Book Review: Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal

If anyone is looking for a good book to read, I read a really good review for The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal by Robert P. Murphy (Regnery, 2009) (272 pages) over at the Campaign for Liberty. It is a good review of an excellent book:

Government of all kind depends on elaborate mythologies to keep the people complacent in the face of constant attacks on their liberty, their property, and even their lives. Kings used to proclaim that they were divine or at least that they ruled with divine approval, so disobedience to them was actually disobedience to God or the gods. That worked to keep most of the citizenry in line for a very long time.

As religion started losing its hold over people, rulers came up with new ideas. One was that the state was like a big, sheltering family where everyone had to cooperate for the common good -- as directed by the government. Another idea was that the alternative to control by the government, anarchy, was so terrifying that it must be opposed at every turn. Government, according to this notion, is our bulwark against many calamities, including economic implosion. If it weren't for the benevolent, far-seeing actions of politicians and their hired regulators, we would have to endure repeated and prolonged depressions. So even if you aren't crazy about everything the government does, you need to accept it because the alternative is so much worse.

Economist Robert Murphy (Ph.D. from New York University, formerly on the faculty of Hillsdale College and now an independent scholar) agrees that we can learn a lot by looking back at the Great Depression and New Deal, but maintains that the lessons to be learned are the exact opposite of those that our political establishment (including its many intellectual hangers-on) want us to learn. Far from proving any defect in capitalism, the Depression actually shows that politicians should refrain from political meddling with the economy, especially federal tampering with money and credit. Also, if we hunt for the truth about the New Deal, we discover that it was just a parade of endless folly and bungling that made things worse.

That is exactly what Murphy is trying to accomplish with a book that is aimed at the everyday reader, easy to read, and free of jargon. The political scoundrels would love to keep this book out of people's hands.

As a teacher, I have been fighting for years to make sure that in the districts that I teach in, the Great Depression is taught correctly. And by correctly, I mean that they will learn both the liberal version of the story of the cause of and recovery from the Great Depression and they will learn the conservative version of the story. I fight to make sure that in my school and others, teachers and students are knowledgeable about both versions, so that after being educated they can make their own decisions, informed of the bias on both sides. The reason why I do this is because once students become informed, once they become educated, once they are exposed to both sides, they almost always agree with the conservative interpretation of events- that the cause of the Great Depression was (mostly) government, and that the depth of the GD was caused by (mostly) government, and that the recovery from the GD was caused by less government (mostly).

The Great Depression has many important lesson to teach us today, and one of the most important is to understand the nature of the myths surrounding it, and we need to work to dispel those myths. By doing that, the world will become a better place.

UPDATE: I've found out through a Friend Who Must Not Be Named that the great Zach Crossen was a contributer to this fine book. Good work spreading the truth Zach!

Democrats Work to Destroy Jobs on 13 Million Acres of Federal Land

Via Fox News:

A leaked partial document produced by the Bureau of Land Management and obtained by Fox News suggests the Obama administration is considering a plan to lock up 13 million acres of land -- and the Department of Interior is refusing to answer questions.

First, a little background: The federal government owns about one-third of the land in the United States -- most of it in western states. For example, 84 percent of Nevada is owned by Uncle Sam. But the government leases large parcels of federal land for all sorts of things -- grazing, mining, exploration, recreation.

Those commercial activities create jobs and tax revenue for the states. Tax revenues from commercial activity on federal lands often pays for local schools. However, with the single stroke of his pen, President Obama can use the Antiquities of Act of 1906 to turn federal land into National Monuments. That would effectively lock up the land from any kind of private use or development.

The plan may actually be more than 13 million acres. Republican members of the House have asked for the rest of the memo, but the Department of the Interior is refusing to hand it over.

It is not really a surprise that the leftists running the Obama machine want to put declare more areas of the United States ceremonial grounds, and it isn't a surprise that these plots by greenies will have the real effect of hurting every aspect of our society. It isn't even that surprising that leftists in the administration are trying to do this in secret and are refusing to answer any questions on it.

What is surprising to me is that you or your friends or your family are voting for Democrats who agree with this, who support it, and who are working to block every effort to bring this proposal to the light of day. Oh, I know Republicans are saints and that when big-government Bush and compassionate conservatives ran things in DC it wasn't perfect, but the alternative is clear- by voting Democrat, you are supporting secret proposals to unilaterally put large areas of the US off-limits for economic development all in the name of some green religion.

Drinking with a Kentucky Girl

Occasionally people email me some pretty off color jokes. This is one of them- keep in mind this is supposed to be funny for some.

*Drinking with a Kentucky Girl*

A Mexican, an Arab, and a Kentucky girl are in the same bar.

When the Mexican finishes his beer, he throws his glass in the air, pulls out his pistol, and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, 'In Mexico, our glasses are so cheap we don't need to drink with the same one twice.'

