The Hysteric Channel

My convalescence has afforded me far too much time to sample some of the offerings of cable television. While I find that I would actually rather be back at my normal duties, if I have to be spending time at home, I would much rather be doing it reading (and I try to). 

Unfortunately, I tend to fall asleep after a couple of pages and this makes for a rather laborious literary process. As a consequence, I have at least been trying to watch things that are educational (you know, the Discovery channel, the History Channel, and reruns of NCIS). 

I have discovered however, that the History channel is no longer what it used to be. In years past, this offering was often known as the "Hitler Channel", as most of its offerings had to do with the history of World War II and the well documented ravings of the leader of the German people at the time. Today however, it might well be better known as the "Hysteric Channel". 

Acting as an electronic prophet of Armageddon, it seems today that the predominance of their programming is either presenting bizarre interpretations of existing facts (as I write this, there is speculation that aliens might have left us coded messages in the Bible) or predicting the potential end of the world through various planetary disasters as predicted by the Incas, the Mayans, the Aztecs, or the prophecies of Nostradamus. Giant comets or meteors striking the planet, "Son of Krakatoa" or the giant caldera in Yosemite exploding in violent volcanic eruptions, floods, droughts, plagues, and locusts all take their place on the list of things that 'could' or 'might' happen. 

Not to be left out of the propaganda disbursement, we also of course have a smattering of warnings of the potential of either global warming or cooling looming just over the horizon (take your pick, it's still climate change). And if none of those events happen to occur, these guys have covered all the bases, pointing out that in a couple of billion years or so (just a hop and a skip on the galactic calendar) the sun is going to go nova, leaving the earth a burned out cinder. 

Recognizing that these cheery images were not the product of the medication that I am taking, I sought to decipher what meaning might be discovered behind these visions of the Apocalypse on the airwaves. Television from my youth however soon provided a ready answer. 

Aliens have taken control of the History Channel in an effort to scare the living crap out of us (and have a good laugh doing it). 

I came upon this simple solution by taking a page out of an old scifi television show popular before cable existed: "There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all you see and hear. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to the "Outer Limits". 

See, mystery solved! Therefore even if the History Channel is correct and the end is near, we can all take heart from the fact that these same aliens will undoubtedly rescue us in the nick of time. And why, you ask? The answer points to an episode of a competing scifi show from these dark ages of television. I refer of course, to the Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Man". Have a great Holiday...  

In the spirit of full disclosure, it has likewise come to my attention that CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC might be likewise controlled by aliens. (How else do you explain Keith Olbermann?) To date, I have been able to neither prove, nor disprove this theory. 

A Public Option?

When did we ever get to just try a government program? 

 I have been reading a lot of US History lately, and in none of it can I discover the answer to this question. Oh there have been bad laws passed by Congress that have been repealed, Supreme Court decisions which have been made and later reversed, there was even the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) which was later overturned with the passage of the 21st Amendment. There has never however, been a government program that once begun has not been continued, no matter how much money it cost or how great a failure that it proved. Take for example:

• Federal Income Tax
• Social Security
• Medicare / Medicaid
• The War on Poverty
• The War on Drugs

Federal Income Tax is now costing the government more in enforcement than it brought in during its first year, with a legal code numbering in the ten of thousands of pages. No one likes it, no one (including the IRS) understands it, and no one thinks that it's fair; but we keep it going. Social Security is for all intents and purposes bankrupt. It will not provide the support it was intended to, has been expanded into areas that it was never intended for, and is almost universally hated by those it was intended to aid. As for Medicare and Medicaid, they have simply proved that what the government doesn't know about supporting its poor and aged is only equaled by what they don't know about their medical care, which I guess can be assumed to be alright, since this program is also currently bankrupt.  

As for the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty; not since the War of 1812, where the US lost almost every battle of the war (except for the Battle of New Orleans which was technically fought after the war was officially over) and had the capital captured and burned has such a fight proved so disastrous. Not only did we fail to achieve the objective, but the billions of dollars squandered in the process without achieving any level of victory is almost treasonous when compared to comparably costing military campaigns.

And yet, as we're standing on the threshold of asking the government to take on the entire burden of medical care for the citizens of this country, we seem to expect a different result. Looking back on consistent and overwhelming failure on the part of the federal government in projects of such scope and importance, we seem prepared to try again. Recognizing throughout history that once this road has been started down, we will never be able to turn back, we appear almost eager to begin the journey.  

