Weird (Rocket) Science

Just when I though, egotistically, that I had seen everything, now I’m pretty sure that I have. A news article I read tonight states the following:

Government researchers have found elevated levels of toxic rocket fuel in milk bought at Virginia stores, according to FDA records released this week.

As a contentious US citizen and consumer of milk, the first thing I want to know is, what made the “government researchers” start looking for “rocket fuel” in cow’s milk--as if cow belches and their posterior gaseous emissions weren’t already enough of a published threat to the environment in the first place? You know what I mean? At first I thought that this Hampton Roads, Virginia news story was a parody, but apparently it is not.

Really, can you just see it?

A bunch of highly educated nerds sitting around the conference table at the FDA on Monday morning, each armed with pocket protectors, glasses taped together with scotch tape, financed by a chunk of government cash, and the boss says: “Hey Virgil, take a half million bucks and go out and look for rocket fuel residue coming out of cows utters.” Is this type of exercise even legal for a grown man to do in most states unless a female registered nurse or some other authority personally witnesses the inspection process?

After making light of this story, I have to come back to one of my re-occuring themes—this story is totally useless, unmitigated crappola, delivered under the guise of being NEWS. Here is where the guilty news organizations give themselves away as wasting our time and where the FDA is exposed as wasting our tax dollars

“The results noted perchlorate in virtually all the lettuce and milk. In high doses, perchlorate affects thyroid function. Researchers tested three samples of Virginia milk and noted perchlorate levels near or exceeding seven parts-per-billion. While there is no nationally-mandated limits, Massachusetts caps concentration at one part-per-billion; California, six.”

Here are the facts on this issue. First of all, even the EPA admits that perchlorate is a naturally occurring chemical. This means that its presence in meat or milk or lettuce is not necessarily NASA’s fault. The FDA Website also mentions that there are other sources of perchlorate besides rocket fuel, including Mother Nature. Further, perchlorate is not automatically called rocket fuel, this is just more media hype. Like I just said--it occurs naturaly in nature.

Back in the 1980’s I did several projects for Morton Thiokol, now called ATK Thiokol. You might not know of Morton Thiokol, but they are a sister company of the Morton company that makes the salt commonly found on your dinner table. There is no coincidence that they both had the same name. They both make products containing salt—just different kinds of salt.

You see, table salt is sodium chloride, a compound containing sodium and chlorine (NaCL). That’s one Sodium atom attached to one chlorine atom. The vilified “perchlorate” is actually potassium perchlorate. That’s two chlorines attached to one potassium atom. So what is the difference to me and you?

Both compounds are mined out of the ground and refined for their end use. Sodium Chloride is refined for human consumption. Potassium Perchlorate is refined to make solid rocket motors that blast satellites and the space shuttle into orbit. The ingestion of both substances interferes with the thyroid function. Ever hear of Iodized Salt? We have to add Iodine to normal table salt to keep it from screwing with our thyroid gland and causing everyone to be running around with a giant goiter growing on their neck.

Any more questions?

OK…End of discussion…

Wanted--One Big Damn Muffler

I’ve been ranting about this topic for years, and today I heard the Godfather—Rush Limbaugh—mention it on his radio show using the same basic argument. I said to myself—self, you were right all along, and now Rush is stealing your thunder.

What Rush was talking about today was this Associated Press story about Mt. St. Helens being the largest polluter in the state of Washington. I’ve been saying for fifteen years that it’s not people that are the major polluters of the earth’s atmosphere, it’s the earth itself--and I aught to know a little about pollution (besides the words coming out of my mouth.)

You see--I spent over twenty years in the air pollution control business. First as a staff engineer, then as the owner of a company that built industrial smokestacks. I’ve seen the business from the inside out and looked at the government regulation and legislation on an up close and personal basis.

News flash—Most, if not all of the air pollution provisions enacted in the past ten years are mostly a bunch of well-intended crappola. The Kyoto treaty—absolute, total, complete, scientific mumbo jumbo—designed to allow the Chinese and the rest of the third world to dump everything they want to into the environment while at the same time attempting to cripple our economy with a bunch of “curtailment measures” designed based on voodoo science at best. Bill Clinton wouldn’t sign it, and George Bush shouldn’t either.

Most news stories on pollution generally have two things in common. They all are introduced by some sort of scary headline predicting the end of the world, as we know it. The stories are then backed up by either a bunch of generalizations and opinions offered by the author or they are filled with mind numbing, out of context facts and figures that cause the average reader’s eyes to cross. The final result is usually doom and gloom, backed up by a liberal portion of blame placed squarely on the shoulders of capitalism and the American way.

Here is my take on air pollution. Yes, we do need to prevent the wholesale dumping of heavy metals like mercury into the atmosphere. Yes, we can limit what other man-made compounds we allow to escape from the industry we require to support our lifestyles. No, we don’t need to excessively freak out over carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide--the hated “green house gasses.” No, we don’t need to allow the rest of the developing world to place unfair and unnecessary restraints on our economy by limiting our industry and energy production efforts.

I was trying to learn how to fly an airplane in 1991 when the monster volcano in the Philippines, Mount Pinatubo, decided to destroy about half of the south Pacific. Can you say ten feet of ash and mudslides? During that summer, three out of four times, I would schedule a flying lesson at Cobb County’s McCullum Airfield, drive to the airport at the appointed time, only to have the flying lesson cancelled because we could not see Kennesaw Mountain (which was only two miles away) because of the yellow/brownish haze that covered the mid-latitudes of the entire earth for months during the eruptions. What a complete and total “un-natural” natural disaster, and it's not like we can pass a law or sign a treaty to prevent it from happening again in the future.

Anyone got a big damn Muffler?? Sooooooo, back to today.

Here is my bottom line on this issue:

We have come a long way from the 1940’s and 1950’s with factories belching soot and smoke everywhere and owners turning their back while PCB’s and Dioxin were dumped in the creeks in their back yards. We still have a long way to go. BUT…

Just remember, just when we think that we can sit back all smug and happy with our efforts, Mother Nature comes along and Farts or Belches a big old cloud of sulfur and methane (or shakes the hell out of Japan and California) and we all realize that all of our self edifying efforts are for naught.

So stop your whining and go out and plant a tree or something…

Rearranging The Furniture On The Deck Of The Titanic

Arrogance and over confidence, basic design flaws and miss-management. All of these were contributing factors in the loss of over 1500 persons on the passenger liner RMS Titanic on April 14, 1912. The owners and the passengers were described as having been lured into a “false sense of security.”

