The Left Hates Police...

Sgt. Crowley is an honest guy, just trying to do a very difficult job.

Police Report

Sarah Palin to resign as Governor of Alaska

Gov. Palin resigns

This is an interesting development. Many people, wrongly in my opinion, have a low opinion of Governor Palin. I believe that this has been mostly crafted by the mainstream media, who will always side with Liberalism, and against Conservatives. I think she has a role in the future of conservative American politics; I hope that she will take this time to fill in the holes in her experience base.

I wish her, and her family, the best.

GW

Accomplishing Unfinished Business

When I wrote about my first trip down the Stafford Creek drainage here, http://tinyurl.com/stafford-creek, it was just a matter of time before I returned to finish what we glimpsed on our last trip: an additional 1.2 miles of trail dropping 1,000-feet.

I arrived back in the Teanaway in the early afternoon, and scored a nice camp spot near the trailhead. I gave the dogs time to run around, setting up camp and doing a final check on the bike. I pedaled off towards the trailhead at about 3:00.

I noticed a lot of cars in the parking lot and wondered if all these people were on my descent route. Well, it was late in the day and most of them would be out by the time I came screaming past. I rode all the trail I could and pushed through the gnarly rock gardens. At times I resorted to packing the bike on my back, which was actually easier than pushing. I kept moving higher, passing exiting hikers, wondering what this new stretch of trail would hold.

When I reached the junction, I took time to rest for a few minutes and look around. Within the tumbling roar of snowmelt-laden Stafford Creek, I could hear the lilting burble of small seasonal runoffs entering the trail. The day was sunny but cool, with a breeze that removed the sweat quickly and prevented me from really wanting to linger for very long. After a shot of energy gel, I moved off into unknown territory.

As I climbed, I studied the trail, looking back often to gauge lines of descent through certain obstacles. Surprisingly, I encountered two parties coming down the trail; we exchanged pleasantries and moved in our separation directions. The terrain began to flatten out, and I wondered if I was near the top. However, I did not feel the telltale breeze or see the mountains I expected to be able to see from the vantage point I was seeking. Upwards through a rock garden, the terrain revealed a neatly hidden alpine meadow about 1.5-acres in size. I heard voices, and saw a party camping at one end. My path skirted around the opposite side and upwards onto an open barren slope. At the top of this slope, I changed directions, crossed a small gully and climbed to the ridgetop.

From this pass, I could see the Stuart/Enchantment Range: McClellan Peak, Little Annapurna, Dragontail Peak, Colchuck Peak, Argonaut, and Sherpa. Mt. Stuart was mostly obscured by Sherpa Peak and clouds. I drank it in for 10 minutes and prepared for the descent.

Riding solo in alpine environments always brings with it an air of caution: the trail holds plenty of objective dangers, there is no one to rely on in case of injury, it is a long way to anywhere. I was glad I had decided to wear my T.H.E. full-face helmet, as it was going to be difficult to hold back in attacking this beautiful trail. Pushing off, the trail delivers right off the bat with a quick buff track, a short climb, and smooth fast hardpack interrupted by a few smooth turns before dropping into a technical rock garden. Shooting out along the meadow, I built up speed, took a hard righ-hander, scrubbed some speed into a left-hander and dropped into an alpine pinball machine.

The rest of the trail, down to the junction, was a mixture of rock gardens and buff alpine trail. A good time, for sure. After the junction, I pointed it downhill and enjoyed the sweet singletrack. I passed a few hikers and had to repair one flat, but it was a good ride.

Senator Gregg's Plan of No Plan for Healthcare Reform

Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) wrote an Op-Ed today about his plan for Government Healthcare. What is miraculous about Mr. Gregg's plan is, it will not increase the size of goverment. You know how I know? It says so in the title of his article.

Senator Gregg has the 'R' behind his name, but I am guessing he is not too much on the Conservative side of the Party. He calls his plan 'CPR' (for Coverage, Prevention, and Reform). Cute, right?

CPR—Coverage, Prevention, Reform—is a plan I have proposed that sets up a system where every American will be required to purchase meaningful health insurance...For those who may not be able to afford this plan, you will have assistance getting coverage. [emphasis mine -ed.]

