I think that this 16-year old girl should not have been on a trip of this fashion unaccompanied. One or both of her parents should have accompanied her on the trip. No high school aged teenager should be able to do something like this unless under extreme circumstances.

How in the world does a parent allow their kid to travel around the world alone on a boat? This is insane. If it were my daughter the answer would be: HECK NO! I don't care how crafted she may be, her life is more valuable than any world record!

I think 16 is probably too young to be attempting something like this. Her parents are lucky that she was safe. When people go for something like this, monumental resources to keep them safe need to be behind them.

(Off-topic)
You know I don't paste articles usually, but I will this time. This is from AARP:

"A funny thing happened on the way to the Tea Party: A growing number of American voters have started to tell their political leaders they’d rather pay more taxes, not less—especially if the additional revenue will preserve important government services like schools and programs for seniors.
From Oregon to Kansas and from Maine to New Mexico, voters and their legislative leaders suddenly seem to be agreeing that tax hikes are essential even at a time when the great recession isn’t quite over.
“There are times when the public is ahead of the politicians, and this is one of those times,” said Jon Shure, deputy director of the state fiscal project for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an independent think tank based in Washington. “When people are given the opportunity to support taxes to pay for important services, they agree to do it.”
In fiscal year 2010, 29 states enacted tax increases worth $23.9 billion, while nine cut taxes, according to the National Governors Association. Already for fiscal year 2011, which for most states begins on July 1, 18 states have proposed tax hikes, while nine sought decreases.
The need for new revenue at the state level is a direct consequence of the recession, analysts say. Rising unemployment means state governments receive less payroll tax and income tax. As property values fall, so does property tax revenue. And as households cut back on consumption to weather the economic storms, sales tax revenue declines as well. Meanwhile, those without jobs and income demand more state services to stay above water, and unlike the federal government, states can’t run deficits from year to year.
Arizona votes for tax hike
So imagine the surprise when voters in conservative Arizona, by an unexpectedly outsized margin, went to the polls last month and supported Proposition 100, which called for a significant tax increase to bolster state revenue.
By a 64 percent to 36 percent margin, they approved a temporary 1 percent sales tax hike—a referendum pushed by the state’s Republican governor after Arizona sold off its Capitol building, closed most of its state parks and privatized prisons in order to close a gaping budget hole.
The victory of Proposition 100 is perhaps the most dramatic indication of the public’s new willingness to pay more for government services. It means that the state’s sales tax will rise from 5.6 percent to 6.6 percent for a three-year period, adding an estimated $1 billion annually to strained state coffers.
Two-thirds of the money from Proposition 100 will go to primary and secondary education, with the remaining share allocated for public safety and health and human services.
“Doing the right thing almost always means doing the hard thing,” Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer told Reuters news agency after the vote. “We all know that in life. Tonight voters spoke out about what needed to be done and I’m glad they did.”
Opponents argued the measure was an excuse to keep government too big. “Arizona citizens and small businesses have been assured that Arizona’s grand canyon of a deficit won’t be balanced through expanding the sales tax to services and higher property and income taxes,” said Farrell Quinlan, Arizona director of the National Federation of Independent Business, in a statement. “Voters will be justified in feeling betrayed if these commitments are broken.”
The anti-tax group was heavily outspent and not well organized, contributing to the tax measure’s passage.
Other states have also acted:
• Oregon voters boosted taxes by $727 million in January, ratifying tax increases on corporations and high-income earners that had been approved by the legislature, but which opponents tried to block through a referendum.
• On May 27, Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson signed a law boosting that state’s sales tax by 1 percent beginning July 1, an increase estimated to boost revenue by $314 million for the next fiscal year.
• In Wisconsin, a grassroots campaign is seeking a 1 percent hike in the statewide sales tax to add $800 million in spending for the state’s schools.
• In New Mexico, the legislature passed a measure that increases the state’s sales tax by an eighth of a percent, to 5.125 percent. The measure is expected to raise $60 million.
• And on Tuesday, Mainers voted to repeal a law approved last year by the Democratic-led legislature and Democratic Gov. John Baldacci that would have lowered the tax rate for most Mainers.

Bucking the anti-tax trend
The outcome in Arizona and other states runs counter to a commonly held notion that anti-tax fervor will drive the 2010 election campaign. While Tea Party activists have claimed victories in Kentucky’s GOP primary and the Massachusetts U.S. Senate campaign, a number of other states have bucked the trend and assessed new taxes.
In January, for instance, Oregon voters agreed to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy by $727 million. And in Illinois, an estimated 15,000 state workers, union and community activists rallied in April at the Capitol in Springfield, demanding that legislators boost taxes to lessen the blow of potential layoffs. “We want taxes!” they screamed—a defiant dissent from Tea Party wisdom.
The 50 states face an estimated $174 billion gap in fiscal 2010, according to Todd Haggerty, a policy associate in the fiscal affairs program for the National Conference of State Legislatures based in Denver, and are staring at a budget hole of at least $89 billion for fiscal year 2011.
“That leaves lawmakers facing a third straight year of trying to close large budget gaps,” Haggerty said, “so they have an extremely difficult choice on their hands. They either have to cut spending or find new sources of revenue or in many cases a combination of bot. What you’ve seen in states like Oregon and Arizona are efforts to increase taxes in order to avoid even deeper cuts.”
Some states are finding it easier to raise taxes than others. Some governors feel secure enough politically to propose tax hikes while others worry it might doom their tenures. As Haggerty of the NCSL put it, “Each state has its own political nature and that determines what’s palatable.”
Data compiled by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government at the University of Albany, State University of New York shows that overall state tax revenue in the last quarter of 2009 declined by 4.2 percent from a year earlier, and by 8.6 percent from the same quarter two years earlier. Adjusted for inflation, state tax revenue is about the same level as it was in fiscal year 2000—even though the U.S. population is up about 10 percent and health costs have skyrocketed.
States under pressure
“We are not surprised to see more and more states raising taxes,” said the Rockefeller Institute’s Lucy Dadayan in an e-mail interview. With money from the stimulus bill running out, she added, states will need to fill in further gaps for 2010-2011 budgets.
“If the choice is between raising taxes and cutting spending in vital areas such as education and health care,” she added, “then voters are more supportive of tax increases but reluctant in supporting spending cuts.
“So Arizona is not alone. States such as Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington already indicated that higher taxes may be necessary this year.” New York and California already implemented tax increases.
Shure, the analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, argues that the Arizona vote demonstrates that voters want a balanced approach to resolving looming fiscal problems.
“The public doesn’t think raising taxes is the only solution but clearly they don’t think cutting services is the only solution either,” he said. “If you over-rely on cutting services,” like education, health care, senior services or public safety, “you are hurting people whose needs are growing today” because of the recession while “failing to invest in the future.”
Michael Zielenziger writes on business and the economy. He lives in the San Francisco Bay area.

Add to this the results of Tuesday's votes: of the 89 incumbents defending their position, 87 of them were kept by the voters, one is facing a run-off, leaving only one incumbent being tossed out. Another narrative bites the dust.

Why is it that the right and the far right write all the public and political narratives, and the media keep spreading them around as undisputed common knowledge?

The voters of Arizona realize they have a massive budget crisis and 'voted' for a limited sales tax increase to address the issue. Whats so surprising about that?

In how many other states were the voters allowed to vote on their tax increases?

“You know I don't paste articles usually, but I will this time. This is from AARP:”- Mike Q.

AARP sold out their members with Obamacare, I don’t trust anything they put out. Incumbents winning the primaries are meaningless. Lets have this same conversation in November, particularly related to Democratic incumbents.

The idea of wanting big government or wanting to pay taxes in America is not popular. The problem is that once government takes control of your life, it is hard to let go without considerable pain. I guess it is kind of like a drug habit, hard to let go but it does not mean it is good for you or it is money well spent.

For example, do I want social security to go under? Would I be willing to pay a little more in taxes to keep it solvent? Of course, I have no choice, if I already was forced to invest so much of my money into it, why would I want to lose all that? However, if it was optional from the start, I may have picked a different savings plan.

Why would anyone say, “We want taxes”. What a ridicules premise. What they could really be saying is, “we don’t want to lose the programs we already spent too much money on” or “we want other people to pay more of their money, so that somehow I will benefit”. If they really want to pay more taxes they could just over pay on their income tax or send a donation to Uncle Sam. I am sure he won’t refuse it.