This proposal is not an experiment. If the federal government once establishes a bureaucracy to take on the burden of national health care, it will never relinquish control of either the money or the power that will come to the petty bureaucrats that assume it. No matter how it fails or what the cost in money, happiness, or human life; we will never be able to stem this tide.

And so I ask that if nothing else, before we allow ourselves to be bullied into yet another government failure, before we place not just our health, but our very lives in the hands of self-serving government officials who will not participate in the very program that they demand that we do, before we allow yet another government travesty to be perpetrated upon us, that we at least realize what we do. Once we commit ourselves to this program, there will be little left to us but the Public Option.

TFP Column: Mayor Needs To Make Way For Class Of 2009

Sometimes giving up the attention that you think you are entitled to is extremely difficult. It happens with an oldest child, and with mayor's who often act like children as well.

That certainly seems to be the case with the inestimable Carlton S Finkbeiner, who can't seem to "Make Way for the Class of 2009", they being the candidates from which one will take office.  Instead of allowing the city to look to a brighter future, our Mayor Carty wants us all to be a part of his non-stop pity party.

If you'd like to turn your invitation to that gathering down, I'm sure that you can find more than enough things to gain your interest by spending just a bit of your weekend with the Toledo Free Press. 

 

Separate But Equal

History has the strangest way of abusing the most innocent of concepts. For example, anyone reading the above listed title from my generation undoubtedly had thoughts of the the racial practices finally ended during the fifties and sixties. At that time, "Separate but Equal" was used for things like facilities that were considered acceptable (even legally) for such things as public restrooms and public schools, even in many cases by those who would not be considered racist. 

Few growing up today would understand that people of any color would accept such practices or that people of different colors sought such a world.

I was not looking at the racial issue in thinking about this concept however. Most of the history that I read these days is more likely to concern the 1760's or the 1860's than the 1960's. As such, Separate but Equal means something entirely different to me.

You see, the 1st Continental Congress, convened in 1774 did so as separate but equal colonies. By the time that the 2nd Continental Congress met in 1775, these colonies were already at war with Great Britain, and when they issued the Declaration of Independence one year later, they did so as "The unanimous Declaration of thirteen united States of America". (Note in the text of this document that the term united is not capitalized, but State is.) 

The Continental Congress gave way to the Congress of Confederation in 1781 and passed the Articles of Confederation, ratified once again by the States. This Congress was finally replaced when the Articles were replaced in 1789 with the United States Congress and the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

Each of these documents; the Declaration, the Articles, and the Constitution were ratified with the approval not of the citizens, but of the States. Even today, when modification of the Constitution is attempted (more commonly known as an Amendment), such modification is not considered ratified even when gaining a 2/3 majority in both Houses of Congress, but must further be ratified by 3/4 of the States in order to become the law of the land. 

From this, it should be abundantly clear that the Founding Fathers considered the government of those States to be separate from the federal government and equal in responsibility. In fact, the Constitution clearly spells this out in the 10th Amendment stating: "The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Even the design of the Congress can be shown to illustrate this principle. While representation in the House is determined by population, it is equally distributed in the Senate, with each State having 2 Senators. That this equal representation can see to be important is likewise obvious in the longer terms of office and the fact that it is the Senate which: approves treaties, confirms cabinet appointments and federal judges, approves military promotions, and has the power to impeach federal officials. It should also be noted that until the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1911, that Senators were in fact appointed by State legislatures rather than by popular election.

This concept of separate but equal united States changed forever in 1860 however, when some of those States attempted to assert that sovereignty and secede from the Union. This was not the first time that States considered such secession, with many of the New England States considering the possibility twice in the early 1800's. Both the New England States and later those of the South, cited language from the Declaration of Independence to justify such separation, considering that the abuses committed by the federal government at the time were similar to those committed by King George leading up to the original secession from the government of Great Britain. President Lincoln however, considered such secession as an act of insurrection and called up federal troops to put it down. Thus began a Civil War which was to redefine the roles of federal and State governments, a redefinition that we are still attempting to come to grips with today.

