Government Christmas Update

Those of you who have already read my latest effort in the Toledo Free Press, "Government Christmas" may have wondered as to how quickly such policies would be implemented or expanded. As is typical once the government takes command and control of such things, additional regulations and guidelines are coming out of Washington D.C. faster than they can be released to the public. In just the time since I wrote the original piece, it has been announced that:

• The Little People formerly known as elves will be allowed to organize into a union under a first test of the "Employee Free Choice Act". Not only will a decision on such a union be done by a simple public show of hands, but counting of votes will be performed by ACORN. My understanding is that the union so approved will be under SEIU. (How can we say that how a vote for a union vote not yet taken will be approved? Hmmm ...)
• Stricter regulations regarding the carbon footprint of present delivery will be done. While the current system (a sleigh) is not a fossil fuel vehicle, the reindeer have been known to emit both carbon dioxide and methane.
• In addition, the Post Office will be used as a government approved alternate delivery method when required, so as to lessen the load for one-day delivery and provide a much needed boost to Post Office revenues.
• Children will no longer be able to sit on Santa's lap and ask for presents, as such behavior can cause a loss of self-esteem and reeks of pedophilia.
• Future requests for gifts will no longer be sent as letters to Santa at the North Pole. They will instead be submitted to the Office of the "Christmas Czar" in triplicate for review and approval.
• Candy canes will no longer be allowed to be used as a symbol for Christmas, as the concept demeans those individuals "specially-abled" and therefore requiring the use of canes for mobility. (I know that it's supposed to symbolize a shepherd's crook, but I don't write these regulations, I just release them.)
• Snowmen (and Snow-women) can no longer be depicted with such large bottom sections, as such a display goes contrary to the obesity conscious nature of the new holiday.
• Snow depicted on the new "approved" Christmas cards will no longer be limited to the color white in order to illustrate the diversity being sought in all things government.

As more regulations become known or available, I will be sure to add them. My time is limited on keeping up with this research however, so if you hear anything out there, please feel free to let me know.

TFP Column: Government Christmas

I decided, with the permission of the editor-in-chief of the Michael Miller, to move my ongoing discussion of holidays over to the Toledo Free Press. 


As a consequence, this week's column is on the potential fate of the next holiday on the calendar, "Government Christmas". All tongue-in-cheek of course, it lays out the ramifications of our bailout and regulation crazy government taking over the reins of this time honored tradition. 


As always, there is far more worth reading in the TFP, the largest circulation Sunday newspaper in Toledo. I urge you to take a little time this rather chilly weekend to make sure you catch up on anything and everything going on in the Glass City in its pages. 


And while I have the opportunity to do so, I want to make sure to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas and the happiest and most prosperous of New Years.

Why Are Toy Trains More Fun Than Real Ones?

As Christmas approaches, I was thinking recently of some of the great gifts that I received over the years, and of course the most memorable of my youth were toys. None of these has left a more lasting impression than the Lionel trains that my brother and I received.

My father took the time to build a table for operating them that could be set up in the garage, and we spent hours on end setting up track and running them around it. We marveled at tiny steam locomotives that made smoke and whose lights shone brightly, even during the day. Tiny diesel locomotive replicas towing miniature passenger or freight cars provided hours of fascination. We reveled in being able to control their movement forward and backward, switching tracks along the way as they made their way round our private little world.

We later added to the reality of that world (with my father's help of course), acquiring, painting, and assembling various accessories for these trains. Trees, grass, buildings, crossing gates, and even tiny people soon became part of the bit of miniature reality that we tried to create.

Later on after moving once, we had an adult neighbor even more obsessed than we were, who had turned the entire basement of his house over to a small world of tiny trains. Mountains and lakes, tunnels and bridges, and even small towns and cities were a special part of this world in which he spent endless hours and which we were privileged to visit from time to time.

These days trains have a far different meaning for me. Government subsidies of Amtrak, the cries for additional funding for light rail and commuter rail in cities, and the need for railroads to run commercials to prove the worth of their existence seem to have dimmed my fervor.

Instead of getting eye level with miniature crossing gates, my mind is filled with thoughts of the needless accidents at unsafe railroad crossings. Instead of hours of the fascination of watching these tiny trains follow their fixed paths, I remember the wasted hours over the years that I have spent waiting for one to parade in front of me. Instead of seeing myself in those tiny Pullman car replicas (built not many miles north from where I lived near Chicago), I now mourn that there is no longer any such thing.