Bottom-line is SOME government programs and taxes are needed and are worthy expenditures. While too many others are wasteful. People that spend THEIR money on wasteful programs have less, are less independent and in need of more government assistance. Small government and less taxes over all means more money in the peoples pockets and therefore less need for government. I guess we could say, it is government creating the need to justify their own existence, when they should be finding ways to help people be more independent.

fred and MG:

It's not just Arizona. There have been, for instance, large marches in Illinois,-larger than Tea Party rallies,-with the people telling their representatives to "show some guts" and bring back the tax rates we used to have, that were enough to keep schools and other social bodies open. We now have the lowest tax rates in 55 years, and it shows: things are falling apart because overly influential anti-tax people are ruining it for everybody else.

People are NOT saying "hurt me, take my money." They're saying that all of us need to stop whining and chip in what it takes to keep a modern, technological society improving itself instead of letting it deteriorate closer and closer to third-world status.

If we were seeing the same tax rates we used to have being insufficient today, that would indicate some defect in use of this revenue, such as waste. But having the lowest rates in 55 years, and seeing we don't have enough to keep things going on less, shows not some natural decay, some inexorable entropy, but rather the effect of Republican efforts to eliminate the public sector. They get taxes too low to sustain civil society, and then say "We can't afford Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education, and so on." But we're NOT running out of money. It's just being increasingly redistributed to the top, leaving all the rest of us with less and less all the time. There are more trillions of dollars out there than we've ever had, but we just don't see any trace of it because it's squirreled away in the Cayman Island accounts of American royalty. The LAST thing to do is to keep enabling the wealthy by buying the narrative that there's less money available and we need to give up more and more or we'll run out of it altogether. If we properly maintain our infrastructure and institutions, and see that the shrinking middle class is paying enough, then there'll start to be a push for the billionaires to pay a bit more. OMG! Heresy! That's why it's so important to the powerful to keep US backing down, giving in to expecting less and less as if we're seeing less and less because some finite amount of money is just disappearing, leaking away somewhere, and we'd better just get used to less and less. It's crap, and you're enabling it.

If my daughters had that ambition,all I could say to them with my blessing of coure is"you go girl!!"

Think of the many things that have come to past when a parent told their children "to be all they could be".

Going alone on that voyage may be a little much for some to understand,but the ladys and in this case girl, must be allowed to "break that glass ceiling".

Mike Q:

"You know I don't paste articles usually, but I will this time. This is from AARP:"

Touche!!My friend.

"If we were seeing the same tax rates we used to have being insufficient today, that would indicate some defect in use of this revenue, such as waste. But having the lowest rates in 55 years, and seeing we don't have enough to keep things going on less, shows not some natural decay, some inexorable entropy, but rather the effect of Republican efforts to eliminate the public sector."

Mike Q- Not true Bro. You are looking at certain taxes, such as income tax Dividends and Capital gains but overall, our taxes are much higher then years ago and we still can't afford the public programs, which BTW have also grown requiring more money. Real estate taxes that pay for schools are through the roof, sales tax, state income tax did not exist years ago, federal excise tax, tax on phone calls and so on, along with many other new taxes that keep going up not down. When you add all of them together we are buried in taxes. You see, they are all connected. What the federal does not pay for, the state does and what the state does not pay, we pay locally.

I will agree with you on one thing. The company's have more money then ever and are acting as though they are broke. However, we differ in that, rather then having them give more money to government, acting as an expensive untrustworthy middleman for redistribution. I'd rather see that money go right back to the people. Lower prices on goods, higher salaries for the workers and so on.

John Stossel had a piece last Thursday relating to Milton Friedmans book "Free to choose". How limited government lifts people out of poverty, directly contradicting your philosophy. I suspect, Friedman is to you, what the devil is to me.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/#/v/4231210/economic-prosperity-through-limited-government/?playlist_id=87050

Without comment:

Dobbs on Fox Business' "Self important ass" John Stossell's "myopic idiocy"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910220036

Back to the topic:

Abby Sunderland Is a 16-Year-Old Sailor; Deal With It, America


Donna Trussell
:Abby Sunderland is alive and well. Her boat is upright (see photograph, courtesy Australian Search and Rescue, on her blog). She'll be rescued within 24 hours by a French fishing vessel now speeding to her location.

I'll bet her first interview will reveal she's not one bit sorry about her quest to become the youngest sailor to traverse the globe solo. The youngest, mind you -- not youngest girl.

On June 10, emergency signals went off when Sunderland got caught in 25-foot waves in the wintertime Indian Ocean, a sea her brother Zac, who achieved the same youngest sailor feat when he was just shy of 18, described as "rough.

A recent 20/20 program titled "How Young Is Too Young?" raised the question of whether or not children (such as 13-year-old Jordan Romero, who last month became the youngest person to summit Everest) should be allowed to attempt world records. Indeed, some have suggested the Sunderland parents should go to jail for child abuse. Check out the comment section on "Teen Sailor Missing at Sea."

Let the tsk-tsking begin! And make it loud, why don't ya, so we can find you and shout you down.

Female daredevils are nothing new. Remember all those sepia-toned photographs of cowgirls and female pilots?

Amelia Earhart may be the most famous aviatrix, but she was far from the best. Lesser known but highly respected was Bessie Coleman, the first African-American female pilot, and the first African-American of either gender to hold an international pilot license. When she died in a plane crash in 1926, tens of thousands turned out for her three funerals in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Chicago.

In 1889 journalist Nellie Bly began a unprecedented attempt to go around the world and turn into fact the fictional "Around the World in 80 Days" by Jules Verne. Bly departed Hoboken, N.J., on November 14. Seventy-two days later she arrived in New York after circumnavigating the globe.

Ever heard the name Annie Edison Taylor? In 1901 Taylor became the first person (not the first woman, but first person) to survive a trip over Niagara Falls in a barrel. She was 63 years old.

Georgie White practically invented river rafting as the sport we know today. In 1952, she became the first woman to go the full length of the Grand Canyon (plus Marble Canyon). Later she lashed together three rafts for stability, not unlike the J-Rigs you see on the Colorado River today. White began taking passengers to help her pay for her passion.

Mabel Stark wrestled tigers in the 1920s. She got her start by skipping after-school activities in favor of trips to the zoo in her hometown of Princeton, Ky. After she visited the A.G. Barnes Circus during a trip to California, her nascent career as a nurse was finished and a new one begun when Mr. Barnes himself noticed her interest in animals and offered her a job.

From Stark's 1938 autobiography "Hold That Tiger":

I have been clawed and slashed and chewed until there is hardly an inch of my body unscarred by tooth or nail. But I love these big cats as a mother loves her children, even when they are the most wayward. They are killers because they know their own strength. They can be subdued but never conquered, except by love. And that is the secret of all successful animal training. I have learned it at the risk of my life...Mine may seem a strange profession for a woman, but it is not physical strength that counts in the big cage.
Surfer Bethany Hamilton didn't pull back after a shark chomped off an arm when she was 13. Within a month she was surfing again, and she went on to win prizes. Despite her one-armed disadvantage, in 2008 Hamilton came in 3rd in a competition for best female surfer in the world.

Americans do a lot of talking about freedom on Memorial Day and July 4th, but if freedom is so important, why are today's playground slides encased plastic chutes rather than the open steel slides of my youth. Yes, it was a little scary, but that was the point.

Our arms, legs and heads were free. We'd roller skate in dresses. We'd ride bikes and feel the wind in our hair. I'm not suggesting we throw away elbow pads and helmets. But please recognize that there's a trade-off for all that safety.

Abby Sunderland is no idiot. She weighed the risks and she made her decision. Americans love to toss around the phrase "you go girl." Let's put some conviction behind it, shall we?

For the record, rafting pioneer Georgie White died of cancer at age 81. Without regrets, I'll bet.

"Dobbs on Fox Business' "Self important ass" John Stossell's "myopic idiocy"

Robert, Thanks for bringing that to light. I like Dobbs and often agree with him. I know you had no comment, so I wonder the intent?

I suppose one could imply it is meant to portray Stossel as some self important, short sighted, idiotic, ass and thereby discredit him and anything he might believe in, including his piece on limited government. However, it does not credit or discredit him. I neither like him or dislike him. For me, it simply portrays him as making stupid comments that Dobbs was sensitive to and there are times, like everyone else, he will be wrong and makes mistakes. Of course, if we can string enough mistakes, stupid comments and proven falsehood together, then his creditability would have to come into question.

Mike G:

"Robert, Thanks for bringing that to light. I like Dobbs and often agree with him. I know you had no comment, so I wonder the intent?"

Just FYI.

"our taxes are much higher then years ago"

How long ago are you talking about? How far back is the time we did not have sales tax, state income tax, federal excise tax, tax on phone calls? Did Milton Friedman imply that all these taxes you mentioned are recent? I wouldn't put it past him. I wouldn't put it past conservatives to swallow that.

"public programs, which BTW have also grown requiring more money."

