Shots Across the Bow

I'm reading the Federalist Papers for a couple of reasons.

First, there's this article from Time's Richard Stengel, in which he concludes that the Constitution is like the Pirate Code; it's really more of a guideline than a set of laws limiting the powers of the Federal government. That article was quickly followed by this piece which shows that Stengel has some major factual errors regarding the Constitution. These fundamental errors concerning the meaning of the Constitution are widely shared by the American public, particularly by our politicians, and form the basis for the extreme growth in the power and scope of the federal government.

Next, a recent survey by Newsweek showed that most Americans are woefully ignorant of our own history, including the principles of our government. Sadly, our elected representatives in Washington scored even worse than the general population. The department of Education reports that only 12% of high school kids are proficient in US history. If we don't know our own history, or the rules of our government, then how can we hold the folks in Washington accountable?

Finally, Glenn Beck has released a 'translation' of the Federalist Papers that claims to update the language of the originals while preserving the meaning. I read a few critiques of the book, and then read the indicated passages of the original, and found that the critics were right and there were significant errors in the paraphrasing. While these errors did not substantially alter the meaning of the passages in question, they were enough to discourage me from getting the book.

But I think Beck is on the right track on trying to get Americans interested in the founding documents of our government, and just as importantly, the reasoning behind those documents. The arguments we're having today over the scope and power of the Federal government are nearly identical to those that went on during the ratification process. If we knew how the framers thought, and why they wrote the Constitution as they did, it just might keep us from doing significant damage to our founding principles.

So I've armed myself with online versions of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as the text of the US Constitution and over the next few weeks, I'm going to work my way through both sides of the argument.

The first thing we have to realize before we get started is what each side was hoping to achieve. It strikes me as ironic that folks like Beck, Limbaugh, and Coulter use the Federalist Papers to support their arguments for a limited government since the Federalists were the big government proponents of their day. The papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, argued for the Constitution because it established a strong federal government, while the anti-federalists, represented by Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, and Thomas Jefferson among others, favored a weaker federal government, with more power reserved to the Sovereign States. It is a measure of how much the federal government has increased its power that today's small government proponents work towards a return to the limited government spoken of in the Federalist papers.

One more thing; while the Federalist papers were conceived and written in an organized fashion, the Anti-Federalist Papers is more or less a compendium of arguments made in response to the Federalist papers. Like the Federalist Papers, there were multiple authors, but unlike them, there was limited coordination between them. The correspondence in numbering is an editorial device added after the fact, to allow the reader to compare the arguments on each side of the topic.

I'm not going to include the text of each paper but I will link to them. I'll provide an outline or summary of the major points; quote the highlights of each; and give you my thoughts on the papers, for whatever that might be worth. With 85 papers to go through, I expect this project to take a significant amount of time, but I believe the investment will be well worth it.

First, we went to the moon. We quit because it got too expensive.

Then we went to low earth orbit. And again, we're quitting because it is too expensive.

We're losing ground folks.

Historically, technology has been driven by two main activities; exploration and conquest.

We just quit exploring.

Last week, the Knoxville News Sentinel wrote an editorial revealing the position of the paper regarding the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Katie Allison Granju against Randall Houser, Yolanda Harper, and the clinic which sold them the methadone they gave to Henry. In that editorial, the KNS very politely told Katie that while they supported the lawsuit, she really should keep quiet about the Knox County Sheriff's Office, since the investigation was still going on and the wild accusations of a grief stricken mother would only be a distraction. I wrote my feelings about editorial in the comments here, but wanted to take the time and write the editorial that should have been written. This lawsuit does not name the KCSO, the DA, the ME, or anybody else, just the folks who allowed Henry to suffer for hours before calling for help. And so, here's my editorial opinion:

While there are many who believe that the death of Henry Granju was the tragic but inevitable result of his decision to abuse drugs, his mother sees it differently and has filed a wrongful death lawsuit naming the people she believes are responsible for Henry's death.

The lawsuit names Yolanda Harper and Randall Houser as the two people who supplied Henry with the overdose of methadone that led to his death, and the clinic where they acquired the methadone. According to the filing, Yolanda Harper gave Henry the overdose, then she and Randall took Henry to their home in South Knox County, making it impossible for him to get aid on his own for the overdose. The filing goes on to claim that Harper and Houser knew Henry was in grave medical danger, and phoned several people over a period of about six hours, describing his condition in detail, yet refusing to call 911 for assistance.