Perhaps it is simply that I have lost the ability to experience the simple joys of youth. Perhaps it's that the fantasy of trains (and most of life) fascinates far more than their reality. Perhaps reaching a level of understanding in the reality of such things as an adult (OK, in my case kind of an adult) ruins the fantasy forever.

I still dream of one day taking a long train trip across the country, and maybe even up the west coast of the US and Canada to Alaska. I dream of the endless scenery passing by the window to the repetitive sounds of the joints in the tracks. I dream of the hypnotic effect of such leisurely travel in a way that I have never experienced.

I fear however, that it will never be. The reality would (and could) never live up to such a dream. Travel is no longer the romantic experience that it once was, as anyone who has flown recently knows far too well. And even if it were, passenger trains themselves are no longer what they used to be. Besides, my understanding is that with the current level of repair of both tracks and passenger cars, such travel (and such fantasies) can be downright dangerous.

The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #22

Yes here we are once again, adding yet more words to the lexicon of local terms more commonly known here in Toledo as the "Stuck on Stupid Dictionary". 



Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (Shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the title of SOS, stuck on stupid, or dictionary.), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different to us in Toledo and Northwest Ohio. 

Saving: 
1. The preservation of wealth from danger or destruction, most notably performed through economizing. 
2. A term apparently understood by neither the Legislature of Ohio, PUCO (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio), or First Energy as it: 
- Forces the distribution of "energy-saving" CFL light bulbs to a public that by and large doesn't want them (virtually guaranteeing that they will not be used). 
- Charges more for such bulbs to its customers than they would pay if they purchased them on their own, doing anything but "saving" them money. 
- Charges that public additionally for the energy "saved" by the use of these bulbs, so as to "save" their lost revenues.

Daily Paper Goes To Dogs

This should have been the banner headline on page one today instead of 'Pit bull' law sticks despite tries for change 


One of my greatest joys on a Sunday is reading the Sunday Paper! Having been a newspaper junkie for a number of years, I especially look forward to getting a leisurely weekly fix on every Sunday. Imagine my disappointment in the fact that with everything that is going on in the country (and the world) right now, that 2-1/2 pages of the A-Section of the newspaper is devoted to articles on dogs, as is the lead editorial (yet again) and about 25% of the Letter to the Editor space. 


Nothing about the recently released CRU emails and what impact this bastardization of the scientific process should or will have on the upcoming Copenhagen climate change meeting except a column in the 3rd section (though the protesters made the front page). Nothing about the fact that GM is "paying back" the government with money from the government. Little about health care legislation that threatens to bankrupt this country. 


No, we get page after page on dogs ... (While I'm being a nitpicker: How does a newspaper have two "A" sections with the 3rd section listed as the B section, as today's Blade did? Calling the second section more of the first does not make it so, no more than calling the second page the first make the laws of counting change.) 


As I have stated in the past, I have nothing against dogs and grew up with them as a kid. I am nonetheless aggravated when so much of the primary news section of a newspaper is devoted to such a second level story. I continue to resist the claims of the death of the daily newspaper in this country, but have to have serious doubts about the Toledo Blade if this is the product that they believe to be one.

The Safety Net

My ideological counterpart at the Toledo Free Press Don Burnard, wrote an interesting piece for this weekend's edition of the the paper (I was absent this weekend, but will be returning soon). I say interesting because there are parts of it with which I am in total agreement. 


That is not to say that we don't disagree on a few major points however. Mr. Burnard writes.: "One of the biggest differences between this recession and the Great Depression is that the Depression was a combination of government spending, regulation and the advent of World War II brought us out of it. Today, wartime spending is adding to the problem rather than helping." 


I would agree that our current level of wartime spending is not helping an already horrible situation; though I am sure that as is typical, military contracts are stimulating some parts of the economy. I would disagree however, with the premise that government spending and regulation brought us out of the Great Depression, as many economists now agree that FDR's policies in fact extended a crisis that would have corrected itself more quickly without the government's intervention. 


I find instead that one of the biggest differences between this recession and the Great Depression is that in 1929, the country was not already burdened with the crushing debt of the very "safety net" that he looks to for salvation. There was no Welfare, no food stamps, no Medicare and Medicaid, and no Social Security system to burden the federal debt at a far greater level than the "two wars" that we are fighting. 


 In fact, I would point out that according to the Obama Administration, we are not actually fighting wars, but Overseas Contingency Operations; but that's beside the point. I agree with Mr. Burnard that we have little chance of "emerging victorious" from either of these conflicts. No amount of time or money is going to change the culture of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or most parts of the Middle East. There have been tribal wars going on in each of areas for thousands of years; and it is sheer hubris to believe that we can force an American mindset or peace on these areas by force of will. 