What public sector spending is increasing? Like some helpless and dreary decline into senility, the public sector deteriorates because -despite all these "new" taxes- there's just not enough money left in America, we're told, to sustain it.

Oh, but millions of dollars are always found for virulent campaigns against anything public. Billionaire corporate raider Pete Peterson has pledged a BILLION MORE of his own money to his crusade to end Social Security. There's always plenty of money to lavish on absurdly huge bonuses for the most rapacious of financiers.

We did not go broke when we did have a vital public sector. But we're expected to believe that we're now a poor country that has to settle for so much less? Or is it that we know we have the money, but want the competent and shrewd individuals to get it all, and screw the also-ran? After all, people are evil, the story goes, so no harm is done if they get hurt?

Tell me how small government "lifts people out of poverty." And why it is that the biggest proponents of that tired maxim expand government the most?

"How long ago are you talking about? How far back is the time we did not have sales tax, state income tax, federal excise tax, tax on phone calls?"

Mike Q- You mentioned 55 years. New Jersey started state income tax in 1976 before that there was no state income tax. I believe Sales tax existed but recently went from 6% to 7% along with a bunch of other taxes that increased quite a bit in 55 years, including, gas, liqueur, cigarettes. Cell phones did not exist in the old days some newer technologies the government is able to tax.

"What public sector spending is increasing?"

MQ - Are you saying the salaries of public workers, teachers and the like have not increased? They even surpassed many private sector salaries? Many of whom, have the benefits that existed in the private sector 20 years ago, which are very expensive and for that reason no longer exist in the private sector. Yet, the taxpayers continue to pay more each year to support the public sector. As I said, property taxes are through the roof and there are other taxes that were recently added when yo sell your home or switch title.

Perhaps, my beef with over paying is more with New Jersey then with the federal government but then the more local you go the more your taxes are specifically used for what your community may need.

"But we're expected to believe that we're now a poor country that has to settle for so much less?"

Again, I agree with you, there is money out there. I just don't want it to go to the crooks in Washington or some bloated program I don't agree with. The problem I have with big government philosophy is the idea that extra money out there must be funneled through the government to distribute in ways it seems fit. It needs to go directly in the hands of the people, those that earned it and created the means, those honestly in need and those that contribute to society, without having to go through government.

I wonder? If there was a way for businesses to make a lot of money and distribute fairly to the workers and keep prices on goods low, would you agree with limiting or shrinking the size of government by eliminating unnecessary programs since the money is going directly into the peoples hands to spend as they choose? I don't know that you would accept a richer society without a need for big government.

"It needs to go directly in the hands of the people,..without having to go through government."

How? It certainly can't go through a for-profit, which is incentivized to keep as much of this money as it can. No government bureaucracy is incentivized to hold back for its own profit. It can't profit. It can't embezzle. It can only balance the books, money out has to match money in. (OK, I'm talking about the federal government, not local govts, which can be corrupt and/or poorly managed, as it's the individual operatives who run the show, not the feds' strict, fairly fool-proof procedural rulebook.)

"If there was a way for businesses to make a lot of money and distribute fairly to the workers and keep prices on goods low, would you agree with limiting or shrinking the size of government by eliminating unnecessary programs since the money is going directly into the peoples hands to spend as they choose?"

What is unnecessary? And by whose criteria? This beneficent business model you posit,-how on Earth would something like that work? Businesses already do pay their workers, but don't pay anyone else. If workers were paid higher wages, would they be immune from losing their savings in a Madoff scheme or garden variety bubble burst? If not, what good is that higher salary? There are lots of good, decent, mostly intelligent people who are unable to wisely spend their money as they choose. If govt cannot cheat you, and guarantees its financial obligations, doing this on a non-profit basis, why is the temptation of maybe being able to make a big score in some get-rich-quick scheme, that charges you for its services even if you lose your investment,-why is this glint-in-the-eye fantasy so alluring that you eschew having your money and its return guaranteed? (I'm thinking of Social Security here, as opposed to people investing their money in something like Enron, and losing everything.)

Let's brainstorm, see what we come up with.

WHAT ??,:-)),
Barbara Bush 'Glad' Health Care Reform Passed (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/13/barbara-bush-health-care_n_610545.html

Of course we are being taxed more than before. In the sixties, one of our parents worked- and it was sufficient to feed, house and clothed an entire family. And never was public school education, or public utilities issues that couldn't be funded through municipal bonds and the private sector in search of a superior workforce.

Now both parents must work, children are left to their own devices, and both government and the private sector gloat over their ability to sift through the wreckage, institutionalizing some, marginalizing others, and getting us to to pay for the "select" foreigners they import and grant H1-B Visas to that never go home but, instead toil for them at lower bargain rates. GREAT ALL AROUND FOR THEM. THEY PAY NONE OF THE COSTS.
Hmmmmm! Yet we are told to have pity on the poor embattled inanimate corporations, who now exempt themselves from paying their fair share of taxes, count upon our diminishing human condition in order to exploit the benefit of employing slave labor and subsistance conditions around the world.

In the 60's and for most of the other decades the corporate tax rate for them THE CORPORATIONS AND THE ELITES was 55% due to the fact that- corporations benefit and obtain their massive profit margins from the collective "labours" of their employees and does not perform any labor itself. And the elitists for the most part didn't accrue their wealth through their own labor.
Since then, Congress and The Supremes have morphed and loopholed tax laws to include Corporations as having the same rights as citizens. But corporations remain amorphous and inanimate, are in name only validated to be the collective spokesperson for their entire employee staff. Doesn't this tactic, now that these entities have acquired having denounced US citizenship, for global power smack of the same strong arming tactic as they accuse unions of committing? Shouldn't they as "citizens" be also held to the same standard as a citizen operson for treason when their product aids and abets an enemy? Of course it does.

So then, why is it that nobody sees beyond the soundbyte, that the multinationals, while wrecking havoc on our entire economy foresaking their obligations to the nation and people who have made their success- are therefore criminally liable on the grand scale for tax evasion, defrauding the public, with many involved in treasonous activitys during wartime.

As long to there remains the loopholes for multinationals and too big to fails to circumvent our laws- and set market price, and with wages that are fractional to ours, and tag team hard working Americans rendering us voiceless pawns in all the processes that would enable fairer balancing with their revolving door lobbyist spokesmen in government, who have left all of the load of their collective deadbeat loans the whole $13.7 trillion- upon the rest of us here stateside- there can be no justice, for any domestic businesses or persons left with paying fellow Americans and themselves a "living" wage off the table scraps that they "won't control on the local levels-
Why? That's simple. After paying double and triple taxes "domestic businesses" cannot be nearly as profitable, when adding up the costs of staying operational.
It is, in fact, the perfect model and formula for guaranteed systematic cyclical failure.
Banks refusing and holding up loans and venture capital on one side. The Chinese and Indians pricing out the US worker. Zero border control and illegals stealing jobs and our education and welfare systems. And the DOD and HS playing us for mindless fools with their trillion dollar a year Wars to Nowhere, and bogus intell apparatuses that can only "track" and "never apprehend" a terrorist or their network until after the fact and the damage is done. LET US THANK GOD FOR THE VIGILANT CITIZEN WATCHDOG. WITHOUT THEM THER WOULD HAVE BEEN NO SUCCESS IN THE CAPTURES IN ANY OF THE DOMESTIC ATTEMPTS TO REAP HAVOC.
(If you want to cut government waste and redundant non connective inefficiencys. Start there. What ever happened to clear channel Bush lovers? Does it take 10 yrs to link up or was that money stolen?)

The sad thing is that up until now many have swallowed the bait- hook, line, and sinker. Enslaved by "forced" dependency on oil. Enslaved by shylock bankers. Scammed by the Madoffs, Goldmans, Carlyles, CFRs, IMF, Federal Dept of Commerce, Reserve and World Bank. Indebted by "too big to fail" financials, ... and other assorted play for pay $$$ holding corporations and no bid contractors. *Dare we include and equate those- so called private entities known as- "institutions" for what they really are, as monopolistic "insider" governmental subsidiaries all of them from [BIG OIL INSURANCE, CREDIT CARD, PHARMECEUTICALS] since all are virtually exempt from competition and have all extorted price rigged profits from each and every one of us? WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAYING 400x THE AMOUNT FOR GOODS GIVEN THE OLE WINK AND NOD PRICE RIGGING EXEMPTION, ... AND TAXES? Hmmmmmm?

*I'd have to say right about now, that there isn't any difference between us being sucked dry by government jobs and what has and remains the tornadic destructions from the scams of "globalist privates" sector that takes its marching orders from the G8 and the worlds shadow bankers.