According to Henry's mother, Henry did not just die from the overdose; he died because the people who took responsibility for him, who gave him the drugs then took him into their home, refused to make a phone call that could have saved his life. Instead they watched as he lay on the floor, slowly suffocating over a period of hours, his brain dying from hypoxia. Granju also names the clinic where Harper and Houser were allowed to take home a 30 day supply of the drug, despite knowing the unreliable nature of addicts. Granju has noted that the most common drug listed in overdose deaths is methadone and she wants to bring accountability to the for profit clinics which make money dispensing the drug.

While we believe that anyone who abuses drugs has to take some measure of responsibility for their actions, we also believe that we as human beings have a responsibility to provide aid as needed for somebody we have taken into our care.

Some believe that since Henry did deal small quantities of drugs to support his habit he deserved what happened to him; what we know is that there were many other people who did not deserve what happened to them as a result of Henry's death.

Henry had a younger brother, who will now live the rest of his life without his older brother's companionship. Henry had three younger sisters, one of whom he never met. She was born shortly after his death. Another sister will only remember him in a wheel chair, in pain, confused, and barely able to speak. The oldest of his sisters will never get to see her brother again. There will be an empty seat at her wedding, at the birth of her children. Henry's parents will live with the ache of a child lost to them forever. Henry's friends will live with the terrible question, "What if?" "What if I had spoken up?" "What if I had kept Henry from getting into that van?" "What if I had done something, anything differently? Would Henry still be alive today if I had just said something sooner?"

There are many people who lost because of Henry's death, many people who were damaged. They all paid a high price when Henry died, and even though some think it was fair for Henry to pay that cost, nobody can say it was fair for them to pay it along with him.

According Katie Granju's lawsuit, they are paying not because Henry decided to use drugs, not because he overdosed, but because two people who took Henry into their home couldn't be bothered to make a phone call to save his life.

We support this lawsuit as a way to bring the facts to light in this tragedy and if those facts bear out the allegations of the filing, we urge the Knox County Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney to file criminal charges as provided for in Tennessee law.

Unlike the KNS, I'll sign this editorial.

Richard D Hailey

I wanted to post this over at the KNS article, but it was too long, and I think it's too important to leave in the comments section. I'm posting it here and at Stability. I've never cross-posted before because I figure most people who read one read the other, but just in case, I'm putting it in both places.

Katie Granju has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the two people she believes gave her son a lethal dose of methadone and the clinic that supplied the methadone. You can see the filing here.

And if you feel like diving into a cesspool, you can read the comments on the KNS story here.

There are people commenting who know nothing about the case, and have obviously failed to read either the filing or the article they are commenting on. Or it could be that they did read it, but were blinded by prejudice, ignorance, and/or hate. What really angers me is how many of these people who claim that Henry got what he deserved also claim to be good Christians who love the Lord.

Apparently they forget that Jesus didn't hang out with folks like them; He pretty much told them that they were headed to Hell with the Pharisees and other hypocrites. Jesus hung out with folks like Henry; sinners who had lost their way and were looking for redemption, the outcasts of polite society. If anyone bothers to read Henry's story, you can't help but see that he was looking for redemption, a way out of the trap that is addiction. Tragically, that search was cut short by two people who took advantage of him, abused him, fed his addiction, and then sat by and callously watched him suffer, struggling to breathe, waiting until they were threatened with police before finally calling for medical help.

It truly is a horrible story, yet there are many who believe that Henry got no less than what he deserved because he was a drug addict, and that his mother is filing a lawsuit to deflect guilt, his and hers, and to try and take financial advantage of Henry's tragedy.

Needless to say, I am not one of those people, and here's my response to them.

First, Henry was not a criminal. He was never arrested for dealing, much less tried and convicted. Remember the whole, "innocent until proven guilty" thing? You might want to look that up; it's kind of the basis for our entire legal system. It says you can't treat somebody like a criminal until you prove they are one in a court of law. No court ever found Henry guilty of dealing drugs; no policemen ever arrested him for it.

That being said, his mother has repeatedly and clearly admitted that Henry was using drugs, and probably selling them to support his habit. She's gone so far to write that she had hoped that Henry would get busted so that he might get the help he needed but that never happened. So much for shifting blame.