Whoa. This sounds like a page from the ObamaCare Plan. Someone needs to remind Mr. Gregg that Republicans are usually in favor of more individual liberty, and less government (thhough not lately, I will grant). I would like Mr. Gregg to show me, in the United States Constitution, where the Government is stipulated to mandate such things to citizens. And then there is that crafty phrase "...meaningful health insurance..." Is that like 'common sense gun control'? Who decides what health insurance plans are 'meaningful'? Oh, right, the Government. Well, if the Government has to sit around and analyze all the available health insurance plans, won't that take some manpower? That sounds expensive. What is the source of that money?

Further, by rewarding employees for taking part in employer-sponsored programs, which often include programs to help people quit smoking, fitness club membership options, and affordable access to programs like Weight Watchers, CPR creates incentives that will motivate Americans to take control of and improve their personal health.

Ah, so there is some reward or incentive. Who doles that out? Maybe...the Government? And, what is that 'reward'? Mr. Gregg does not say. All these ideas about 'taking advantage of employer-sponsored programs' sounds great. However, Mr. Gregg fails to realize, or accept, that one cannot legislate human behavior or lifestyle changes...UNLESS, you begin to limit the options available. That does not sound good. The sad fact is, a vast majority of Americans are not, and will never be, motivated to take control of their habits and improve their personal health. They just are not, and that is their RIGHT. The Declaration of Independence recognized every man's right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. It did not specify what those entailed; we are each free to decide our own version of happiness to pursue, under the understanding that we do not limit the rights of another, in doing so.

Reform starts with paying for quality, not quantity. According to a study at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, as much as $750 billion is spent each year on procedures or health-related services that don’t necessarily help patients get better. For example, when discharging patients, hospitals have an obligation to provide patients with a care plan to ensure they don’t end up readmitted. However, Medicare pays more to hospitals when a patient ends up back in the hospital. And physicians are paid more when they order more tests, procedures and office visits, whether you need them or not.

While I cannot speak to how the Dartmouth study was done, I will say that certain procedures and practices are ordered in an effort to establish the exact nature of a given patient's problem. While the practice of medicine is called a 'science', it is never necessarily an exact one. Lest we forget, also, that a significant portion of the $750 billion identified in the Dartmouth study constitutes wages for nurses, doctors, physician assistants, ultrasound techs, et cetera. Another glaring fact, that no one seems to want to address, is that doctors must order certain tests in order to show due diligence. In this litigious society, one must be considerate of the fact that a court of law may be reviewing the decisions you made, regardless of the industry in which you operate. Maybe if there were some control on torts, we would see malpractice insurance rates drop, which might lead to lower costs.

We can respond appropriately to the health care crisis that faces millions of families by focusing on providing coverage for everyone, ensuring prevention becomes part of your health care plan, and reforming inefficiencies in the system at the same time we address the future economic security of this country.

Senator Gregg has already lost the battle. He has become, in Lenin's words, 'a useful idiot' of the Leftist Machine. I contend that there is no 'healthcare crisis'. The only crisis exists in the minds of socialists who want to gain more control over the rights and freedom of America's citizens. THAT is their crisis - they do not have enough control. In the title of his piece, Mr. Gregg explicitly states that "health reform [is] possible without growing government." Yet, in his conclusion, he uses the words "...providing...ensuring...reforming inefficiencies...address future economic security..." These are verbs. Action words. These activities require men and women to take action, do research, compile data, perform interviews, and write reports. How is all this going to happen? How is Mr. Gregg going to make everything all better, and not increase government involvement? He does not say. He does not have to say. He just needs to publish his op-ed and feel warm and fuzzy. Well, Mr. Gregg, you are not some private shmoe from the backwoods of New Hampshire. You are a Senator, sir. Your job is to uphold the Constitution, not pontificate, blather, and draw little hearts and flowers all over the page. What is the meat of your proposal? If you believed in your proposal, I am sure that you would give us the hard facts. Instead, you dribble the same tired bromides which we get from the Left. Buck up, sir, and do the hard work; don't pat our heads just so it makes it easier to slip the knife between our ribs.


Read the full article here

A Picture is Worth 1,000 Words...

This photograph makes me laugh: Mrs. President Obama ought to know by now that cameras are ALWAYS on her. You cannot let the mask slip, 'Chelle. I have always said that Michelle Obama was one angry, racist, individual (okay, I didn't use 'individual').

Sultan Knish's 'Prostitution of Peace'

I was impressed by the clarity and succinctness of Sultan Knish's take on the current drive for "peace." Check it out.