And as the federal government today assumes an even larger role in our everyday lives, often replacing freedom with government sponsored limitation, as Statism continues to subvert the role of the States through the extortion of withholding federal funds or outright usurpation of power by assuming control specifically denied it under the 10th Amendment, I have to wonder. As discussion by some States of the principle of secession becomes a topic of discussion by Governors and State Legislatures, it will be interesting indeed to see how this principle of "Separate but Equal" is today interpreted.

Side Effects

I have at long last come to believe that the pharmaceutical companies are one of the true banes of Mankind. This is not to say that I have bought into the conspiracy theory that they are charging too much and making obscene profits from the treatment and cure of disease, or that I have drunk the Kool-Aid and now agree that they are in a secret conspiracy to defraud the public while secretly keeping the cure for cancer or some other such disease from us. No, their crime against humanity is much more grievous in type and insidious in nature than that. 

That crime, for those of you too busy watching the TiVo reruns of the "X-Files" or "The Daily Show" instead of news stories, is that somehow these evil doers have convinced us to take their medications, the side effects of which are far more scary, painful, and humiliating than the conditions which they purport to treat; even after they've informed us in their commercials of the true nature and gory details of those effects. 

In the process of treating things like depression, addiction to cigarettes, or erectile dysfunction they are exposing us to other conditions of a far more serious nature. (I know, I know, what could be more serious than erectile dysfunction?) I mean come on people, who wants to be cured of nicotine addiction with the side effects of depression, loss of will to live, or suicidal thoughts. 

Speaking of depression, what does it mean about a product that treats such a condition when its side effects include continued thoughts of depression or suicidal thoughts. (Is it just me, or does it seem to you that such side effects actually mean that the medicine isn't working?) 

And as to erectile dysfunction, even if you had the side effects, how would you find the strength of character to admit them? Who is going to the Emergency room to report that they have been able to perform sexually for over four hours, and continue to remain ready to do so? (Other perhaps, than the exhausted partner of such a potential patient, of course.) 

And lest we believe that these are not the only conditions that we have to look forward to in our moments of physical weakness as we submit ourselves to the tender mercies of these Marquis de Sades, let me go on. Rashes, shortness of breath, heart palpitations, and anal leakage wait just around the corner for those of us willing to place our health in the hands of these so-called miracles of modern medicine. 

I have to ask myself whether such travesties of medical science will be allowed to continue under whatever surfaces from the ongoing health care debate. Will a government, never very good at predicting nor capable of dealing with the unintended consequences of their actions be able to cope with the licensed dispensing of the chemicals that the health care industry suggests we ingest? What will they be and how can such government health care hope to handle the "side effects". 

Kenneday Kare

Does it disturb anyone else that the passing of Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy has inspired some members of Congress to capitalize on the death of one of its more famous and notable liberal lions by using it to pass the currently proposed piece of health care legislation and naming it after him? 

Can anyone else see the irony of the fact that this rather well-to-do legislator received care that would have been consisting of expensive and experimental treatment that any of us would have been denied in similar circumstances based on age, history of an unhealthy lifestyle, and current health? Is anyone else aggravated by the fact that if the plan had already been passed and implemented, that it would have made little difference in the care that this member of Congress would have received; as under the proposed plan such government employees (along with members of certain unions) would not be forced to participate in the very plan that they would like to force on us? 

Lobbyist

Speaking of Senators ... 

An interesting and little known fact is that the term "Lobbyist" was coined by Ulysses S. Grant, who used it to describe men who spent their days in the lobbies of Washington DC hotels waiting their turn to bribe Senators and Congressman. (excepted and paraphrased from "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo)

Senator Kennedy?

Am I the only wondering whether Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of former President John Kennedy, having failed to get the appointment to fill out the New York senatorial term of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton; will now seek to fill out the term of her late uncle Massachusetts Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy? 

Establishing residency never seems to be all that much of an issue for Senators these days; as Hilary Clinton, a resident of Arkansas before eight years of residence in the District of Columbia proved. 

Besides, this seat has been in the Kennedy family name for a number of years. Call me cynical, but the machinations of the elite political power brokers in general, and the Kennedy family in particular, cannot help but make one curious. 

Obama & Lincoln Economics

Soon after the election of Barack Obama, there were many in the media and elsewhere making comparisons between our latest president and the 16th holder of that office, Abraham Lincoln. 