I’m afraid that a large portion of the world’s population is in the very same position when it comes to placing their faith in the United Nations to referee international relations. Whether it’s the failure of the UN Human Rights Commission evidenced by inaction to civil war and genocide in Africa, the unending issuance of non-binding, toothless resolutions to Saddam's Iraq by the corrupt UN Security Council, the inept handling of North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear aspirations by the IAEC, or the unfolding wide-spread corruption of the Oil for Food program in Iraq--all of the evidence points to the UN being a broken organization that at least needs a major dose of fixing. I say it needs replacement in its entirely.

Not to worry however, Masseur Kofi Annan, psychic statesman that he is, has anticipated the problems and is about to propose a solution. The ship is still going down though, the captain is still on board (he won’t leave before 2006 unless forced out) and I’m afraid that his efforts amount to rearranging the furniture on the sinking ship’s deck.

“The United nations unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul the organisation, including the Security Council, in what would be the most comprehensive UN reform since its founding in 1945.

After bitter divisions over the war in Iraq, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan ordered a high-level panel last year to come up with the blueprint and help the United Nations adapt to the global realities of the 21st century.

The panel's report released Tuesday proposed more than 100 recommendations, including some -- an expansion of the Security Council and a definition of terrorism -- that have eluded UN diplomats for years.

"What is needed is a comprehensive system of collective security, one that tackles both old and new threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states -- rich and poor, weak and strong," Annan said in his preface to the report.”

Since the United States contributes approximately 22% of the budget of an organization composed of 191 nation/states, I say that it is time for us to put our mouth where our money is and demand our own major changes in the UN operations and membership and the immediate dismissal of Kofi.

The UN is today and always has been an anti-Israel and anti-American organization composed primarily of nations ruled by corrupt despots and dictators. The idiots, OK, OK—diplomats, at the UN have been fighting for over five years and have yet to even come up with a mutualially agreeable definition of what terrorism is. The so-called Human Rights Commission is a laughing stock as long as it includes member nations like Cuba and Syria.

Here are a few more tidbits from the report:

"There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower," the panel said."

By using the word “superpower,” our ears shouldn’t be burning here in the US? And I say that we not give a damn whether there is “international acceptance” of our massively superior military capability—it is what it is.

"The yearning for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown," it said. "No state, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today's threats."

Gee whiz, the idea of “governing by rule of law” seems a bit familiar. We have a Constitution here in the US that is over 230 years old that is based on that premise. What we are not going to accept is the rule of “international laws” designed by dictators and corrupt socialists to separate our citizens from the protections of our constitution while we at the same time pay a quarter of the costs and provide free real estate in New York City.

"Annan intends to use the report as a basis for widespread reforms he would like to see carried out before his tenure ends in 2006, and he commissioned it while acknowledging that divisions over Iraq had brought the international system to a "fork in the road."”

Forget “fork in the road” Mr. Annon, I say “stick a fork in it, it’s done…”

Update: December 1, 2004

I've done two posts on the UN Oil For Food Scandal, beginning with my November 12th writing "It's My Party And I'll (Lie) If I Want To." I wish I could do more that rant and rave, but I can point out the story to everyone since the mainstream media is doing their best to avoid it.

Here is more information from someone that should know. Norm Coleman, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has a great article today in the Wall Street Journal calling for the resignation of Kofi Annon.

A good read...

Ye Shall Know The Tree By Its Fruit

Every time we here in the US turn around, the world media and the citizens of that all knowing, always tolerant utopia of Europe are right there to criticize our actions and point out errors in our decision making process. “We just need to be more tolerant and considerate of other world viewpoints,” they say.

Well, I’ve resisted commenting on this topic in an effort to let things develop and see what kind of play it gets in the US media. I’ve stood it as long as I can, and it is time to speak out myself…Here goes.

In the King James version of the Bible, in the book of Matthew (Chapter 7, verses 15-20) it is said:

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

I’d say that the citizens of Europe are getting a pretty good opportunity to learn about the “fruits” produced by their large Arab immigrant population that have been allowed to swell in a virtually unchecked fashion in the years since World War II. In the past thirty years, Muslim immigrants of every description have been actively encouraged to move to Europe legally—unlike our indigenous illegal Mexican population—to fill labor positions considered beneath the self-image of the cosmopolitan denizens of Paris, The Hague, and Berlin.

This kettle has apparently been simmering for some time, but only recently, with the November 1st murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (great, great nephew of artist Vincent Van Gogh) following on the heels of the murder of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn just weeks before the election in 2002, has the pot come to a full, obviously deadly, public boil.

“Van Gogh, 47, had received death threats after his film ‘Submission’ was shown on Dutch TV. It portrayed violence against women in Islamic societies. The film was made with liberal Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who fled an arranged marriage. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been under police protection since the film was aired. She has also received death threats and has renounced the Islamic faith.”

You know the Netherlands, that nirvana of tolerance and the self-proclaimed Eden of political correctness. Live and let live, love and let love, whatever your drug, whatever “floats your boat,” bring it to the Netherlands and they’ll pass a law to make it legal so you can do it in public. Well folks, the Netherlands, of all places, is getting a little worried about their native towel heads.

And then there is our so-called ally, the Republic of Germany that is getting more than a little concerned about successfully integrating their growing Muslim minority into their society.

"“Pointing out the problem doesn't make you a racist," said Leopold Bongart, who has taught German language courses in Neukoelln since the 1970s.”

Would someone please tell this to the NY Times and the rest of the domestic media here in the US? Further, would somebody light a match under the world wide Muslim population that supposedly isn’t bent on world conquest and implementing jihad?

There are a couple of brutal facts that every non-violent Muslim, Islamist, or other defined follower of Muhammad is going to have to face. They are going to have to do two things. The first step is to demand that their political and religious leaders publicly denounce the killings, the jihads, and the proclamation of a “fatwa” against anyone who expresses an opinion critical of the actions of the HUMANS that follow their lovely, peaceful religion.

Secondly, that they un-categorically disassociate themselves from any person and any government that does not do the same. Then, let the chips lie where they fall, and let the militaries of the US and our allies be the dealers of the cards.

Robert Spencer, author of Jihad Watch has this to say:

“If the murder of van Gogh does indeed turn out to have been committed by a Muslim enraged at his "blasphemy," it has precedents. In 1947, Iranian lawyer Ahmad Kasravi was murdered by Islamic radicals after he had been accused of attacking Islam. Four years later, Iranian Prime Minister Haji-Ali Razmara was killed after Muslim clerics issued a fatwa calling for his death. In 1992, Egyptian writer Faraj Foda was murdered by Muslims enraged at his "apostasy" from Islam -- another offense for which traditional Islamic law prescribes the death penalty. Foda's countryman, Nobel Prizewinning novelist Naguib Mahfouz, was stabbed in 1994 after accusations of blasphemy. Under Pakistan's blasphemy laws, many non-Muslims have been arrested, tortured, and sentenced to die on the slimmest of evidence. And of course, there is the Ayatollah Khomeini's notorious death fatwa against Salman Rushdie.”