If you believe the current regime of diplomats and pundits, peace is something that can be obtained for the right price. Where peace once meant the mutual cessation of war, peace has now become something that can now be bought and sold.

...

We live now in the era of the prostitution of peace. Love doesn't enter into it. Brotherhood doesn't enter into it...No, peace has become something that the brute, the thug and the monster offers to the civilized world in exchange for weapons, power and international stature...

The pimps pander, the prostitutes pose with their weapons and bombs and the tricks put up everything they have certain that this time it will be different. A toast is made. "To peace!" Peace in our time. Peace in no one's time.

Check it all out here

"Taxes will save us," cries the Government.

I found it interesting that these two articles came out on the same day:

Obama Administration looking at VAT

"With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a
trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers
are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically
taboo: a national sales tax....

'There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax
reform,' Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. 'I think
a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table.'

See what Mr. Conrad did there? Okay, replace the word 'tax' with 'healthcare'. I have long held the belief that the desire for 'comprehensive healthcare reform' is not born from a knowledge that the system is truly broken, per se. The desire for 'reform' comes from ideologues who believe that the Government should run it. Looking at it from this standpoint, you can see why they would call for reform of the current system (they don't have enough control of it). So, too, Mr. Conrad is calling for tax reform not because the tax system has stopped working (according to my weekly paystub it is working too well), it just is not bringing in enough money to do all the things the Big Government types want to do.

"A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by
the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about
everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer...'Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate,' said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution...'It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it.'"

So, in a time when tax revenues are down, which is an indicator that individual earnings are down, the Left is recommending MORE taxes to heal the budget "problems." What Mr. Burman fails to even consider, learned though he may be, is that the United States does not have a budget problem, it has a spending problem. Congress needs to stop spending. Mr. Obama needs to stop making promises. The problem is that no budget would be big enough to sate the spending dreams of this president or this Congress.

"It [VAT] punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration
hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of
recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the
tax hits."

More social engineering: crack a whip over the heads of the masses to force them to do what they do not appear to want to do on their own. As a bonus, plan to rake in a bunch of cash by hoping that consumers will make poor spending decisions out of fear. Who the hell thinks this stuff up? Is it no wonder that economics and the Federal Government result in a fiasco?

Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul
the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said.

There it is: "overhaul the healthcare system." Bingo. Government wants to overhaul a system from what it is, to something they can completely control. It seems to me that if people have less personal income coming in, it would be a bad idea for the government to take more of it from them...

Tax Revenue down 34%

"For example, 6 million people lost jobs in the 12 months ended in April — and that means far fewer dollars from income taxes. Income tax revenue dropped 44% from a year ago."

More people out of work...dollars stretched thinner in America's homes...what should we do to raise more money for Government Programs? Hmmm...raise taxes? BRILLIANT! Not really. Taking more money from already cash-strapped Americans will only reduce the amount they can afford to spend on staples, not to mention to ocassional luxury item. Or worse, more Americans will resort to living on credit, thus increasing consumer debt levels.

A Message That Seems Lost, Lately...

A propos of nothing, I re-read Ronald Reagan's "Shining City on a Hill" speech, from January 1974. Here it is in its entirety; emphases are mine:

The Shining City Upon A Hill
On January 25, 1974

There are three men here tonight I am very proud to introduce. It was a year ago this coming February when this country had its spirits lifted as they have never been lifted in many years. This happened when planes began landing on American soil and in the Philippines, bringing back men who had lived with honor for many miserable years in North Vietnam prisons. Three of those men are here tonight, John McCain, Bill Lawrence and Ed Martin. It is an honor to be here tonight. I am proud that you asked me and I feel more than a little humble in the presence of this distinguished company.

There are men here tonight who, through their wisdom, their foresight and their courage, have earned the right to be regarded as prophets of our philosophy. Indeed they are prophets of our times. In years past when others were silent or too blind to the facts, they spoke up forcefully and fearlessly for what they believed to be right. A decade has passed since Barry Goldwater walked a lonely path across this land reminding us that even a land as rich as ours can't go on forever borrowing against the future, leaving a legacy of debt for another generation and causing a runaway inflation to erode the savings and reduce the standard of living. Voices have been raised trying to rekindle in our country all of the great ideas and principles which set this nation apart from all the others that preceded it, but louder and more strident voices utter easily sold cliches.