The Arab, obviously impressed by this, drinks non-alcoholic beer (cuz he's a Muslim), throws it into the air, pulls out his AK-47, and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, 'In the Arab World, we have so much sand to make glasses that we don't need to drink with the same one twice either.'

The Kentucky girl, cool as a cucumber, picks up her beer, downs it in one gulp, throws the glass into the air, whips out her 45, and shoots the Mexican and the Arab. Catching her glass, setting it on the bar, and calling for a refill, she says, 'In Kentucky, we have so many illegal aliens that we don't have to drink with the same ones twice.'

Comparing GOP Townhalls to Democrat Townhalls

Doing things the right way matters. They posted a video over at powerlineblog of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie conducting a town hall meeting in Bergen County. In the video the Governor responds to a teacher who thinks she is underpaid, and to another who is outraged that state funding for the local library is slated to be cut. His responses are sensible, honest, and understandable, and reflect conservative values. But what I was struck with the most by these town hall meetings is that they were open to anyone and they were filled with opponents of his policies, not hand-picked supporters.

This is in stark contrast to the town hall meeting that my Congressman, Democrat Gary Peters, held last year. At Peter's one and only townhall meeting, union groups and Democrats from out of district bussed in supporters who began to line up for the townhall early in the day. Arriving 4 hours before the townhall was scheduled to begin, I found myself at the end of a long line, and didn't get in to talk to Peters- along with hundreds of other constituents of his who have day jobs. It didn't matter anyways- unlike conservative Republican Governor Christie, who took questions from constituents and talked to them, liberal Democrat Congressman Peters filtered all the questions through his aides, responding to the modified and moderated questions with prepared talking points and lecturing.

And unlike Christie, who held many townhalls, Peters has been in virtual hiding his district and has held only one open townhall, and the one that he went to he snuck into the meeting and snuck out of the meeting, never speaking to or even saying hello to the hundreds of constituents who came to the townhall but couldn't get in because it was packed by bussed in SEIU supporters. Attempts by constituents to meet with Peters at his office have been met by thugs who don't allow you to park anywhere near his building, and several times he has baited and switched meetings with constituents, scheduling 'open office hours' and then when people showed up having his aides tell people to go away because he isn't around.

Watch for yourself the video of what happens when you put conservative Republicans in office and compare that to what I wrote about liberal Democrats (Report from Peters Townhall Sept 09). The difference between the two is clear.

50 Books Every Teacher Should Read

Although the The National Education Association (NEA) recommends to teachers only three books (one of which is Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals- see my explosive post NEA Recommends Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals for the details on that story), there are a lot of books out there that first year teachers and veteran teachers may find helpful to read. Good teachers should always be professional developing themselves (and I don't mean by that sitting in the mandatory PD meetings that are utterly useless), and one way to do that is to read some good books.

Online University Reviews has pulled together 50 Incredible Books Every Educator Should Read, and it is indeed a very good list. There are books by teachers for teachers to get a jump on that next school year, books written with inspiring educators in mind, books on how to become an educator, books focused on helping educators improve their craft, and a list of some darned good fiction books that every educator should read before getting into teaching. It's a good list- go check it out!

50 Incredible Books Every Educator Should Read

Club 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

From the Washington Examiner, by Byron York, comes this story "As economic worries worsen, White House puts on the glitz":

At a time when the unemployment rate stands at 9.9 percent, when jobs are still being lost, when worries about the global economy are causing breathtaking volatility on Wall Street, when millions of Americans who still have jobs are worrying more than ever about the safety of their retirement savings — at a time when all that is going on, the Obama White House has turned itself into a showcase of glitzy extravagance.

Wednesday night’s White House state dinner for Mexican President Felipe Calderon was, as far as the dinner itself was concerned, a fairly routine, if sumptuous, affair. The East Room was a grand setting, and First Lady Michelle Obama brought in a favored Chicago chef to put together a complex and expensive menu. “The main course of Oregon wagyu beef came with a Oaxacan black mole sauce with more than 20 ingredients that takes days to come together,” reported the Associated Press.

Of course state dinners are supposed to be special. But where the Obama/Calderon affair really hit the heights was in the festivities after the dinner, which took place in a huge tent — the word “tent” doesn’t quite do it justice — set up on the South lawn. As the AP reported:

R&B diva Beyonce topped the entertainment bill for the dinner, taking place in the East Room of the White House, with the action later moving to a luxury marquee on the South Lawn of the presidential mansion. The marquee, the size of two-thirds of a football field, decked out in elaborate black decor and nightclub-style lighting, featured a stage and baskets of flowers and models of Monarch butterflies dangling from the ceiling.

It was a scene the most ostentatious party-giver would have envied: the White House turned into a luxurious, high-dollar nightclub.

