Richard's Blog: notes from the bullfrog pond

I am going to risk another comment about Hillary Clinton, the woman I like to dislike, but there are good reasons why she should be Secretary of State.  It is a safe job from Obama’s perspective to pigeon-hole the Clintons who, we may finally observe, have surrendered their power in the Democrat Party.  It is a job that does not specifically require experience.  It is a job that will virtually guarantee oblivion.

 

Safe:  Secretary Hillary [and over/under secretary clinton] can rummage around in State without any influence on Obama.  The State position is fourth in succession to the presidency. 

 

Experience:  The smartest woman in the world has already distinguished herself as a keen foreign observer, both while accompanying the former President on his junkets, and on her own recognizance.  Two comments with regard to her experience:  as First Lady/observer, she landed on a tarmac thinking the tarmac was under fire.  Or was that on fire?  Or was it just aglow in admiration for Her Ladyship?  As presidential candidate, she said the world village inhabitants were all Americans. 

Oblivion:  Who was the Secretary of State when you were in high school?  In college?  Today?  That’s a multiple choice question and all the above may apply.  Second question: who is the current president pro tempor of the senate [your third in succession to the presidency]?

A superb choice, Mr. Obama!  So indicative of your political savvy.

 

 

The media storm since the passage of Proposition 8 in California, and the outcry of the losing antagonists, to overturn the court’s decision to overturn the original will of the people [and the court’s action was a questionable practice given the will of the people] is indicative of the concept that I will propose:  the separation of church and state has an equally functional antithesis, i.e., the separation of state and church.  Isn’t that just saying the same thing?  Not according to protagonists of a one-sided opinion.

 

 

We have always looked at the first amendment as the desire of the founding fathers to avoid the encroachment of religion into government.  There have been arguments ever since the passage of the amendment and its inclusion into the U.S. Constitution, but none of those arguments center on the potential and reality of the encroachment of government into religion.  The argument has centered on a definition of the amendment and the resulting summary: a separation of institutions. 

Marriage was historically a religious institution, sanctioned by the authority of the church [you pick the church] with the understanding that the union of a man and a woman was likewise sanctioned and blessed by God.  The idea that marriage can be sanctioned and performed by government representatives and that the government can redefine marriage principles and participants is a very recent development in society and represents an encroachment of that government into religious practices.  Why should that be acceptable if its antithesis is not? 

 

 

If one truly believes in a separation of two institutions, that separation must cut both ways and be mutually exclusive. 

 

 

 

 

With all the hubbub over California Proposition 8 [to ban same-gender marriage], there was little coverage of Proposition 4, which would have amended the California State Constitution to require physicians to notify a parent/guardian of a pregnant minor of that minor’s intent to have an abortion 48 hours prior to said abortion.  The measure was defeated, curiously, by the same margin by which Prop 8 won:  52 to 48%.

 

Something is amiss in this statistic, and it wasn’t the most youthful voters, 18 to 29, who significantly defeated the measure, as they represented only 21% of the total electorate.  It was my generation, 45 to 64, 36% of the electorate, the grandparents of these pregnant minors, who defeated this measure.  Even their parents, 30 to 44, 28% of the electorate, voted in favor of the measure.  The same people who expressed no desire to know their pregnant minors were pregnant and/or desired an abortion don’t want same-gender marriage in California.  Do they really want dysfunctional, tradition family units?  I’m stumped.

 

The morning after the night before.  In the sixties [“Inside Shelley Berman” was actually released in 1959], this was the title of a comedy routine by Shelley Berman, a comic who’s humor struck a chord with me because he had a knack of making humorous situations out of ordinary human predicaments.  I didn’t know then; that’s the point of comedy and any good comic worth a laugh is good at it.  My teeth itch.  And my tongue’s asleep.  That’s how Berman’s routine started, verbatim. 

 

This morning, my teeth itch.  My guy didn’t win.  Somebody’s guy had to lose; that’s the nature of elections.  I’ve been here before.  I’ll likely be here again, with a tongue that is swollen asleep.

 

Barack Obama is the President-elect, with the most decisive victory any candidate has had since Ronald Reagan.  Not as decisive as that election, but close enough.  And Obama scares me; that’s the truth.  But, as an American, I’m obligated to buck up, smile, and offer my promise to sustain his presidency.  I’m like that.  I may not like the man, but I respect the office and the man who holds it.  How I accomplish that is still somewhere outside; it has not yet made it home to be the cure for my teeth and tongue. But it will come. 

 

I’ll figure this out, just as soon as I remember my name.  As Berman said in the same routine, there’s a letter for me here somewhere with my name on it.  I’ll start there.  I’m already on my knees: my mouth to God’s ear, because if I don’t remember my name, I sure remember Barack and he needs all the prayers I can give.