“But for such things to happen in Iran and Egypt, two countries where Islamic radicalism is widespread, is one thing; to have a "blasphemer" gunned down on the streets of Amsterdam in broad daylight is another. Europe has for thirty years encouraged massive immigration from Muslim nations; Muslims now comprise five percent of Holland's population, and that number is growing rapidly. Yet it is still largely taboo in Europe -- as in America -- to raise any questions about how ready that population is to accept the parameters of secularism. When Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn tried to raise some of those questions in 2002, he was vilified as a racist -- in line with the continuing tendency of the Western media to frame questions regarding Islam in racial terms, despite the fact that the totalitarian intransigence of the ideology of radical Islam is found among all races. And Fortuyn himself, of course, was himself ultimately murdered by a Dutch assailant who, according to The Guardian, "did it for Dutch Muslims."”

”The deaths of Fortuyn and van Gogh indicate that the costs of maintaining this taboo are growing. One prerequisite of the peaceful coexistence of ideologies in secular society is freedom of speech -- particularly the freedom to question, to dissent, even to ridicule. Multiculturalism and secularism are on a collision course: if one group is able to demand that its tenets remain above criticism, it no longer coexists with the others as an equal, but has embarked on the path to hegemony.”

I hate the loss of Van Gogh’s life, but if this is what it takes to wake up the balance of the world's population to the threat that radical Islam poses to the stability of our governments and the safety of my family and yours, then so be it.

We are in World War Four (World war three was against the Russians) and it is time to take off the kid gloves and get down to business.

We're looking for rotten fruit and the trees that it grew on...Go get 'em George...

Saving Ourselves From Ourselves

Suppose you are having a party this holiday season, a BIG party. You usually have a small get together for a few friends every year, but this one is going to be special. You’ve been planning it for weeks and now it’s time to buy all of the supplies. You arrange for some close friends to help with the preparations, visit the local warehouse club for supplies, stop by the grocery store, and finally you run by the liquor store to purchase the libations.

As you and the store proprietor go over your list, you finally come to the final item, Champaign, and he tells you that he doesn’t have any—he’s already sold out. It seems that all he originally had for sale was domestic Champaign and because of recent diplomatic conflicts, he doesn’t have any imported Champaign.

So what do you do now? After calling around, you finally locate someone who says that they might be able to help you with your purchase and you arrange to stop by the next day to discuss delivery. You learn that the “distributor” can supply you with four cases of fine Champaign imported from France. The deal is contingent on you paying $70 cash per bottle, plus tax, for Champaign that would normally cost $35 per bottle. After thinking about it for a minute, you drive to the ATM and return with the $1700 needed for your purchase. It’s an extra expense, but you head home confident that your party will be a success and your guests will appreciate your efforts.

The next day there is an unexpected knock on your front door and when you answer you find a police officer and a government agent requesting to come inside and ask you a few questions. It seems that current law prohibits you from buying and drinking Champaign made outside the United States. After a few minutes of conversation, you watch their truck drive away with your hard won party drinks—and you get no refund.

Now that you have taken the time and patience to read through the above story I ask you the following question. What business is it of the imperial Federal Government of the United States what I choose to purchase and drink in the privacy of my own home, as long as all of the taxes are paid and I willing to pay the asking price? Why does it matter to the bureaucrats where my beverage is made?

Unfortunately, the government has gotten into the business of regulating a vast portion of our lives including the products which we are “allowed” to purchase, usually under the guise of assuring quality and safety. However, based on a number of cars I’ve owned over the past thirty years, government involvement rarely assures quality and with the Fen Phen debacle and the recent recall of the drug Vioxx, their promise of protecting our safety with regulation is certainly suspect.

USA Today printed a story yesterday about the federal government riding to our rescue again in the recent flue vaccine shortage. I think that you’ll agree that we can all sleep better tonight as a result of their efforts…NOT!

“Thousands of doses of flu vaccine smuggled from France through Saudi Arabia were destined for black-market sales in New Jersey, federal officials said Tuesday.

The smuggling scheme is the latest, and perhaps boldest, criminal act to arise during the nation's unprecedented flu vaccine shortage. As health officials dole out a limited supply of vaccine, police are dealing with price gougers and vaccine thieves.”

Can you believe this situation? As I stated in my earlier post, Hillarycare Preview, the imperial federal government is already responsible for the flue vaccine shortage in the first place. If it hadn’t been for their intervention in the vaccine market in the 1990’s, chances are that everyone that wanted a flue vaccine shot today could get one for a modest cost. But nooooo, a “modest cost” wasn’t good enough for the bureaucrats, it had to be sold at prices below production costs or given away for free and as a result the vaccine manufacturers ran for the hills looking for more profitable enterprises.

What the government has done is step into the free market, screw around with the basic formulas of supply and demand that normally dictate product pricing and availability, and now they are criminalizing the actions of those who seek to fill the vacuum that developed in the wake of their efforts.

You can rest easy now ladies and Gentlemen, thanks to the diligent efforts of our law enforcement and US Customs officials, another 8,000 doses of non-approved flue vaccine has been taken off of America’s streets and placed into the dumpsters where it belongs. A few men won’t run the risk of experiencing unnatural cravings for brie cheese as a result of taking the vaccine only approved for French consumption. Untold numbers of American women are saved the torture of beginning to not shave the hair on their legs and in their armpits as a result of ingesting the French poison.

Thank God for our all knowing government.

"Freedom's" Just Another Word

(For Nothin’ Left To Lose)

Janice Joplin’s 1971 hit song ”Me and Bobby McGee” includes the words “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” I’ve often contemplated the meaning that the songwriter, Kris Kristofferson, had in mind when he wrote these words. I mean, the words sound good in a sorta romantic way, but I’ve also heard that “freedom isn’t free” as applied to the efforts of the American soldier over the past 230 years.

So which is it? Either way, it sounds to me like freedom is expensive, but it shouldn’t cost you everything you have in life. Which brings me to this morning’s topic--President Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental health. I’ve been following this program for the past six months or so and, in my opinion, this program is bad news. Here is why.

This “New Freedom” program study was begun in April 2002 and has since gotten up a pretty good head of steam. Basically, it is a national program designed in theory to improve and standardize the mental health screening and treatment provided to all Americans. Like most Government efforts, it sounds good on paper. But as I always like to say, the Devil’s in the details.

Here is how it will work. In conjunction with the assistance of the pharmaceutical companies, the government is going to begin by screening the mental health of all of the approximately 52 million children in public schools, including preschool aged students. They are not just looking for “stark raving mad,” “crazy as a loon,” or “a few bricks shy of a full load” personalities. They will be evaluating the overall “social and emotional development” of each child. BY WHO’s STANDARDS WILL THE CHILDREN BE JUDGED?