Interesting how we seem to recycle the same problems. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a stalwart Barry Goldwater type to bear the torch.

Cartoonists with acid-tipped pens portray some of the reminders of our heritage and our destiny as old-fashioned. They say that we are trying to retreat into a past that actually never existed. Looking to the past in an effort to keep our country from repeating the errors of history is termed by them as “taking the country back to McKinley.” Of course I never found that was so bad -- under McKinley we freed Cuba. On the span of history, we are still thought of as a young upstart country celebrating soon only our second century as a nation, and yet we are the oldest continuing republic in the world.

I thought that tonight, rather than talking on the subjects you are discussing, or trying to find something new to say, it might be appropriate to reflect a bit on our heritage.

You can call it mysticism if you want to, but I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage.

This was true of those who pioneered the great wilderness in the beginning of this country, as it is also true of those later immigrants who were willing to leave the land of their birth and come to a land where even the language was unknown to them. Call it chauvinistic, but our heritage does not set us apart. Some years ago a writer, who happened to be an avid student of history, told me a story about that day in the little hall in Philadelphia where honorable men, hard-pressed by a King who was flouting the very law they were willing to obey, debated whether they should take the fateful step of declaring their independence from that king. I was told by this man that the story could be found in the writings of Jefferson. I confess, I never researched or made an effort to verify it. Perhaps it is only legend. But story, or legend, he described the atmosphere, the strain, the debate, and that as men for the first time faced the consequences of such an irretrievable act, the walls resounded with the dread word of treason and its price -- the gallows and the headman's axe. As the day wore on the issue hung in the balance, and then, according to the story, a man rose in the small gallery. He was not a young man and was obviously calling on all the energy he could muster. Citing the grievances that had brought them to this moment he said, “Sign that parchment. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave and yet the words of that parchment can never die. For the mechanic in his workshop, they will be words of hope, to the slave in the mines -- freedom.” And he added, “If my hands were freezing in death, I would sign that parchment with my last ounce of strength. Sign, sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, sign even if the hall is ringing with the sound of headman’s axe, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever.” And then it is said he fell back exhausted. But 56 delegates, swept by his eloquence, signed the Declaration of Independence, a document destined to be as immortal as any work of man can be. And according to the story, when they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he could not be found nor were there any who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.

Well, as I say, whether story or legend, the signing of the document that day in Independence Hall was miracle enough. Fifty-six men, a little band so unique -- we have never seen their like since -- pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Sixteen gave their lives, most gave their fortunes and all of them preserved their sacred honor. What manner of men were they? Certainly they were not an unwashed, revolutionary rebel, nor were then adventurers in a heroic mood. Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and tradesmen, nine were farmers. They were men who would achieve security but valued freedom more.

And what price did they pay? John Hart was driven from the side of his desperately ill wife. After more than a year of living almost as an animal in the forest and in caves, he returned to find his wife had died and his children had vanished. He never saw them again, his property was destroyed and he died of a broken heart -- but with no regret, only pride in the part he had played that day in Independence Hall. Carter Braxton of Virginia lost all his ships -- they were sold to pay his debts. He died in rags. So it was with Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Rutledge, Morris, Livingston, and Middleton. Nelson, learning that Cornwallis was using his home for a headquarters, personally begged Washington to fire on him and destroy his home--he died bankrupt. It has never been reported that any of these men ever expressed bitterness or renounced their action as not worth the price. Fifty-six rank-and-file, ordinary citizens had founded a nation that grew from sea to shining sea, five million farms, quiet villages, cities that never sleep -- all done without an area re-development plan, urban renewal or a rural legal assistance program.

Now we are a nation of 211 million people with a pedigree that includes blood lines from every corner of the world. We have shed that American-melting-pot blood in every corner of the world, usually in defense of someone's freedom. Those who remained of that remarkable band we call our Founding Fathers tied up some of the loose ends about a dozen years after the Revolution. It had been the first revolution in all man’s history that did not just exchange one set of rulers for another. This had been a philosophical revolution. The culmination of men's dreams for 6,000 years were formalized with the Constitution, probably the most unique document ever drawn in the long history of man's relation to man. I know there have been other constitutions, new ones are being drawn today by newly emerging nations. Most of them, even the one of the Soviet Union, contains many of the same guarantees as our own Constitution, and still there is a difference. The difference is so subtle that we often overlook it, but is is so great that it tells the whole story. Those other constitutions say, “Government grants you these rights” and ours says, “You are born with these rights, they are yours by the grace of God, and no government on earth can take them from you.”