It seems many believe that he deserved to die for using and/or selling drugs, that because he made some bad choices that somehow justice was done when he was left to choke on his own vomit for 6 hours before the two "Good Samaritans" called for help. (Yeah, the lead investigator told Katie that Yolanda and Randall were just two good people trying to help a kid in trouble. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.)

All of you self righteous parents, who believe that Henry's death may have been tragic, but ultimately his own responsibility, what would your reaction be if somebody let your child die like that, refusing to call for help? Would you tell yourself that your child was using drugs, deserved to die, and then go on with your golf game? Reading some of the comments on the story, some of you just might, which tells me you shouldn't be allowed to have a dog, much less a child. I'll tell you one thing. I'm a Navy vet, like my father and grandfather, and my oldest son is in the Army and just got back from his second tour in Iraq, and the comments I've read on this story make me question whether our sacrifices were worth it. The day after Memorial Day, I wonder if all the men and women who have did in service to this nation died in vain. The hatred shown and the willingness to cast somebody off because they have a problem, or because they fail to live up to some arbitrary standards makes me sick. The worst part is that this attitude is apparently shared by the people in our government who are supposed to rise above this kind of crap and enforce the rule of law impartially, and not as some kind of perverted popularity contest.

"Did you hear? A kid was beaten severely, robbed, and then was taken by two people who gave him a lethal overdose of drugs and watched him choke for 6 hours before calling for medical help. He died a few days later."

"My God! That's awful! How did this happen? Did they arrest anybody?"

"No, apparently, the kid had a drug problem and..."

"He was a junkie! Hell, he deserved what he got! Probably saved the tax payers a bundle by just letting the whole thing go away..."

Really? Is that the way we want our law enforcement to work? One standard for people we approve of and another for those who don't quite make the grade?

The Tennessee law code, TCA 39-13-210, states clearly that anybody who gives a drug illegally to another person is guilty of second degree murder if that person dies as a result of that drug. The medical examiner's report explicitly links Henry's death to the drug overdose. In fact, the KCSO is on record as declining to prosecute the assault on Henry because he died of the overdose. They have not stated a reason for declining to prosecute the murder by overdose. Henry's mother has been forced to file a wrongful death lawsuit in civil court because for whatever reason, the Knox County Sheriff and the DA's office have declined to enforce, investigate, or prosecute violators of the law.

In short, they don't want to do their job, either because there may be some political ramifications, or because Henry was an addict, an "unattractive victim," as one assistant DA told Katie.

For me, I can't decide which explanation is more repugnant, and the truth is that regardless of which one they claim, they don't get to make that choice. Their oath is to uphold the law, without prejudice, and for whatever reason, political or pragmatic, they have collectively failed to do so.

The hate and intolerance, as displayed in the comments to this story, is giving them the political cover to do so. So let me ask you people something. What happens when you become an 'unattractive victim?' What happens when the powers that be decide that your rights are not worth defending because you don't meet their standards? What will you do then?

In fighting for Henry, Katie is not denying that he was a drug addict. She's not saying that he had no responsibility for his actions; in fact, she held him accountable in every way she could, even after he turned 18 and became a legal adult. They tried in patient and out patient treatment. They tried soft love, tough love, making rules, setting restrictions. In the end, she had to make the ultimate sacrifice of removing him from her home to protect her other children. Not because Henry was a danger, but because his siblings were suffering from his addiction, paying a price in fear and worry that they never should have to pay. I grew up with an alcoholic father, and I know the pain that inflicts on the family so I understand the painful choice Katie had to make.

In fighting for Henry, she's not trying to escape the burden of responsibility for making those choices; as a parent, she feels responsibility for everything that happens to all of her children and she will carry that weight for the rest of her life. Because of Henry's addiction, she had to make a brutally hard decision, and she will carry the consequences of that decision, right or wrong, to her grave with her.

She's suing because no matter how hard she's tried, nobody in the Knox County government gives a damn about Henry and what happened to him, and not only is that unfair to Henry, it means that it will happen again to another young person.

And another.
And another.
And it will keep happening again and again until somebody finally stands up and screams STOP! ENOUGH! You can't kill any more of our children!

And having stood up and said something, then that person must follow up and actually do something.

Our newspapers won't do it.
Our police won't do it.
Our DA won't do it.
Our medical examiner says she doesn't have the time or resources to do it.