Read this whole story over at the Washington Examiner and check out the pictures- while America suffers, our Celebrity-in-Chief cries out "let them eat wagyu steak!".

Michigan Congressional Democrats Make Wrong Choices For Michigan Residents

Elections have consequences. Eight years ago, Michigan voters choose to elect a Democrat as its Governor, and four years ago, they returned that Democrat to office and gave her a majority in the Michigan House. And these Michigan Democrats have since made the wrong choices for Michigan residents.

One such choice was Democrat Jennifer Granholm's decision to abolish the Department of History, Arts and Libraries, which was created less than a dozen years ago by Republican John Engler to better protect Michigan's history. This Department cost very little but performed an important function of protecting Michigan's history and heritage. Many feared that when it was abolished and its programs were re-organized, this would lead to the cancelling of many of those programs. They were right.

Granholm, and the Democrats in Michigan's Congress, recently abolished a $50,000 subsidy for the Michigan Historical Marker Program. This program places green metal markers statewide, commemorating everything from the Roseland Park Mausoleum in Berkley to the Michigan Central Railroad Depot in Grass Lake (1,630 markers total). It is a very visible and important program, requires one staff member for administration at the state level who verifies the history and writes the summary that is engraved on each marker, and operates at the cost of only $50,000 per year. And Granholm and the Democrats in Michigan's Congress cut it.

Democrats cut the Michigan Historical Marker Program ($50K/year) instead of cutting the Commission on Spanish Speaking Affairs Program ($250K/year), which assists Michigan’s Spanish-speaking population with education and employment- things which the Michigan Department of Civil Rights already deals with.

Democrats cut the Michigan Historical Marker Program ($50K/year) instead of cutting the Consumer Involvement Program ($200K/year), which supposed to help consumers participate in forums and self-help groups, and fund a consumer hotline. Few know of or even use this program.

Democrats cut the Michigan Historical Marker Program ($50K/year) instead of cutting the Community Mental Health Service Program (CMHSP), which dispenses $3.5 million dollars a year from the general fund to favored ethnic groups. Mental health services should not be withheld or dispensed on the basis of ethnicity.

Democrats cut the Michigan Historical Marker Program ($50K/year) instead of cutting Senior Volunteer Services Program, which gives away $5.6 million of this money from the general fund to people who choose to volunteer to help out others.

Democrats cut the Michigan Historical Marker Program ($50K/year) instead of cutting the Cooperative Extension Services program, which provides $27 million dollars a year from taxpayers to support educational programs for handicapped horseback riding, sewing, pottery, etc.

Elections have consequences. When you or your family members or your friends vote Democrat, they are choosing to support individuals who would spend thousands to millions of dollars more each year of your hard-earned money on the wrong things rather than not taking your money with lower taxes or funding small worthy projects like the Michigan Historical Marker Program. Keep this in mind when you vote for Michigan Governor and Michigan House and Michigan Senate in this coming election this November.

Obama's Failures in Foreign Policy

You judge a Congress mainly on how well it does on domestic affairs (and to see some of my judgements on the recent activity of Congress in domestic affairs see my recent posts Congressional Democrats Continue Mockery of Global Warming Debate or Democrats in Congress= High Unemployment). You judge a President mainly on how well he/she does on foreign affairs. And for that, you need to read a recent article by Charles Krauthammer called The Fruits of Weakness:

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant -- sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds, and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the U.S. and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. "engagement."

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chavez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum. Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle.

It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation" (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any "world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another." (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies.

State Run Capitalism- America or Somewhere Else?

Pop quiz for you. Who said the following statement- US President Barack Obama or Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao?

The complete formulation of our economic policy is to give full play to the basic role of market forces in allocating resources under the macroeconomic guidance and regulation of the government.

Who said this statement- the leader of a a Chinese authoritarian state that operates under principles of unlimited government and no constitutional checks or the President of the US government controlled and run by the Democrats? The idea is that capitalism and market forces are good, but need to be controlled and guided and regulated by government.

Time is up- it was the Chinese Premier! But that was a tough question, right? How about another?

Did this happen in Russia or America recently?

Imagine you're a senior executive at a large business. Hard at work in your office, you're informed that, for reasons unknown, your leader wants to talk to you. He tells you that you are charging too much for your product. You assure him that prices are determined by the market. Unimpressed, the leader demands you lower your prices. Days later, government agencies announce an investigation into the business practices in your industry.

Come on now... it's tough... but did this happen recently in Russia or America? In a former communist nation now run by a dictator who operates in an increasingly tyrannical manner, or did this happen in the good-old-USA? Which country has a leader who thinks it is the proper role of government to set how much businesses can charge for products and is willing to use the power of the state to attack industries that he doesn't like?