I hear many people uttering the mistaken idea that our Bill of Rights "grants" us rights. No, these are ours; the Bill of Rights simply guarantees these rights.

Lord Acton of England, who once said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” would say of that document, “They had solved with astonishing ease and unduplicated success two problems which had heretofore baffled the capacity of the most enlightened nations. They had contrived a system of federal government which prodigiously increased national power and yet respected local liberties and authorities, and they had founded it on a principle of equality without surrendering the securities of property or freedom.” Never in any society has the preeminence of the individual been so firmly established and given such a priority.

In less than twenty years we would go to war because the God-given rights of the American sailors, as defined in the Constitution, were being violated by a foreign power. We served notice then on the world that all of us together would act collectively to safeguard the rights of even the least among us. But still, in an older, cynical world, they were not convinced. The great powers of Europe still had the idea that one day this great continent would be open again to colonizing and they would come over and divide us up.

In the meantime, men who yearned to breathe free were making their way to our shores. Among them was a young refugee from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He had been a leader in an attempt to free Hungary from Austrian rule. The attempt had failed and he fled to escape execution. In America, this young Hungarian, Koscha by name, became an importer by trade and took out his first citizenship papers. One day, business took him to a Mediterranean port. There was a large Austrian warship under the command of an admiral in the harbor. He had a manservant with him. He had described to this manservant what the flag of his new country looked like. Word was passed to the Austrian warship that this revolutionary was there and in the night he was kidnapped and taken aboard that large ship. This man's servant, desperate, walking up and down the harbor, suddenly spied a flag that resembled the description he had heard. It was a small American war sloop. He went aboard and told Captain Ingraham, of that war sloop, his story. Captain Ingraham went to the American Consul. When the American Consul learned that Koscha had only taken out his first citizenship papers, the consul washed his hands of the incident. Captain Ingraham said, “I am the senior officer in this port and I believe, under my oath of my office, that I owe this man the protection of our flag.”

He went aboard the Austrian warship and demanded to see their prisoner, our citizen. The Admiral was amused, but they brought the man on deck. He was in chains and had been badly beaten. Captain Ingraham said, “I can hear him better without those chains,” and the chains were removed. He walked over and said to Kocha, “I will ask you one question; consider your answer carefully. Do you ask the protection of the American flag?” Kocha nodded dumbly “Yes,” and the Captain said, “You shall have it.” He went back and told the frightened consul what he had done. Later in the day three more Austrian ships sailed into harbor. It looked as though the four were getting ready to leave. Captain Ingraham sent a junior officer over to the Austrian flag ship to tell the Admiral that any attempt to leave that harbor with our citizen aboard would be resisted with appropriate force. He said that he would expect a satisfactory answer by four o'clock that afternoon. As the hour neared they looked at each other through the glasses. As it struck four he had them roll the cannons into the ports and had then light the tapers with which they would set off the cannons -- one little sloop. Suddenly the lookout tower called out and said, “They are lowering a boat,” and they rowed Koscha over to the little American ship.

Captain Ingraham then went below and wrote his letter of resignation to the United States Navy. In it he said, “I did what I thought my oath of office required, but if I have embarrassed my country in any way, I resign.” His resignation was refused in the United States Senate with these words: “This battle that was never fought may turn out to be the most important battle in our Nation's history.” Incidentally, there is to this day, and I hope there always will be, a USS Ingraham in the United States Navy.

I did not tell that story out of any desire to be narrowly chauvinistic or to glorify aggressive militarism, but it is an example of government meeting its highest responsibility.

In recent years we have been treated to a rash of noble-sounding phrases. Some of them sound good, but they don't hold up under close analysis. Take for instance the slogan so frequently uttered by the young senator from Massachusetts, “The greatest good for the greatest number." Certainly under that slogan, no modern day Captain Ingraham would risk even the smallest craft and crew for a single citizen. Every dictator who ever lived has justified the enslavement of his people on the theory of what was good for the majority.

Taking action in the name of "the greater good" has abrogated the consideration of 'right' and 'wrong' in any decision taken by government since the New Deal.

