Student Loans

One of the hot topics in the news right now is President Biden's plan to forgive a portion of existing student loans. So far, hard facts appear to be in short supply. Opinions, on the other hand, are being flung about with wild abandon like a barrel of monkeys excreting through a ventilation duct fan on high. 

"It's unconstitutional."

"It's a transparent attempt at vote buying in advance of the midterms."

"Why should I pay off the loans of someone who got a useless gender studies degree."

Etc, etc, etc. Let's look at things logically for a moment and see if we can come up with something approximating a rational conclusion. 

"It's unconstitutional." Let's get something out of the way right upfront: politicians regardless of party have been finding ways around the constitution since five minutes after the ink was dry. It's human nature. Lawyers exist to find ways around laws. Is it any surprise that a large number of politicians started life as lawyers? You want an example? The Second Amendment of the Constitution clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. And, yet, the National Firearms Act of 1934 ("the NFAA") blatantly and unconstitutionally infringes upon that right and has not been overturned to date. 

So, the president making noise that he will sign an executive order to forgive all or a portion of Federal Student Loan debt is no more or less constitutional than the NFA. In terms of overall Social Contract violations, this ranks pretty low on the scale of nefarious and diabolical threats to the Republic. The Turd Theater that we've been put through the last two years over a virus has done far more damage than giving a $10,000 haircut to what a bunch of folks trying to get educated owe the federal government. 

"Vote buying" Be honest with me. If someone offered you $10,000 and a wink and a nod, would you vote for them? What about if you identify with a different party and hold political views diametrically opposed to the person offering you cash? For the majority of the population, I would expect them to gladly pocket the money and then do whatever they would normally do anyway. Is there a segment of the population that is easily influenced by cash? Yep. I know a few of those. I'd be willing to bet that the people who think this is a vote buying scheme also think that the Democrats rigged the 2020 presidential election. Why would the Democrats "give away money" to buy votes when they can simply rig the elections to get the outcome they want anyway? 

Another thing to think about, the election is in November. The website to apply for forgiveness will not  even open until October and will be open until December. No one is getting anything paid off before the election. I'm cynical and skeptical enough to grant that it is possible that the administration is banking on the average student loan debtor not having the critical thinking skills or the free time to put two and two together and get "SCAM". There have already been rumblings about challenges being filed in court. So, what are the odds that anyone sees a dime wiped off their debt ever? 

"Why should I payoff...?" YOU aren't paying off squat. Neither am I for that matter. Think about this for a moment. When a kid signs the paperwork for a Federally backed student loan, the school isn't paying the professors and text book publishers with empty promises. The .Gov sends cash to the school in the form of revenue collected through taxes, tariffs, and (apparently for a short time) running a brothel in Nevada. The kid, in turn, agrees to pay back the loan to the .Gov at some point in the future plus interest and maybe a first born child unless the student can guess the name of the creepy old guy that shows up to claim...oh wait, wrong story. So, the truth of the matter is that Biden is simply saying he is going to hit "delete" on a certain amount in the government's balance sheet and move forward. 

Now, an argument could be made that the government will have to collect a certain amount more in taxes over the next however many years to offset the shortfall in expected recovery in student loan payments. That is, in my humble opinion, a fairly specious argument considering student loan payments have been on deferral since the pandemic began and the government has been running a deficit budget for all but 16 of the last 100 years. When you are talking about a deficit that almost equals the amount of tax revenue collected each year, this student loan forgiveness plan is barely a drop in that ocean. Don't take that comment to mean that I am in favor of more government mismanagement of our hard earned tax dollars. All I am saying is that there are bigger fish to pick and low hanging fruit to fry in terms of balancing the budget and getting spending under control.

If there is something I am missing here, I'm all ears. I've spent a fair bit of time thinking on this one. So, knee jerk reactions need not apply. Give me something equally well thought out to consider. 

2020 Primary Season

I haven't been following politics as much as I once did. The reason is equal parts disgust with the mockery that has been made of "civil discourse" on both sides of the aisle and distrust of the press to truthfully report the news without bias or spin. I have a hard time listening to what passes for news anymore. When I do make the effort, I'm cynical and skeptical enough that I have to read several sources and average it out to get a sense of what might really be happening.

I have not yet been able to muster up enough flying flips to watch any of the Democrat Party primary debates so far. From what I have been able to gather from reading the morning after recaps, they have been a big waste of time and money thus far. The sad fact of the matter is that no one actually debates anymore. Not that you can really have a debate with 10 or 20 people on the stage. With that many "contestants", there is no time to really conduct a proper debate under those circumstances even if they had the desire and skills to do so. It would take over an hour to get through a proper statement, response and rebuttal type debate for just one question with that many participants. Not that any of  the candidates cares to do such a debate. They seem to be content to talk in circles and sound bites dodging whatever question or topic while claiming to be "perfectly clear" about the topic at hand.

With the New Hampshire Primaries just four short months away, I thought I would go out on a limb and get my predictions in early for the likely opponents in the big show next November.

For the Republicans, this is a no brainer. Incumbent President Trump has no serious contenders waiting in the wings to unseat him as the GOP standard bearer for 2020. Of the currently declared candidates, John Kasich probably has the best chance of any of them by which I mean none. The current impeachment inquiry drum beating trying to stick Joe Biden's dirty laundry on Trump is pretty pathetic even by the standards of the Democratic Party for the last couple of years. My prediction is that the Democrat controlled House of Representatives drags out the impeachment inquiry until November in hopes of keeping Trump on his heals. Trump, being Trump, will continue to do what he does best and use every opportunity to make his opponents look like bumbling incompetents.

For the Democrats, the three ring circus isn't nearly as up for grabs this time as one would expect without Hillary Clinton in the mix. From what I can tell, this is really a 3 maybe 4 person race with Joe Biden leading the polls followed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders polling better than 10% depending on who is doing the stats. None of the other currently announced candidates are polling well enough or have the fundraising ability to stay in the race for long even assuming they stay in until February.

Creepy Uncle Joe, for all his faults and dirty laundry, is, for want of a better option, the front runner here. To moderate Democrats, Biden is "safe" for certain values of safe. He is not an ultra liberal nutcase; and, having been in political office for the majority of his life, he knows who is who and how to make deals in the swamp (which, let's face it, can't be drained to the extent it needs to be). No one in flyover country will ever leave Joe alone in the same room as their daughters, but he can also be counted on not to go full retard. Yes, he will engage in pay for play antics and generally do whatever he can to advance the interests of his donors and the party over what is good for the country as a whole, but he's not likely to honeymoon in Moscow or Havana either.

That brings us to Bernie Sanders. If Joe Biden is the creepy uncle everyone tolerates, Bernie is the crazy uncle to whom no one admits being related. That is not to say that Bernie isn't a contender this go round. Quite the opposite. The Bern is most popular with a certain demographic which just happens to be reaching ascendancy as the majority of the working and voting population: Millenials. Boomers, Xers and Yers underestimate this demographic shift at their peril, and it is no coincidence that the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party has spent the last 40 years with a death grip on public and higher education for the sole purpose of shaping entire generations to achieve their agenda. To them, Bernie is their ideological hero who shook the pillars under Queen Hillary's throne before discovering that the game was rigged. Unfortunately, recent reports have him taking a break from campaigning because of health issues.