In the beginning the program will be administered by the individual states, and Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania are already on the band wagon with their own pilot programs supported by federal funding. In addition to the kids, the six or seven million teachers and other employees of the public school system will be evaluated. As a result of the screenings, anyone determined to have a diagnosable form of “mental illness” will be prescribed one of the latest, state-of-the-art psychotropic drugs like Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Effexor and Remeron. Can you say “massive profits for drug companies?”

What is not clear at the present time is what, if any, say the parents and children will have in submitting to the evaluations and actually taking the prescribed drugs. It appears that at first everything will be voluntary, but you know the government…they believe that they know what is best for you and me.

Here is what disturbes me about this newly found “Freedom.” There is already a great deal of pressure being brought to bear by teachers on the parents of so-called “hyperactive” children to use medications like Riddlin to control behavior that forty years ago was managed with ordinary corporal punishment and a large dose of good parenting. Will this new program not increase the number of kids on psycho-modifying drugs beyond the 9 million already on them?

Further, will the potential mandatory evaluation and treatment potentially infringe on the rights of parents to raise their own children as they see fit? I’m not promoting withholding necessary medical care from anyone, but is the imperial Federal Government the best arbitrator of the administration of these type of critical services?

Maybe, like myself, you don’t have kids or your children are already out of school. Why, you then ask, should I care about the movement to have the Federal government in the business of Mental Health screening? Because the government intends to expand the program to include EVERYONE, including you and I.

Imagine if, in order to get something you need like a drivers license or a business license or some professional license like those for pilots, engineers, doctors, or lawyers, that the government required that you have a mental health screening. OK, that’s not so bad you might say, because you don’t want your airline pilot or your brain surgeon to have too many bats loose in his cranium.

Well, here is the problem. You know the government. It’s just a matter of time until they make your drivers license or your business license contingent on you not only having the screening, but that you also have to take the drugs that they prescribe for you. What would then keep them from coming to your house or your work and hauling you off to JAIL or locking you up in the looney bin, er um insane asylum…er, I mean “Freedom Center” if they find that you have gone off of your meds without their permission?

There is quite a battle going on right now in the congress regarding funding for this program and, like me, a number of individual representatives and senators are fundamentally against it.

All I know is that, in my personal experience, the declaration of sanity or the lack thereof is a highly subjective, widely variable discipline. I hope we can slow this potential monster down, or at least bring it out into the light of day so more parents and regular people can be involved in the decision making process.

Wake up and smell the java!

Liars Figure and Figures Lie--Part II

I love details. I really love details that give an issue perspective.

As I continue my ranting and raving about world events and the media’s presentation of same to the public, I continue to enjoy grabbing the few little tidbits of information that manage to leak out of a given story and put it into terms that everyone can understand.

Here is the amazing story of a young girl apparently successfully treated after the onset of the symptoms of rabies. They have yet to determine the long term effects of the illness on the girl’s mental capacities, but recovery from the disease is apparently nothing short of a miracle.

Rabies used to kill a lot of people here in the US before the development of the vaccine. There have only been a few dozen deaths in the past ten years because of the wide spread availability of the vaccine. Growing up in the rural south, the two things we were most afraid of was a rabid animal and getting “lock jaw” (tetanus) from getting cut running with rusty scissors. No kid in their right mind wanted to face “ten shots in the stomach” or whatever else the rabies treatment used to entail.

Based on the CDC statistic reported in this article, rabies still kills one person every 15 minutes. A little math tells me that that equals about 35,040 people each year (365 days per year times 24 hours each day times 60 minutes per hour divided by 4.)

The point of my story is this: where is the US government’s, the UN’s, and the media's outrage when it comes to this issue? I mean, thirty five thousand people. To read the papers and listen to the TV, sharks and air bags and bird flue and mad cow disease and anthrax are all imminent threats, but Rabies? Old News.

I say NO NEWS is worthy of your attentions without checking the facts for yourself.

I'd Rather...But Not Dan Rather

Well Folks, its official. Dan Rather announced yesterday that he is stepping down next March as the anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News. CBS executives are trying to tell us that good old Danno’s retirement is unrelated to the “Memogate” scandal regarding President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service during Vietnam, but I beg to differ. The results of the “independent investigation” into the “alleged” forged documents forming the core of the story are yet to be made public, and the producer of the segment, Mary Mapes, is still lurking around behind the scenes at CBS.

Rather’s retirement is simply an obvious effort at damage control—they still want Dan’s sullen scowl on the Sunday and Wednesday “60 Minutes” segments. Stay tuned for more high quality, partisan BS—we’re counting on you Dan.

What we are witnessing today is the culmination of yet another evolution in the way information—specifically news—is disseminated in our society, and it is a GOOD THING. Other forms of media have endured this type of evolution and survived—TV News will too, but not without major changes in the names involved and the motives behind the decision making process. On behalf of the Internet Bloggers I’d like to say that “We have only begun to fight…”

Take the written media, specifically newspapers, for example. William Randolph Hearst, publisher of the NY Journal, and Joseph Pulitzer, publisher of the NY World amassed fortunes running their ”Yellow Journalism” empires in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and yet competition in the newspaper industry served to ultimately balance out their egos and the fiction dispensed as news by these two media giants. We need another dose of reality for newspapers like the NY Times today, and I assure you that the Internet is looming on their horizon as well.

For Hearst and Pulitzer, there was an incident similar to “Rathergate” at the beginning of the Spanish American war. Following the explosion of the Battleship US Maine in the harbor in Havana Cuba in 1898, both the Journal and the World published a so-called “suppressed” cable message that purported that the death of the 260 crew members was not an accident. The public furor resulting from the story based on the false cable served as a major incentive for President McKinley to declare war with Spain. So much for the idea that a fake document cannot influence history in a substantial way if its veracity is allowed to go unchallenged.

Almost one hundred years later, we have seen the rise and fall of yet another form of journalism--the network news broadcast. We just don’t buy what they report as news anymore. People have too many sources of news to buy a single viewpoint, and the cable news shows and more importantly, the internet, will go down in history as the reason for the change.

I am proud to be, in a small way, a part of this revolution. The fact that you just read this posting to my blog indicates your desire for another point of view. I hope you will keep reading in the future.

Six Dead In Wisconsin...Film At Eleven

Here we go again. In Wisconsin today another moron has gone off his rocker and shot and killed a half dozen other hunters in an argument over a tree stand located on private property. Several more people were wounded.

Just watch the media celebrate this news event with endless coverage and listen to the politicians and professional “TV talking heads” pontificate about “what we as a society need to do to stop such incidents.”

Would everyone just stop for a few minutes here and think, please?