We are not a warlike people. Nor is our history filled with tales of aggressive adventures and imperialism, which might come as a shock to some of the placard painters in our modern demonstrations. The lesson of Vietnam, I think, should be that never again will young Americans be asked to fight and possibly die for a cause unless that cause is so meaningful that we, as a nation, pledge our full resources to achieve victory as quickly as possible.

I realize that such a pronouncement, of course, would possibly be laying one open to the charge of warmongering -- but that would also be ridiculous. My generation has paid a higher price and has fought harder for freedom that any generation that had ever lived. We have known four wars in a single lifetime. All were horrible, all could have been avoided if at a particular moment in time we had made it plain that we subscribed to the words of John Stuart Mill when he said that “war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.”

The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war is worse. The man who has nothing which he cares about more than his personal safety is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

The widespread disaffection with things military is only a part of the philosophical division in our land today. I must say to you who have recently, or presently are still receiving an education, I am awed by your powers of resistance. I have some knowledge of the attempts that have been made in many classrooms and lecture halls to persuade you that there is little to admire in America. For the second time in this century, capitalism and the free enterprise are under assault. Privately owned business is blamed for spoiling the environment, exploiting the worker and seducing, if not outright raping, the customer. Those who make the charge have the solution, of course -- government regulation and control. We may never get around to explaining how citizens who are so gullible that they can be suckered into buying cereal or soap that they don't need and would not be good for them, can at the same time be astute enough to choose representatives in government to which they would entrust the running of their lives.

Such poignant and timeless words.

Not too long ago, a poll was taken on 2,500 college campuses in this country. Thousands and thousands of responses were obtained. Overwhelmingly, 65, 70, and 75 percent of the students found business responsible, as I have said before, for the things that were wrong in this country. That same number said that government was the solution and should take over the management and the control of private business. Eighty percent of the respondents said they wanted government to keep its paws out of their private lives.

We are told every day that the assembly-line worker is becoming a dull-witted robot and that mass production results in standardization. Well, there isn't a socialist country in the world that would not give its copy of Karl Marx for our standardization.

Standardization means production for the masses and the assembly line means more leisure for the worker -- freedom from backbreaking and mind-dulling drudgery that man had known for centuries past. Karl Marx did not abolish child labor or free the women from working in the coal mines in England – the steam engine and modern machinery did that.

Unfortunately, the disciples of the new order have had a hand in determining too much policy in recent decades. Government has grown in size and power and cost through the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society. It costs more for government today than a family pays for food, shelter and clothing combined. Not even the Office of Management and Budget knows how many boards, commissions, bureaus and agencies there are in the federal government, but the federal registry, listing their regulations, is just a few pages short of being as big as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

During the Great Society we saw the greatest growth of this government. There were eight cabinet departments and 12 independent agencies to administer the federal health program. There were 35 housing programs and 20 transportation projects. Public utilities had to cope with 27 different agencies on just routine business. There were 192 installations and nine departments with 1,000 projects having to do with the field of pollution.

One Congressman found the federal government was spending 4 billion dollars on research in its own laboratories but did not know where they were, how many people were working in them, or what they were doing. One of the research projects was “The Demography of Happiness,” and for 249,000 dollars we found that “people who make more money are happier than people who make less, young people are happier than old people, and people who are healthier are happier than people who are sick.” For 15 cents they could have bought an Almanac and read the old bromide, “It's better to be rich, young and healthy, than poor, old and sick.”

The course that you have chosen is far more in tune with the hopes and aspirations of our people than are those who would sacrifice freedom for some fancied security.

Standing on the tiny deck of the Arabella in 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop said, “We will be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.” Well, we have not dealt falsely with our God, even if He is temporarily suspended from the classroom.

When I was born my life expectancy was 10 years less than I have already lived – that’s a cause of regret for some people in California, I know. Ninety percent of Americans at that time lived beneath what is considered the poverty line today, three-quarters lived in what is considered substandard housing. Today each of those figures is less than 10 percent. We have increased our life expectancy by wiping out, almost totally, diseases that still ravage mankind in other parts of the world. I doubt if the young people here tonight know the names of some of the diseases that were commonplace when we were growing up. We have more doctors per thousand people than any nation in the world. We have more hospitals that any nation in the world.

When I was your age, believe it or not, none of us knew that we even had a racial problem. When I graduated from college and became a radio sport announcer, broadcasting major league baseball, I didn’t have a Hank Aaron or a Willie Mays to talk about. The Spaulding Guide said baseball was a game for Caucasian gentlemen. Some of us then began editorializing and campaigning against this. Gradually we campaigned against all those other areas where the constitutional rights of a large segment of our citizenry were being denied. We have not finished the job. We still have a long way to go, but we have made more progress in a few years than we have made in more than a century.