Elizabeth Warren is competing with Sanders for the liberal wing of the party and, based on current polls, has a credible chance of upsetting Biden at the convention. That said, she's no Hillary and does not have what it takes to be the first woman president.

That, in my opinion and absent an as yet unannounced dark horse candidate, brings it back to the "safe" choice for the donors and moderates. Unless the Ukraine deal rears its ugly head and bites Uncle Joe in the naughty bits,  I see a Trump vs. Biden match up in November.

What says the peanut gallery?

Election Results

Dear Outgoing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan,

Congratulations genius. You and your establishment buddies managed to screw up a conservative’s wet dream. You had full control of all three branches of government, and you still couldn’t unbugger the mess in Washington.

Why am I blaming you and not President Trump? Simple. Trump’s power is limited to enforcement of the laws you give him to work with and exercising the bully pulpit to champion his own agenda. Yeah, yeah…executive orders. I’ll see your excuse, and I’ll raise you an accusation that it’s Congress’ fault that “a pen and a phone” is all that’s necessary to get around the Constitution these days. You can thank your predecessors for that one (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution ringing any bells?), and you and your spineless buddies have done nothing to correct the problem since.

Go enjoy your fat, Congressional pension in retirement you useless bag of warm spit. Thanks for nothing.

Dear Incoming (again) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,

Congratulations on regaining the gavel you hollow eyed, former hippie, walking argument in favor of term limits. Now that you have your toy back, what are you going to do with it? I’d strongly recommend against wasting my hard earned money on investigations that are going to go exactly nowhere. Impeachment? Not happening. You don’t have the votes in the Senate. Besides, if you investigate Trump, you damn well better investigate Hillary unless you want your gavel taken away from you (again).  

Here’s another suggestion: ever hear the saying “a rising tide floats all boats”? How about working in the country’s best interests for a change instead of lining your own pockets and those of your billionaire donor class puppet masters?

How about an observation, which should be obvious to everyone, for you too. 2016 is over. Too bad, so sad that The Donald made a mess of Queen Hillary’s ascension to the throne. Deal with it and move on. You’re stuck with him just like we are stuck with you. To quote your messiah, Barry Obama the Organizer, “Elections have consequences.” You want to keep a firm grip on that gavel? How about starting with admitting that ACA should never have seen the light of day to begin with and push for its repeal. Do that and actually honor your oath of office for a change, and you might just get to die in office like McCain did.

While we are on the subject of the [un]Affordable Care Act, it was an unconstitutional disaster of a law intentionally designed to fail so that you and your wannabe socialist buddies could usher in socialized medicine. Haven’t you kept track of the news? Socialism DOES NOT ^%$##$%^&*!!! WORK. Socialism requires massive amounts of OTHER PEOPLES’ MONEY! The only reason Europe has a halfway functioning socialist democracy is because it receives MASSIVE amounts of foreign aid from the UNITED STATES. Without US money and military presence (allowing Europe to spend less on defense), Europe would be on its way to being Venezuela.

Last suggestion: how about you start acting like a leader and stop demonizing the half of the country that disagrees with you and your party? While you are at it, a leader holds their own people accountable for mistakes, transgressions and outright, flagrant violations of the law. Get your flashlight out and poke into the corners of Hillary Clinton’s email server and Diane Feinstein’s driver for starters.

Good luck, I’ll be praying for you, and feel free to check back for more suggestions. I’ve got plenty to go around.

Sincerely,

Daddy Hawk, A Humble (broke) Taxpayer

Source Material

The Queen has been out on her annual fall trek through the thrift stores hunting clothing and other apparel for our upcoming trip (hopefully Haweewee if it doesn't get blown off the map by the hurricane currently spinning up in the Pacific). So, she sends me a text at the office with the a photo of the following t-shirt:

She allowed as how it was the perfect shirt for me...since I typically refuse to accept much of anything without critically assessing the facts and source material.

I can't help it. I come by my flaw honestly as I was trained that way by a wise, old, Jesuit priest turned history professor in my history methodology class. The man had to be in his 70s at least at the time, and that was...more than a few years ago. Let's just say, if that man is still creeping around this old mud ball, I'm shooting him in the head on general principle. You can't be too careful to prevent a zombie outbreak.

God will sort it out.

Anyspeculation, there was a point to this post. I'm sure of it.

Oh yes...critical assessment of facts and source material.

That old Jesuit had all us wannabe history majors do a project (a research paper really) the main point of which was an annotated bibliography. He didn't really care what the subject of the paper was as long as the bibliography was annotated with a critical assessment of the source material including whether it was primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. He also wanted us to take it a step further and assess whether the source material exhibited any bias (this came back to bite me in the butt with my African history professor, but that's a story for another time).

Fast forward mumble, mumble years, and that is one the lessons that has stuck with me to this day. Unfortunately, I think this lesson has been lost on an entire generation (or more) of people.

Case on point. The other night, I come home from work to find two, brand new, freshly purchased boxes of Cheerios (M&M's preferred breakfast cereal) on a pile of stuff being gathered for donation. I queried The Queen as to the reason suspecting something was afoot.

The Queen informed me that my father-in-law, Opa, had told her that he had read an article somewhere that claimed Cheerios contained dangerous levels of a particular pesticide residue. Opa is one of those people for whom a little information is a dangerous thing (no, seriously, he's never met an internet scare of conspiracy theory that he hasn't latched onto). He really should not be let loose with an internet connection without a minder.

This revelation, as one would expect, caused my eyebrows to raise and set off my facial tics just a touch.

I set about investigating the claim du juor. Opa was questioned regarding the source of the Cheerios Challenge. After much fumbling about the dustier corners of his memory, we were able to tease out the source of the pesticide proposition. It was a news article from the Detroit Free Press linked to from the Natural News website referring to a study done by a group called Environmental Working Group.

Now we were getting somewhere. I start doing my due diligence on EWG. EWG claims to be a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting human health and the environment. A laudable goal to be sure. Funding is primarily from grants and individuals. Notable names among the donor list is the Walton Family Foundation (think Sam Walton of Wal-Mart fame) and The Turner Foundation (Ted Turner - CNN Founder). They also have corporate partnerships with many of the bigger names in organic foods.

Nothing about this is particularly alarming. It's not like George Soros or the Koch Brothers are involved. Having said that, did I mention EWG has a lobbying arm? Silly me. That must have slipped my mind. And regarding what issues do they lobby? Environmental, agricultural, food, toxic chemicals, etc.

So, they are environmental advocates. Again, nothing particularly wrong with that, but it could color their findings on certain topics or influence their reporting of facts. We'll get back to that in a minute.

I tracked down the article EWG posted about glysophate levels in foods. Glysophate, for the uninitiated, is the evil active ingredient in RoundUp (created by the nefarious mega corporation Monsanto...yes, I'm being a tad tongue in cheek). It seems that EWG commissioned a laboratory study of glysophate levels in common breakfast cereals. The article published by EWG reporting the results of the lab study started with a link to a recent California jury verdict in which Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million to a plaintiff dying of cancer allegedly caused by exposure to glysophate. They then get into a discussion of the levels of glysophate in food allowed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (1.1 milligrams per day for a 154 pound average person), the EPA (not specifically noted by referenced to be 60 times higher than the CA state allowable level) and the EWG's calculated "one in a million" cancer risk of 0.01 milligrams per day.