I believe in fact that the only responsibility that we have in any of these conflicts is that in Iraq, since it was only through our support and funding that Saddam Hussein was able to take power and make a mess of that country in the first place. I likewise disagree with the repetitive cheer voiced in the column that all of this is the fault of the Bush Administration. I believe that this ridiculous policy notion can trace its history back through many years and many presidents on both sides of the aisle, with such examples of Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Grenada, and Nicaragua on the list of attempts at nation building or enforcing American values on a foreign population. 


I agree wholeheartedly that both parties have been the willing accomplices of special interests in the banking industry, among others. The efforts to subvert capitalism in recent years has been a truly bi-partisan effort; with little change between a Republican or Democratically controlled Congress, and with both Bush and Obama attempting to orchestrate the flawed process. Bush may need to take credit for starting this snowball rolling, but the Obama Administration must likewise take credit for its increased size and speed. 


The solution proposed is the worthy call to build a solid middle class (which cannot be done by the government by the way); but quickly becomes tainted, as its only purpose apparently would be to provide a "strong tax base" (code for increasing taxes) to fund the growth of this safety net. Forgive me if I cringe while reading those words. I have a copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution before me, and in no place is such an obligation of the citizenry therein established. The government in this country was created to serve the people, not act in loco parentis. 


I do not believe, as potentially accused, that Mr. Burnard is a socialist, a communist, or a co-conspirator in a global plot to take over the economy. (I chose not to wear my tin foil hat while writing this, though many say I look damn good in it.) I do believe however, that he is misguided in his proposed solution through drinking a bit too much of the progressive Kool-Aid that so many now seem to use as their primary form of sustenance. I believe that many of the problems that he cries out against, and that I agree need solutions, have been caused by the continued and increased interference of government in business. 


I would agree that banking bailouts are wrong and should never have been done, but so is the creation of a "salary czar" to insure some equitable distribution of monies between workers and management. I believe that bailing out corporations like GM and Chrysler is wrong, but so is taking the recompense due to legitimate bond holders and giving it to the UAW. I especially believe that adding to the already poisonous debt load that this country is burdened with in the name of expanding the safety net that Mr. Burnard sees as its salvation is without a doubt the wrong direction for this country.

Exceptional Government

Few would argue that what this country needs more than anything these days is an exceptional government. For some of us, that may be the one wish that they have for their fellow citizens this Christmas. I would argue the case that in fact we already have one. Of course, in order to prove this, I would first need to define our terms for discussion (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary). 


Exceptional: (def.) forming an exception Exception: (def) a case to which the rule does not apply 


Now, having defined the term, let's go on to prove the case based upon illustration or example (Understand that in these examples, I attempt neither to approve or disapprove of the policy outlined, merely use it as an illustration): 


- The government of the United States is against wage controls, except through the use of the minimum wage requirement or when discussing the salaries of corporation managers that have taken bailout money as determined by the pay czar Kenneth Feinberg. 
- The government is against price controls, excepting where farm subsidies are used to prop up the prices of various agricultural products. 
- The government is against taxing the same money twice, except when taxing the interest earned on such money or when such money is bequeathed to others upon the demise of the original earner is concerned. 
- The government is against monopolies, except when it is the one granted for the delivery of mail to the post office. 
- The government is against subsidizing industry, except when it's Amtrak, General Motors, or Chrysler. 
- The government will not seek to control "legal" behavior, except when that behavior is eating fatty foods in NYC, buying a big screen TV in California, or smoking anywhere in this country. 
- The government will guarantee me the right to my property, except if I want to do something with it not provided for in zoning laws or unless the government wants to seize it for use under "eminent domain" for use by the government (or a well-connected developer). 
- The government will guarantee me the right to a speedy trial, except if it has defined me as a terrorist, in which case I can rot in jail forever before I get any form of trial or tribunal. 


See, based on the evidence of our own history, there is no doubt left that the government most of us thought that we needed and that we have is exceptional. (What's that old saying about being careful what you wish for?)

Quote of the Day

If the American people allow the banks to control the issuance of currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. 
- Thomas Jefferson

Inconceivable

Any of you who have seen the classic Rob Reiner film "The Princess Bride", remember the line by Vizzini, the rather inept kidnapper of the princess of the title. Played by Wallace Shawn, this character looked at every setback to his plans by the "Man in Black" and responded with a single word, "Inconceivable!"