So Katie and her family are doing it. Not to take the responsibility away from Henry, but to make sure that this doesn't happen again to any other family. Because Henry is not the only victim here.

For all to many people, Henry was just a junkie. But Henry was a son, a big brother, a nephew, a cousin, a friend, and a good kid. He was a talented musician with a desire to travel and see the world. He was a free spirit with a big heart and a bigger imagination. He was so much more than 'just a junkie,' and Katie wants us to see Henry, and not just Henry but all drug addicts, as who they are, not what they are; as brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, husbands, and wives.

As people.

Because until we see them as people, we're comfortable as passing them off as 'just a junkie,' another 'unattractive victim' whose death is something to disregard rather than to mourn.

That's what this lawsuit is about. And that's why I stand behind Katie.

In between the barbecues, the sales, and the safe boating tips, please take a moment to remember the people who believed that they needed to give back to this country and wound up giving everything. In this day when most Americans have their hands out, looking for what they believe they are owed, the sacrifice of the men and women who gave their lives defending our nation is all the more worth remembering.

Around 1 pm this afternoon, we got hit with a storm here that did things I've never seen before. First, the wind and rain hit suddenly and simultaneously, no buildup just an instant transition from no rain to a major squall.

The rain came down, well, not really because it was blowing horizontally from west to east. Visibility fell to about 2 feet. It was fairly impressive, but I didn't get concerned until the rain changed direction 180 degrees, again, almost instantly.

That caught my attention.

Pea sized hail fell for about 2 minutes, then as suddenly as it started, it was over. The wind and rain shut off like a somebody flipped a switch.

So here is my question. How close was that to a tornado? What has my really wondering was the change in direction of the rain. I've seen it switch gradually, over a few minutes, but this was within a second or two.

In any event, we didn't get any damage that I can see. A few twigs and branches in the yard and that's it. This has certainly been the most active storm season I can remember.

Okay, so here is what Obama said in 2008 to AIPAC when he was running for President:

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Two days later, he backed down from the statement that Jerusalem must remain undivided, claiming it was "poor phrasing." However, he said nothing about the claim for a "contiguous" Palestinian state.

Then last Thursday, he gave a speech at the State Department and said:

The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Again, he supported the idea of a contiguous Palestinian State with borders to Jordan and Egypt, one based on the 1967 lines. No mention was made of Jerusalem, which, prior to 1967, was a divided city.

Then, just a couple of days ago, facing heat for what appeared to be either a complete betrayal of Israel or a demonstration of immense ignorance about the issues at stake, he said this at AIPAC:

Since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday — not what I was reported to have said.

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps — (applause) — so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Let's see: Two states - check.
Palestinian borders to include Egypt and Jordan- check.
Contiguous Palestinian state- check.
based on 1967 pre war boundaries- check.

Apparently, he has confirmed that he did say what he was reported to say, which makes his characterization of the reportage a bald faced lie.

In any event, let's take his last word on the subject, the AIPAC speech and look at a map of Israel.


The light color represents Israel's borders prior to the 6 Days War. The dark area shows the lands that belonged to Jordan and Eqypt until they lost them in the 6 Days War after attacking Israel. It's also interesting to know that the Golan Heights and the West Bank were not part of Transjordan, the predecessor to the Kingdom of Jordan, but were annexed during the war in 1948.

Note carefully the scale on the map. Most of Israel is less than 50 miles wide.

Now then, let's evaluate President Obama's proposals while looking at the map.

First, he wants to use the pre-war boundaries as a starting point. That would split Jerusalem, and leave Israel trying to maintain access to the Mediterranean sea with only a 8-9 mile strip of territory. One quick push and the nation would be cut in two, and cut off from its major ports. Clearly, this would not be considered a defensible border. Next, he wants a Palestinian state that is contiguous, and that has borders with Jordan and Egypt. The only way for that to happen is if Israel is cut into two pieces, or gives up most of the Southern half of the nation, along with their only port to the Red Sea.

To fulfill his agenda, Israel would have to give up access to the Red Sea, a significant amount of territory, and accept borders that would be nearly impossible to defend.

But wait! What about the land swaps? Obama says that's the key to understanding his proposals. Israel and Palestine can swap land to create more defensible borders. Well, let me ask you a question. Look at the light colored area on the map. The Palestinian Arabs would be gaining almost a third of the present area of Israel without firing a shot, with a guarantee of more land in Southern Israel to make contiguous borders with Egypt and Jordan. They would also be getting half of Jerusalem back under their control.