 

 

Well, it’s been a long time since you’ve come into the pub.  What’ll you have?  Been a busy campaign season for you, huh?  How do you feel, now that it’s almost over?  Working a blue campaign in a red state cannot be the most rewarding profession there is.

 

Yes, I understand completely.  Never the less, the challenge must be invigorating.  How do you do it?

 

Misdirection?  What do you mean?

 

Yes, I actually did watch Mr. Obama’s infomercial the other night.  Very… uh, interesting, to say the least.

 

What did I think?  You really want to know?  You know how I’m voting.  I’ve already voted truth be told.  Well, I was very intrigued by his comment that he would fundamentally change America.  On the surface, that sounds like that might be a good thing.  Things don’t appear to be very good right now.  But, do we really need fundamental changes, or just a good kick?

 

Oh, that was part of the misdirection?  How so?

 

You really think we need to fundamentally change?  What does that mean?

 

Change the Constitution?  You’re kidding!  That’s fundamental, alright, I’ll grant you that.  But doesn’t the President take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?” 

 

Oh, a President Obama says he will, but he’ll stack the Supreme Court and they’ll adjudicate changes.  Aha, yes, I see what you mean by misdirection.

 

Come to think of it, Supreme Court justices take a slightly different oath, to discharge justice impartially under the Constitution, but they do not swear to preserve, protect and defend it.  I see how the misdirection works.  It just might.  I’d like to say good job, but it ain’t over yet, and I happen to disagree with misdirection.  Our guiding principles need to be more than just words, just speeches.

 

In an interview with Joe Biden, he was asked why Barack Obama’s position on re-distribution of wealth should not be considered a Marxist philosophy.  His response: “Is this a joke?” is as telling, and considerably more dangerous, than the accusation hurled against Sarah Palin that she does not understand the role of the Vice President vis à vis the Senate.  For a man who claims that John McCain does not understand the fundamentals of our economy, one might wonder if Joe Biden cannot tell the difference between capitalism and socialism and considers such distinctions a joke.  Sorry if I do not laugh.  Is it fair to agree that the fundamental basis of American economy is rooted in capitalism, in the free market growth of industry and individuals in it, in individual worth and earning power and the contradiction of taking wealth from people who earn it to turn it over to people who have not?  And that the realistic antithesis to personal involvement in the system and resulting lack of personal growth is idle worthlessness?  Historically, yes.  If so, then the reasoning behind re-distribution of wealth – and Barack Obama has been talking this line since at least 2001 in Chicago – is fundamentally socialist, or Marxist.  And no, it is no joke, though Biden seems to think so.  It is a valid question that deserves an honest answer.  Unfortunately, his was the wrong answer, and so is the Obama plan.  Barack’s plan says nothing to original creation of wealth, and that is the fundamental flaw in socialism.  It assumes that, regardless of economic philosophy, wealth will be available to consume.  Not necessarily so.  Re-distribution of wealth will not result in a gain of wealth for society.  Re-distribution of wealth will result in a reduction of motivation for people who actually create wealth by doing what they do best: create wealth.  The net result will be a reduction in wealth in society.  This is not theory.  It has been observed in every Marxist society that has taken root and failed to flourish.  All of them have.  All of them will.  It will happen here.  To quote another famous, ill-advised Biden quote:  Mark my words.  If you doubt them, and, if you dare, read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”  It is longer than Tolstoy’s “War and Peace,” but worth the effort and, although fiction, the reality of capitalist vs socialist values is graphically demonstrated.  One quote from it:  “I am, therefore, I think,” [a turn of a phrase originating with Descartes] which is to say, in Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy, “I am” productive.  In the Marxist theory, “I am” is irrelevant.  The government is productive for you.  But that is a non sequitur because government does not produce anything.  Not to worry, because there is no “you” to disappoint, either.  Those who believe in re-distribution have failed to recognize the proposition, “I am,” and will therefore ignore the conclusion, “I think.”  It isn’t very funny, is it?  Why is Joe Biden laughing?

 

Blog page problem solved.  Well done, David!

Once upon a time, Gary Hart, senator from Colorado, ran for the Democratic presidential ticket in 1988.  Amid allegations by the press that he was fooling around, he challenged the press, “Follow me around.  I don’t care.”  So they did, and found Donna Rice, Miami model, coming out of his DC townhouse late evening in early May.  Within a week, they found her sitting on his lap in a short skirt on “Monkey Business,” a luxury yacht docked in a South Florida marina.  He was wearing a tee-shirt proclaiming Hart to be a crew member of the yacht.  It was a scintillating week of “Gotcha” by the media.  And it went to their head.