Having been born and raised in Illinois (which is of course, the land of Lincoln) and having little to judge with but the history courses that I took in a youth so far in the past that like Abe, we often read our books by candlelight, I have to admit that I was initially skeptical of any such similarity. 

Recently however, I have slowly been grinding my way through "The Real Lincoln", by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. This tome has been rather an eye opener for me both in its portrayal of Lincoln in the years leading up to and during the Civil War, and of the economic policies that shaped those years. 

Lincoln it seems, was someone who followed in the footsteps of one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton; and of Henry Clay, who was Lincoln's hero in politics (Lincoln in fact delivered a eulogy for Clay in Springfield in July of 1862). 

Like Hamilton, these were politicians who believed in a strong federal government and a strong federal banking system. They were opposed by those following the principles laid down by Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (considered the father of the Constitution), who believed in the independence and primacy of the States, with only enough federal government to hold the union together. Lincoln likewise believed in an economic policy known as "mercantilism", which is characterized by protectionist tariffs (you know, like promising to renegotiate NAFTA), tax funded subsidies for favored businesses (you know, like GM, Chrysler, and the banking industry), and internal improvement subsidies to build railroads, canals, dams, and roads (you know, like the infrastructure projects that were part of the stimulus package). 

The fact that the tariffs drove consumer prices up, that corporate welfare did likewise and were only good for the businesses that received them, and that the internal improvement projects were inevitably hotbeds of waste, graft, and huge cost overruns which did little more than run up government debt was mostly ignored by politicians at the time. (It should be noted that at the time that Lincoln became president, every State Constitution except that of Mass. specifically prohibited legislation for such projects.) 

It seemed however that while these practices were detrimental to the governed, they never the less did extremely well in maintaining the ruling elite in their seats of power. Interesting in the historical debate over such policies is that DiLorenzo points out that Madison, in his last day in office, vetoed one of these improvement subsidies proposed by Lincoln's mentor Henry Clay saying in part that, Congress has enumerated powers under section eight of the first article of the Constitution, "and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised in the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it fall by any just interpretation with the power to make the laws necessary and proper" for carrying out other constitutional powers into execution. Madison in fact warned Congress that the general welfare clause of the Constitution was never intended to become a Pandora's box for special interest legislation. 

Having now lived through some eight months of President Obama's economic policies, one cannot help but note the striking similarities between the two presidents' philosophies where such policy is concerned. I am therefore forced to re-evaluate my position and admit that I have been wrong and that there may at least be some similarity between the two Presidents I must also further note that during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln:

• The principle of habeus corpus was suspended and legislators, newspaper editors & publishers, and civilians who disagreed with Lincoln's policies were thrown into prison without charges or trial.
• All telegraph communications in the US were censored and newspapers critical of Lincoln's policies were denied distribution by mail (the predominant method at the time) at the president's orders to his postmaster general.
• Federal troops were posted outside of polling places during an election in 1861 in both Maryland and New York at Lincoln's direction in order to insure that pro government candidates were assured of election.
• States like Maryland and Delaware who attempted to consider secession from the Union were prevented from such consideration when Lincoln sent troops into those states, declaring martial law.
• Lincoln unconstitutionally created the state of West Virginia by orchestrating the secession of western Virginia from the rest of the state, setting up a pro-Union government in it, and then accepting this state into the Union.
• A bloody and costly civil war was fought over the right of any states to secede from the Union, a right outlined in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the Constitution.

Wow, if such similarities continue to hold true, we may have good deal more excitement to look forward to in the coming three years! 

Under Repair

For those even mildly curious as to the title of this posting, let me reassure you that it relates to the condition of the blogger and not the website. I will not bore you with the ongoing details of my current attempted recovery process, but the paraphrase "it now takes me all week to do what I used to do all week" would not be out of line as it relates to my capability to remain upright in front of a keyboard (or anywhere else for that matter) long enough to string coherent thoughts together. 

(For those of you who might be thinking that I never let coherent thoughts get in the way of previous postings, shame on you. It's not fair to make fun of those in a weakened condition.) 

As part of the rehabilitative process, I am going to try to force myself to exercise my brain (a type of exercise seldom used even when I was feeling stronger), in the hopes that in doing so I can exorcise the weakness that I am currently dealing with. I hope to have something in the way of a new entry posted at least by mid-week, and will see how things go before attempting to get back to a full schedule.