=cse
Needless to say, this hardly sounds like the hostile takeover you are making it out to be, and the unions certainly do not have managerial control over the current General Motors. In fact, union members and their communities have suffered mightily during the whole debacle. And, the current corporate governance of GM certainly doesn’t include any union agitators. Edward Whitacre is the current chairman and CEO of General Motors. He is also the Chairman Emeritus of AT&T, a former Chairman and CEO of SBC Communications (1990-2005), and is currently a director of Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Exxon Mobil. Yet another staunch oligarch.
Davesix also wrote, [democrats] proceeded toward a takeover of the healthcare system in purely partisan, leftist, fashion.
Recently, conservatives have been howling mightily about the “government takeover” of the healthcare system, yet there is no takeover anywhere to be found. No single payer healthcare system is in the offing. There isn’t even a government option. Instead, what we find is an expansion of the private, for-profit insurance system. So, the current healthcare legislation looks like more of the same: private healthcare providers, private insurance companies, and private pharmaceutical companies. Other than a modest expansion of Medicaid to cover the poverty stricken, and subsidies so the working poor can purchase private health insurance, there isn’t much government to speak of, and there certainly isn’t a “government takeover.”
Finally, cap and trade legislation will not “cripple the economy,” as you claim. On the contrary, wherever such systems have been tried, they’ve worked out pretty well.
I could go on, but . . .
Incidentally Davesix, wherever you are getting the bulk of your information definitely seems flawed, faulty, and, perhaps, even fraudulent. Perhaps, you should look up media literacy and try triangulating some of your information with academic sources.
December 26th, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Todd,
“Incidentally Davesix, wherever you are getting the bulk of your information definitely seems flawed, faulty, and, perhaps, even fraudulent.”
The use of multiple adjectives dilutes your point, don’t you think?
More tomorrow.
December 26th, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Just a hint: You wrote, concerning the GM Board, “All of these persons are well-connected corporate oligarchs…”
The dictionary says, “oligarch…A ruler in an oligarchy…”, and “oligarchy…A form of government in which supreme power is restricted to a few.” (Italics mine)
You know very well that the bondholders got burned and the union didn’t. Don’t try to woof me. The statutory bankruptcy process was subverted.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Super Dave, you fling the bull with the best of them so don’t get all high and mighty on me. You also personalize your anger as much as anyone here–maybe more.
Also, who gives a rat’s patoot about your grammar critique. If I wanted a critique from someone of your caliber, I’d call up Jay Leno and see if he has a spare Jaywalker.
If you don’t want a comment on your opinion, then keep it to yourself. Posting comments and then dealing with the response is what this is all about baby cakes. We all take our lumps now and then, but hey you know what I’ve noticed— I’m not the only one who believes you are full of it so I don’t know who the “everyone” is that you are sure doesn’t want to hear my unfocused opinions of your delusions.
That give me your number so I can get all testosterone on you is a little creepy. I don’t like you. You don’t like me, we don’t need to meet at high noon anywhere so you can whip anything out and compare. And I lost my magnifying glass.
Is been out of town code for rehab? Jail? Don’t tell me someone invited you for the Holidays. Creepy.
You know Dave I tried a straight up debate with you a long time ago without provocation or personalizing anything and you went to the dark side of anger immediately…..and you do with a lot of the folks here.
I wish I could muster a little more humor for your latest tirades, but I can’t find much to love about you. But I think a lot of folks here might recognize and I hope Sam will also give a little nod of credit to how restrained I am actually being as I have tried this civility thing. The old me would have blistered your old codger ears with a blast of profanities to make a sailor proud and I would have finished with an invitation to you to munch on one of my body parts, but the new me……….. How would you like that, ala carte or do you just want to go for the whole me buffet?
December 27th, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Lover , please keep doing what the rest of your ridiculous ilk are doing. It’s working, only a hand full of you wing nuts believe the ignorance you are spreading and your credibility is equal to nil…
December 27th, 2009 at 9:04 AM
I revel in it. Haven’t you noticed.
I also will try harder not to personalize my anger with your and a few others’ opinions for the New Year. But this argument is why we’re here right? You’re not just here to scribble out some deep thoughts and have them awarded a Pulitzer, right?
You lay out your thoughts and some may take offense, that’s the deal.