The original article I read did not "show their work" on the math, but it seems to have been corrected as they now report that a person would have to eat a 60 gram serving of food exceeding 160 parts per billion glysophate concentration to reach their calculated risk level of 0.01 millgrams per day (which, by the way, is 110 times lower than the  level the state of California says is too much which in turn is 60 times lower than what the EPA says is too much). So, just to put a bow on the math, EWG is saying that the safe level of glysophate in foods SHOULD be 6600 times lower than the level currently allowed by the EPA. They don't make a convincing case for why the level should be 6600 times lower than the EPA or 110 times lower than the state of California. Instead, they seem content to make the argument that it is a chemical linked to cancer and is therefore bad in any quantity.

For the record, I'm not volunteering to drink or otherwise consume 1.056 million parts per billion (that's 160 parts per billion times 6600) concentrations of glysophate in my daily Cheerios; and, truthfully, EWG may not be wrong in their conclusion. I just take issue with the manner in which they are presenting their information.

Back to the report on the study results. First off, the article currently on their website has been drastically revised from the version I read a few days ago, and I really wish I had a screen capture or PDF copy of the original to compare and contrast. The current version shows that EWG took samples of 45 conventional breakfast cereals and 16 organic breakfast cereals and tested them for glysophate concentration. They then report the test results in concentration parts per billion for each sample. All fine and dandy so far. Where things really went off the rails in the original article was that samples results were grouped according to which ones had unsafe levels (color coded in red...for contrast I'm sure). The thing that really bugged me in the original was that  they did not make it clear that the table of results categorized each product according to EWG's much lower concentration level.

To clarify further, the report starts out talking about concentration levels in milligrams per weight before  shifting to parts per billion in the lab results table. The revised article does now provide a brief conversion from milligrams per serving to parts per billions, but the original article did not.

Even in the revised article, if someone is not reading carefully, they might miss that critical distinction. The skeptic in me suspects that was EWG's intent in order to advocate for a new, lower standard for safe concentration levels.

Another, in my opinion, glaring omission from EWG's article is the results of other scientific testing on glysophate, a discussion of the MSDS sheet on the chemical, etc. For instance, it took me literally seconds to find out that the WHO and UN studies on glysophate determined that mammal animal models suggest that concentrations as high as 2000 milligrams per kilogram of  body weight was not associated with genotoxic effects. There's more detail out there than I'm willing to transcribe or cut and paste here. Bottom line is that you would probably have to ingest enough to drown yourself before you'd be at a legitimate risk of getting cancer, and you'd probably puke it up before you got close to those dosage levels.

After I pointed out these little details, the Cheerios mysteriously reappeared in the pantry.

Now, this is just one little drop of questionable information in a practical galactic ocean of information floating around the internet. Why should you care? Well, the president attacks CNN almost daily accusing them of being fake news. Fox News claims to be fair & balanced. Alex Jones gets banned from social media for making wild claims reported as news. For every EWG, there is a company or interest group lobbying for the opposite position. And let's not forget all those companies out there trying to make a buck selling snake oil and legitimate products.

Everyone, it seems, is publishing information at the speed of light. The incredible quantity of information being published everyday makes it impossible to fact check it all. That is why it is so incredibly important to learn to critically assess source material.

So, the next time you hear someone ranting about the latest scandal, conspiracy theory, social justice melt down...etc. Take a step back and dig into the source material with a critical eye. I'd bet that, more often than not, you'll find discrepancies in the reporting that will be most illuminating.

Dear Paul Ryan (an Obamacare Rant)

Dear Paul Ryan,

Just a few short months ago, Republicans were swept back into full control of the government on a huge groundswell of populist support. Full repeal of Obamacare was one of the cornerstone planks of the platform that led to that support.

Now, you want to foist off your own "lite" version of an abysmal, abomination of a law that was passed through deception and outright lies. Then you have the audacity to tell the press: "Obamacare is collapsing. If we just did nothing, washed our hands of the situation, we would see a further collapse of the health insurance markets. So we feel an obligation to step in front of that collapse and replace this law with one that works, that has more freedom."

I strongly urge you to rethink that plan. Stepping in front of that collapse will get you crushed like a bug by a pissed off electorate. I'm not saying do nothing. Quite the opposite. By all means necessary, REPEAL BUT DO NOT REPLACE. Please allow me too explain further.

Prior to Obamacare's inception, I had decent healthcare coverage paid for by payroll deduction through my employer. Not the Cadillac coverage congressmen and administration officials enjoy, but functional and usable. Deductibles were either $500 or $1000. Premiums for me and my family were manageable and within our budget. Since Obamacare, the lowest deductible my (now former) employer offers is $5000 at essentially triple the premium.

Let me be clear, this makes my healthcare plan functionally unusable to me and my family. I have no choice but to take it unless I want to be penalized for not having health insurance.

No where in the constitution is healthcare listed as an inalienable right. It is not the government's business to mandate healthcare or be involved in it in any way. Government involvement in healthcare (or any industry for that matter) is antithetical to the principles of freedom upon which this country was founded.

If you want to do something productive, figure out a way for health insurance carriers to sell coverage across state lines so that something approaching free competition is possible.

So,  again, I urge you and your fellow Republicans to REPEAL Obamacare and let the free market sort itself out. 

Sincerely,

Daddy Hawk

Election 2016

Greetings friends, it's time for another episode of Daddy Hawk’s Wandering Windshield Dialogue. It's just before 6 AM, and I've had no caffeine yet. I’m not sure if that bodes well for this episode or not. My Sister…The Devil checked my blood pressure yesterday which came in at a relatively mellow 110 over 69. So, in today's episode, we will tackle the tragic comedy that is the 2016 presidential elections.

As long time readers know, politics is one of my favorite spectator sports right up there with NASCAR. There's a fraud, corruption, conspiracy theories, cluelessness, allegations of murder, adultery, and the dead shall rise and vote once again (at least in Chicago). It's a bad teen zombie horror movie masquerading as a governmental system.

A few months ago, I saw a meme on Facebook about the elections. The caption was: "The problem with this election is that one of them will win." Being a native Texan, I think the second problem with this election is that, no matter who wins, our next president will be from New York.

It really makes me wish Richard Pryor's “Vote Nobody” campaign from Brewster's Millions was a real, viable option.

Let's start with the third-party candidates. I really have to chuckle at the unofficial campaign slogan someone came up with on Facebook for the Gary Johnson campaign. Nothing says vote for me like "Feel the Johnson " (with apparently no apologies to the Bernie Sanders campaign).  So, does that make Gary Johnson supporters jockstraps?

Libertarians have the best shot of any of the third parties. And, by best shot, I mean none whatsoever. They're currently pulling just under 15% in recent national polls which means they could probably spoil for one of the two main candidates not unlike what Ross Perot did in ’92 which helped the Clinton’s and the snatch the White House the first time. This time, though, the big Johnson ticket is sounding more Democrat than conservative, libertarian or Republican with their stance on guns and other subjects. So, Hillary may see a statistically significant number of former Bernie supports feeling the Johnson instead of the Bern. If that happens enough in the battleground states, say hello to First Lady Melania Trump instead of First Philanderer Bill Clinton.

As someone who considers himself to be a small “L” constitutionalist/libertarian, this gives me some small measure of hope.

Speaking of the Constitution party, according to one of those silly Facebook quizzes, that’s with whom I am most closely aligned on the issues. Color me surprised. I didn't even know they existed. Who knew? Unfortunately, they are polling about as well as Lynden LaRouche and he’s not even running this year.