We here spend far too much time here addressing business and job concerns on the level that pits private sector worker against municipal worker when all of our ills stem from the same exact source. ---> THE GLOBALISTS AND THEIR MANIACAL QUEST FOR EDUCATIONALLY UNINFORMED, DYSFUNCTIONAL AND TOTALLY COMPLIANT WAGE SLAVES.
The sooner we "all" recognize it, the sooner the strangle holds will be removed.
Peaceful noncompliance, is the "key". What would happen if just for one day, everyone in this country refused to purchase anything, ... or move in any conveyance that required energy consumption? Do you think your masters would take notice?
If not, then once a month, ... then once a week... UNTIL THEY DO.

THE REAL POWER OF THE PURSE RESIDES IN EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US!

NOW THAT'S LEVERAGE!

FAVORITE QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
Madoff: "F_ck my investors! I carried them all, ..for years."

Hmmmmmmmm! If that doesn't sound EXACTLY like what our NWO corporate/elitist/ globalist overseers are pissing down our throats and calling its benefits- "eternal salvation"- then...

FAVORITE QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
Madoff: "F_ck my investors! I carried them all, ..for years."

Hmmmmmmmm! If that doesn't sound EXACTLY like what our NWO corporate/elitist/ globalist overseers are pissing down "all" of our throats... (both "private" sector and "services sector)
... then propagandizing its toxic erosions as benefits and "the cost of doing business" for the worlds "eternal salvation" then... bend over and crack a smile because, you'll never understand the duopoly of netherworld extortions sanitized by terms like "insider trading", "private institutions" and ..."we take your money over "there" because, you're too stupid, ignorantly fight amongst yourselves, ignore the bigger picture...and you let us.

FAVORITE QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
Madoff: "F_ck my investors! I carried them all, ..for years."

Hmmmmmmmm! If that doesn't sound EXACTLY like what our NWO corporate/elitist/ globalist overseers are pissing down "all" of our throats... (both "private" sector and "services sector)
... then, propagandizing its "toxic erosions" ala BP as benefits and "the cost of doing business" for the worlds "eternal salvation" then... bend over and crack a smile because, you'll never understand the duopoly of netherworld extortions sanitized by terms like "G8 summit- insider trading", "SWF treasury credit default swaps-market manipulation", "private institution monopolies- extortion" and ..."we take your money over "there" offshore and out of circulation because, you're too stupid, are easily polarized and brainwashed, ignorantly fight amongst yourselves, ignoring the bigger picture...and you let us.

The sooner people come to the recognition that the DOD is the advertising arm and lapdog extension of the IMC private sectors campaign for a military fascist "business as usual" enterprise. Code word: "YEARS OF TEARS, INSURED BY "FABRICATING" AND "ENVISIONING" NEW FEARS" ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.
Let's hear a patriotic "Hip hip- with no hoorays."
la dee da, ...let's take our time. ENDING THE WAR, ANY WAR, WILL BE BAD FOR THE ECONOMY AND INCREASE UNEMPLOYMENT!

READ THE LATEST STOCK QUOTES:
*ALQAEDA- NOW SAID TO BE AT 20,000 PLUS... UP 19,000 FROM ITS 2001 LOWS. Buy! $$$
HOT TIPS:
*TALIBAN MERGER WITH KARZAI GOVERNMENT EXPECTED TO REAP ANOTHER FEW TRILLION IN AMERICAN FUNDING- Buy! $$$, $$$, $$$
*ISRAEL URGES UN TAKEOVER OF PALASTINIAN PROBLEM. Buy!!! ---> IMC... World Bank... stock. As well as every other no bid insider trading contractor for your NWO war chest portfolios.


THAT'S IT FOR TODAY. HERE ON, ...MAD, MAD, MAD MONEY.

“WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAYING 400x THE AMOUNT FOR GOODS GIVEN THE OLE WINK AND NOD PRICE RIGGING EXEMPTION, ... AND TAXES? Hmmmmmm?”

John, the only difference I can see is CHOICE. For most of the things you named we are not being forced to buy (until Obamacare) we have a choice. When it comes to taxes, you MUST pay regardless of what you might want or need.

“What would happen if just for one day, everyone in this country refused to purchase anything, ... or move in any conveyance that required energy consumption? Do you think your masters would take notice? “

John, you know what would happen. What happened when AIG, GM and Chrysler almost went under? The government bailed them out with OUR money. How can we ever have any leverage when the government is part of the game? The government should be enforcing rules and regulations that make company’s want to hire workers. There needs to be ample competition to bring prices down and to create leverage.

I hate to say this but it is not really the global economy that is hurting us but the fact that many in the government are stacking it so “we the people“ DON’T have leverage. Why is it corporations can benefit from cheaper goods and workers over seas but “we the people” cannot? Allow us to get drugs cheaper in Canada so American drug company’s will be forced to lower prices. Lower Tariffs on foreign goods so Americans can buy them cheaper, forcing American company’s to lower their prices....NO man, I don’t really want that, I want to buy American. So lets even the playing field another way. Lets put enough of a tariff on foreign workers and foreign goods, so it will be cheaper for company’s to hire Americans, forcing job growth back in THIS country using American workers.

usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-taxes_N.htm

"Tax Bills in 2009 at Lowest Level Since 1950"

(That means overall tax rates.) And I said the lowest in 55 years; USA Today says 60 years. Depends I guess on how it's all calculated.

Mike Q: Your saying, "Lets put enough of a tariff on foreign workers and foreign goods, so it will be cheaper for company’s to hire Americans, forcing job growth back in THIS country using American workers.", ... IMPLIES THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN GET 60 VOTES AWAY FROM THEIR SHADOW SPONSORS, WHICH WE ALL KNOW WON'T HAPPEN.
IT ALSO IMPLIES THAT DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS AND MOM AND POP SHOPS CAN OFFSET THE MONETARY & POLITICAL CONTROL OVER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE STRUCTURED THIS INCREASINGLY RIGGED SYSTEM.
DO NOT EXPECT THE TEA PARTY, THE WAY IT IS NOW CONSTRUCTED TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THEN PONTIFICATE AND LEGISLATE EXTREME RIGHT WING AGENDAS. RAND PAUL IS DOWNRIGHT SCARY TO SAY THE LEAST. SOME OF THE OTHERS ARE DOWNRIGHT COMICAL.
HIS FATHER WAS 100% CORRECT WHEN HE HAS OPENLY STATED- THAT HIS SONS BELIEFS WERE QUITE DIFFERENT FORM HIS OWN.
--------
REGARDING THE "CONSUMER MORATORIUM DAYS". WHAT WAS IMPLIED WOULD NOT PUT ANYONE OUT OF BUSINESS. IT WOULD BE A DAY OF SILENT PROTEST DELIVERED TO THE MULTINATIONALS THAT WITHOUT US, TO FUEL THEIR MADNESS AND SENSE OF OMNIPOTENCE- THEY TOO ARE NOTHING.
IT WOULD BE "NOTICE SERVED" IN A GENTLE FASHION, THAT FROM HERE ON IN, IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CUTBACKS IN THEIR STRUCTURES, AND CEO PAY, AND PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE POT RIGHT PROJECTED OVER TIME TO BALANCE THE BUDGET FOR THEIR ERRORS. NO MORE PASSING THE BUCK DOWN THE LINE TO THE REST OF US.
After the one day stoppage, what wasn't consumed, used, or purchased on that day- would surely have been more than made up for on the days previous or the days after.
-------
There is no relevance in comparing this kind of action to what happened to AIG, GM or Chrysler. What caused their demise was the cumulative result of years of bad business practices.
Just one day for the people of these United States to say "we ain't buying the globalist crap, or these politicians that you are shoveling down our throats, with no "considerations" for our plight. A day when as free men and women we say "if you want us to play your game, by your rules, then you had better be part of "our team".

UNITED WE STAND!

"(That means overall tax rates.) And I said the lowest in 55 years; USA Today says 60 years. Depends I guess on how it's all calculated."

Mike Q- whatever it means, I know I am paying more with all taxes and fees combined then I was 10 years ago, without an increase in income.

Even still, you cannot directly correlate increased taxes to improving programs, anymore then you could compare the high cost of a particular product to that company making money. It is the overall revenue that matters. Selling more products cheaper will often bring in more money and is a win for both the consumer and the manufacturer. In this same way when the economy slows down a business is less profitable. In order to stay in business it would probably have to cut expenses and lower prices to stimulate growth again. The reason the government can’t pay for programs is because they are too big and too expensive. They refuse to cut back like the private sector and will borrow money increasing the deficit. Raising taxes in a bad economy is like raising the price of a product when the consumer can least afford it. It only punishes the private sector without necessarily establishing the goal of increasing revenue.