The anti gun spin has already started, even on Fox News. “What kind of gun did he use,” they all ask. Like it matters to the dead people what caliber the bullets were, what length the barrel was, or whether the gun’s stock was wooden or composite. “Did it look like a military weapon, or did it look like an antique?” Pluueaseeeee!

This story has made it all the way to the country of Turkey. (Is Turkey hunting legal in Turkey…just wondering?) In the Turkish Press they say:

“Vang, a naturalised American citizen originally from Laos, was carrying a high-powered SKS assault rifle, that was out of ammunition, when he was arrested.”

Well thank God that his evil “SKS Assault Rifle” ran out of ammunition or the entire state of Wisconsin might be dead. And this from Louisville, Kentucky’s Fox41 News:

“Asked to leave, the trespasser, wearing blaze-orange and carrying a semiautomatic assault rifle, opened fire on the hunters and didn't stop until his 20-round clip was empty, leaving five people dead and three wounded…Van was carrying an SKS 7.62-mm caliber rifle, a cheap but powerful semiautomatic weapon, authorities said.”

“Police identified the shooter as Chai Vang, 36, a hunter from St. Paul, Minnesota, who is a member of the Twin Cities' Hmong community. While authorities do not know why he allegedly opened fire, there have been previous clashes between Southeast Asian and white hunters in the region."

"Locals have complained that the Hmong, refugees from Laos, do not understand the concept of private property and hunt wherever they see fit. In Minnesota, a fistfight once broke out after Hmong hunters crossed onto private land, said Ilean Her, director of the St. Paul-based Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans.”

Could this story be any more perfect for the media? “Another dang foreigner has committed a heinous crime with a GUN.” AHHHHHHHHHH, everyone run for the hills.

Now here is a little information—some call it facts and figures—to augment the hype that you’re going to be inundated with over the next few weeks. First of all, as you may recall by reading my previous postings, I grew up hunting on my grandfather’s 350 acre farm. I own three rifles and two shotguns. As of this moment, I also happen to not own any bullets.

In spite of having access to the property today, I have not spent a single minute in the woods hunting for the past twenty years because of my fear of this exact situation—poachers—and getting shot, accidentally or otherwise. Our land is literally overrun each fall with individuals that know they are on private property and that they do not have permission to be there hunting.

My uncle used to place a salt block in a clearing across the lake from our houses so we could enjoy watching the deer feed in the late afternoon. He stopped when someone shot a doe within one hundred yards of my mother’s house. The trespassers tear down the “posted” signs that my cousin places around the property almost as quickly as he puts them up. My mother asked the game warden what she could do about the poachers and he told her, paraphrasing, “that if she could call him and hold the intruder until he could get there that he would write them a ticket.” Needless to say we haven’t seen many tickets written.

My first point here is this. We don’t need more laws that will take my guns away from me. My guns, residing comfortably in the closet, are not a threat, and three of the five are of the hated “semi-automatic” variety. What we need is effort and money spent to enforce the laws that we already have on the books. It’s already against the law to shoot at somebody, folks. I can’t throw a chair or a rock or a punch or a basketball (did you see what the NBA players were up to this weekend) at you without risking running afoul of the law.

My second point has to do with the bad reputation people like Mr. Vang give gun owners and the hunting population. You never see national headlines that read “300,000 armed citizens take to the woods on opening day of deer season, no one killed…” No, of course not. Yet it happens every year in many if not most states. In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, they close schools and businesses shut down because they know that on opening day of deer season most of their students and employees are going to be in the woods, in camouflaged attire, chewing tobacco, and looking for something to shoot—LEGALLY.

My final point is to address the weapon that Mr. Vang was wielding (you only wield a weapon when committing a crime, right?) The SKS is an inexpensive imported rifle designed by a Russian named Simonov in 1947. It was replaced in the mid 1950's by the AK-47, another weapon of military origin that is vilified by the anti-gun mobs and the media. The Chinese and various other countries also manufactured the SKS with Russian approval.

While the SKS is rugged and quite capable of surviving being carried through the woods in all kinds of weather, it is not a “sniper” weapon or even considered to be that accurate. In fact, it sorta sucks when it comes to long range hunting, so I propose that Mr. Vang was enthusiastic but not very well informed when it comes to his choice of weapon.

There are any number of standard looking hunting rifles like my Marlin 22 magnum that cost a lot less than the SKS and which are equally deadly at any range within 100 yards. I’ll also point out that, while this weapon is not legal for deer hunting due to it’s small caliber, it was quite capable of terrifying a number of rabbits and squirrels with great frequency in Lower Alabama in the early 1970’s. By the way, the standard clip holds ten rounds.

What the logic out there seems to be is that scary looking guns with large(r) capacity ammunition magazines are more trouble that “average” looking guns with small(er) capacity magazines. I propose that any old inexperienced moron with a great big old dangerous looking gun is no more a threat than a polished killer with a pea shooter.

The crime is shooting at people, not owning a certain type gun.

Get It?

What You See Isn't What You Get

I’d like to apologize for the lack of new posting recently, but I’m tired. You see, for the past few weeks I’ve been charged with designing a real life illusion and this week we started construction.

By building an illusion, I mean that I am in charge of construction of the set for the Agatha Christie play ”The Mousetrap” that our local theater company, The Island Players, is staging this winter. For those of you out there that like me are not long time regulars in the theater business, “The Mousetrap” is the longest continuously running play in history, having been staged in London’s west end theater district since 1952.

By the assertion that I am new to the theater business, I mean that I have acted in exactly two plays in the past 35 years, one in grade school in the late 1960’s and one this past spring when I played the character Hannibal in John Patrick’s play “The Curious Savage.” Let’s just say that I’m a character in real life, but my acting skills need a little work I believe. I’m still eager to learn.

Working with the theater is fun, but it can also be very hard, demanding work. The show must go on...as they say. The coolest part of working with The Island Players is that they occupy a 60 year old building that was originally constructed as a single screen movie house, and it sits about 50 yards from the Atlantic Ocean. Every time I drive up and park my car there I think about how lucky I am. I bet we have the only community theater on the entire east coast of the US with such a great venue.

My 25 years of design and construction experience do give me a certain advantage when it comes to theatrical sets. The only thing is, a set doesn’t have to withstand rain (well, sometimes they do), wind, and other environmental conditions and your average set only has a lifespan of a few months if not weeks.

The whole process really makes me crazy as it goes against everything I’ve ever practiced in building industrial smokestacks and houses for Habitat for Humanity. Just about the time you get everything framed with lumber, covered with foam or wood or whatever, painted, furnished, and decorated, then along comes the end of the play and it’s time to tear it all down again and start over. It’ really sorta sad, as you can really come to feel like a place depicted by the set actually exists and you’re comfortable sitting there in a chair looking at the bedroom door or whatever.