 

Fast forward twenty years, and the fourth estate has been brewing the heady liquor of “follow me around” with every political candidate who ever dared show their face in public.  But in 2008, it is not enough to merely follow, hoping for the Monkey Business scoop they earned by taking a man at his word and doing honest investigative reporting.  The mantra of impartiality is gone.  The followee is Governor Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential candidate.  It’s the New York Times, NBC, CNN, you name it.  The media’s response to her candidacy would make one blush to realize that that same media was head over heels in love with another woman who failed in her bid to reach the presidency this year.  Why?  Palin is a woman who has crashed the glass ceiling.  She’s already an executive.  She has battled and won on many fronts.  The media should have embraced this woman who has achieved so much.  She’s photogenic.  She’s bright and cheerful.  A media sensation.  And they fight among themselves to trash her every single day.  What if Joe Biden were Josephina and as attractive and cheerful as Sarah Palin?  Why are they so afraid of this woman?  Do they really believe that George Bush created Sarah Palin?  Why not?  He did everything else, didn’t he?  He cracked the Liberty Bell, didn’t he?

 

Follow them around?  That’s fine, but the first amendment stops short of vindictive libel and slander.  The fourth estate must remember that first amendment or not, and particularly because of the first amendment, what goes around comes around.  What if down the road in 2028, when someone mentions the New York Times, the shattering silence that follows is broken by one word: Who?

 

I’m curious about the recent announcement that Hillary Clinton will be in town campaigning for the Democratic ticket and its relationship with television advertising for Obama that easily exceeds that of McCain three to one in frequency.  This in a state that is so red by comparison to the rest of the nation, one is surprised that we even have a Democratic congressman, and he's got red blood.  Utah has voted Republican in every presidential race since Lyndon Johnson [in a landslide against Goldwater].  So, why Utah?  What is written between the lines?  The Obama camp and the media crones have all been saying this election is in the bag.  Is it?  If it is, why is Hillary coming to Utah?  If the Obama camp is so confident that the votes are out there, he must be spending the money here only because he has it to spend, but if the election is sure, isn’t there a better use for that money?  “The better use” is a common Democratic mantra, but it never seems to stick when applied to them. 

Is there an administrator or helpdesk that manages the blogs?  The recent change to the blog format has apparently caused an over-write of the weblinks, copywright and Fox logo at the bottom of the page over the bottom of blog entries and at least the first response.  Please fix.

This is even worse than I thought.  The overwrite prevents submitting responses to blogs after the first one or two.  Most frustrating.  PLEASE FIX!

In the name of tolerance, some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in California [and elsewhere, including in Utah] have proclaimed their opposition to California Proposition 8, which, if passed, would overturn a decision by the California Supreme Court to allow same-gender marriage in California.  While those members oppose the proposition, and the Church’s claimed right to actively support it, they forget that they may have also, very recently, raised their right hand to sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators.  If they have not, nor never have, I suppose they cannot be called hypocrites now, and only they know individually where they stand in that regard.

 

Here is what modern prophets have said with regard to marriage and the family:  “All human beings – male and female – are created in the image of God.  Each is a beloved son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine destiny.”  And further: “The family is ordained of God.  Marriage between a man and a woman is essential to His eternal plan.”

 

The words do not mince in their accurate description of the will of God.  The opposition to Proposition 8 is contrary to these words.  In the name of tolerance, it is believed by some that these words do not really mean what they say.  In the movie, “Kingdom of God,” the King of Jerusalem, Baldwin, tells young Balian, “A king may move a man; a father may claim a son, but remember that even when those that move you be kings or men of power, your soul in is your keeping alone.  When you stand before God, you cannot say: I was told to do thus, or that virtue was not convenient at the time.  This will not suffice.”  And later, the princess Sibylla tells Balian regarding devout Muslims: “They try to be one.  One heart, one morality.  Their prophet says, ‘Submit.’ Jesus says, ‘Decide.’ ”  These statements ring true.

 

This is a time to make a stand, to decide on which side we stand, for there is no middle ground.  We either sustain modern [and ancient] prophets who have declared that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, or we decide that virtue is not convenient and allow our tolerance to decide. 

 

Flypaper is sticky on one side for one purpose: to attract flies and hold them from escaping.  Once stuck, they die.  Obama’s tax plan is being sold as sticky only for the “wealthy” among us.  But it will not just stick the "wealthy" among us; we’re all potential victims.  Here’s why:

 

According to Obama, “wealthy” is defined as people whose adjusted gross income in between $200k to $250k per year.  The breakdown of tax payers by AGI and percentage of the total tax accrual is as follows:

 

The top 1% = AGI of $308k or greater = 39.9% of all taxes paid

 

The top 5% = $153k >  = 60.1%

 

The top 10% = $108k >  = 70.8%

 

The top 25% = $64k >  = 86.2%

 

The bottom 75% pay less than 14% of the taxes.