One-third of all the students in the world who are pursuing higher education are doing so in the United States. The percentage of our young Negro community that is going to college is greater than the percentage of whites in any other country in the world.

One-half of all the economic activity in the entire history of man has taken place in this republic. We have distributed our wealth more widely among our people than any society known to man. Americans work less hours for a higher standard of living than any other people. Ninety-five percent of all our families have an adequate daily intake of nutrients -- and a part of the five percent that don't are trying to lose weight! Ninety-nine percent have gas or electric refrigeration, 92 percent have televisions, and an equal number have telephones. There are 120 million cars on our streets and highways -- and all of them are on the street at once when you are trying to get home at night. But isn't this just proof of our materialism -- the very thing that we are charged with? Well, we also have more churches, more libraries, we support voluntarily more symphony orchestras, and opera companies, non-profit theaters, and publish more books than all the other nations of the world put together.

Somehow America has bred a kindliness into our people unmatched anywhere, as has been pointed out in that best-selling record by a Canadian journalist. We are not a sick society. A sick society could not produce the men that set foot on the moon, or who are now circling the earth above us in the Skylab. A sick society bereft of morality and courage did not produce the men who went through those year of torture and captivity in Vietnam. Where did we find such men? They are typical of this land as the Founding Fathers were typical. We found them in our streets, in the offices, the shops and the working places of our country and on the farms.

We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, “The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.”

We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.

Spring in the Teanaway

The snow is finally starting to leave the forests, and roads are opening up. The family and I headed over the mountains to check in with our friends at Owen's Meats, and take a little hike in the Teanaway. After fueling up at Pioneer Coffee Roasting Company , we headed over to Owen's to order some beef. These guys are super helpful, and they are big MMA fans.

We finally headed out of town, and turned onto the Teanaway River Road. In spring, this valley is green and beautiful; we watched a herd of a dozen elk feeding in one of the hay fields. The road was clear, and I saw very little snow until we made the turn up Stafford Creek. Snow stopped our progress after about 3/4 of a mile. We geared up, strapped Sarah into the babybackpack, and headed out.

The dogs were everywhere and Sarah was chattering nonstop in my ear, as we walked along. We finally hit the trailhead and started up the trail. Seeing the smooth, sweeping, buff footpath brought back memories of my last visit to Stafford Creek (read here). Soon, we had to turn around and head back. But, as always, the Teanaway always beckons.

A Personal Story on Israeli Independence Day

full article here

It is always refreshing to hear people express national pride, especially from a country so demonized by many. In my opinion, people do not have enough pride for the country of their birth, or of their homeland (in the case of Sara Miller). Happy Independence Day, Sara.

Independence Day / I am a Zionist and I am proud

By Sara Miller

"I'll give you six months," said a close relative the day before I packed my life into two rucksacks and schlepped them 2,000 miles from Britain. A decade on, I'm still here, and proud to be an olah vatika (veteran immigrant). Even within Israel the concept of Aliyah for Zionism's sake is often an alien one. Young Israelis in particular cannot understand why someone from an evidently prosperous country, with a culture-rich and progressive society and which is relatively terrorism free, would choose to throw it all over, leave their family and friends and move to a country so riddled with internal problems and violence. My motivation can be summed up in one word. Zionism. In recent decades Zionism has become a dirty word in the world. It has been used as an insulting and disrespectful collective noun for the Jewish people, shorthand for the State of Israel within the context of its conflict with the Palestinians and even a synonym for the settlement movement.

...

Ironically, I found it is the Israeli working class, beset as it is by economic hardship, which seems the most accepting and understanding of my decision. Their pride in the homeland is real, joyous and unrelenting. Israel is where I belong. This is where Jews belong, whether they live here, visit or simply feel a spiritual connection to the place. It is the embodiment of thousands of years of aspiration, through pogroms, persecution and genocide. Not that I was the victim of any real anti-Semitism in my life in Britain, but there are always ominous undertones.

...