"The reason the government can’t pay for programs is because they are too big and too expensive."

Government programs are too big and expensive when you don't really believe in their necessity or desirability. Note you said "government programs," not this one or that one, but any government program. This suggests not an evaluation of the worth or need of some program, but an anti-government bias.

"They refuse to cut back like the private sector and will borrow money increasing the deficit."

A business can cut back; it's a legal abstraction, and doesn't need food or clothing or shelter. People can't put off eating until the economy improves. What kind of monster would the government be if it DIDN'T borrow when necessary to keep up with their obligations, and pay back when times improve?

You say man is evil. Maybe so. Our history is not one whit less barbaric than the dark histories of places we feel so superior to. We can match the cruelty of any country's past, blow for blow, if only we honestly look at our real past. How many times have sheriffs or hired goons smashed faces for some cold rich person or some nasty class or racial status quo? Four hundred years so far we've been waiting for decent justice to be the natural state, and it doesn't look much more promising today than before.

If ever there was at least a theoretical argument for strong and proactive governance, it is this: a single entity, if passably moral, under the scrutiny of the world, is likelier to keep society on good behavior than is the sheriff or the goon, the CEO, or the good old boy next door.

I'm tired of waiting for free, proud individualists to grow up and behave. American free enterprise has had centuries to grow up and behave, and we find yet again, predictably, that it has to be watched and controlled like a two-year-old. Workers briefly get a break, and then get undermined all over again. The hateful reversal of the South's racial progress during Reconstruction has been repeated a hundred ways in a hundred cities, and yet we're so proud of ourselves. Overcompensatingly proud. Not only do we have to see justness clawed back down into the muck over and over, but we had better be proud, too, or else, and chant "one nation, under God."

The notion that anyone who works hard will prosper, is fantasy. More real is witnessing the one who does nothing socially useful living as a multi-millionaire, while millions labor all their days to live and die in shabbiness. It's only the rare and temporary ascendancy of a progressive administration now and then that forces business to shape up. And then it all goes to hell again, because selfishness never gives up.

On the Gulf, residents and business people are not chanting, "Government, butt out! Give us the freedom to do our own thing!" No, they're saying the government should have taken charge of the situation long ago. Sure, they're in crisis, you say, and people in crisis may be willing to give the government more power if that will help them out of crisis, but when we're not in crisis, you say, we want to make our own decisions. Realistically, though, can you expect a government, used to being told to butt out, to instantly do a 180 at your whim? If you are going to demand that government respond quickly and effectively when only the government is big enough for the job, government has to be used to responding quickly and effectively, geared up permanently to respond quickly and effectively. If the government "responding quickly and effectively" prompts images in your mind of tyranny and black helicopters, then give up any hope for a better future. Pampered and unregulated business won't bring us that; it's a two-year-old, remember. Freedom that is the license to behave badly hasn't worked out very well, unless you're at the top. We come down hard on the cop who takes bribes to "look the other way," yet we allow politicians to stay out of prison after years of bribe-taking from lobbyists,-so the goal of a moral government isn't yet achieved. The least unhopeful avenue, still, is the moral government. Government doesn't have to be overthrown or reduced into ineffectiveness, it only needs to be made more transparent and kept under relentless scrutiny. Let Big Brother work for the people.

"This suggests not an evaluation of the worth or need of some program, but an anti-government bias."

Mike Q-Sure I may have a degree of bias against government but you mis-understood my statement. I was saying the government itself is too big and too expensive overall. Nothing about the worth of a particular program.

When businesses cut back people lose their jobs and and it can be very difficult but often they find new ones, sometime better ones. When government cuts back it does not have to be your extreme example of people starving without food or clothing. There are many other programs but even if we cut back on welfare programs that does not equate to the worse case scenarios you describe.

You describe worse case business practices, society run amok, people working hard and living in shabbiness as if we can't function without big government. The truth is the more we rely on them, the less we are able to function because we become too dependent on them.

Sure, we need government for laws, military, some public assistance and so on but we don't need big intrusive government for most things and that is where we differ.

You see, the middle is the truth. The majority in this country work hard, have decent jobs, may not be rich but could own a home and live comfortably. In my neighborhood people help each other. There are private charity's that also assist those in need. My point is we don't need government for everything. We can do an awful lot of good without them and this is something you cannot seem to embrace. You envision society with a small efficient non-intrusive government as one in chaos, like some Mad Max film and I don't. I believe in each other, much more then I believe in government.

So what happened in the Gulf? We trusted government was on top of things but they let us down. The regulators overlooked some things and BP was at fault. So people want the government to do whatever it takes to stop the leak. Instead, they ignored other countries who wanted to help and what have they done so far? Are you saying we don't pay enough in taxes to get government to assist properly in a crisis or could it be they simply are not often that efficient or capable and sometimes even get in the way of individuals who could possibly do better?

"even if we cut back on welfare programs that does not equate to the worse case scenarios you describe."

Now and then, but not too ofetn, so as not to ruin its effectiveness, I repeat this note: some degree of exaggeration in my comments is necessary and deliberate to balance the exaggeration on the part of many others. You know, like in negotiations, you don't do as Obama does, and open negotiations by giving up more than he can afford to; it'll only get worse when the opposing interest chips away at the offer. If I presented a moderate view, the far right would drag this center to the right. So I have to make strong statements in order to end up with something moderate in the end.

To this end, many statements I make are emotionally loaded (a trick the right taught me). When I said people cannot put off eating until the economy improves, that's not meant as a literal representation of common occurrence, but as a way to put a face on an argument. It makes clearer, (I hope) the distinction between a pile of paperwork,-articles of incorporation, licenses, etc,- ie, a business- that has no need for food, cannot suffer and bleed and fear (yes, I know, there are workers), and on the other hand many floundering people, who have to be considered as an emergency priority over anything else.

With you, I feel this tactic works, since we end up closer to agreement on several points while keeping the core beliefs we each have. I say this because those final statements of belief sound real, not packaged, and THEN we can agree to disagree, without any of the end-of-the-world melodrama that many political and social topic discussions start out with.

"Are you saying we don't pay enough in taxes to get government to assist properly in a crisis?"

No, the oversight agencies exist. They were just in the pockets of the bodies they were responsible for overseeing. That means we need to watch the watchers like hawks, not do away with them to supposedly save a buck.

Mike Q - I get your point but I am not trying to persuade or negotiate. I am not in a position of power to make any substantial changes.

I am only trying to state my point of view as honestly and clearly as possible, so that I can understand for myself if MY way of thinking is wrong. By you exaggerating your case, it has the opposite effect of making me feel I need to make my points more extreme in order to balance the argument.

I will state my case as honestly and real as possible. I believe we definitely need government. I don't want to live in a country with no government. I also believe government can do both good and bad things. I think we differ most in that I also believe that a society can do great things outside of government and that everything does not have to filter through government to be good.

There are things we can do better privately then through government and vice verse. My hope for our future is that we strike the right balance so that the things we do right in both sectors can grow, while the things we do wrong we can change or eliminate.

Lets not hope that government either wins or loses but that whatever is best for each and every individual, in whatever way we need to accomplish this, is what we will someday achieve.

"My hope for our future is that we strike the right balance so that the things we do right in both sectors can grow, while the things we do wrong we can change or eliminate."

And I promise I will not advocate cutting free enterprise down to a size "small enough to drown in a bathtub" if the likes of Grover Norquist stop advocating doing that to government. The bankrollers of the small-govt effort are not in it to bring freedom and prosperity to the average citizen. They are in it to make govt too weak to be able to keep free enterprise from doing what it has done again and again,-gut our economy, at great profit to the vultures, at great expense to us.

"They are in it to make govt too weak to be able to keep free enterprise from doing what it has done again and again,-gut our economy, at great profit to the vultures, at great expense to us."

And yet, through out history it is not free enterprise but powerful governments that were run by evil men, that has caused the most suffering, oppression, pain and deaths. Whether you are trusting in government, corporations or individuals, you are trusting in men. Unless the heart of man changes, you will never fulfill your dreams by trusting in government. Until that time, balancing the power, is the best we can do.

Hence my quid pro quo: If the anti-govt people don't push too hard, the pro-govt people won't push too hard. With enough transparency and regulation on both sides to remove, on both sides, as far as we can manage, the need for that heart-breaking trust, maybe we could make society work as well as we'd like to see it work.

"With enough transparency and regulation on both sides to remove, on both sides, as far as we can manage, the need for that heart-breaking trust, maybe we could make society work as well as we'd like to see it work."