What would they want to swap? They already get everything they want, except of course, for the destruction of Israel. They might have to wait a few months for that.

The Israeli's would have to be fools to accept Obama's proposals, and he's a fool for making them.

Or a liar. Take your pick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyhc_BOHzW8&feature=player_embedded

The AP reports that NATO strikes badly damaged the Qaddafi compound in Libya.

Hooray NATO!

The headline reads "Qaddafi Compound Nearly Crumbled in NATO Attack"

Then it turns out that they didn't hit anything vital, just a library and a ceremonial meeting hall, equipped, we are told breathlessly, with sofas and chandeliers!

Oh, the horrors of war!

The AP goes on to give a lurid description of the damaged facility:

The main door was blown open, shards of glass were scattered across the ground and picture frames were knocked down.

Picture frames were knocked down! How uncivilized! Are there no bounds to war anymore? When picture frames, sofas, and chandeliers aren't safe in wartime, then who is?

In essense, what the AP is saying is that NATO packs all the punch of a three year old toddler who missed his nap.

Pardon me for a moment. I have to lie down and collect myself.

Most people, if they are familiar with Trans Siberian Orchestra at all, know them for their three albums of Christmas music, or that you tube video of the house with rocking Christmas lights. but what a lot of people don't know is that TSO has released two albums of non Christmas music and they are currently touring for one of them, Beethoven's Last Night. They came through Knoxville last night and put on a show like I've never seen before.

Yeah, there were lights and pyro and smoke and frickin' laser beams, as well as loud guitars, gorgeous voices and beautiful singers just like you'd expect at a rock concert, but the level of musicianship and the theatricality of the performers blew me away.

If you've never seen TSO perform, take the showmanship of Kiss without the makeup, the bombast of Meatloaf without the motorcycles, the lyrical depth of Paul Simon without the pretension, the musical virtuosity of the New York Philharmonic, without the stuffiness, throw it all into a blender with a dash of Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, sprinkle it with Yes, and you are coming close to the TSO experience.

Lissa and I have seen the TSO Christmas show twice since we've been together, and would have seen them two more times except that they skipped Knoxville the last two times through. So, when we saw on the internet that TSO was coming through town with the Beethoven show, there really was no question about whether or not we'd be going. The only question was where we would be sitting and how early we'd get there.

The concert was produced by AC entertainment, and promoted by WIMZ, and as we walked towards the Civic Coliseum, I remarked to Lissa that it was probably the first time a lot of these folks had been to a concert promoted by WIMZ. On the other hand, given that WIMZ has the exact same playlist they were using when I was in high school, I could be mistaken in that assumption. (Since when did my music become "classic"?)

Unlike most music performed today, Beethoven's Last Night tells a story. The songs are woven together with a narration to tell the tale of Beethoven's last night on earth. It's a story of temptation and redemption, mistake made and overcome, and the eternal war between Good and Evil set to a thundering score that's part Beethoven, part Mozart, and all Paul O'Neill, the musical brain behind TSO who has been producing larger than life stage shows and recordings for decades. He's the guy Jim Steinman wants to be when he grows up. The short version of the story is that Beethoven is told that he will die on this very night, and the Devil appears, telling him that his soul is forfeit, but that if he agrees to allow the Devil to take all of his music away from the world forever, then his soul will be freed. This dilemma is what drives the music.

While BLN frames the songs with narration in a way similar to Christmas Eve, the feel of the two shows couldn't be more different. The Christmas material is light and playful; it lends itself to humor and there's an air of fun throughout the performance. BLN is many things, but fun is not a word that springs to mind. The themes are heavier and the music matches that tone, conveying the pain of loss and regret as well as the joy of transcending those emotions. It's uplifting and a joy to experience Ludwig's triumph but also draining. The songs generally aren't catchy little ditties that you find yourself humming after the show. Instead, they are more like arias, provoking emotion through the combination of the music and the lyric. In fact, the entire production felt more like an opera than a rock concert, despite the wailing guitars and the leather clad backup singers/dancers.

But this is not a bad thing. It's nice to be challenged every now and again, and the payoff is worth the effort.