The current setting is a Manor House in post World War II England—14' high walls, giant fireplace, large arched entryways and a 12’ high palladian window. We will even have a snow machine outside the window. If things work the way I plan, it is all gonna look absolutely real and look 150 years old to boot.

I’ll post a picture in a few weeks when things start to come together. In the mean time I have a few rants rattling around my skull that I will try to get out in the next few days.

Dang, What's Happening In Pyongyang?

I made reference in my earlier post, "It's My Party And I'll (Lie) If I Want To," to the pomposity of Kofi Annan's title of "His Excellency." I've also mentioned the arrogance of members of foreign leaders cabinets being called "Secretary General" and "generally" using the word "General" in their title. "General" this and "general" that...give me a break, please.

Then there are dictators like Saddam, Kadaffi, and Idi; and numerous other egomaniacs, present and past, that have and had their picture or statue or other likeness plastered all over every public square and on every square inch of their own abodes. A few women I've known that were obsessed with pasting "Glamour Shots" of themselves all over their homes had nothing on these yokels.

And then there is this item today.

The BBC is reporting that the pictures plastered everywhere of the little troll leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-il, are being taken down:

"An unnamed diplomat told the Russian news agency Itar-Tass that at receptions hosted by the North Korean foreign ministry, guests had recently only seen pictures of Kim Jong-il's father, Kim Il-sung, and a mark on the wall where a portrait of the North Korean leader used to hang."

We all know that most communist countries are extremely secretive when it comes to the internal workings of their gun wielding governments, particularly on issues relating to the health of their leaders. So what in the heck is going on in North Korea--maybe they're just updating the pictures to show the results of Mr. Jong-il's new membership in the Hair Club for Men.

Then again, it would be impossibly convenient for the world to lose the threat of Yasser Arafat AND Kim-Jong il in the same month.

Yet, we can always have hope...

Can't Win For Losing

First Abu Ghabri prison. Now this. You mark my words; the recent successful Marine assault on Fallujah is going to end up being defined by the main stream media as a reason to stir public outrage over the apparent killing of a critically wounded “insurgent” by a US Marine.

“Not a success” they’ll cry, “it’s a war crime.”

I am really tired of the double standard being applied by the world’s citizens and our liberal media to our war effort. They somehow believe that our solders possess some kind of psychic powers or operate some kind of new high tech equipment that can read the minds of people on the battlefield who are all dressed the same, civilian and “insurgent.”

In earlier times, honorable warriors went to battle shoulder to shoulder, wearing their country's uniform, under their countries’ flag, on a man to man basis. Churches and civilians were left out of the fray as much as was practical. The wounded were cared for as best as they could on the battlefield and the dead were often buried on the spot they fell. Spies and others caught fighting wearing the other side’s uniform or prosecuting the war wearing civilian clothes risked immediant justice by hanging or death by firing squad.

Not any more.

The US is fighting yet the latest in a series of “gorilla wars” that began with the UN lead Korean “Police Action” and as history predicts, the other side refuses to play by the rules of the Geneva Conventions and act as “honorable” men should act. Instead, these bloody killers use schools and hospitals as weapons caches and use their ancient domed Mosques as fortresses. They wear the clothing of religious clerics and average Iraqis and disappear into the population when the odds are not in their favor. They strap explosives on their bodies and hope that if they are killed or wounded they can blow up any member of the coalition forces who hazards to attempt to attend to their wounds or move their dead corpse to ensure a proper burial.

They fight this way because not because they are all cowards, but because they know how the citizens of the US think and what behavior we expect of our troops. They also know that the “embedded” media and our adversaries, the UN, the French, and the Germans, will demand that no matter what dirty tricks they utilize that we “play fair.”

Now a young Marine comes along-- tired and stressed out from being shot at by every shape, form, and manner of “insurgent” that has trickled into Iraq from Iran and Syria over the past year—and decides to not risk his own life and the lives of his platoon. They all cry "FOUL."

Since a member of the Marine’s own unit had been killed the day before by the detonation of a booby-trapped explosive attached to another “insurgent,” he decides it is safest to prevent another incident by using a few more bullets and a little less compassion.

You know what, I DON’T BLAME HIM ONE BIT!

If the world and the media want to prevent events of this kind from happening, a court marshal and months of harping about it in the newspapers isn’t the answer. They are complaining about the actions of the wrong people.

Instead, the TV talking heads and the rest of the world media should be demanding that the so called “insurgents” (I call them terrorists) get themselves some uniforms that will allow us to discern them from the civilians, move their bombs and ammo out of their schools and hospitals, stop putting snipers on the domes of their sacred buildings, and stop strapping explosives to their cars, their children, and their wounded.

If they don’t care enough about their elderly, children, women, and Mosques to not involve them in their Holy War, why should a boy from Alabama give a Rat’s ASS.

Is it just me?

They Paved Paradise, And Put In A Parking Lot

Private property rights are a fundamental part of the underlying legal basis of every successful government throughout history. On a very general basis, if you show me a listing of the rights that the citizens of a given country enjoy relating to the ownership of private property, particularly real estate, I can tell you a good deal about the health and output of the resulting economy on a per capita basis.

Historically, in communist, socialist, and fascist countries where the government controlled or limited their residents’ property rights, there has always been a corresponding reduction in the economic output and quantity of individual wealth generated. If you can’t acquire the right to own “stuff”, why work--other than to avoid the threat of a taskmaster’s whip? Further, why expend your best efforts when just showing up will do?

In the United States, our government has recognized the citizens right to very broad based property rights protections under the law, beginning with the Constitution and filtering down through state and local governments. Unfortunately, like every other freedom in this country, there are a number of forms of infringement that continue to creep into our lives on a yearly basis.

Take zoning laws, for instance. Thomas Sowell makes an excellent argument for the reality of zoning laws contributing to the high cost of homes in California. Once you get your own piece of paradise, you don’t want your neighbors being too close by or putting in trailers lest you have to look at their laundry hanging on the line outside.

Zoning laws, or the lack thereof, have been huge issues in the last two places I have owned property and/or resided, Mexico Beach, Florida and St. Simons Island, Georgia. Both locals are adjacent to the beach. One property was about three blocks from the shoreline, while the current one is a mile from the waves and a few hundred yards from a salt marsh. The local officials in both locations are constantly considering zoning requests and the value a given owner can expect to command for a given piece of property rises and falls with the banging of the gavel of local despots on the city council or zoning board. The zoning for both lands changed radically over the years, severely limiting my options for development.

Who are these people to tell me what I can do with my land? Is it my land or isn’t it? How can you change the rules on me after I already own it? The tendency here in the Golden Isles, like most coastal areas, is a constant conflict between occupancy densities versus the rising cost of land. The problem is, the very laws that the government enacts to encourage green space and lower density at the same time serves to increase the price of land and increase the occupancy density in spite of the enforced property line setbacks and building height restrictions they demand. "If I can only build four stories high, I’m going to by God cover as much of the property as I can with as many units as I can" is the developers attitude.