Mike Q- this is not what I mean by balancing power. Right now government has the most POWER, big corporations second and people last. My statement would read:

PEOPLE in CONTROL of both government and corporations, ALLOWING society to work as each INDIVIDUAL desires, with no one person or entity, forcing their ideals or controlling anthers pursuit of their own dream.

The regulations are put in place to DEFEND and PROTECT against the abuser not MAKE them work the way WE say. That is what fosters anti-government sentiment and why we differ.

"ALLOWING society to work as each INDIVIDUAL desires, with no one person or entity, forcing their ideals or controlling anthers pursuit of their own dream. The regulations are put in place to DEFEND and PROTECT against the abuser not MAKE them work the way WE say."

The primary job of parents, far beyond keeping their young safe, is to properly socialize them, to "raise them right", to teach them that no good comes to anyone if they act like selfish little anarchists. Some parents misguidedly want their children to get ahead by any means, and turn out little Madoffs and Haywards and Blankfeins. Good parents turn out teachers and nurses and conscientious and ethical business people, or at the least good and decent people who become good parents in turn.

Long after grown children leave home thinking they have nothing more to learn about how to be good citizens, they learn lessons still; socialization does not stop at the end of your parents' driveway. A moral society does not take a laissez-faire stance; it actively proselytizes to "pass it forward", the kindnesses that make society a pleasure to grow up in, a sort of heaven on Earth, rather than some dystopian Mad Max hell on Earth.

If you feel men are evil, then why is it important to you to make license to do evil a keystone of your society? You say let them do evil and then, using the laws of the land, punish them. I say shape,-yes, actively shape the social beings humans are into good and engaged citizens so we can close three-fourths of our prisons (we are 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's incarcerated), and be able to trust each other again.

"A moral society does not take a laissez-faire stance; it actively proselytizes to "pass it forward", the kindnesses that make society a pleasure to grow up in, a sort of heaven on Earth, rather than some dystopian Mad Max hell on Earth.If you feel men are evil, then why is it important to you to make license to do evil a keystone of your society?"

Mike Q- it is fitting on Father's day to talk about parenting and like parenting the teaching and guiding does not end when the child becomes an adult. However, at some point the child is responsible to make his or her own decisions and choices. If we could TEACH society through proper education and upbringing to respect each other, then it would be wonderful.

However, teaching is not the same as MAKING. Forcing people to make certain choices that "society" thinks are the right ones is not free choice. I wish that everyone would make the right choices but I don't have the right to force them to make choices that I say or society demands are the right ones.

This may seem odd to you but perhaps this comes from my Christian beliefs more then anything. An all powerful, all knowing God through out history could have prevented ANYONE from making the wrong choices. Instead he felt FREE WILL was more important. That people should come to an understanding of truth not by a forceful society but by their own volition. In my belief system, there can never be a heaven on Earth ruled by man, it just isn't possible. We can try to make a better world but there must be free choice.

"Teaching is not the same as making....There must be free choice."-MG

The threat of jail time is behavioral shaping. The specter of Hell is behavioral shaping. "Raising them right" is behavioral shaping. Amish "shunning" is behavioral shaping. Anyone has free choice, to behave or suffer the consequences.

Conservatism's intellectual high priestess, Ayn Rand, wrote "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" What could such a comment as this be but hate speech? Yet this exaltation of the "successful" capitalist (and the contemptuous dismissal of the "failed" rest of humanity) is a conservative principle. Should such an antisocial value be inculcated in your grandchildren?

In a commentary on video gaming, Michael Atkinson ("In These Times", July, 2010) said that "video gaming is about" (individual) "control....In this sense, most video games are infantile in nature, and inherently conservative....At the core of the medium is the lust for" (sic: domination?) "and the rewards of unfettered control. These are the primitive precepts of conservatism as it's practiced in the modern world....Could there be such a thing as a progressive virtual 'game'?...We should figure out how communal politics can be expressed in this medium...-before our culture completely morphs into one all-encompassing dog-eat-dog meta-landscape, and only the conscience-less survive."

Bill McKibbon, of 350.org, said in "The Nation", 3/23/09, "The real poison of the past few decades has been the hyper-individualism that we've let dominate our political life -the idea that everything works best if we think not a whit about the common interest." As the extremist ideology of capitalism continues to decline throughout more and more of the world, conservatism's class/race control paradigm will also decline. The commonly accepted wisdom of the not-too-distant future will be more humane and humanistic than the sociopathic ethos of today's capitalistic/conservative world view.

Who will be the responsible parents to our future young,-that is, "shape" them? Since the common ethos will be more society-friendly, how much does it matter who teaches it, as long as it is taught? There is free will, which is the freedom to choose censure for bad behavior, and there is license, which is the free expression of every infantile whim. The solipsism of much of the political, social, and financial narratives we hear today is hard to believe as the product of the best in us.

"Conservatism's intellectual high priestess, Ayn Rand, wrote "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"

"At the core of the medium is the lust for" (sic: domination?) "and the rewards of unfettered control."

Mike Q- No wonder you hate conservatism when defined this way. It is for this reason, I resist labeling myself as anything because it surely has different meaning to different people. Your examples appear to be of a dictator or a fanatic and not a true conservative. My main values are small efficient government, individual free choice and liberty for all people. If that makes me a conservative or a liberal that’s fine. I don't care about the label but let it be known, I don't want anybody to be dragged through the mud nor do I have the desire to dominate anyone.

"The real poison of the past few decades has been the hyper-individualism that we've let dominate our political life -the idea that everything works best if we think not a whit about the common interest."

That sounds a lot like selfishness. Christianity is based on SELFLESSNESS. The individualism I profess is individual free choice and there are those that will think only of themselves and there are others that will choose to lend a hand. The individual that lends the hand will be more blessed then the greedy one. However, the government or society that FORCES others to lend a hand, in itself becomes the dominant oppressor and the controlling entity. I stand true to my disdain for this domination whether it be in the conservative realm or in progressive ideals.

The question is, do you?

G: Sure,there's a range, a continuum of outlook from far left to far right, and without data to support it I'd bet confidently that the typical bell-shaped curve describes this spread of opinion. But that vast middle isn't moved to speak out, break windows, wave placards. And the media have a peculiar stance on what constitutes news; the 1999 Seattle G8 summit riots were reported by BBC, as this was really international news of significant importance, but American media barely mentioned this, and then only as the crankish excesses of crackpots. Meanwhile, the comments of Bachman, Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, etc, are ignored by the BBC as, rightly, the silly cant of a fringe group, but American media fill the hour, the page, with what is made out to be the dominant reality of American politics and culture.

Of course the large majority of us are moderate. And the small number of extremists shouldn't matter, shouldn't be used to damn all people not on "this" side of dead center. But,-I know I keep flogging this bete noir, but,-extremists on the left in America maybe break windows or torch SUVs, while extremists on the right are the KKK, neo-Nazis, church shooters, bombers,-deadly, deadly, deadly. So it does matter what the small far right says and does, it does have to be called out, again and again, so it doesn't get put out of mind, like that lump you found or that clotted blood you saw in the toilet.

I know you are not at all extreme, and that it must bug you that I keep speaking to you about extremists as though you are one of them. It's just that, since it's so easy to talk to you, and your analysis keeps opening new lines of thought, my comments to you become the venue for my I-only-mean-to-balance-things rants.

“extremists on the left in America maybe break windows or torch SUVs, while extremists on the right are the KKK, neo-Nazis, church shooters, bombers,-deadly, deadly, deadly.”

Mike Q- I am not convinced of this at all, although I know you are. We could start to rattle off names Manson, any radical against Bush, like the IRS plane nut, any radical against America not conservative, like Fort Hood, Times Square bomber and so on, any violence by the left that happened to result in no killing but easily could have, is not something I can think of as better.

The bottom line is this. You preface your comment with “In America.” That is because in other countries where the left dominate, the violence by the left also dominates. It is those in power, that abuse power that are the most violent. Liberal and Conservative is not the point, really. I feel my views are about principle and not ideology and yet it seems you would sacrifice principle, to advance your ideology.

For example, as a Christian I believe in the law of God and if everyone could obey those laws, the world would be a better place. Would you want to be FORCED to be a Christian and to live by God’s law? I don’t think so. As a man of principle, I would not want you to be forced, you MUST have free choice. Yet, you would think it okay if I was forced to live the way society and man says I should, because you believe that way is the right way. Everyone has the right to live according to their belief and if that belief tramples the rights of another, then those rights must be defended. You see, as a Christian I vigorously defend your right to NOT be one, though I pray someday you would believe.

You keep saying "forced", "must have free will." We live by society's laws, or, if we freely choose not to, we suffer the consequences. Or God's laws, ditto. What meaning can "forced" have, if not this? Same with "free will." These phrases sound like the undefined ones I hear all the time, such as "freedom", "liberty", and whatever other synonyms you can find. That is, they sound like noise, without meaning. They need clarification.