As an aside, there's nothing to throw your train of thought off like being stuck in a traffic jam because some idiots who can't drive in the rain. I'm trying to bypass this mess so I won't even get the payoff of seeing the wrecked cars. Oops, I was wrong. I got to see the crunched cars after all. Major front in damage to a regular cab pickup of some description with a smoking radiator and all. No photos for you. I can only do so much at once.

But, I digress as usual.

Speaking of digressions, there's the Green party. That's really all I need to say about them. I have no idea what they think they can accomplish other than waste the money of some useful idiots. I did hear a segment on the Sean Hannity show with Dr. Jill Stein who is their presidential candidate this year. As near as I can tell, their platform is to take the worst parts of the New Deal, ignore history and all economic wisdom to the contrary, wave a magic and magically create jobs and a healthy economy. Good luck you ignorant twits. At least Bernie was honest about being a socialist.

That brings us to the Democrats. I have to say that I think it is a sad commentary on the party that the BEST candidates they could put forward for the primaries was an aging, self-avowed socialist and, arguably, the single most corrupt woman in American politics. She continues to be dogged by scandals that have brought down lesser people; and, yet, nothing sticks to her. The fact that Hillary had to conspire with the DNC to rig the primaries to beat Bernie is nothing short of hysterical and is further commentary on just how fed up America is with the establishment of both parties.

Discussing the establishment brings us to the Republicans. If Bernie was so unpalatable that the donkies rigged the game to pick Hillary, Trump is a poison pill with a chainsaw enema for the GOP elephants. Say what you will about Trump, but he beat a deep field of contenders including some serious talent from hard core conservatives to moderate establishment favorites. A lot of good candidates underestimated him and/or misread the direction the electoral winds were blowing. Either way, Trump is the horse the ‘Pubs are stuck with and has at least as good a chance as Hillary of winning the White House.

My final thoughts for now is that this election could really go either way. I’ve not seen voter discontent at this level in my lifetime or in my study of American history. I would submit the recent Brexit vote up for consideration as a case study in the triumph of the will of the people over the desires of their supposed betters in the establishment. I think we will see record setting voter turnout especially in the battleground swing states. Were I a betting man, I would give odds in favor of Trump. However, I could not begin to give an estimate on an over/under or point spread. I seriously doubt the winning candidate will have a clear majority and, thus, will have no clear mandate.

My Thoughts on The State of The Union Address

Didn't watch it. Didn't read it.

Wouldn't have believed the words that emanated from the horse thief in chief's pie hole if I did.

From what little I've gathered from reading the news and other opinion sources, it was a mixed bag of delusion, half truths, questionable science, posturing, threats and childish taunting.

The only state of the union that matters to me anymore is the state of my union to The Queen.

Liberal...conservative...makes no difference anymore. If I'm doing good in the eyes of God and The Queen, I'm happy.

Stop Hitting Yourself

Dear Texas Republican Party Members (and you folks at the National Party HQ need to listen up too),

I'll make this simple: STOP HITTING YOURSELF! Seriously. Put down the shovel, go take a bottle of Tylenol and reread the Bible and the Constitution when you wake up.

Sincerely,

Daddy Hawk

I'll be the first to state that, as a conservative Christian, I believe the Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality. The Bible is also very clear about not judging others, accepting people as they are (while loving them and encouraging them to sin no more) and looking after your own problems before you try to solve everyone else's. I'll also be the first to admit that I do not understand the "cause" of homosexuality anymore than I do particle physics, and I'm pretty sure no one living has a decent grasp on that subject either. We can debate genetics and nature versus nurture until the end of time; but, if you listen closely, you can just make out the sound of God laughing at us for thinking we have a clue.

So, it strikes me that these well intentioned folks are suffering from a special form of stupid to think that 1)homosexuality can be "fixed" through therapy, 2) that it's any of the government's business in the first place, and 3) there ought to be a law to do something about it.

Do you want to take a stand on moral issues? Fine be me. Live your life according to those morals. Be the example you want others to follow. Talk to people about why you do what you do when offered the opportunity. Talk to them out of love and be respectful of that teachable moment.

Do you want to make a difference in state and national level politics? Fine by me. Stick to things that are defined by the Constitution as being the government's business. Let's talk fiscal policy. Let's talk foreign policy. Let's talk about securing the borders. Let's talk about taxes. Let's talk about how entitlements are bankrupting the county. Let's talk about the ideas you have to make Texas and America stronger (or strong again depending on your point of view).

Let's stay out of people's bedrooms. Let's stay out of people's minds. This isn't Orwell's 1984. There should be no political correctness. There should be no hate crimes or thought police. You don't fix racism by inciting riots and perpetuating the "us vs. them" mentality. You change people's hearts and minds by being the best example you can be.

[dropping mike and stepping off soap box]

Tilting at Liberals

The Queen has a habit of chatting up ministers at church and then dropping a seemingly innocuous but very serious spiritual question on them putting them on the spot and generally making them VERY uncomfortable. Especially when they know the Biblical answer to the question is contrary to what they've been teaching and allowing in their congregation...and they don't want to admit it. I call it "tilting at ministers" (it's a Don Quixote-esque game of mental torture if you've never witnessed a rabid Ginger sink her teeth into someone who should know better than to poke the red head). 

Anyway, I told you that to sort of explain the title for today's post. 

I was perusing Facebook during lunch yesterday and came across a status from a church aquaintance. The status was a comment on a shared image. The image was from the National Low Income Housing Association or some such and stated that "Nowhere in the US can you rent a two bedroom apartment on 40 hours a week earning minimum wage." The aquaintance's comment was something along the lines that business owners are big, greedy, godless creatures who need to care about people and pay their employees more. 

Well, since I tend to sit on the far right side of the spectrum on most issues...especially economic/financial ones...I just had to go tilting at the liberal. My comment in response is as follows:

"First off, minimum wage is not supposed to be a "living" wage. It is an government required, artificial wage rate for unskilled labor most typically earned by teenagers still living at home. 

Second, this idea that business owners are somehow evil just because they pay a politically mandated minimum wage for unskilled labor ignores the fact that the employer is taking a RISK in providing a job and training the person to perform a task (and giving that person job skills in the process) all while trying to make a profit so that the business owner can continue to stay in business and provide the jobs that everyone seems to believe don't pay enough. 

Thirdly, name me ONE job that requires trade skills or a college degree that pays minimum wage. Higher wages are earned by putting in the time and effort to better yourself to make yourself move valuable (and hence more productive) to an employer. 

My first job was as a warehouse/stocker/janitor earning the then minimum wage of $4.25 an hour. I lived at home and then in the dorm at college. The first time I had an apartment where I paid rent, I was single and sharing it with a friend. I kept busting my rear at work to gain skills and raises until I could afford a place of my own. 

I didn't buy a car until I could afford it. I didn't get a cell phone until I could afford it. I didn't go out and start a family when I couldn't afford it. I didn't buy a house until I could afford it. 

People seem to have developed this idea that they are entitled to money, benefits, cars, toys, a big house and a lot more without the putting in the effort to earn it. God sees it differently. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says "...any man who will not work, neither let him eat."

My comment will likely offend several people. If that causes you grief, I apologize for that. But, I stand by what I say and won't apologize for speaking the truth as I see it."