Time is up- it was Russia! Nothing like that would ever happen in our nation, would it? State-run capitalism? Nah!

Congressional Democrats Continue Mockery of Global Warming Debate

After the recent global warming scandals whereby government workers faked and falsified research in order to get more money, the 'consensus' on global warming is now being called into question. So what does Congress do? Hold a phony sham of a Congressional committee hearing and invite four out of five 'believers' to testify in front of Congress how people are harassing them now that their cover has been blown and people realize what hacks they are.

Democrats are not holding a hearing to investigate the truth behind the matter. They are not having witnesses come forward to testify about anything that could to increases in my life, liberty, and property. Democrats are not trying to uphold the rule of law, achieve more transparency in climate change research, or contributing new information to the debate. They are simply engaging in typical sham fraud and giving a forum for fraudulent scientists to get on record with their opinions about the myth of man made global warming. As long as Democrats run Congress, you can expect thousands of conferences like this every day in Washington DC, all paid for by your tax money.

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is an utter joke- this is the actual government official meeting notice.

Next Hearing 5/20: Climate Science in the Political Arena
Select Committee hearing to examine attacks against climate scientists:
The scientists involved in the stolen climate emails from the University of East Anglia were exonerated by the British House of Commons and an international panel of climate experts, led by Lord Oxburgh. Even after these investigations found that nothing in the emails undercut the scientific evidence of climate change, attacks against scientists continue. Reports of harassment, death threats and legal challenges have created a hostile environment, making it challenging for actual data and scientific analyses to reach the public and policymakers.

On Thursday, May 20th, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing to examine the intersection between climate science and the political process. This hearing, entitled “Climate Science in the Political Arena,” will feature prominent climate scientists, some of whom have been the target of these attacks. This hearing will explore scientists’ ability to present data and information that can guide global warming solutions in a sometimes fierce political landscape.
WHAT: Climate Science in the Political Arena
WHEN: Thursday May 20, 2010, 9:00 AM
WHERE: 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC and online
WITNESS LIST:Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research CouncilDr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Dr. William Happer, Professor, Princeton University

According to the Huffington Post, the first four people are all true believers (who feel that there can be no arguing or even suggesting that global warming is happening, that it is man made, that it is bad, and that only massive government control over every aspect of our lives can save us) and only William Happer is a non-believer ("the sole GOP witness arguing against the global warming consensus"). Yeah, that's fair and balanced- a four to one ratio to testify about this issue.

Every Democrat in Congress needs to be thrown out of office sooner rather than later if this is representative of how they spend their days. Every single one of them.

Ukrainian President Attacked By Wreath

Viktor Yanukovych was not my choice for President of Ukraine (I favored hottie Yulia Tymoshenko), and so I really got a laugh out of this video of a wreath attacking him at a recent ceremony. One of two things happen- either the wind blows the wreath into him, or the Russian's skill at attacking Ukrainian Presidents is getting worse.

National Journal Rating Tool

It is important that when you call your Congressman or Senator a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' or a 'moderate' that you be accurate. National Journal has put together a pretty neat interactive tool that rates lawmakers, on a conservative-to-liberal scale, based upon their Congressional voting record throughout 2009. Lawmakers are assigned scores for each of their roll-call votes on leading economic, social and foreign-policy issues.

As a side note, Coffee Milk Conservative drew my attention to the fact that the magazine also determined that “long-standing ideological divides have persisted – and even deepened – in President Obama’s Washington”- in other words, the election of Obama made American more partisan, more divided, and more bitter than even under George Bush!

It is a neat tool, but keep in mind, it does not rate the importance of various votes- foe example, my Congressman, Democrat Gary Peters, had a composite liberal score of 57.3, placing him very close to Congressman Bart Stupak on the spectrum, which seems to imply that Peters and Stupak are moderates. But on the 10 most important issues facing our nation today, including healthcare, stimulus, cap and tax, etc, Peters and Stupak voted party-line liberal 90-100% of the time (see my post Gary Peters Scores a 90% On the Pelsoi Index- A Vote by Vote Analysis of Peters Liberal Record in Congress). I guess one way to look at it is that if you look at all the meaningless votes, Peters is simply a liberal, but on the important issues of the day, Peters is a super-liberal.

Democrats in Congress= High Unemployment

Common Cents blog points out that when the Democrats took over control of Congress in January 2007 the US unemployment rate was 4.4% (after 55 consecutive months of job growth) and now the unemployment rate is hovering around 10%. Blame Bush and blame Obama, but the truth of the matter is that it was when the current group of Democrats won office in 2008 that everything started to go south in our nation. If you were suck and you were trying to figure out with the sickness was and you found out that it started right after you started eating a certain food, you would logically assume it was the eating of the food that caused the sickness. Well, America's economy is sick, and it all started right after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2008.