Is "free will" the choice to do something evil, such as murder, and then go to jail? If there were a way to see a moment into the future, see someone is going to kill another, does the sanctity of free will require you to allow the murder to occur? If there were a way to heal the imbalances in a person's mind that could precipitate a murderous rage, would the need for free will forbid you from healing that mind? Is the principle of free will more important than that murdered person's life? Ten thousand murdered persons lives?

Just have to ask.

"If there were a way to see a moment into the future, see someone is going to kill another, does the sanctity of free will require you to allow the murder to occur?"

Mike Q - So you saw the movie Minority Report. A science fiction fan like myself, I see.

In this extreme view, it would be absurd to allow murder or any other even less extreme violation on another person. That falls under the category of DEFENDING and PROTECTING the innocent, that's not free will. If you could prevent it, that is even better. A person does not have the right to OFFEND another.

Free will comes into play when you are the offender and I am the defender. Even if your cause is just, such as making me believe in God, making me volunteer, making me lend a hand, making me support a cause you think is a good one and so on. Free will allows me the choice to choose what I think is a good cause, what I believe in, as long as it does not violate another person.

This is also true of "freedom" and "liberty" you always protect and defend freedom. You don't force it on somebody else.

The liberal view of Social Justice and helping the poor or the weak, believe it or not, is a view we both share. The difference is, I don't believe that justice comes by forcing the rich or anyone else to contribute to this same cause, except within reason, they must do so freely.

"except within reason"

There ya go. Reagan felt that it wasn't reasonable to tax billionaires at a rate they could so easily afford, even if (or, truth be told, BECAUSE) lowering tax rates for the rich would cause so much totally unnecessary hardship and deterioration of infrastructure and institutions. His disdain for any entity that couldn't pay for its own operation crossed over, I believe, into hatred. Except for institutions of control, like the FBI or the military. For these, let the middle class pay however much they cost.

We may be the most punitive culture on Earth BECAUSE of our national dedication to the ideas of freedom and free will. It's our patriotic duty to exercise our free will to show how free we Americans are. Just so long as we pay for what we choose to do that goes over the line, in prison or in Hell. The Amish don't have prisons, because they shape responsible behavior rather than punish irresponsible behavior. Our way may be infantilizing us to some extent, making us not the best citizens.

Or maybe I'm reading it all wrong.

Mike Q- This is what is not getting through. Right now, You or anybody else has the choice to live like the Amish. You can shape responsible behavior within your families and communities. Those with like minds in your church community can behave a certain way.

While we should all have the right and freedom to practice a culture we believe in. We don't have the right to force that culture on someone else. You don't have the right to force me to live like the Amish and I don't have the right to force you to exercise your Patriotic duty.

"We don't have the right to force that culture on someone else."

We do just that all the time. Since we cannot very well have 300 million different sets of laws reflecting this many free-wheeling sovereign citizen-states within this country, some sort of uneasy concensus regarding what will be our culture is then imposed, for all practical purposes, on us all after that. Saying no one has the right to impose this conformity on anyone else is theorizing about something so impractical that it has no real meaning or expectation of ever becoming feasible. It may sound fine and just, but that's all.

"We do just that all the time."

Mike Q - We may need to move on to the next subject or revisit this on some other post.

Please give examples, because I don't see it that way. As a whole I would be against it. I don't mean laws that prevent people from doing harm to someone else or themselves but laws that force people to think and act a certain way. Like some Totalitarian regime, instead of a free society.

Whether it be Patriotism, belief in God, politically correct speech, giving to charity, helping your community, supporting the poor, redistributing wealth and so on. These can be popular and worthy causes that I may choose to follow but these are not laws you are forced to obey. If so, I don't agree with it, unless you want to include taxes, which may help to explain why I don't really like them.

Mike G: re: "FORCED" First of all while the healthcare law, while remaining strongly opposed to its construct and its application, mandates a form of compliance it has now become a TAX does offer choice. The choice FOR WORKING PEOPLE ONLY is either "buy in" to receive your coverage, or "gamble" and roll the dice with your life and pay the lesser summons cost for the treatments that will be denied to no one. UNFAIR? You Betcha!

"FORCED": IN REALITY
THE WAR IS AFGHANISTAN.- MANDATORY FUNDING WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY. The war in Iraq.- MANDATORY FUNDING WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY.
PAYING THE OUTRAGEOUS OVERPRICED COSTS FOR OIL & ENERGY CONSUMPTION AS DICTATED BY PHIL GRAMM, DUBAI, THE EXXON MOGUL, AND THE CTFC. Current banking and credit card terms AMENDED after your signing on for participation. THE OFFSHORE TAX HAVEN LOOPHOLE & TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH CREATED BY PRIVATES IMPOSED BY REPUBLICANS ONLY! DURING TIME OF WARS LEAVING DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS AND US WORKERS AS THE ONLY CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WAR EFFORT THAT ONLY BENEFITS THE MANIACAL GREED OF MULTI-NATIONALS WHO HAVE NO DEDICATION TO COUNTRY, OR THE CONSEQUENCE OF VIOLATING OUT LAWS.

*All of these items were made from "optional choices" that are transcended from the seeds of greed and dominance at the expense of all others that "we the people" cannot opt out of as well. THESE WERE THE DECISIONS OF PRIVATE BUSINESS THROUGH THEIR GOVERNMENT PROXIES THAT HAVE SIPHONED AND KEPT THAT $$$ THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED AND CIRCULATING IN OUR EWCONOMY OFFSHORE.

WHEN WE FIRST BEGIN TO RIGHT THE WRONGS COMPOUNDED OVER A DECADE OF PROFLIGANT HUBRIS THAT WAS THE BRAINCHILD OF THE ONE PERCENT HOLDING THEM LIABLE IN FULL FOR THEIR ARROGANCE, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT BUSINESS PRACTICES, AND INHUMANE VIOLATIONS, ... AND THERE ARE TOO MANY TO FULLY PRINT, THE RETURN OF JOBS TO THE MAINLAND, ... then we would be talking the praises of undoing to total collapse of our financial system as promoted and executed by BUSH & HIS THOUSAND POINTS OF "FRIGHTS" THAT LED US HERE.
INSIDER COLLUSIONS- see:fUND RAISERS, MISADVENTURES- see: deliberately removing Colin Powell who knew the overview and cost of invading Iraq , A VACANT FEDERAL RESERVE the handpicking of Cox & Paulson, "FRIGHTS"- all of us "must fear" but never remove Al Qaeda or THE TALIBAN the sources from which all DOD & HS spending is generated. *
That's $1 trillion per year for programs that have failed miserably and have shaclkled this nation to indoctinations that are FASCIST in both nature and in practice but are the handy work of the private sectors they are endeavored to protect.
NAFTA: Who supported this and who keeps the practice going? PRIVATE INDUSTRY via BIG BUSINESS AND THE ELITES! Who pays? "We the people"
PROPING UP QUASI- DICTATORSHIPS IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY- AND WHO AND WHAT FUNDS THEIR EXISTANCE: Who supported this and who keeps the practice going PRIVATE INDUSTRY via BIG BUSINESS AND THE ELITES! Who pays? "We the people". AND WHY?--- to plunder resources not paying fair market prices at the expense and freedom to live the traditional life of others. Isn't that totally contradictory to what We as people wish to return to for ourselves?

WHEN LOOKING FOR A POINT OF EMPHASIS LOOK FOR THE STARTING POINTS FROM WHICH ALL OTHER WRONGS ARE SPRUNG.
-PRIVATE BUSINESS GIVEN THE RIGHT OF "citizen supreme" CONTROLLING ALL ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT REGARDLESS OF "THE COLLECTIVE" WILL OF IT'S PEOPLE. Aka/ the corpoate welfare system.
Only by changing that top echelon matrix can "We the people" impact the entire method by which finances are distributed and manipulated. The G8-20 summits are nothing more than organized crime setting the perameters by which we all will be extorted in the short coming future.
TOO BIG TO FAILS MUST BE DISMANTLED, MUST NEVER AGAIN CRISS-CROSS OR ABSORB ESTABLISHED INDUSTRYS MERGING THEIR FUNDS FOR SPECULATIVE PURPOSES WITHOUT KEEPING ADEQUATE RESERVES AND FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS ASSTRUCTURED BY CAUCUS INDEBTED POLITICIANS MUST BE REDESIGNED INTO FAIR TRADE STRUCTURES THAT STOP THE DEBT FROM COMPOUNDING.