December 27th, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Todd’s use of multiple adjectives employs two time honored rhetorical techniques that can be found in writing throughout history.
1) Triplets. Making a point by emphasizing it three times in three ways.
2) Alliteration. All three of the adjectives having some rhythmic theme. In this case, the three words all start with the same letter.
Other writers who, by Davesix’s standards, would be deemed to have allowed their points to be diluted: Abe Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Shakespeare. You know… THOSE hacks.
You are one hell of a language maven there, Davesix.
Can you teach us how to not write like Oscar Wilde next?
December 27th, 2009 at 10:09 AM
…or “All of these persons are well-connected corporate oligarchs…” perhaps?
Can Davesix give us the benefit of his wise council on this matter of language?
We all want Todd2 to be a better writer, after all.
What other rhetorical landmines can he avoid. (Oops. Now I’m doing it. See I wasn’t referring to actual landmines. That was a met-uh-fawr. )
Davesix, how do we avoid Todd2’s mistake of writing things that are rhythmic, readable, and relate-able? (Oh, my. Its happening again.)
Help us, Davesix, you’re our only hope.
December 27th, 2009 at 10:25 AM
It is not clear to me how this comment section is the economic engine that keeps the Herald in business. How does this comment section generate revenue for the Herald?
Insults hurled at me, regardless how cleverly they are crafted, will only be accepted as an answer to this question if they also provide an insight as to how the presence of this comments section is actually putting food on the table of Herald employees.
Please describe the method by which these comments cause increased revenue for the Bellingham Herald.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I not only try and employ the triad,
I worship it.
I see it repeated in almost all the writing I admire.
And the poetic use of repetition to list a theme is most enjoyable to me.
From K. Olbermann to J. Cleese,
the syntax of a repeated hammering is very a satisfying form of discussion.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Dave,
Actually, I rather like Wikipedia’s definition of oligarchy: “a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by . . . wealth. Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy. . . . Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group. . . . The combination of the words plutocracy and oligarchy make the word plutarchy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
Hmmm . . . plutarchy. That seems to do rather well.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Todd2,
I had to laugh today as I read Maureen Dowd’s column in the Times today. Here’s an excerpt: “But by forcing through a government takeover of health care, the auto industry and the banks, the president and his Congressional henchmen have brought us in a time machine to Russia 1917. These massive changes have been done in secret and along bullying, straight party-line votes….”
Of course, the column was written, as it is from time to time, by her brother Kevin.
The best line in the column, however, came earlier: “…I asked him how he thought the first year of Barack Obama had gone.
He didn’t have to pray long over that one. “Fine,” he replied, “if you like unmitigated disasters like the Hindenburg and the Redskins season.” ‘
In case you need a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1261947962-+W1KyO4y2ZQurwYcWY4Zmw
December 27th, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Jurgen,
Re: “The dark side”:
Do you have a quote in mind?
December 27th, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Ah yes, the inestimable polemicist Maureen Dowd. How interesting that she would, once again, give her high and mighty column over to her brother, Kevin, for him to air the rather bland, yet vulgar conservative drivel that has, by now, become the standard republican party line.
Is this some act of parody? Is she lampooning her brother? A way of gingerly ridiculing him, perhaps out of revenge for some former misdeed? Or, is it an act of subtle humiliation?
Here’s some of the rope Maureen gave dear Kevin with which to hang himself (and I quote):
Obama’s “Congressional henchmen have brought us in a time machine to Russia 1917.”
“Massive changes have been done in secret.”
“Rich lawmakers driving their own expensive cars off the cliff and signing on to such a socialist agenda.”
It’s enough to make me exclaim, “oh brother!”
Besides showing the world that her brother is quite obviously a buffoon, there is another lesson to be learned here. For brother Kevin’s column amply demonstrates the extent to which radicalizing republican propaganda has infected the minds of otherwise mild mannered, middle-aged Catholic salesmen. And, that is all the more reason to denigrate this form of intellectually contemptuous political fakery.
December 27th, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Todd,
Earlier, you wrote, “Sorry Dave, but you can’t hang the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the TARP program on the Democratic Party, because the financial bailout was largely Henry Paulsen’s doing, under the Bush Administration.