So much of what we saw in the movies and TV over the years seemed to me to be equally inconceivable. Superman stood calmly as bad guys shot him in the George Reeves series, but ducked when they threw the empty gun at him. Imperial stormtroopers in "Star Wars" movies wore armor that restricted both movement and vision, but obviously not as protection, as every weapon used by the Alliance took them out, as did rocks in the hands of those little teddy bear Ewoks. Hundreds of bad guys shot at James Bond over the years in films, and none of them seemed to be able to hit him. On the other hand, Bond James Bond and most of the other good guys in film rarely seemed to miss. 


Speaking of getting shot, how do the good guys run around on legs that have just gotten shot or throw a punch after getting shot in the arm or shoulder? How can the last two minutes of a quarter of basketball or football game take longer to complete than all of the previous minutes in that same quarter?

__________

But apparently such observations are not restricted to entertainment. I now find myself in Vizzini's position in real life. I watch with awe as the government of a Representative Republic seemingly ignores the will of the very people that it is supposed to represent: Remember when you said that Congress would not pass a Stimulus Bill that would do no good, well they did it anyway. "Inconceivable!"


Remember when you said that the government would never bail out the mortgage and banking industries, in effect nationalizing them, well they did it anyway. "Inconceivable!" 


Remember when you said that Congress would never bail out Chrysler and General Motors, well they didn't, but the president did it anyway. "Inconceivable!" 


Remember when you said that Congress would never bring health care reform to a vote in both Houses, knowing that it would add to a debt burden already too large to pay back, well it looks like they are going to. "Inconceivable!"


Remember when you said that "Cap and Trade" Legislation would never be put forward, as it would stifle the very economic growth that this country so desperately needs, well they are. "Inconceivable!" 


And so we return to "The Princess Bride", where finally frustrated by his bosses repetition of the word Inconceivable on each of these occasions, his henchman Inigo Montoya (played with such a perfect sense of irony by Manny Patinkin) finally rejoined: 


"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." 


Inigo my friend, I'm afraid that you might be right.

Who Gets (Or Wants) To Pitch A Big Tent?

When far too many important issues need to be debated in the country, the choice these days seems to be over whether the Republican Party should be allowed (by the Democrats and Liberal media) to determine who is a Republican. 


For those of you not already saying, "Huh?" let me elaborate. It appears that some part the Republican Party, fresh off of some victories in the recent elections, has arrived at the position that these victories have something to do with adhering to core Republican principles. It also appears that that some part of the Republican Party has decided that if this is the case, it would do well to identify and codify those principles in order to continue this success. 


As pointed out in a Wall Street Journal piece by Peter Wallsten from November 24th, ten members of the Republican National Committee have come up with ten principles on which they would to be used as a litmus test to decide who gets funding from the National Republican Party. (I won't go into the details of the resolution language or the principles, but I urge those interested to read the linked article.)  


My question here however is why an opposition party (and their co-conspirators in the media) feel that they should have a part in the internal debate in the Republican Party? Are opposing coaches in a football game consulted before play calling? Do firms competing for a contract consult each other before submitting bids? Do opposing generals ask each other for advice on strategy before conducting a battle? 


Quite frankly, the questions seem too ridiculous to even be asked. Of course in none of these situations do opposing positions or ideologies consult each other or allow such opposition to dictate strategy. In fact, in the isolated cases when an opponent has been allowed to to do so, even indirectly, those dictating the strategy usually win the battle. OK, well that at least tells us why the Democrats are pursuing their strategy. 


(You know, Joseph Heller of "Catch-22" fame, once said: "The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on.") 


Let's ask instead then, why Republicans would be expected to follow the dictates of Democrat's strategy as that for their party. In the case of these ten members of the Republican National Committee, it appears that the answer is that they will not. It also appears that these ten individuals do not therefore agree with the concept of a "Big Tent" for the Republican Party. They appear to have come to the conclusion that political parties are formed around a limited number of core principles (hence the term core), which has been the case with each new political party in this country as it's formed. 


So whether I am a Republican or not (not), or I agree with each of these core principles as stated; I believe that each political party should have a group of stated core principles which serve to qualify inclusion in that party. I also agree with the concept that such core principles are a fair litmus test to determine party support. 


As for the concept of the "Big Tent" that Democrats and the media believe that the Republicans need for their future, let me repeat a statement that I have previously made on the subject: "Circuses have big tents, but we don't vote for the clowns."