I've already picked up on this- in my post Employment-Population Ratio Drops to 58.5% I analyzed the employment-population ratio over the past 20 years and concluded that the biggest gains in employment vs population (a better measure of economic health than the unemployment numbers) came when Republicans ran Congress instead of the Democrats. This research backs up what we now know to be true- that the Democrats need to be thrown out of office at every level of government.

You can't afford to sleep through this election or stay home- it important that you and every friend you have goes and votes against Democrats this election cycle.

Alabama Agricultural Commissioner Commercial

What is in the water down in Alabama? They are rolling out the best campaign ads that I have ever seen (and I have seen some other good campaign ads before)- it must be that in Alabama they speak English and not some sort of liberal gobly-gook. This one is from a guy running for Agriculture Commissioner, via The Other McCain:

Peters Votes for Gov/Union/Business Partnership, They Pony Up Campaign Funds

Although Michigan's US House of Representatives 9th District has historically been a Republican district, in 2008 it elected a Democrat named Gary Peters. According to CQ Politics, in order to defend his seat, Peters has raised a whopping $2 million in receipts through the first quarter of 2010, which is considerably more than any of his GOP challengers (Raczkowski, Welday, Goodman).

People give money to candidates for two main reasons. One reason that people, businesses, and organizations give money to candidates because they believe in the candidate personally or support their policies. The second major reason that people, businesses, and organizations give money to candidates is because they feel that by giving the candidate money it buys them access to power or control over the candidate.

Although Gary Peters is one of the few elected officials who refused to take the Project Vote Smart Political Courage test (a test where a candidate makes known where they stand on important issues), and he has sponsored very little legislation in Congress, and has refused to meet with constituents or hold town halls, we do know some things about his positions on the issues.

As I discussed in my post Gary Peters Scores a 90% On the Pelsoi Index- A Vote by Vote Analysis of Peters Liberal Record in Congress, Peters has voted in favor of the stimulus bill, cap and tax, Obamacare, bloated budget bills, increased taxes, and raising the debt ceiling. He voted against Stupak's Anti-Abortion Amendment. With this information, we can now begin to look at who is supporting Peters in the 2010 election and think about what sort of policies they might be supporting or what sort of influence over the Congressman they might be buying.

According to OpenSecrets.org, the top industries that have currently donated to Michigan Democratic Congressman Gary Peters to support his re-election bid are (in order): Lawyers/Law Firms, Democratic/Liberal Groups, Industrial Unions, Real Estate Firms, Health Professionals, Building Trade Unions, Insurance Companies, Securities and Investment firms, Retired People, Public Sector Unions, Hospitals/Nursing Homes, Transportation Unions, Finance Companies, Lobbyists, Automotive Companies, Commercial Banks, and Finance/Credit Companies.

You make your own decisions, but my rough take on that is that Peters has consistently voted to support 'too big to fail' in a range of industries, and is getting paid back for that. Peters has voted to support government/industry/union partnerships in banking, healthcare, and automotive industries, throwing billions of dollars at the big politically connected firms to bail them out and protect them from competition from smaller, less connected companies.

That's wrong- Peters has got to go.

"Disgusting" GOP Attempt to Defund Child Pornography Viewing Causes Democrats to Vote Against a Jobs Bill

"It's absurd," Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) said. "It's specious, and it's disgusting. And those are the nicest things I can say about it."

"For anyone that is concerned about federal employees watching pornography, they just saw a pornographic movie. It's called; 'Motion to Recommit,'" Science Committee Chairman and bill author Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn) said.

That's right- according to the Democrats, the GOP's attempt to prohibit federal funds from going "to salaries to those officially disciplined for violations regarding the viewing, downloading, or exchanging of pornography, including child pornography, on a federal computer or while performing official government duties" is the same thing as the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction and is disgusting, specious, and absurd.

Democrats are hard at work thinking of new ways to give away taxpayer money and this week came up with a federal giveaway program for politically connected science, research and training firms. The bill was moving through the House and was going to pass, but then the GOP attached a provision to the above provision to the bill. Democrats were forced to choose between jobs and no money going to federal officials looking at porn on taxpayer computers during work hours, or no jobs and federal officials looking at porn on taxpayer computers during work hours.

Democrats choose no jobs and porn for government employees. That's the party you support if you vote Democrat next election.

The US is Bankrupt

"The dirty little secret is: the world has no money and the emperor has no clothes."

The United States is Insolvent. The United States is bankrupt. We are witnessing before our very eyes the death spiral of the modern day nation state. And an entire party in America, the engine that drives the world, keeps on insisting that we raise taxes, regulate businesses, spend more taxpayer money, and spend even more taxpayer money that it doesn't even have.