It’s spending, isn’t it? It started in the House, as it had to, didn’t it? Paulson is a democrat, isn’t he? Both houses of Congress were controlled by democrats, weren’t they? The bill passed on a party-line vote, didn’t it? The second half passed the Senate on January 21, 2009, with nine democrats against and six republicans for, didn’t it? Bush might have been in office, and Paulson was certainly Treasury Secretary when the first bill was passed, but, in my opinion it was a bad bill and was bad policy. Bush signed too many bad spending bills, but this was the worst thing he did as President. (In my opinion, as usual, of course.)
Originally, this thread was about corruption. After the bill passed, according to you, “…The initial bailout of AIG was an $85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and it was made with very few strings attached.”
You know that AIG was used as a conduit to save Goldman Sachs, where Henry Paulson had been a partner. I think that Paulson should be indicted. Lehman was allowed to fail, and, in my opinion, that was a huge mistake on the part of these “smartest financial minds on the face of the earth, whose only goal was to save us all from the perils of financial Armageddon.” Many in the financial communit agree with me.
Then, you wrote, about the very independent General Motors, “…Edward Whitacre is the current chairman and CEO of General Motors. He is also the Chairman Emeritus of AT&T, a former Chairman and CEO of SBC Communications (1990-2005), and is currently a director of Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Exxon Mobil. Yet another staunch oligarch.”
He was put there by the administration, and he is their errand boy. I thought that your use of the term “oligarch” in reference to the board of GM was especially ironic, since they all kiss the ring of the Automobile czar, who answers only to Obama, not to the Congress. I think that you were speaking of corporate governance, but I deliberately took it as “Government” with a capital G, and Apexnerd picked up on that.
I won’t go into your defense of the healthcare bill. It’s beneath you.
Finally, you wrote, in the same manner that you often do, that, “…Incidentally Davesix, wherever you are getting the bulk of your information definitely seems flawed, faulty, and, perhaps, even fraudulent. Perhaps, you should look up media literacy and try triangulating some of your information with academic sources.”
This is a variation on your usual three-adjective comment to persons with whom you disagree on matters of politics, in which, this time, you imply that I am unable to tell truth from fiction, easily persuaded by falsehoods presented as fact, and intellectually slothful. Usually, you use similar language to imply ignorance, stupidity, and low motive.
Your priggish comments in that regard are, as I wrote, tiresome. Perhaps you could suggest an “academic source” that I could use to broaden my narrow horizons. I’d appreciate it if you would define “media literacy”, sir.
December 27th, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Fuhrer,
A fervid, fetid, fulmination from you! Congratulaions and salutations! (I know they’re not all adjectives, but well…)
You wrote, “Where in the world are there wind farms that aren’t cranking out clean power standing idle as monuments to failure?”
Everywhere and every time that the wind doesn’t blow. The subsidy continues as they stand idle, paid by you and me. That subsidy is, by the way, something on the order of $23 per megawatt hour. The result is that large-scale baseload generating facilities have to be sized for the periods when “green” power is unavailable.
You wrote, “… The old me would have blistered your old codger ears with a blast of profanities to make a sailor proud and I would have finished with an invitation to you to munch on one of my body parts, but the new me…”
In my humble opinion, you’ve stepped over the taste boundary with that post, sir.
Apexnerd,
You wrote, “…1) Triplets. Making a point by emphasizing it three times in three ways.”
and, “…Can you teach us how to not write like Oscar Wilde next?”
Then citizen chimed in with, “…I not only try and employ the triad, (italics mine)
I worship it.
I see it repeated in almost all the writing I admire.
And the poetic use of repetition to list a theme is most enjoyable to me.”
With some reluctance, I’d suggest that citizen read some Oscar Wilde.
You might start with “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, sir.
That’s of course, takes us to Jurgen’s fantasies about me.
December 27th, 2009 at 10:46 PM
I love it, baiting…
That’s Mein Fuhrer to you hammerhead.
If a lunatic posts in the wilderness and no one reads it, does it matter worth a stool?
Super Duper Califragilisticespialidocious Dave, you know, usually they put wind farms where the wind often blows. They also change the angle of some to account for local geologic features, etc. Seldom are all on line at the same time. Just like any other turbines, hydro or whatever. I guess the rest of the world is frigging crazy and only you have the inside poop to know when something is not worth exploring. If I cared about you Dave, I’d school you in power matters in general because that was once a specialty, but like I said, what’s the use. You talk of others’ closed minds but yours snapped shut a long time , I’d say.