When you go to see TSO, you expect stunning sound and visuals, and BLN does not disappoint. The stage was smaller than what they use for Christmas, resulting in a more intimate feel, but the video screens, lighting, lasers and fire pots filled the space, making sure your eyes were just as dazzled as your ears. Lissa is a synaesthete, which means she sees sounds (Nope, no drugs involved.) and she tells me that a TSO concert is the closest thing to what she experiences whenever she listens to complex music. Imporperly done, the amount of visual effects would distract from the music; here, it not just compliments the songs, it completes them.

One thing that's clearly evident is the joy the performers feel while they're on the stage. Violinist Roddy Chong covers the stage, leaping, bending, and stretching as he plays his instrument flawlessly. Keyboardist Vitalij Kuprij attacks the piano with the touch of a virtuoso and the energy of a raging river. Pitrelli leads the guitars, allowing them to shine, but reminding them that he has a few licks of his own.The energy coming off the stage is incredible, and you have no doubt that these people love what they do.

The BLN album runs about 70 minutes; during the show it runs just under 2 hours. But just because the album is done doesn't mean the music is. After finishing the BLN story, guitarist/musical director Al Pitrelli introduced the members of the group, then continued the show with a 45 minute excerpt from the newest TSO album, Night Castle

The music from Night Castle is just as hard and edgy, but not as heavy. In fact, I think the inclusion of the Night Castle material added some needed balance to the show, providing the audience with a way to release some of the tension built by BLN. And yes, I'll be going to see that show when it goes on tour.

Finally, after over two and a half hours of music, the concert was over. But not the show. TSO continued their tradition of coming out to meet the fans and sign autographs after the show was over. The physical stamina it would take to put that kind of energy out on the stage for over two hours, then spend an hour or so shaking hands with their fans before climbing on a bus to do it all over again tomorrow is staggering, yet these performers will continue this tour for another few weeks, and take a few short weeks off before they start preparing for this winter's Christmas tour.

If you haven't seen the Christmas show, get tickets and go. If you have, then I know you'll be going back. And if you get a chance to see BLN live, take it. Like I said, it's way different from the Christmas show, but every bit as entertaining.

Do you like being lied to? Do you enjoy having the folks who represent you in Congress just make stuff up to win your vote?

Remember that $38 billion in reduced spending that Cry Baby Boehner so bravely forced the Democrats in Congress to fork over?

Yeah, well, it turns out then when you look at it through the lens of real world math, it's more like $352 million.

That's with an m.

Folks, by any measure, our fiscal picture is bleak. Real inflation is up, the economy is stagnant, the housing markets are on the verge of another collapse, states are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, an all our President can say to those of us who see these problems is that we are pessimists.

Seriously? Like if we all join hands and sing a couple of choruses of "High Hopes" then all our problems will just disappear?

Talk about out of touch.

And just when you think it can't possibly get worse in Washington, we get Ross Perot: the Sequel, with another billionaire with bad hair running for President. I guess it's only to be expected. Obama is a Jimmy Carter retread; why not a reboot of Ross Perot? With an exciting new director and cast, I mean, campaign manager and staff, Trump might actually win this thing.

It's not like he's an unknown, untried, and untested Senate freshman or something silly like that.

I have to admit, I'd love to hear his victory speech come November. "Mr President, You're fired!"

Folks, I just don't know anymore. I don't see a clean way of getting through the mess we're in. More importantly, I don't see anybody in our government with the will to make the tough decisions that it will take to dig ourselves out of this hole. And ultimately, I don't think 'we the people' possess the moral fiber required to dig out. We're spoiled, soft and weak. We all want spending cuts, but only for the other guy. We talk a big fight but when it comes down to it, we vote for the guy that promises to keep us safe from the cuts.

Face it. Come election time, who will you vote for? The candidate that promises you rainbow farting unicorns, pie in the sky, and peace and prosperity all for the low low price of your freedom? Or the guy who looks you in the eye and tells you that you're going to have to cut back, pay more in taxes, accept fewer government services, work longer, harder and for less, forget Social Security, and accept a seriously reduced standard of living for at least a decade, probably two, and all to try to reduce a debt that's been building for a generation?

That's how deep the hole is. That's where we are. Most of us have experienced getting in over our heads with dept. We run up bills on our charge cards, buy cars or houses we really can't afford, and then we have to struggle for a couple of years to get back on our feet. America has overspeant way beyond that point, and instead of cutting up the charge cards, our politicians are applying for more.