The phrase "The Emperor has no clothes" comes from "The Emperor's New Clothes", a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen. In it, an Emperor who cares for nothing but his wardrobe hires two weavers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "just hopelessly stupid". The Emperor cannot see the cloth himself, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing unfit for his position or stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime and the Emperor then marches in procession before his subjects. A child in the crowd calls out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but holds himself up proudly and continues the procession.

In America, we have people (almost all Democrats, some moderate Republicans, and all the idiots who vote for them) who care for nothing but a larger and larger government. They have listened to fools like Keynes and Marx and Stalin and Mao who pushed largely discredited theories and adopted the policies that these people suggested. And things got worse. But they are unable to pull back- they are already intellectually committed to the charade, to the idea that massive government run everything will solve all the problems of the world, and as things get worse (the unemployment rate went UP last month again), all they can do is keep pretending. Everyone is invested in the great lie, the great charade, the great myth, and the as the deficits go up and the debt piles up, everyone simply pretends that it is invisible. But, it is a lie. Debt and deficits matter. Government borrowing and spending crowds out private spending and borrowing. Government charity crowds out private charity. And government is inefficient and uses force to do what it does.

The Democrats may keep shrilly shouting, and keep proudly marching, but they know- they know in their boots that that the United States has been driven to bankruptcy by their ideas, by their policies, by them. They are unable to go back, and are unable to reform- reform or pulling back will be like looking down and seeing how naked they really are. No, the only open is to march faster ahead, and pretend like debt and deficits don't matter, that they aren't bankrupting our nation and our children's nation and our grandchildren's nation, that they aren't destroying the moral fabric of our society, that they aren't making the quality of life less, that they aren't making people feel less and less satisfied about the direction of our nation. There is no going back now, and they know it.

Do you?

Campaign Ads Getting Better

"What do you get from a pampered cow? Spoiled milk!" Now that's a funny joke! Well, not really, but Arizona's new immigration law is not a joke either, although President Obama thinks defending the border is a joking matter. Check out this new advertisement being run in Arizona:

One unit that I teach is on campaign advertisements, and I always point out to my students that usually whoever runs the best campaign ads gets to be President of the United States. A really great website for this lesson is http://www.livingroomcandidate.com/- it has all the campaign ads from all the Presidential candidates since 1952 on it, organized and set up in a way that makes it very teachable. Last election (2008), in my opinion, Obama ran some pretty lame ads, but McCain topped it by running some of the worst stuff ever.

But, as the above advertisement shows, this time around things are getting interesting. And it is not just the GOP that is coming out with good stuff- give credit where credit is due, this ad which blasts the GOP candidates for Governor of CA is pretty darn good:

Since Obama Won, Every Month More and More People Need Foodstamps to Survive Change

From Reuters, via Sweetness & Light, Food-stamp tally nears 40 million, sets record:

Nearly 40 million Americans received food stamps — the latest in an ever-higher string of record enrollment that dates from December 2008 and the U.S. recession, according to a government update. Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy food. Enrollment is highest during times of economic distress. The jobless rate was 9.9 percent, the government said on Friday.

The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday.

Enrollment has set a record each month since reaching 31.78 million in December 2008. USDA estimates enrollment will average 40.5 million people this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, at a cost of up to $59 billion. For fiscal 2011, average enrollment is forecast for 43.3 million people.

In November of 2008 we voted for change... and the change was increasing numbers of people who have been forced to humiliate themselves and accept the forced charity of other taxpayers just to eat. Read that article again- every single month that Democrat President Obama is in office more and more people need foodstamps- the records started when he was elected, and every month that he is in office, more and more and more and more people are forced to go into a government office and admit that on their own they just can't make it and that they want to take charity from others who are forced to provide it.

The word to describe this is disgusting. Wrong. Unjust. Immoral. Sad. Obama. Democrat.

Top Donors From Obama's 2008 Presidential Campaign

From Open Secrets, here are the top donors for Barack Hussein Obama in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations listed below did not donate themselves; rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

University of California, $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs, $994,795
Harvard University , $854,747
Microsoft Corp, $833,617
Google Inc, $803,436
Citigroup Inc, $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co, $695,132
Time Warner, $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP, $588,598
Stanford University, $586,557
National Amusements Inc, $551,683
UBS AG, $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp, $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al, $530,839
IBM Corp. $528,822
Columbia University, $528,302
Morgan Stanley, $514,881
General Electric, $499,130
US Government, $494,820
Latham & Watkins. $493,835

Two things to point out - is the US Government seriously one of the top donors to Obama? Something needs to be done about having a more non-partisan government, otherwise it isn't going to be shocking to have government employees choosing politicians to rule over us who then give more money and power to government employees. And last- it isn't a shock that our country under Obama has become a joke- one of his major donors was National Amusements Inc! You look at the data yourself and draw your own conclusions.