Boy I sure hit a nerve huh? My fantasies, actually attempt at humor that skimmed off your flat head and ended up near Pluto, must have some truth.
Here I thought you were Dorian Gray.
I don’t want to give up the right to bear arms either, but mostly because of the kind of yahoos packing heat. You must have a really big one, you know –gun.
The court of my psyche just issued a no contact order Dave, you don’t refer or bait me by name and same same. You too lover. Then you can drop all the gun and high noon references and quit whining about how someone is dissing your etch a sketch opinions and you can find a new chew toy that doesn’t bite back.
December 27th, 2009 at 10:47 PM
I love the smell of gun powder in the morning, smells like………………..insanity.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Davesix wrote, “Paulson was certainly Treasury Secretary when the first bill was passed, but, in my opinion it was a bad bill and was bad policy.”
I wholeheartedly agree. The vast majority of Americans were solidly against the financial bailout, and I also lobbied against it. Instead, I argued that the federal government should have provided incentives or used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance unsustainable and predatory sub-prime mortgages into traditional 30 year fixed-rate mortgages with reasonable terms. This would have given millions of homeowners a fighting chance to keep their homes, taken the “toxic assets” off the books of Wall Street firms, curbed the foreclosure crisis, and helped shore up the housing market. Recapitalizing failing financial firms who were overextended should have only come after helping victims of the loan sharks who were masquerading as mortgage brokers.
Davesix also wrote, “You know that AIG was used as a conduit to save Goldman Sachs.”
This is essentially correct, because for two years, AIG insured Goldman and other firms against losses owing to sour sub-prime mortgages. Then, when the bubble burst, AIG was holding a large part of the bag. When the government bailed out AIG, AIG honored their sub-prime credit default swaps at 100 cents on the dollar, essentially covering about half of Wall Street’s losses from sub-prime risk. For an engaging article about this, see Micheal Lewis’ piece entitled, “The Man Who Crashed the World,” available here:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/aig200908
And, if you really want to get angry, read Lewis’ piece about the financial collapse here:
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom/
I also agree that allowing Lehman Bros. to fail was a tragic mistake that greatly exacerbated the resulting financial crisis.
Davesix also wrote, “they all kiss the ring of the Automobile czar, who answers only to Obama.”
Careful Dave, this sounds like something Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh might have said.
Obama’s so-called “car czar” was Steven Rattner, the Wall Street insider who orchestrated the bailout of the auto industry and then suddenly quit his position in July, after seeing Chrysler and GM through bankruptcy. Rattner joined the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry as an advisor and answered to the co-chairs, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Larry Summers. As I understand it, Rattner basically worked for Geithner, and I suspect Obama actually had little to do with Rattner or the bailout. Once again, if you want to find the rulers of the free world, one had better look first in New York, and not in Washington, D.C.
You also asked about media literacy. According to Wikipedia, “Media literacy education provides tools to help people critically analyze messages to detect propaganda, censorship, and bias in news and public affairs programming . . . Media literacy is an expanded conceptualization of literacy. By transforming the process of media consumption into an active and critical process, people gain greater awareness of the potential for misrepresentation and manipulation (especially through commercials and public relations techniques), and understand the role of mass media and participatory media in constructing views of reality.”
I suppose media literacy is a sort of perspective or toolkit for encouraging critical thinking about media messages and messengers. It prompts media consumers to ask such questions as: Who created this message? For what purpose? Is the source reliable? Is the message factually accurate? And so forth.
It actually shares much in common with Michael Shermer’s “Baloney Detection Kit,” which you can watch right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
For more, see The Association for Media Literacy website available here:
http://www.aml.ca/home/
Cheers!
December 28th, 2009 at 6:53 AM
jurgen,
“Boy I sure hit a nerve huh? ”
Take care not to wrench your shoulder patting yourself on the back.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:19 AM
Todd2,
Thanks for all the agreement that preceded more advice about media literacy.