It's going to end, and it's going to end badly. We're now to the point where instead of making good choices, we'll have to choose the best of the bad ones.

But we won't.

We'll try to keep the game of musical chairs going just a little longer, trying not to be the one caught standing when the music stops.

We're on a ship at sea that's sinking and instead of bailing out the water and patching the holes, we're all trying to be the last guy on board before she slides beneath the waves forever.

And folks, I'm not leaving myself out of that. I'm doing the same thing. I'm doing what I can to protect and provide for my family, and I am spending some effort at damage control, but in truth, I avoid thinking about this as much as possible. It's unpleasant. It's scary. I'd rather build a garden shed and play with my grandkids. I tell myself that I'm not infallible, that I could be wrong, that there might be some magical way out of the crushing debt we've laid on ourselves. Just because no other country in the history of the world has managed to find a workable solution doesn't mean that we won't. After all, we're America!

The illusion is comforting, but in the end, it is an illusion. The way forward goes through a very dark place and I don't know what America will look like when...if...it comes out the other side.

So yeah, I'm a pessimist.

Finally, something Obama and I agree on.

Republicans are ecstatic over Boehner's deal to avert a government shutdown. Tea Partiers rave over Ryans's budget proposal. And today, Obama proposed a plan that would add $4 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next 12 years.

These plans have two things in common:

Every one of them, even Ryan's "extreme" budget, results in increased spending every year, more borrowing every year, and an increase in the federal debt every year, and every one of them is touted as a"spending cut."

Only in Washington can increased spending and debt be called a budget cut.

Do they really think we're that stupid?

Are we?

Forgive me for not joining in with the celebratory crap flowing from the Washington media over avoiding a government shutdown. As far as I can see, we've gone from a $1.6 trillion deficit to a $1.57 trillion deficit. If my math is right, that's a 1.875% reduction in the annual deficit. While our Congress and President hail these cuts as historic in size, when compared to our actual spending, they're nothing more than a rounding error. As much as Democrats cried about how "extreme" the cuts were, I'm disappointed that republicans didn't go for more. Anyone who looks at current spending honestly can only come away with one conclusion; we're spending way too much money, 40% over revenue at last count.

I can't run my home that way; a business would go bankrupt trying to borrow that much, and a country is no different. If we keep this up, we will go bankrupt as a nation.

What really pisses me off is that there is nobody in Washington right now willing to admit how bad things are. Paul Ryan is taking heat for his budget proposal which takes a stab at fiscal sanity but it still doesn't balance the budget, even 10 years out.

As Tam says:

We are so boned.
So John Q. Public is wheeled in with an arterial bleeder, and Dr. Reid says a bandaid should fix it, while Dr. Boehner wants one of those little 3" gauze squares. They compromised on a 2" gauze pad, but with only one strip of tape.

Wonderful.

My neighbor's dog has more foresight than these yahoos

So, what would it take to make me happy? I'm glad you asked.

1. Roll back spending to 2008 levels before Obama and the Democrat Congress exploded the budget. And yes, I know Bush signed TARP into law, but TARP came from a Democrat dominated Congress, and Obama voted for it so even though he likes to claim he inherited the deficits, he didn't. he voted for them; he owns them. TARP was supposed to be a one time event, aiming to prevent a full economic crash. Once he took office, Obama and the Democrats have tried to make spending at this level permanent and our economy can't handle it. We need to return to sustainable levels of spending and going back to where we were before the spending orgy is a good start.



2. End stimulus spending, and make sure that every dollar given out in bailouts is returned with interest. And no, GM's bullsh*t claim doesn't count. Obama loves to tout all the jobs created or saved, and Democrats trip over themselves talking about the great success of TARP and the two stimulus bills.
   
   OK, great. They worked. The economy is saved and we can go back to living within our means.



3. Pass a Constitutional Amendment that
   
   • requires a balanced budget.
   
   
   • If there is cause for a deficit, that budget must be approved by super majority in the House and Senate, must include Constitutional justification for the spending, and a plan to pay back the deficit.
   
   
   • links congressional pay to the GDP. If it goes down, so does their pay. Alternately, Congressional pay raises should be linked to the whatever calculation they use to determine military pay raises.
   
   
   • caps government spending at a percentage of GDP, which historically runs at just under 20%. Exceeding that cap would again require super-majorities of the House and Senate.
   