I then proceeded to post my little shot across the bow on my own Facebook page just in case my words of wisdom were not well received and subsequently deleted by said acquaintance. Such would be intolerable. It's gotten fairly favorable responses so far, and a couple of people of like mind have seen fit to share it on their walls as well. 

I figured, heck, if it's getting good feedback on Facebook, why not use it as blog material? Hence, here we are.

You're welcome.

It's Been A While Since I Got Political

As many of you may have figured out already, I'm not a fan of what passes for politics these days. And, when it comes to choosing sides, both major parties can roll in a box of razor blades before a dip in the piranha tank for all I care. Having said that, today's offering (shamelessly stolen from another blog...which one I forget otherwise I would credit) strikes a chord with me.

Click to make bigger for easier reading.

Now, as much of a fan as I am of the concept of Ted Cruz tossing the apple cart over the hill and rubbing the elephant's trunk in it, there is a flaw to this plan. The fly in the ointment is the same one that has been plaguing the Republican party since Reagan left office: the establishment.

The big money establishment wing of the GOP would drop a 24 carat load on anyone with a pulse to run against Ted Cruz and his team. With the complicity and overt support of the liberal media reporting on scandals (real or imagined...see Herman Cain's failed campaign, what they did to Sarah Palin just as a VP nominee), a Cruz campaign would be fighting a three front war (do you think Hillary will stand by quietly and let Cruz get nominated?) by Super Tuesday.

Do I want to see this happen? You betcha. I want to see Cruz and company break the establishment like Moses broke the stone tablets while staring at the golden calf after coming down from 40 days on the mountain. I want to see a rollback of every failed social program and half baked, unconstitutional law, agency and Federal overreach going back to at least the Wilson administration (though credible arguments could be made to extend that back passed Lincoln). I want to see a dramatic rebirth/resurrection of the small government republic that good men and women have fought and died for. I want freedom and liberty to once again reign supreme including the freedom to fail (may there never again be a "too big to fail").

Do I realistically think this will happen? Sadly, no.

The odds are stacked against Cruz. Depending on whose figures you use, 49 to 51% of Americans depend on the government for their livelihood in one form or another. Add in the margin of fraud, the primary process that gives the more moderate/liberal parts of the country the opportunity to "thin the herd" and set the tone, and a conservative estimate of the loons and kooks that seems to crop up every election cycle trying to vote for Lyndon Larouche or some other equally viable candidate. What you are left with is a snowball's chance in Hell's outhouse of Cruz successfully running the gauntlet.

I'll be cheering him on regardless. I'm just setting my expectations low now so that reality doesn't hurt quite as bad.

This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

So, here lately, the North Texas area has been getting a lot of attention, unwanted in my opinion, from aggressive proponents of open carry upsetting the apple cart by carrying rifles and shotguns in public.

I'm sure most of you have seen the Facebook photo of the two dweebs...mall ninjas...wannabees...fools attention whores standing in Chipotle with their EBRs (evil black rifles) on display. I'm not going to post that photo as I don't need those two preserved here in my digital home for posterity. Google "Dallas Chipotle Open Carry" if you really want to see it. Suffice it to say, they look silly.  The one wearing his mirrored shades and holding the rifle at low ready, other than looking like the rifle is bigger than he is, should probably have been arrested for disturbing the peace or brandishing of some other related offense. Maybe it's not too late. There is photographic evidence of the offense after all.

Add to that little drama, the events going on in Arlington where the city council recently passed a new ordinance preventing people from stepping into city streets to hand out literature. This ordinance was the result of a Tarrant County open carry group passing out copies of the Constitution at intersections while carrying rifles and shotguns to the apparent dismay of some if you believe the news reporting of the events. The open carry group is crying violation of their first amendment rights, and they promise civil disobedience when the ordinance takes effect at the end of the month.

And now there is this:

Little orange signs like this are popping up all over Granbury (southwest of Ft. Worth). When I asked the manager at Fuzzy's Tacos what gives, he advised that they were informed that an open carry group was coming to town Memorial Day weekend and wanted no part of that nonsense. So, essentially, what they have done since the sign does not comply with Texas section 30.06 signage requirements is create a reason for a simple trespassing charge. If someone entering the business with a gun is asked to leave and refuses, they can then be arrested for trespassing.

Frankly, I don't blame Fuzzy's for posting the sign. I don't blame Chipotle for their position either. Do I wish they had handled it differently? Yes. Then again, I wish the attention whores had stayed home to beg mommy for donut money or play video games too.

In the meantime, I will comply with the laws of the state of Texas while enjoying my burritos and tacos.

Riddle Me This, Batman

So, the news is all a flutter about former New Orleans Mayor, Ray Nagin, being convicted of corruption and due to be sentenced today. My question is this: what took them so long?

Bear with me for a moment. Hurricane Katrina was in August of 2005. Even back then, almost 9 years ago, it was no a well known fact that he was for sale to the highest bidder. One incident in particular stands out in my mind.

Following Katrina, there were literally thousands of flooded cars in and around New Orleans that needed to be disposed of. A car crusher in east Texas offered to pay the City of New Orleans $100 per car for the privilege of bringing their equipment to New Orleans and disposing of the cars. The offer would have netted the city approximately $5,000,000 and the work completed in about 15 weeks. Nagin declined the offer and attempted to steer a contract COSTING the city $23,000,000 to a company that had neither the experience nor the resources to do the job. See the Snopes article for more details.

Given the illustrious history of Louisiana politicians penchant for corruption (I mean, who could forget William Jefferson's "cold hard cash"?), wouldn't it just make sense to present election winners there with an indictment for corruption to save time?

Is It Just Me...

...or does Texas Senator Ted Cruz look like a young(er) Bill Murray?

(picture source)



You decide.

Liberty in America: A Political Theory

I've been meaning to sit down and write this post for a while now. It just so happens that, today, I am sitting here at the office twiddling my thumbs doing nothing since today is "moving day" and we can't do any productive work since everything is boxed up and shut down. Everything but my trusty iPad that is.

Anyway, let's talk about freedom and liberty for a bit. I am going to try to avoid using terms that come too heavily "loaded" with excess baggage, but I want to take a second here to give a couple of definitions to set up a common frame of reference for the rest of the discussion.

First, let's look at the definition of "liberty" from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

LIBERTY

1: the quality or state of being free:

a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

When I talk about liberty here, I am mainly focusing on the first part of the definition above. Specifically, I believe liberty, true liberty, is the state of being free and having the power to do as one pleases (within certain easily definable boundaries...i.e. your freedom of action ends when it interferes with the freedom of action, health or welfare of another). The other aspects of liberty mentioned in the definition are part and parcel with that in my humble opinion. It's hard to do as one pleases when under physical restraint for instance.

Moving along, let's look at the definition for "freedom" (same source):

FREEDOM

1: the quality or state of being free: as

a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous
d : ease, facility
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use

2

a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

As you can see, the definitions of freedom and liberty are very closely related; and, in my opinion, one cannot exist without the other. There are a couple of concepts buried in the definition of freedom that should be emphasized though. Those are: independence and privilege. Freedom IS a privilege. It is one that must be guarded and protected. Freedom also requires independence. Once independence is lost and the majority slide into dependence, freedom is gone as well. Keep your thumb here or highlight it or something. We'll be coming back to this concept in a minute.