You”re one czar behind, by the way. Following Rattner’s resignation, the administration appointed Ron Bloom, a UAW official, to be the *new new* czar, far less compromised than the last. That’s part of the reason for my argument that the administration is taking a page from Mussolini’s playbook.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/steven-rattner-auto-czar-_n_231217.html
You and I both know that GM, saddled with union demands and unpayable debt to the government, will eventually fail.
As a union supporter and healthcare reform advocate, you must love the little carve-out in the Senate bill for union health plans and for Blue Cross/Blue Shield in Michigan, administrator of those plans.
You quoted Wikipedia: “…help people critically analyze messages to detect propaganda, censorship, and bias…”
You’re free to disagree, but I’m capable of “critically analyz[ing]” messages.
I’ll visit your links.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:53 AM
Pardon me: Ron Bloom was a Steelworkers guy.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Well I’s hope all y’all had a Merry Christmas, I’s sure did, it was some golf (cold but manageable), a little practice at the range, football, some checking out some local eateries, and a whole bunch of Christmas cheer with friends and families!
Did go to the movie Avatar, saw the 3D version, a word of advice; don’t sit on the 2nd row! One lady we were with got sick and had to leave, I also caught me wife ducking a few times, it was like being in the movie, being back a few rows may have given the brain a little more time to absorb everything.
On the movie itself, it was well done, beautiful in a way, for a red meat eating knuckle dragger like me, it had enough action to keep me awake, and for all me liberal friends, methinks you just might love it, cause the moral of this story is like a reverse western without the scalping, bad white guys kilting the good ingens, evil corporation murderin & raping the land, but all is saved by mother earth & the animals (kinda reminded me of an old Tarzan movie in that part) coming to the rescue, kickin the bad guys butts! At the end of the flick the kids in attendance were a clappin, so it’s kinda like reinforcin (in a fun sorta way!) all the propaganda the kids are gettin spoon fed at school everyday!
What a great country!
This has been a movie minute by:
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 28th, 2009 at 9:20 AM
This has been extremely helpful and insightful, actually.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Why always go to an overly reactive extreme in making an argument? Some of what you say may be credible, but why then belittle and marginalize your comments by saying something outrageous like “…the administration is taking a page from Mussolini’s playbook.” That is clearly the bomb you wanted to throw so you have tortured your logic to throw the bomb. The result is a bomb on all levels.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:42 AM
“Why always go to an overly reactive extreme in making an argument?”
Cause it makes a troll feel Alive!
Especially when bitten upon.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Personally I find studying history can be a portal to the future, kinda like that saying about learning from the past so as not to repeat it.
Obama is not a Mussolini. And anyone saying that IMHO is wrong.
However Mussolini’s corporatism can be found to have influence our own American New Deal of which Obama is a great admirer and emulator, IMHO:
“In the United States, economic corporatism involving capital-labour cooperation was influential in the New Deal economic program of the United States in the 1930s as well as in Fordism and Keynesianism.[37]
In the post-World War II reconstruction period in Europe, corporatism was favoured by Christian democrats, national conservatives, and social democrats in opposition to liberal capitalism.[38] This type of corporatism faded but revived again in the 1960s and 1970s as “neo-corporatism” in response to the new economic threat of stagflation.[39] Neo-corporatism favoured economic tripartism which involved strong and centralized labour unions, employers’ unions, and governments that cooperated as “social partners” to negotiate and manage a national economy.[40″
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 28th, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Jurgen,
Here’s a URL for you of an article titled, “The Socialist-Syndicalist Plan for GM”, written by D.W. MacKenzie, an instructor in economics at the Coast Guard Academy.
http://mises.org/story/3439
The “bomb” was not my invention.
As I said, I don’t give a rodent’s rosy red rear end about what you think of my comments.
Why don’t you comment about the article?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:57 AM
I think you do give a rodent’s red rosy rear end about what I think; otherwise why so sensitive and always on the offensive. I on the other hand, have to quit whacking a mole and spurn your advances.