By the way, for comparison, the top donors for John McCain are:

Merrill Lynch. $373,595 (1/5 the amount of Obama's top donor)
Citigroup Inc, $322,051 (half what was given to Obama)
Morgan Stanley, $273,452 (half what was given to Obama)
Goldman Sachs, $230,095 (one/third what was given to Obama)
JPMorgan Chase & Co, $228,107 (one/third what was given to Obama)
US Government, $208,379 (half what was given to Obama)
AT&T Inc, $201,438
Wachovia Corp, $195,063
UBS AG, $192,493 (half what was given to Obama)

Obama: Government Has Responsibility to Reconnect America With Nature

Via American Thinker:

President Obama stated in a Presidential Memorandum last month:

the Federal government...has a responsibility to... [r]econnect Americans, especially children, to America's rivers and waterways, landscapes of national significance, ranches, farms and forests, great parks,
and coasts and beaches.

Obama's response to this crisis is to create another of the government programs that seem to be spun out of the White House at a rate of two or three a week. This one is called "America's Great Outdoors Initiative." It calls on no less than three Cabinet Secretaries (Interior, Agriculture and EPA), plus the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality to develop "A 21st Century Strategy for America's Great Outdoors." According to the Memorandum:

The Federal Government, the Nation's largest land manager, has a responsibility to engage with these partners to help develop a conservation agenda worthy of the 21st Century. We must look to the private sector and nonprofit organizations, as well as towns, cities, and States, and the people who live and work in them, to identify the places that mean the most to Americans, and leverage the support of the Federal Government to help these community-driven efforts to succeed. Through these partnerships, we will work to connect these outdoor spaces to each other, and to reconnect Americans to them.

These "public/private partnerships," and "leveraging" mean one thing: the Federal Government is expanding into yet another part of our lives. It's going to cost us some money, but connecting outdoor spaces and reconnecting Americans to them is vital work that can only be done by the Federal Government. As Obama reminded us at his recent speech to the Business Council, "no business, no individual is going to provide [public goods] on their own."

Hmm... perhaps this 'federal responsibility to reconnect America with nature' is somewhere in the list of delegated and lawful powers of the federal government... I'm looking... Article I, Section 8.... don't see it in there. Perhaps the Necessary and Proper clause can be used... is it 'necessary' and 'proper' for the national government to have the power to 'reconnect America with nature' in order to exercise the power of... regulating interstate commerce... promoting science... establishing post offices... probably it is part of the general welfare clause....

Or perhaps it doesn't matter if this is a lawful power of the federal government, because President Obama believes in rule of men, not rule of laws, and decided to operate our federal government in an unlawful manner fitting of tyrants and dictators. Perhaps it doesn't even matter anymore what is delegated and proper and constitutional, because we now live in a tyranny where power over others is exercised by those who have political connections (public-private partnerships or individuals leveraging the power of the federal government).

Personally, I don't know what the heck President Obarfo is talking about- I'm not disconnected with nature at all- I fish, I hunt, I go outside, my five kids go outside, and I even take my dog for a walk every day, and I live in an apartment in the middle of the city! Leverage the power of the state all you want, Obarfo, but the only way I can spend more time connecting with nature is if you follow through on your plans to destroy all energy production in this country and tax and regulate me out of a job.

Obamacare Creates Thousands of New Jobs

Congressman Lee Terry (Republican, Nebraska 2nd District) emailed me a list of all of the 159 new ways that Section 10221, page 2173 of House Resolution 3590 which deemed that Senate Bill 1790 was passed with certain amendments creates jobs. I'm only putting up the first 10 amazing new ways it creates jobs- the full list is here or here or here:

1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)

My personal favorites are these new boards, agencies, and commissions that Obamacare creates. I'm not saying that what these do are not important or worthy, but I would question whether or not they are more worthy of tax dollars than national defense, fiscal responsibility (debt that my children and grandchildren are going to have to pay interest on even though they don't receive these services now), or any of the proper and limited and constitutional responsibilities of our national government:

• Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section
  3509(a), p. 1098)
• Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
• Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
• Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
• Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
• Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
• Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section
  4102, p. 1147)
• Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
• Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
• Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p. 1188)
• Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
• Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers
  (Section 4206, p. 1215)
• Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
• Grant program to recruit students to practice in under-served communities

Obama's Goal: To Stomp the Boot of Government Down on the Throat of BP

Via Pundit & Pundette: Thug-speak: "We will keep our boot on the throat of BP" :

This phrase was uttered by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and proudly repeated by presidential spokestool Robert Gibbs (video here).

So this is how our government speaks now. And not in reference to, say, terrorists on our soil, violent illegals coming over the border and murdering our citizens, or foreign tyrants who threaten our national security. Rather, this hostile rhetoric is reserved for BP, who, by all accounts, is taking responsibility for the disastrous accident and doing everything it can to fix it.