Finally, for purposes of this discussion, political terms such as right/left, Republican/Democrat, liberal (or progressive if you prefer)/conservative, etc. will be used in the manner consistent with common usage as of this writing as opposed to any historical or rhetorical connotations that may rightly or wrongly apply.

Moving along, let's get into the back story leading to the formation of my theory. I don't recall exactly where or when I read it; however, there was a blog article a while back making the argument that Americans have been duped into thinking that the government has to take a side on any given issue (gay marriage in the case of this particular article but the author later generalized the point to apply to all issues). The writer went on to argue that, in reality, both sides of any given argument were shooting themselves in the foot by insisting that the government get involved in something that was NONE OF ITS BUSINESS.

Think about that for a moment. Take, for example, the issue identified by that article. Where in the Constitution does it say that gay marriage (or straight marriage for that matter) is any of the government's business? I'll help you with this answer: NOWHERE! And, yet, here we have people on both sides of the issue yielding their independence by depending on the Government to take a stand by denying the liberty and freedom of people on the other side of the issue by enforcing one side the views of one over another. How absurd is that?

Whichever side the government takes regardless of the issue, there is corresponding legislation, regulation and government bureaucracy necessary to enforce that position. Look no further than the news regarding the implementation of Obamacare (I am using the popular term here because I am too lazy to write out the full name of the bill not for any pejorative connotations the term may have) and all the rules and regs and people needed to sort that out.

Even Starbucks is smart enough to stay out of issues that are none of its business. Starbucks is in the business of selling coffee, and they have wisely decided that their views on the Second Amendment, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with the business of selling coffee. They gain absolutely no benefit from taking a stand one way other the other; and, in fact, they risk alienating a significant percentage of their customer base BY taking a stand. 

To be fair, that's an overly simplistic and non-analogous comparison; but, the point remains that there are things defined by the Constitution that ARE the government's business and things, thanks to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, that ARE NOT the government's business.

Quick refresher for those who have not read the Constitution lately:

"The powers 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."

Now, let's back up a bit for some history leading up to the Constitution. I'm sourcing heavily from Wikipedia for this next bit (again, because I am lazy as opposed to any endorsement or condemnation of Wikipedia's greatness).

Prior to the War for American Independence or Revolutionary War (depending on which history book you read), there was a shift in political philosophy thanks to the Enlightenment. In particular, the long held belief in the divine right of monarchies to rule over subjects started suffering from some serious setbacks starting with the notable regicide incident in England during that little dispute between Oliver Cromwell and Charles I.

One philosopher in particular, John Locke, had a huge influence in this area of thought. To quote from Wikipedia:

"John Locke's (1632–1704) ideas on liberty greatly influenced the political thinking behind the revolution, especially through his indirect influence on English writers.[clarification needed] He is often referred to as "the philosopher of the American Revolution," and is credited with leading Americans to the critical concepts of social contract, natural rights, and "born free and equal."[6] Locke's Two Treatises of Government, published in 1689, was especially influential; Locke in turn was influenced by Protestant theology.[7] He argued that, as all humans were created equally free, governments needed the consent of the governed.[8] Both Lockean concepts were central to the United States Declaration of Independence, which deduced human equality, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from the biblical belief in creation: "All men are created equal, ... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

As we continue rolling forward in history to the revolution itself, we find the rhetoric of the time rooted in freedom and liberty. Notably, Patrick Henry did not say "Give me Democracy or give me death." He said, "Give me LIBERTY or give me death." Even The Declaration of Independence, based on the ideas and philosophy of John Locke says, makes a strong argument for liberty with the line "...the pursuit of life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness."

Once the war was one and the leaders of the new nation came together to hammer out a social contract based on Locke's ideas. We see this codified in the Preamble of US Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." [emphasis mine]

So, why did I go through all of that, and what do I think it means as far as a political theory goes?

Think of the political spectrum as a bell curve. There are relatively few radicals on either side of any given issue while the vast majority reside somewhere in the middle. Call it 10/80/10 or 20/60/20. It is my theory that the vast majority in the middle of the bell curve just want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit while it is the outliers on either side of the curve that see it as, not only their right, their mission in life to make everyone else live the way they think they should.

By doing so, by insisting that the government pick a side where it has no business being in the first place, these radicals on either side have yielded their independence, their freedom and liberty if you will, in favor of dependence upon the government to define their lives.

If a politician wants to really shake things up, it is my belief that they should not promise to take a stand on this or that side of an issue. Instead, they should promise to leave everyone alone and stick to the things defined by the Constitution as the government's business.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon with the way things are going now.

Here's An Interesting Time Sink

As most of you know, politics and the legislative sausage making process are an interest of mine. I'm one of those kids from the 70s who watched School House Rock every Saturday morning on TV and actually paid attention to "Conjunction Junction" and "I'm Just a Bill." Given that, I should probably have gotten a degree in political science instead of history and anthropology, but that would have made life difficult for me once I had my spiritual awakening since what passes for politics these days is wholly incompatible with a Christian life (unless you are a hypocrite).

Any horse thief, having spent some quality time at work looking into the inner working of Obamacare (in all it's 2400+ pages of glory) and how it might affect the things we do around here and listening/reading the news lately about the Gang of 8 Immigration Reform bill (itself a kilopage behemoth not including amendments), it occurred to me that no one really has a grasp on how big the United States Code has become, how far it has strayed, etc.

That led me to ask what the First Congress did in terms of legislation. Well, here is a handy link to answer just that question courtesy of the Library of Congress. Looking through the table of laws, the first Congress enacted less than 30 laws in its first year mainly roughing in the details of the things The Constitution said Congress was supposed to be doing. During the first four years, the total page count of all laws in the United states was less than 300 pages.

Let's recap for comparison's sake for just a sec...

All bills passed into law during the first FOUR years of Congress: less than 300 pages (which pretty much everyone read and understood before voting began)

Obamacare: Over 2000 pages (that no one read in its entirety much less understood before passing it)

Something is very screwed up here. The US Code is now well north of 200,000 pages not including Executive Orders, Regulations, Policies and the Whims of Bureaucrats (TM).

Prior to 1800, every man, woman and child in America that could read could read and comprehend every single page and word passed by Congress (if they had a copy) in less than a week. Less than a day if they read fast. Now, not so much.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Start paying attention to what your horse thieves are doing and hold them accountable.

I'd Like to Propose a Change in Election Law

It occurs to me that the American people can't seem to help but elect criminals or those of evil intent to  political office. As such, I hereby propose that election laws in this country be changed so that every politician elected to office from the smallest school board representative to the president be given a jail or prison sentence equal to their term in office. Just on general principals since it's almost impossible for politicians to keep from violating some law (or the Constitution) through evil intent, ignorance or flat out stupidity. It needs to be at least a state jail felony sentence (Federal for national public office). It should include Cabinet level positions requiring confirmation by elected representatives. Pardon eligibility would require extraordinary proof of innocence and automatically make the pardonee eligible for sainthood as the world's first honest politician. 

Some Random Thoughts This Morning

Good morning. Much has transpired since last we spoke. I am nursing a mild/moderate sunburn after the weekend's activities. The Queen had her first official Mother's Day. Her initial request was for a weekend of camping and fishing. Efforts to make that happen were thwarted by a quagmire of complications. We were successful in getting out on a lake for a couple of hours on Sunday afternoon using a Hobie Mirage Series Oasis kayak, and The Queen caught the one fish for the day.