I don’t do links because I am interested in your thoughts and how you got there, not whatever propaganda brought you to this state. If you’re telling me you just pick your thoughts from links, your metaphors are all plagiarized and you rely on the opinions of others, well then I’ll pass.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Todd2,
You wrote, “Finally, cap and trade legislation will not “cripple the economy,” as you claim. On the contrary, wherever such systems have been tried, they’ve worked out pretty well. ”
Here’s a differing opinion: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,566441,00.html
It’s titled, “Killing jobs to Save the Planet”. It’s from last year. Since then, carbon credits have fallen to about twelve Euros per tonne, insufficient to generate the investments required to reduce CO2 emissions. As a result, CO2 emissions in Europe are not falling, especially now that the easy reductions resulting from shutting down inefficient eastern-bloc factories are no longer available.
I read another, exhaustive, study from a German University that reached similar conclusions.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Jurgen,
It’s a pleasure for me, too.
You wrote, “…and you rely on the opinions of others, well then I’ll pass.”
I don’t rely on the opinion of anyone, but I seek information about a wide range of subjects in many places. Then I use that information as a basis for my own opinion.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Davesix,
I’m not sure what you have against unions, but I think your anger may be misplaced.
According to the article you cited, “Rattner will be replaced by Ron Bloom, a former investment banker and adviser to the United Steelworkers union, who has played a prominent role on the task force for months. . . . Rattner and Bloom were key advisers to Geithner as the government pushed GM and Chrysler through quick bankruptcies, helping the auto giants shed unsustainable debt levels, large health care obligations and uncompetitive wage levels.”
This suggests that the auto companies cut wages, reduced health care benefits, and cut long-term debts, much of which were probably pensions. In other words, it sounds like labor took it in the shorts, once again. And, you will notice that, as a former investment banker, Bloom isn’t exactly a union man.
Personally, I’m upset about the extent to which these blundering oligopolistic giants were able mismanage their affairs, much to the detriment of so many of our communities and of the entire country.
Here’s an interesting overview of the auto industry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/automobiles/27year.html?_r=1&sq=porche volkswagen saab&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1262030401-ZHOyzuOTnBq2GYpGLqQGDw
December 28th, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Here’s an interesting article in Wired Magazine about the Gaussian copula function, the risk model created by David X. Li: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=3
It’s titled, “Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street”.
I’ve read other articles that ask one not to blame the quants for the meltdown, but it was the MIT guys who created the black boxes that swallowed all the money, at least in the beginning.
Todd,
Re: AIG: The whole mess is Elliot Spitzer’s fault, for forcing out Hank Greenberg.
December 28th, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Todd,
“… but I think your anger may be misplaced.”
I don’t think that I expressed anger toward unions. I just don’t think that union control of General Motors is going to result in a happy end. I didn’t own GM stock, and I didn’t hold GM secured debt. The UAW was only doing what unions do. I just happen to think that the unions’ pursuit of short-term gain for their members leads to long term pain.
I’m sure that there are many former GM employees who agree with me. They might have become unemployed anyway, but the union, in my opinion, hastened their departure.
When, before the fall, the numbers showed that GM’s hard cost per vehicle was $1500 higher than Toyota’s, did the union offer to approach their members to take the necessary hit to make GM competitive? Sure, they made concessions, but not sufficiently painful concessions. In the end, the employees lost anyway. The problem, of course, was retiree healthcare expenses. When whatever “healthcare” bill finally passes, the government (that’s you and I, of course) will eventually assume at least some of those costs, and the union will be repaid for its political support.
This kind of brings us to Mussolini. I did not compare Obama to Mussolini. I said that the administration had taken a page out of Mussolini’s playbook, mostly because when I used the world “syndicalist”, it received scant attention, save one by Todd, until AFY’s excellent post.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Why is it that some always want the employee to take the hit. Most employees are already making barely passable wages while the cream of a large corporation is skimmed and divided by a few. Just imagine how totally screwed and what kind of a caste/class society we would live in if employees weren’t able to collectively bargain for the pittance they get now.
Also, the argument about the culprit being health care expenses sounds like a good argument for single payer.
Employees just barely being paid livable wages, and most working families in this nation live in the here and now and don’t have the luxury of holding out for long term gain at the whim of the guys making hundreds of times more than they. It is absolute fallacy and despicable prevarication of the highest order to lay any of this at the foot of the laborer. How’s that for a double adj with a turbo?
December 28th, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Jurgen,
“… lay any of this at the foot of the laborer…”
I didn’t do that. I laid it at the foot of the union, most of whose bosses make hundreds of times more money than the workers. There’s a difference.