Another, more abusive trend is embodied in the change being made nationally in the interpretation of eminent domain laws. Historically, the concept of eminent domain was used to force the owner of land needed for public use like a roadway or utility line to sell or otherwise grant easement rights to the government or a so called “public” utility in order to meet the needs of the public good. How things have changed.

Take the little central Alabama city of Alabaster, Alabama, for instance. Alabaster sits adjacent to Interstate 65 just south of Birmingham. The city and the county is an exurb that is still mainly a bedroom community for Birmingham. There are several county roads that have interchanges where they cross I-65. A developer has decided that he wants to build a shopping center including a Super Wall Mart at one of the interchanges. The problem is that the owners of some of the land the developer wanted liked their little piece of paradise and didn’t want to sell.

So what did the developer do? Did he find another piece of land at another intersection to buy or make the owners a price offer that they couldn’t refuse? Noooooo. The developer went to the City and told them about all of the property and sales taxes they were missing out on by not having a Wall Mart in town. He then let the city do his dirty work for him. The city followed the national trend and used the idea of increasing the tax digest as “public use,” condemned the land, forced the owners to sell, then turned around and sold the coveted land to the developer for use in the shopping center project. Their attitude was basically, "tough shiskey."

There are a number of initiatives at the state level to change laws making this form of theft easier to achieve. I don’t have the time or the energy to talk about every state’s efforts, but I encourage you to follow your local news and contact your state politicians to express your outrage if you can. Remember, private property rights are fundamental to our freedoms, and this infringement isn’t John Ashcroft’s fault.


Update: November 13, 2004

George will has a nice editorial in the Washington Post that addresses this issue. I hope the Supreme Court will hear the Connecticut case and put an end to this theft.

Announcing The Redneck Gourmet

Well folks, its official--no topic is safe from my ranting and raving. Take cooking, for instance.

Last weekend I started The Redneck Gourmet and I just wrote my third post this morning. Stop on by for some non-political reading.

The Fat Lady Has Sung, But It's Not Over--Part II

Hello CBS…we're still waiting.

What’s it been, six, eight, ten weeks, and I can still see Dan Rather’s sullen scowl every evening (IF I change channels from FOX News or Food Network.)

What about the “independent” CBS investigation? You know, the investigation into how obviously forged documents, documents that could be reproduced by a sixth grader with a ink jet printer and a word processor, were allowed to be used as a basis for a nationally broadcast CBS 60 Minutes news story attacking the person of a sitting President of the United States of America in the heat of a re-election campaign.

We've been waiting patiently, and it’s not like your executives there at CBS can’t make a decision if they want to. After all, they only took two days to fire the producer whom committed the heinous crime of daring to interrupt the last five minutes of the prime time show “CSI: NY” to break the news that old Yasser Arafat had finally bought the farm.

Noooo, the public was outraged, and CBS couldn’t allow that. Not only did they do a thorough investigation and fire the producer within 48 hours of the scandalous event, they are also going to make amends to their viewers by re-broadcasting the entire CSI:NY episode so everyone can see the final five minutes.

America is vindicated. I know I’ll sleep better tonight.

Oh, and CBS….we’re STILL waiting….

Giving Him The First Degree

Thank God the Scott Peterson trial is over with in theory--on to the sentencing phase.

And of course there is the appeal phase.

Then there is the other appeal phase.

Then there is the state supreme court phase.

Then there is the Federal Supreme court phase.

Does California freeze, fry, or inject their murderers?

I'm just glad the damn thing is over with. But don't worry, the media already has the next pretty girl murder case set up to wear us out with. You did see the story about the murdered beauty queen in Napa Valley.

Just watch...

It's My Party and I'll (Lie) If I Want To

Ever heard of a the concept of having a paradigm shift? A paradigm shift involves completely changing the way you think, feel and/or view a part of the world around you. Relationships, jobs, religion, politics, you name it--you might feel better as a result of a paradigm shift, or you might just want to blow your brains out or at least get the hell out of Dodge as a result of your newly found revelations.

While the mainstream media (MSM) has been attempting to elect John Kerry and loosing their collective minds over Abu Ghraib prisoners being forced to wear panties on their heads, while they’ve been wondering if Colin Powell or John Ashcroft personally authorized the purported prisoner abuse as a matter of standard operating policy, there is a real international scandal out there involving an organization and their high ranking leaders that really deserves American’s attention, yet you barely hear it whispered about by Dan Rather or written about on the front page of the NY Times.

EVERYONE, QUICK, LISTEN UP, BECAUSE I’M GOING TO SHIFT YOUR PARADIGM WHEN IT COMES TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

The scandal is known as the UN Oil For Food Program (OFF) and the scope of the corruption is growing on a daily basis. You’ve heard about this multi-billion-dollar so-called humanitarian effort, haven’t you? You know the program, the one overseen by the UN that was set up to prevent the people of Iraq from starving to death as a result of international sanctions imposed as a result of the 1992 Gulf War? Oh sure you have. You know, the program that was supposed to let Saddam sell Iraq’s only marketable natural resource, crude oil, in return for dollars used to buy limited non-military products like rice and beans and milk and McDonalds Burgers? Oh come on, you know…the program overseen by Kofi Annan’s son, the program that granted “oil vouchers” to Kofi Jr. and various French and German and Russian leaders and diplomats and businessmen at ridiculously low prices to be sold on the open market for huge profits?

Yeah, you know, THAT program, that’s the one. Nothing illegal or underhanded, just good old-fashioned graft and corruption, USA mafia style you know? The program designed by dictators, for dictators.

Well, it seems that we have a problem, Houston. It seems that the program didn’t quite accomplish it’s goal of punishing Saddam, instead it made him rich(er.) It also didn’t seem to prevent Saddam from buying military materials, according to documents that US forces have captured in Iraq. Now that the cat is out of the proverbial bag, Kofi Jr. and Kofi Sr. seem to have a bad case of amnesia and are making it difficult for us to find out what was really going on with the Oil for Food program.

But never fear, there will be an investigation to get to the bottom of things. The problem is, the UN is investigating itself, with a team lead by Paul Volker, and woe be it to any outside organization (like the US Senate) that wants to speed things along on an independent basis.

Here is a letter to His Excellency, Kofi Annan, from Norm Coleman, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Investigations. It seems that Kofi is so busy that it took him four months to respond with a big old “get lost” to the honorable Senators. He’s too busy stalling Mr. Volker’s investigation to answer ole’ Norm.