Red head in a red boat

He was a cute fish. Small, but feisty. We tossed him back.

The kayak was a hoot to fish from. I may just have to write a review of it for The Toy Box. The Queen wants one. Daddy Hawk wants one too. Maybe two. They are that cool. They are also that expensive.

It's been a while since I have dabbled in the world of politics here. I've seen a lot of stuff on Facebook and blog ready calling for the impeachment of President Obama. I understand the sentiment. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening. While the Republican majority in the House could presumably bring articles of impeachment to the floor for debate and even potentially pass them on to the Senate for trial, the likelihood of the Democrat controlled Senate reaching a 2/3 majority to convict the first black president of "high crimes and misdemeanors" approaches "nuthin' divided by nuthin' carrying the nuthin' is still nuthin'".

Kermit Gosnell (I will no longer apply the honorarium of Doctor to him) has been convicted of murdering his patients while committing unspeakable acts of evil. While he is, in theory, facing the death penalty for his crimes, I am not optimistic that such a verdict will be entered in this case. Even if they did, he would die of old age before his appeals were exhausted. I am glad that he was convicted. That restores some small amount of faith in the legal system that has been chipped away from me in my cynicism borne of experience. I do feel that it is a shame that our system does not allow the convicted to be executed in the same manner in which their crimes were committed. Cruel and unusual is in the eye of the beholder. Kermit obviously thought there was nothing cruel and unusual about what he did to those babies. So, I fail to see the problem with doing the same to him.

I do echo the sentiment that, if Benghazi was no big deal "that was a long time ago" and "what difference does it make?", then let's ship Hillary's daughter Chelsea over there as ambassador and see just how big a deal it really is. How about it Hillary? Any takers? Yeah...I didn't think so either.

Oh...and Hillary...you can forget about 2016 because we won't.

Let's see here...what else do we have to discuss? The IRS scandal? I'm not going near that one. I've had my run in with them, and I'm not anxious for another.

Wiretapping the Associated Press...now THAT's rich. Talking about biting the hand that carries your water. Good job, Mr. President. I thought there was nothing that you could do to piss off the liberal media, but you sir are an over achiever.

That's it for now. I must go do something productive for the good of the cause.

Underwhelmed

Please allow me to engage in a little political commentary for a moment while we await the response from Texas Wesleyan to my law school application. Political commentary was one of the reasons I originally intended to start blogging in the first place. Then I realized just how depressing it really is when you start analyzing the process to closely. It’s like learning how sausage is made.

Anyway, I pulled up Drudge Report this afternoon to reconnect briefly with what is happening out in the rest of the world since I’ve had my head stuck in the sand with computer issues at work and tying yellow ribbons around the oak tree in the front yard awaiting the return of my long lost law school application (can you tell I’m a bit fixated on the law school application decision thing? I’m sorry. This will pass.). I was greeted by a photo of Speaker of the House Boehner and the BOLD headline “WINNING”. Clicking on the link lead to an article that breathlessly reported on how Boehner “closed the deal” to avert a shutdown of the government at the last minute by getting agreement to a spending bill that cuts $38.5 billion dollars from the Federal government’s budget for the remainder of the year. Politico is calling it ‘a defining moment in his speakership” and that it “answered doubts from the conservative movement about whether he was a true believer.”

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that $38.5 billion is nothing to sneeze on an individual level. I could live extremely well for a very long time on that amount and never ever have to think about working again. On a national level, however, this is chump change. Allow me to put this number into perspective for you.

As of April 7, the national debt was $14.2624 trillion dollars representing a $653.4 billion increase since the beginning of FY 2010. Further, the Federal government’s fiscal year began on October 1, 2010. The proposed budget for FY 2010 as submitted by the president was $3.82 trillion of which only $2.17 trillion was covered by revenue leaving the highest budget deficit in history of $1.65 trillion (with approved credit from the Chinese apparently). This budget has not yet been passed by Congress even though it was submitted in February 2010. The government has been kept alive on seven “continuing resolutions” the last of which was passed on Friday with a supposed deal on a budget resolution with the much ballyhooed $38.5 billion in cuts to the budget. I say supposed because the mess still has to get passed the Democrat controlled Senate and be signed by the president. Harry Reid and the president are reported to be on board with this deal, but you can only trust a politician as far as their last vote.

I digress. I was trying to put this “deal” into perspective. $38.5 billion in cuts is $38.5 billion in deficit spending that won’t be added to the debt. Good on ya Mr. Boehner. Here’s your pat on the back. Now, get ready for the swift kick in the butt ‘cause here it comes. $38.5 billion dollars represents only 5.89% of the $653.4 billion the Federal government is ALREADY in the hole for FY 2010. When you factor in the projected, budgeted deficit for the entire FY 2010, you get a whopping 2.33% reduction in the overall hose job that you, me, every other American and everyone’s children and grandchildren are being stuck with until the end of time or when our creditors stop loaning us money (whichever comes first).

A 2.33% reduction is supposed to be a conservative “WIN!”?

WIN! my furry hide. This is business as usual. I am so underwhelmed.

Since it’s my Sabbath, please allow your humble Shepherd to quote the Bible for a moment. Proverbs 22:7 in the New King James Version reads: “The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender.” The New International Version is even more harsh as it reads “slave” instead of “servant”. We are rapidly becoming slaves to those who own our national debt.

So, who owns us?

According to Financial Management Services “A Bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury”, the breakdown of our ownership is something like this as of the end of September 2010 when our national debt was a paltry $13.5616 trillion”

Federal Reserve and Intragovernmental Holdings: 5.3505 trillion

Depository Institutions: 337.5 billion

U.S. Savings Bonds: 188.7 billion

Private Pension Funds: 587.5 billion

State and Local Governments Pension Funds: 187.8 billion

Insurance Companies: 254.4 billion

Mutual Funds: 607.9 billion

State and Local Governments: 508.7 billion

Foreign and International: 4.2571 trillion

Other Investors: 1.2813 trillion

If you are still sober and still reading this, I’ll wait while you go get a beer or some other tasty adult beverage to calm your nerves. I know I need one.

Back with me? Okay, good. The number I want to focus on is the $4.2571 trillion in debt owned by foreign and international entities. That’s 31.39% of our national debt owned by individuals or governments who are, by definition, NOT AMERICANS. If the Unites States were a company, those foreign holders of our debt could righteously demand a seat (or several) on the board of directors. If we were a company instead of a nation, they’d be within spitting distance of having a controlling interest. Anyone want to take a guess as to why the United States has been conspicuously quiet on human rights in places like China? Anyone? Bueller?

Anyone want to take a guess as to how much more of our debt ANYONE is going to be willing to buy if we don’t start acting like we have a clue. How long can you run a deficit in your personal finances before Citibank or Chase or BOA finally cut you off? It’s about the moment you monthly minimum payments exceed the amount of money you make every month. Let’s think about how this plays out as a nation. According to the president’s FY 2010 budget, approximately $250.7 billion of the budget (about 6.85% of the total budget and 11.55% of revenue for those keeping track) is slated to be spent on interest payments. No payment on the principle amount. Just interest. And we are adding to the principle every single day.