“… cream of a large corporation is skimmed and divided by a few.” The shareholders of GM lost everything. You might consider that the shares of most large corporations are held by literally millions of people, including individual shareholders, shareholders of large mutual funds, and participants in state and federal pension funds. Calpers has been pretty aggressive about the issue of executive compensation.
That’s hardly a few. Before GM collapsed, as I recall, Rick Wagoner was working for a buck a year.
What’s the percentage of employees of manufacturing companies thaat are unionized? Something like 8%? They seem to be happy.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Well, Dave, that was pretty dumb.
By “they”, I meant the ones who aren’t.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Jurgen,
You wrote, “…Also, the argument about the culprit being health care expenses sounds like a good argument for single payer.”
Most of those retirees stayed in the union system because it was so generous, and because the union contracts with the manufacturers allowed them to.
With the pasage of “reform”, they’ll be thrown into (drumroll here)
Medicare!! (gasp)!
Of course, nothing in either version of the bill does anything to make Medicare actuarily sound, especially with all of the new enrollees.
What a tragedy!
December 28th, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Where are these union bosses who make hundreds of times more than the workers?
The union is the laborer and vice versa. If an employee decides to just bitch about his dues and not get involved in his union, he doesn’t have any more cause to complain than someone who bitches about government but never votes.
Wagoner worked for a buck but how much did he take as he ran it into the ground? he was overpaid with that buck.
The retirees found the retirement generous by comparison to what, homelessness, life in a dismal nursing home? Sure and why wouldn’t they and how is that in anyway inappropriate?
December 28th, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Where are these union bosses who make hundreds of times more than the workers?
That sounds like a fair question.
Oops. I resolved to stay outta this one.
Nevermind.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Come on in we’re just at the shallow end….
December 28th, 2009 at 8:51 PM
This feels like being out behind the Portables beyond the practice court where miscreants went to settle grievances and smoke dope……
December 28th, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Jurgen,
You’re like a big ol’ catfish. You’ll take the bait if it’s dangled in front of you.
Now deal with the rest of the post, and put some energy into it for a change.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:35 AM
One lunker to another huh?
December 29th, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Government Unions with government help pushing their progressive ideas have done nothing but good so far in the states they have controlled, don’t you know! Now they are doing the same right here in our state and the country as a whole, and who will be the big losers, the middle class as we have been witnessing in 2009!
“So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures. At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597150183556945.html
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
December 30th, 2009 at 10:17 AM
As a note - all posts by “Lover” have been unapproved because this person has not verified that the e-mail address they’re using to post on the blog is legitimate. Until that happens, no posts from this person will remain on the blog, per the rules of the blog.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:24 AM
No comment.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Todd,
If you’re around, the Lewis article about A.I.G. is just excellent.I’ve been busy, but I’ve read snippets as I’ve had time.
I love the quote about Cassano: ” He wore crappy clothes, drove a crappy car, and spent all of his time at the office. He had made huge piles of money ($280 million!), but so far as anyone could tell he didn’t spend any of it. “Joe wasn’t a trader and now he wasn’t a risktaker, in his …”
It says something about the culture ( Take the money out!).
December 30th, 2009 at 6:09 PM
AFY!
The state of Washington is on its way there as we speak.
Here’s a comment about unions from an economist named William Harold Hutt:
“As Hutt showed, the wage gains of unionized laborers come at the expense of nonunion workers and consumers in general.”
Nonunion workers suffer a decrease in their incomes because some of the laborers who lose jobs in those industries where collective bargaining forces wage rates above market-clearing levels will swell labor supplies and drive wage rates down in nonunionized industries and occupations. Consumers, including union members, experience an erosion of their real incomes, as consumer goods become more scarce and expensive in response to the increased unemployment in unionized sectors of the economy, and to the diversion of labor to less-productive employments in nonunion industries.
Capital is misallocated, and consumer sovereignty and satisfaction further impaired, as investors seek to inure themselves against strike-threat exploitation by reducing their investment in unionized industries and changing the form of their remaining investments to less-productive assets that may be quickly and easily converted to uses outside unionized industries in the event of a strike-induced rise in costs.”
(Quoted from “The Essence of Hutt” by Joseph T. Solerno, in Mises Daily, Dec 30, 2009.)