I may well be a product of my environment in Britain - Jewish youth movement, Jewish education, Jewish home - and there are many things that disturb, scare and sadden me about Israel, such as its inability to reconcile to the reality of our Palestinian neighbors, its capricious attitude to war and the religious intolerance from secular and religious Jews alike. But here I am. This is my tenth Yom Hazikaron and Yom Ha'atzmaut as an Israeli. It's been frequently tough, sometimes lonely, occasionally frightening, but never a cause for regret. I am always in Rabin Square for the siren for the dead, and for the dancing for the living. I am a Zionist, and I am proud. This is my country and I love it. Here I will remain.

Sara Miller is the editor of Haaretz.com

Jim McDermott: Proud to Steal for His Constituents

Though I am not surprised, I am still sickened. I guess it is pretty much par for McDermott to crow about grubbing even more pork, despite the current state of economic affairs. Way to show some integrity, Jim.

McDermott's website

Rep. McDermott Announces His Earmarks in Omnibus Legislation

March 11, 2009 - Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) today released a comprehensive list of federal earmarks he requested and/or supported as a Member of the Washington delegation that were included in the Omnibus legislation passed in the Senate last night. The legislation had already passed the House of Representatives, and the President indicated today that he will sign the bill into law. Overall, 32 earmarks are associated with Rep. McDermott and they total $18,695,000. The independent Taxpayers for Common Sense ranked Rep. McDermott #150 in the House of Representatives.

Obama and Government

This is an essay I wrote, not long after Obama was elected. It was too long to be submitted as a 'Letter to the Editor' so, it languished on my harddrive for all these months:

What’s so cool about government, Mr. Obama?

Over two hundred years ago, our forefathers fought to throw off the yoke of excessive governance, and become free citizens of a free and independent nation. The unfair taxes, trade restrictions, and quartering troops in private homes, pressed a yoke down upon their necks to the point that they could no longer bear.

Out of that style of governance, the Founding Fathers crafted a new style of government. In doing so, they understood that government was a necessary evil. Thomas Jefferson eloquently stated that governments are necessary to secure the rights endowed upon us by our Creator. Those men rejected the idea of excessive government (tyranny, to be specific) to forge this great nation.

Mr. Obama believes it his duty to “…make government cool again.” When was government “cool”, to begin with?

I doubt any of the signers of the Declaration thought it “cool” to sit in Philadelphia, away from homes, fields, and families, hammering out agreements and all but putting nooses around their necks as they signed the Declaration.

Did President Lincoln consider government “cool”, as he sought to bind our young country together, as it battled to come to grips with the rights of the States and the responsibilities to the Republic? Maybe “coolness” swept over him as he stood on the field at Gettysburg, where some months before nearly 8,000 Americans had been killed and another 27,000 wounded.

Did a recently-promoted President Truman feel hip as he ordered the Enola Gay to begin her flight towards Japan? I presume not, in both cases.

What does Mr. Obama mean, then? Does he mean being a part of something dynamic, exciting, and new? Imbued with ‘hope’ and ‘change’, perhaps? I can think of several such occasions, throughout history, which might fit that bill.

The French Revolution brought about a complete disposal of the absolute monarchy and a descent into the Reign of Terror. A “cool” time, if you were a Jacobin, I suppose. The Russian Revolution was another exciting time, if you were on the winning side. Is Mr. Obama exhorting us to join his side, as the “other side” will not be much fun?

In our own history, we can look back on FDR’s New Deal as a time of excitement, dynamic change, and experimentation; if you were on the right side. Being a part of the Brain Trust, or in the upper tiers of the alphabet soup of administrations or programs, must have been pretty exciting (hoping that your wacky ideas would work). Imagine having an entire country on which to test your pet theories! How cool would that be? LBJ’s Great Society was another dynamic “America-as-Petri-dish” time for government programs (many of which still exist).

A similar thread weaves through these examples, with the exception of the Great Society, and that is they all came about out of societal or economic turmoil. Additionally, each of these instances involved a growth in governmental reach and power.

In the American examples, higher taxes and larger governmental programs came about which limited freedom, choices, and affected the marketplace. Is this what’s “cool” about government, Mr. Obama?

A grander, more intrusive government is what our forefathers desired to escape when they sailed to this land, and our Founding Fathers succeeded in throwing off that yoke. In their doing, a system was created in which any man can pursue his dreams, build a future, and chart his own path, with minimal resistance.

Mr. Obama seeks to change that and, by doing so, change the fabric of this great nation. That, Mr. Obama, does not sound “cool.”

GW