   ‎
4. Make it illegal for the Fed to purchase US debt. Monetizing the debt is no different than monetizing mortgage debt. It didn't work in the housing market, and it won't work for federal debt either.


5. Make a rule forcing Congress into continuous session starting Oct 1st if there is no budget. Limit continuing resolutions to 2 weeks in duration and cap spending at 90% of the previous budget, to include Congressional and federal pay, with the exception of military pay and benefits. That gives Congress incentive to do their jobs.


6. Replace the tax code with one that rewards saving, simplifies returns, and distributes the burden more equitably. A flat tax with deductions for food, clothing, and housing and an income threshold of the poverty level would be a good start. That would come out to something like 23% or so to fund government at the current level of spending.


7. Abolish capital gains and inheritance taxes. Income should be taxed once, not multiple times.


8. Welfare payments should be repaid just as student loans are. Payment can be in cash, or time spent in civic service.

I could go on, but you get the point. Almost every one of these ideas is a political non starter, which is too bad because TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) isn't just good idea; it's fairly close to being a natural law. Any culture that flouts that law generally fails within a generation or two. We're in our second generation now. Time is running out. We can take charge of our fiscal affairs and get America back on a sound financial footing, or we can continue on the path to insolvency, default, and ruin.

Unfortunately, based on what's been going on in Washington, and some of the conversations I've had with folks lately, I think the choice has already been made. Too many people have an entitlement mentality and they are unwilling to face the truth, that America is on a path that will lead to financial ruin. We won't change our direction.

I've been building a garden shed in the backyard for the last couple of weekends, and today I went to Home depot to get the materials I needed to sheath the walls and cover the roof. It was a big load for my pickup, but by putting the tailgate down, I fit it all in. For safety, I grabbed my trusty bingee cords and secured the load by running the bungees from the side hooks to the hitch and then back up.

Sure that the load wouldn't move, I drove home.

I went up hill; I went down hill; around curves and through bumps, dips, drops, and occasionally stretches of level roads and no problems.

Until I got to the last intersection where I had to cross Highway 66, the main route from Sevierville to I-40.

I was stopped at the light, waiting to cross 66 and get home to start work. The light changes. The truck went forward into the intersection; the load of plywood, shingles, roof felt, siding, and kitty litter did not. It slid slick as you please right out of the back of my truck and landed with a loud thud in the perfect place to block two lanes going south and one lane going west.

Not good.

I pulled over and swung back around so I could get to the shoulder and grab all the stuff but I didn't feel too good about it. There were 15 4X8 sheets of plywood, 5 bags of shingles, a roll of felt and none of it was light. With all the Sunday traffic leaving Sevier County, I expected to here from disgusted drivers already tired of sitting in traffic for 45 minutes trying to get out of town.

Instead, 5 different guys pulled over, none of whom were stuck behind my mess, and helped me get the stuff back in my truck. All in all, the stuff was in the road for less than 5 minutes. These guys were already past the intersection. They could have gone on their way without being slowed down for a second, but instead, they stopped, both to help me clean up the road, and to make sure that other drivers could get on their way as quickly as possible.

Like I said, I love living in east Tennessee!

Since Obama appears desperate for a government shutdown, believing that it will hurt the Republicans more than him, I say let him have one, as long as we shut down the truly non essential portions of government.

Starting with Congress.

Congress had a duty to pass a budget over six months ago. They failed to do so. If they can't do their job, why should they get paid?

"But Rich, if we don't pay them, then they can't work to fix the problems!"

Hey, Obama expects the military to work without being paid, forcing their families to cope with bills, rent, and groceries with no money: surely we can expect the millionaire lawyers that make up Congress to do the same.

In fact, in solidarity with his government employee brothers and sisters, I think Mr Obama should also go without pay during the shutdown. I'm sure Michelle would understand the need to forgo spending trips and vacations during the crisis.

Let's furlough the White House staff as well. I don't have hundreds of servants to keep my house clean, food on the table, and my clothes washed. In these tough times, we need tough measures. During the shutdown, let Obama wash his own underwear.

Let's lay off the White House PR department, including the press secretary. Let the President speak for himself, without speech writers teleprompters and flacks. We might actually hear the truth for a change.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm liking this idea of a shutdown. Let's strip government down to its bare essentials and see how much of it we really need.