Let’s take a peak into the future for a moment. We’ll have to make some assumptions to make the math easier. These assumptions will also lead to a “best case” scenario. Let’s assume that budget deficits continue running at about $1 trillion per year for the foreseeable future. We know our elected horse thieves are addicted to spending. It’s like crack, meth and heroin all rolled into one for them. So, we really can’t expect them to actually spend less money than they take in in revenue, and I’m actually giving them credit for having the intestinal and testicular fortitude to cut 1/3 from the current deficit levels. The current interest payments represent about 1.76% of the national debt. Setting aside the question of where I can find a mortgage lender offering that rate, let’s assume that the interest payment to principal ratio stay constant. Let’s also assume that the gross domestic product grows at a constant rate of $500 billion per year (it doesn’t), and let’s assume that total revenues remain constant at 15% of GDP (slightly higher than for 2010).

Year / GDP (trillion) / Revenue (tril.) / Debt (tril.) / Interest Payments (billion) / Int to Rev %

2011 / 14.66 / 2.17   / 14.262 / 250.7 / 11.55%

2012 / 15.16 / 2.274 / 15.262 / 274.9 / 12.09%

2013 / 15.66 / 2.349 / 16.262 / 286.2 / 12.18%

2014 / 16.16 / 2.424 / 17.262 / 303.8 / 12.53%

2015 / 16.66 / 2.499 / 18.262 / 321.4 / 12.86%

The trend doesn’t seem like much right now. Sticking with our assumptions though, in 30 years, interest payments on the debt will take up over 20% of the budget. In 60 years, almost half. However, remember, this is before the budget has to absorb “Obamacare” which will takeover approximately 20% of the economy depending on whose numbers you use and raise taxes and debt by as yet undetermined amounts. As I said, we are talking about a best case scenario here.

One word comes to mind: UNSUSTAINABLE.

Now, let’s get back to our boy Boehner here. I’m not going to waste my time busting his chops about whether or not he’s a conservative or not. He’s a lot more conservative than Nancy Pelosi. He’s also a politician playing the game by a set of rules that has no connection to reality as it applies to you and me.

I will say this though. A true, small government conservative would have put every last line item of the budget on the chopping block, opened up a copy of the Constitution, and sliced off every budget item that could not be constitutionally justified. He or she would never get reelected, but that’s what they’d do.

BOHICA*

Hello? Is anyone still here? If you’ve seen my brain, please tell me where I can find it. Alright, so it’s been a while since my last post. I know I’ve let myself slip into bad blogger buddy status…again. In my defense, I’ve had other things on my mind. I’ll get to muse killing, mind occupying stuff in a minute. First, I thought I’d make a feeble attempt to entertain you with some miscellaneous incidents, thoughts and occurrences which have taken place recently.

It’s all the rage to talk about the TSA backscatter x-rays being put into use at our nation’s airports. I’m not going to link to the “if you touch my junk…” guy’s blog as I don’t think you can bring up a news website without finding a half dozen links to the video and blog entries. I had my first experience with them a few weeks ago while traveling on business to the Rio Grande Valley here in Texas. I flew out of Dallas Love Field which is a fair sized airport with lots of traffic (it’s Southwest Airlines HQ airport); however, the TSA (in their infinite wisdom) had not seen fit to install the x-ray machines there yet. They did, however, install them at the airport in Harlingen, Texas…which is smaller than Love Field…and gets much less traffic. Go figure.

Anyway, being the oblivious traveler that I am, I had no idea that TSA had installed any of these infernal contraptions in my fair state much less a tiny market airport like Harlingen’s. Until, that is, I walked through the metal detector and was directed to the scanner booth. It kinda reminds me of stepping into the transporter on Star Trek. The whole process is painless until you get to the post scan pat down. Apparently, the TSA is supposed to pat down any questionable areas spotted on the scan. I got a back of the hand to pockets and groin area that was minimally intrusive. Not that I had much choice in the matter. I could submit to the screening and catch my flight, or I could take a pass, rent a car and drive over 500 miles and 8 hours to get home (which would have put me getting home at like 3:00 AM).

The thing I really want to comment on about this whole TSA screening process is the absurdity and irony of it all.

Let’s take a look at the irony for a moment. The government, in their tortured reasoning, have decided that the best way to prevent the crime of airplane hijacking for terrorist purposes is to commit another “lesser” crime. In this case, the lesser crime is assault or sexual assault depending on your state’s penal code. For instance, here in Texas, assault includes:

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

Simply put, a man or woman making physical contact with another man or woman’s genitals should know that the contactee is going to find that offensive or provocative. The irony is even more amusing when you consider that these crimes are committed right in front of gun toting, licensed law enforcement officers. In Harlingen for instance, you had Border Patrol agents present in addition to local police.

If TSA were smart, they would offer people the choice of which TSA agent they would like to feel them up. They could probably even charge for the option depending on the attractiveness of the agents; but, then they would be engaged in pandering and prostitution.

As mentioned earlier, I see absurdity in this entire process. The idea that a non-professional, government employee of questionable background paid on an hourly basis is going to have the motivation to provide effective security to the traveling public is ludicrous. I was an unarmed security guard for a time in college, and I can tell you that there was no incentive for me to go above and beyond the call of duty in the event of a real security threat. I was window dressing. That is what TSA is: window dressing to make the public feel like we are doing something about lax security.

Seriously, does it make any sense to be putting commercial airline flight crews through stringent security screening? If a credentialed pilot wants to destroy a plane, he does not need to bring explosives or weapons on board to accomplish the task. He has all the tools he needs to do the deed in the cockpit with him.

Do we really need to be patting down nuns and children? Is there some pre-school terrorist cell that I’m not aware of? Have the nuns developed bad habits? Yes, it’s a bad pun. Feel free to boo and hiss. Do we really think it’s a good idea to give a woman wearing a full burkah a free pass through security to avoid offending her due to her religion or national origin?

People like to talk about the Israeli state air carrier’s security record and the procedures that led to that record. From what I’ve read, the Israeli take this business of security seriously. Their procedures start at the time you book your flight and don’t stop, for all practical purposes, until you’ve gotten off their plane at your destination. They don’t worry about political correctness have no qualms about profiling people for additional scrutiny. Are you Muslim wanting to fly El Al? Be prepared for a grilling. The point is that true security comes at a price. It’s a price most Americans just aren’t willing to pay.

Enough about that. I have to go to Houston tomorrow, and I plan on driving not because I fear any terrorist threat but because I’ve reached my hassle threshold.

Next up, a little levity. I saw this news article on Drudge recently. First off, I had no idea that there was such a thing as the Lingerie Football League. For the sake of my marriage to The Queen, that’s probably a good thing. I find this quote from the LFL Wikipedia entry most telling: “League founder Mortaza has admitted that the league is marketed toward ‘mostly beer-drinking college students aged 21 and up.’” You think? As to the OKC mayor’s desire to ban the LFL from his fair city, I say get a life. You can’t legislate morality, and prohibition has never eliminated any alleged criminal activity. Let the market decide what the community values. If there are enough beer drinking college students in town, it will flourish and provide tax revenue. If there are a bunch of uptight teetotalers, it’ll take a quick dirt nap and be gone before you know it.

Lastly, the reason my mind has been a little pre-occupied lately is that I have decided it’s high time that I furthered my education. As a result, I am in the process of applying to law school. I take the LSAT on Monday, December 13, and I am in the process of studying LSAT preparation materials in the time I have left leading up to the five or so hour marathon examination.

Pray for me. I just might need it.

*If you don’t know what BOHICA stands for, Google it. I’m not going to educate you here.