I presently can’t add much in the way of discussion to this issue other than to point out that any position that allows you to be referred to as “His Excellency” should also require you to constantly wear those little “Elf” shoes with the curled up tips and have some psycho pervert like Michael Jackson or John Hinkley as your chambermaid.

Does anybody know if Charles Manson has butler skills?

Do Unto Others...

Liberals love to tell you how they are compassionate and “concerned” about taking care of the less fortunate in our society. To this end, the liberal politicians love to help us take care of our stuff, particularly our money. They think that our feeble little minds just can’t possibly take care of the needy in our midst. They believe that they can spend our money better than we can, so they tax our asses off under the guise of helping their causes.

Well, the Catalogue For Philanthropy has just published their “Generosity Index” and it reveals some rather disturbing facts about our liberal friends. The index is published on a state-by-state basis and factors personal income versus charitable giving to produce a state ranking.

Number one on the list—the state of Mississippi. Mississippi is dead last in income, but her residents are number five in charitable giving. The number two on the list, Arkansas, is number forty-seven in income, but number six in giving. You can scroll down the list and find that the top 25 states are all conservative, based on last week’s elections.

Good old liberal New York state is number twenty-six on the list, with a income rank of fifth and a giving rank of ninth. And all of those lovely California ex-hippies-- you know, the ones that don’t understand air pollution and homelessness—they are number twenty-nine. Their income ranking is sixth, but their charitable giving level is a dismal seventeenth.

I say we start a campaign for making these loudmouths put their own money where their bleeding-heart mouths are. Who are they to take everyone else’s hard earned money to spend on their pet causes while they sit home on their own wad of cash?

Is it just me? Just wondering…

Barbara Streisand Joins The Liberal Meltdown

This morning I was doing my normal snooping for news and reading my favorite Blogger sites when Matt Drudge's site alerted me to yet another liberal meltdown on the internet.

Barbara Streisand has a website that she has used in the past to promote her personal agenda, including making a number of "Michael Moore" type rants against the Republican Party and President George Bush. You do remember that it was her and her husband, James Broland, who were major forces behind the Ronald Regan bashing movie that caused all of the stir earlier this year?

My advise to Ms. Barbara is to keep on raking in the millions making the rare acting and/or singing appearance and leave the thinking and voting to the balance of America. I have this theory that every dollar you earn costs you one brain cell, and when you start getting into the hundreds of millions you start becoming long on financial where withall and short on mental capital. I submit most of the Hollywood elite as evidence to support this thesis.

And I rest my case, your honor...

The Fair Tax Plan Is Really Fair

The only thing certain is death and taxes. People have been complaining for a long time about both. In the Bible (Book of I Kings, Chapter 12) the Israelites petition their new king, Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, to cut their income taxes. In the words of the King James Bible, they say:

“Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee.”

Politicians being as they are, King Rehoboam talks things over with his administration and three days later he gives them his answer:

“And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.”

So there it is Folks, ask for a tax cut and you get a tax increase—and they throw in some whips and scorpions (can you say IRS audit?) for good measure.

So not much has changed in the past 2500 years when it comes to income taxes. Everyone thinks that their taxes are too high and the next guy making more money should have to “pay his fair share.” The idea of fair taxation has often caused conflict. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Fair or not, the income tax has been a reality for us here in the US since the Civil War when President Lincoln imposed a temporary income tax to fund the war effort.

It took an act of congress in the form of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution in order to allow the federal government to impose a permanent tax on income. The original income tax code required the filing of only a one page form and the entire tax code was only 14 pages. Individuals with incomes of over $4,000 annually were taxed, and most Americans made much less.

Our income tax was supposed to be temporary. It wasn’t. It was supposed to be fair. It isn’t. In its present form it costs this country, in addition to the actual taxes, additional billions in lost productive time and expenses (lawyers/accountants) just to comply with the record keeping and filing of forms. (Almost) everyone hates it, it dominates local and national elections, but no one ever does anything about it other than deflect the cost from themselves’ and their family/peer group.

Forget about taxing only the rich, about deductions and rebates, earned income credits, and all of that other politically expedient crapolla the dominates the evening news and every political campaign—there is an alternative out there that is actually getting some serious consideration in Congress.

The Fair Tax Plan, also called the National Retail Sales Tax, could be the answer. That is, if the politicians are willing to give up the substantial amount of political influence they currently wield as a result of being able to spend our hard earned money on their political constituents.

Here is how the Fair Tax Plan would work. The federal payroll and income taxes on all personal and corporate income would be eliminated, to be replaced with a 21% to 23% sales tax on all goods and services at a retail level. You would still pay state and local income taxes if you pay them now. Georgia would still demand 6% and Florida would get nothing out of your check.

At first you want to jump out of your seat and yell “A 23% FEDERAL SALES TAX, I CAN’T AFFORD TO EAT!” But wait a minute while I explain the benefits.

The Fair Tax would mean that companies and individuals would pay no income tax on their incoming money. Your paycheck would increase dramatically because you are only having state and local income taxes and things like insurance deducted. Meanwhile, the before-sales-tax cost of goods and services would go down substantially. This is because products produced for sale at a retail level would have no imbedded taxes included in their cost. Things like taxes on the raw materials and the employers so called “contribution” to the FICA/FUTA payroll taxes. Manufacturers are also removed from the task of collecting taxes on their employees’ wages so their administrative overhead cost goes down. Estimates indicate that the cost of a domestically produced consumer item already includes at least 23 cents on every dollar of “imbedded taxes” and tax admin costs.

“So I just break even in the process” I might ask? No, you government schooled bonehead. If I make $75,000 this year, I only pay taxes on what I spend. If I save $10,000, I pay no taxes on that amount. Get it? Also, the government would give everyone a monthly rebate check equal to the sales tax paid on the basic cost of living (food, clothing, and shelter) based on the poverty level rate for each size family. This means that the poor people will not only not pay income tax, they won’t pay anything but state sales tax on their bread, milk, Reeboks, and spinner rims for the Escalade.

The revised tax law would encourage earning, saving, and investing. Of course, if you are a drug dealer or a house painter running a cash-only business and you’ve made all of your money “under the table” for the past 20 years, you will suddenly start having to pay your fair share. The entire underground economy in this country would suddenly be forced to start paying taxes. Experts actually project that the federal revenue stream will go up, allowing services to be maintained while the deficit spending is eliminated. Note that I would still like to see a review of existing services and the reduction or possible removal of the Federal government’s involvement in things like education and the retirement business.

The only losers in the process would be tax lawyers, accountants, and the Internal Revenue Service. They would just have to find something else to do rather than have us support their government mandated non-essential existence. Every one else would be winners.

Imagine if you could wake up on New Year’s Day and know that every day for the next three hundred sixty five days you would not owe the Federal Government one thin dime—unless you bought something new at the retail level.

Who do I call and where do I go to sign up?