Has anyone seen this? Does anyone understand the implications?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/business/24private.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

NO LIMITATIONS ON THE "TOO BIG TO FAILS" ALLOWING THEM BACK IN AFTER PAYING NO TAXES FOR THE PAST DECADE TO BUY OUT, COLLAPSE AND MERGE BUSINESSES AND INSTITUTIONS SADDLED WITH THE BURDEN OF PAYING FOR TWO WARS, US WAGES AND HEALTHCARE WILL FALL TO AWAY TO THE WAYSIDE. MEANING THAT THE GDP OF 63% WHICH THE TOO BIG TOO FAILS CURRENTLY HOLD UPON OUR SOCIETY WILL BE COMPLETED IN NO TIME.
----------------

Has anyone seen this? Does anyone understand the implications?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/business/24private.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

NO LIMITATIONS ON THE "TOO BIG TO FAILS" ALLOWING THEM BACK TO PURCHASE AT BARGAIN BASEMENT PRICES, UTILIZING FOREIGN CAPITAL FOR THEIR BANKROLLS FROM THE STOCKPILES OF FOREIGN SWFS AND TREASURIES AFTER PAYING NO TAXES FOR THE PAST DECADE- TO BUY OUT, COLLAPSE AND MERGE ANY DOMESTIC BUSINESSES AND INSTITUTIONS SADDLED WITH THE BURDEN OF PAYING FOR TWO WARS, US WAGES AND HEALTHCARE. TAG TEAMED BY THE BANKING SYSTEM- SMALL BUSINESSES AND LARGER DOMESTICS ALREADY SQUEEZED WILL BE CONDEMNED TO FAIL AND FALL TO AWAY TO THE WAYSIDE. MEANING THAT THE GDP OF 63% WHICH THE TOO BIG TOO FAILS CURRENTLY HOLD UPON OUR SOCIETY WILL AGAIN INCREASE EXPEDENTUALLY AND BE COMPLETED IN NO TIME.
How long should it take? Hmmmmmmmmmm! Let's use the last decades formula. Up from 9%GDP in 2001 to 63%GDP in 2010.

Approximately, 5yrs tops especially when you add in the myriad of new taxes already proposed along with the ridiculous demand that is emphasized that the debt that was accumulated AND OWED by those same old USUAL SUSPECTS has been transferred forthwith, not the the bankers or governmnetal flunkies who oversaw and engineered these massive extravagances, to you ledgers and generations to come. IN OTHER WORDS- YOU PAY EITHER a)THE TAXES OR b)THE SUBSIDIZED COST OF DOING BUSINESS! SEE NONE OF THE BENEFIT- FOREVERMORE.


WELCOME TO NWO! ENJOY YOUR NEW RULERS!

Or is it time for workers both private and others to unite to fend off the onslaught?
Silent united moratorium is the best way to deliver the message that hurts no one.

Mike G: Why is it that you suggest that it be us that must be taxed when we the people have seen no increase in per household spendable income in 50yrs?

John, in my view, there is a difference between rules and regulations that stack the deck against the people, as well as, the government squandering our taxes on wasteful programs and conflicts that are not sanctioned. This is a sort of corruption that favors one group over another, to illegitimately determine the outcome for one reason or another. So NAFTA, lack of regulations on wall street, unsanctioned wars with a volunteer military or any other favoritism, is this type of corruption, which I am also against.

However, I feel these are not Fascist or a Dictatorial in nature but more of a "fixing of the game" so to speak.

Taxes and fees are paid on something you buy, some gain, something you own and it is your choice as to whether you rather put your money in your mattress instead and not pay additional taxes. Obamacare demands you PAY additional whether you work or not, under the guise that government is doing what is best for US.

So the point is this. On all matters, the government must stand on principal and law, EVEN IF WE THE PEOPLE WOULD BENEFIT BY THEM BREAKING THE LAW. If the government uses its power to force the rich or businesses to redistribute their wealth to the poor or to us and it is dictated, rather then legal, then it cannot be tolerated either.

"Mike G: Why is it that you suggest that it be us that must be taxed when we the people have seen no increase in per household spendable income in 50yrs?"

John, I assume you meant Mike Q. Everyone should be taxed fairly according to their gains. The more they make the more they should be taxed but I would rather see taxes kept low for everyone and government be small and efficient. I don't like taxes period.

Mike G: Why is it that you suggest that it be us that must be taxed more or lose jobs- when "we the people" have seen no increase in per household spendable income in 50yrs. Before answering with an answer that can only be accomplished through wasting the invaluable time remaining hoping for a select few to arise to submit or rewrite legislation in an intractably corrupt and rigged system (that will take at least 2-3yrs of the time remaining on the clock. Don't forget oodles of money that We the people cannot muster under the new SC decision). I urge you to think outside the box to deliver an alternative that the power elite cannot control BUT, WHERE THE EFFECT OF COMPLIANCE CAN BE COUNTED. Tick, tick, ...tick

MARCH ON WASHINGTON? BOYCOTTS ON GOODS AND RELATED SERVICES? BANNING OR CALLING FOR THE AUDITING AND DESOLUTION OF THE FED(if necessary), AND THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW TREASURY CURRENCY?
How would you propose that we break away from NWO PROTOCOLS AND IDEOLOGUES?
I ask this because no amount of taxing is going to create private sector jobs. And no amount of layoffs is going to positively affect unemployment or cash flow to other small busesses in need of a market.
GLOBALISTS ARE RUTHLESS THEY COULD CARE LESS- We the people can have no influence. SEE: free trade agreements, NAFTA, border control, H1-B Visas etc.
Politicians don't worry and can't be affected by us until it comes time for their re-election.
The only way to get bankers to pay attention is to stop the cash flow. Then the affect is compounded and expanded beyond their deep pockets to the areas that they have enabled. Hmmmmmmmmm!

Mike G: Why is it that you suggest that it be us that must be taxed more or lose jobs- when "we the people" have seen no increase in per household spendable income in 50yrs. Before answering with an answer that can only be accomplished through wasting the invaluable time remaining hoping for a select few to arise to submit or rewrite legislation in an intractably corrupt and rigged system (that will take at least 2-3yrs of the time remaining on the clock. Don't forget oodles of money that We the people cannot muster under the new SC decision). I urge you to think outside the box to deliver an alternative that the power elite cannot control BUT, WHERE THE EFFECT OF COMPLIANCE CAN BE COUNTED. Tick, tick, ...tick

MARCH ON WASHINGTON? BOYCOTTS ON GOODS AND RELATED SERVICES? BANNING OR CALLING FOR THE AUDITING AND DESOLUTION OF THE FED(if necessary), AND THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW TREASURY CURRENCY?
How would you propose that we break away from NWO PROTOCOLS AND IDEOLOGUES?
I ask this because no amount of taxing is going to create private sector jobs. And no amount of layoffs is going to positively affect unemployment or cash flow to other small busesses in need of a market.
GLOBALISTS ARE RUTHLESS THEY COULD CARE LESS- We the people can have no influence. SEE: free trade agreements, NAFTA, border control, H1-B Visas etc.
Politicians don't worry and can't be affected by us until it comes time for their re-election.
The only way to get bankers to pay attention is to stop the cash flow. Then the affect is compounded and expanded beyond their deep pockets to the areas AND THE CONCERNS THEY HAVE SELECTED TO PROSPER that they have chosen, unilaterally funded and enabled with our investments. Hmmmmmmmmm!

"How would you propose that we break away from NWO PROTOCOLS AND IDEOLOGUES?
I ask this because no amount of taxing is going to create private sector jobs. And no amount of layoffs is going to positively affect unemployment or cash flow to other small busesses in need of a market."

John, once again, you have the wrong Mike. I DON"T WANT TAXING. So I don't understand why you keep saying I do? More taxing gives more power to a government that has already shown over and over again, that they CAN'T BE TRUSTED. Like you, I want justice and I want it to come from the people and not from a government that ultimately does not have OUR best interest in mind.

Or are you being drawn by the rebates, stimulus and other government morsels used as artificial bait to reel us in for their own purpose? Even the playing field, make it fair and just, don't control us. We need to fight against corruption and whoever would be part of corruption, REGARDLESS OF WHO THIS CORRUPTION IS DIRECTED AGAINST OR INTENDED TO HELP.

You made numerous nice ideas there. I done a search on the issue and learnt nearly all peoples will agree with your blog. Best Reasons to Plan Your Beach Honeymoon

This is a great site. Good sparkling interface and very informative articles. I will be coming back soon, thanks for the great article.

You had some nice points here. I done a research on the topic and got most peoples will agree with your blog. for instance, let's say that a customer has $100 in her bank checking account.

I love assembling useful information , this post has got me even more info! .