 

Obama claims that his tax plan will offer significant tax breaks to all but that top rung of income earners, the top 1% whose AGI > $308k annually, plus a large part of those in the top 5% category.  Those people will see significant tax increases.  Great, most may say.  You’re probably not one of those rarified one percenters.  Neither am I.  And I’ll also bet most of you do not have employees that you pay yourself; you’re an average joe wage earner with a paycheck every week or two.  I am.  But if you think you will not be affected by Obama’s tax hike for the top 1 or 5%, you’re forgetting that in addition to being a wage earner in a lower, untouched-by-Obama tax bracket, you are also a consumer of goods that are produced by those folks who do live in the high tax district.  From houses to automobiles to microwave ovens and i-pods.  Guess what is going to happen to the prices of those commercial goods given a higher tax burden for the top 1 or 5%?  They are going to just take it in the pocketbook themselves, right?  According to Obama, that must be exactly what they will do.  He’s wrong.  You will pay for that increase.  You and your “gotta have it” attitude.   And, by the way, that one percenter may not be able to afford to keep you on his payroll anymore.  I guess you don't pay any taxes if you don't have a job. 

Welcome to the flypaper.  Sticky, isn’t it?

 

Breakdown,

I really wish you would take down your block to respenses to your blogs.

If universal health care for all Americans is a good idea, why is it a good idea?

If it is a right, not a responsibility, why is that?

I'm having trouble understanding why all the past generations of Americans have managed to hold the responsibility for their own health care and suddenly, in our generation, it must become the responsibility of government.  Is there some hindrance to standing on our own feet, come what may?  And if whatever comes overpowers our health, so be it.  It's what we have always done, and nobody used to be ashamed of that.  Why are we now?  And what's next?  What else will we hand over to the government considering that everything we have given up to them already is so poorly managed?  How about we hand over our freedom of choice?  Let the government choose our elected leaders.  Let the government pick out our house and our cars.  Our families.  How about whether we live or die?  We start down that road, it will not stop.  This is America, damn it, not the Soviet Union.

Chocolate.  Just the word conjures emotions that run the full range of human capacity of feeling.  Most people like chocolate.  A very few do not like it.  Some claim allergies; others that it is too fattening; others, a devotion limited to all things without which they claim they cannot do without.  And some, like me, consider Theo bromo, the food of gods, as, well… the food of the gods and certainly one of the major food groups along side meat/poultry/fish, fruits and vegetables, dairy and grain. 

 

And our favorite sources of this delectable morsel of excess are from a varied number of companies: Hershey, Nestlé, Mars, providers of the great majority of our favorite candy bars.  Of course, there are more esoteric sources if your craving is really CHOCOLATE, and not the several other ingredients that make up our typical American candy bar.  I belong to this latter group, so I do not have an axe to grind in the sudden, calculated demise of chocolate in the candy bar arena.

 

Have you looked at your candy bars lately?  Have you read the fine print?  Maybe you’d better not, lest the bubble burst you have nurtured since childhood.  Never mind, I’ll burst it for you:  Snickers, Butterfinger, M&M’s, Baby Ruth, KitKat, Reese’s, Hershey’s Milk Chocolate, Almond Joy, Nestle Crunch, and others, may even say “chocolate” on the top of the wrapper, lulling you into the belief that it is really still there inside, waiting for your hot little fingers to start the melt that has always meant that undeniable flavor explosion on your tongue.  The bad news: the fine print says it’s not chocolate at all anymore; it’s “soy product,” whatever that means.

 

What it means is that these companies, the bastions of chocolate, have lost the formula, probably in the name of… I’m not sure what, because chocolate, as everyone knows, has all kinds of things that are good for you and a few things that are not.  So, what else is new with just about any other product but lettuce?  Really, which would you rather munch on?  Rabbit food?  Really?  Tell it to someone who will buy the five-pound bag of @#$% you’re dishing out. 

 

But, that’s your problem.  Meanwhile, folks like me who, having been finally granted the right to eat marketed chocolate with 85% cacao, the stuff in chocolate that makes it chocolate, are only wishing there were more, but at least it is chocolate.  Soy has its place, but not as a replacement.  By the way, Greenies, soy production produces more methane.

 

Tonight’s town hall debate in Tennessee was very telling in one of the first questions posed to the candidates:  who would they choose as Treasury Secretary?  McCain had to answer first, and it was evident immediately that he had already thought about it, giving three possible choices in quick succession, the first being a softball to Obama to jumpstart his own thinking with a choice McCain said was actually an Obama supporter.  When it was Obama’s turn, he caught the softball, but had no other choices to offer, presumably because he has not thought about it.  He is only now coming up to speed thinking like a senator.  His legislative record of successful legislation is abysmal.  If Obama is to be president, when is he going to start thinking like a president, even on softball issues?  In his second term?  Perish the thought he has the chance.