When husband Pundit saw the Gibbs clip last night, he was frankly astounded. "Who talks that way, besides thugs?" Bingo.More thug-isms from the blogprof.

That's the Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Peters government for you- thugs and gangsters.

Arizona Governor Sent Suspected Anthranx Letter

Via azcentral.com:

The FBI will assist in the investigation of a suspicious envelope addressed to Gov. Jan Brewer that an employee at the Capitol opened Tuesday, sending the Executive Tower into one-hour lockdown after a white powder spilled from the envelope onto a computer.

Phoenix Fire Department hazardous materials experts spent less than one hour in the building. No injuries or complaints of illness were reported and the tower was reopened around 11:20 a.m. The letter was opened in the governor's constituency services office in the tower at 1700 W. Washington St.

The powder is being analyzed at a state Health Department lab. The results of the tests should be released Wednesday.

Although this story and others I read don't mention it anywhere, I looked it up and discovered that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is a Republican. When asked about who might have sent the anthrax scare letter to the GOP Governor, Mayor Bloomberg said that it was probably someone who was "home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something" (just kidding, he said this about Faisal Shahzad, the Muslim Islamoterrorist who tried to blow up his car and kill people in New York City, who even though he confessed, the AP still calls a 'suspect').

Although many on the left are going to suggest that it was a teabagger violent racist anarchist nazi who sent scared everyone at the Arizona Capitol into thinking they were going to die of anthrax poisoning, my money is instead on some deranged liberal who likely is a registered Democrat (just like Faisal Shahzad is!).

The Case for Mordor: Another Look at J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings

Last week on TV I watched for the uncountable time The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. This movie was my favorite out of the three (although The Bridge of Khazad-dûm in one and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields in three rival it). Although I love the movies, just like I loved the original Star Wars, there are some parts of the movie I don't like, and so I was glad to find a LOTR companion to match the excellent piece that the Weekly Standard's Jonathan V. Last put out on the Star Wars called The Case for the Empire. It is high time that the LOTR was analyzed in a similar manner, and I think that this piece by Salon's David Brin does just that. Do I really believe this stuff? Probably not, but it is fun reading. Enjoy!

J.R.R. Tolkien -- enemy of progress: "The Lord of the Rings" is lovingly crafted, seductive -- and profoundly backward-looking. Why not look at things through the Dark Lord's eye for a change? Here are the best parts (only about 1/3 of the whole article)- I highly suggest you read the whole thing here:

Of course there is much more to this work than mere fantasy escapism. J.R.R. Tolkien wrote his epic -- including its prequel, "The Hobbit" -- during the dark middle decades of the 20th century, a time when modernity appeared to have failed in one spectacle of technologically amplified bloodshed after another.

LOTR clearly reflected this era. Only, in contrast to the real world, Tolkien's portrayal of "good" resisting a darkly threatening "evil" offered something sadly lacking in the real struggles against Nazi or Communist tyrannies -- a role for individual champions. His elves and hobbits and über-human warriors performed the same role that Lancelot and Merlin and Odysseus did in older fables, and that superheroes still do in comic books. Through doughty Frodo, noble Aragorn and the ethereal Galadriel, he proclaimed the paramount importance -- above nations and civilizations -- of the indomitable Romantic hero.

Millions of people who live in a time of genuine miracles -- in which the great-grandchildren of illiterate peasants may routinely fly through the sky, roam the Internet, view far-off worlds and elect their own leaders -- slip into delighted wonder at the notion of a wizard hitchhiking a ride from an eagle. Many even find themselves yearning for a society of towering lords and loyal, kowtowing vassals.

Wouldn't life seem richer, finer if we still had kings? If the guardians of wisdom kept their wonders locked up in high wizard towers, instead of rushing onto PBS the way our unseemly "scientists" do today? Weren't miracles more exciting when they were doled out by a precious few, instead of being commercialized, bottled and marketed to the masses for $1.95?

Putting aside cultural superficialities, on every continent society quickly shaped itself into a pyramid with a few well-armed bullies at the top -- accompanied by some fast-talking guys with painted faces or spangled cloaks, who curried favor by weaving stories to explain why the bullies should remain on top.

Only something exceptional started happening. Bit by bit, the elements began taking shape for a new social and intellectual movement, one finally capable of challenging the alliance of warrior lords, priests, bards and secretive magicians.

In this conflict, J.R.R. Tolkien stood firmly for the past. Calling the scientific worldview "soul-less," he joined Keats and Shelley, Sir Walter Scott, Henry James and many European-trained philosophers in spurning the modern emphasis on pragmatic experimentation, production, universal literacy, progress, cooperative enterprise, democracy, city life and flattened social orders.

In contrast to these "sterile" pursuits, Romantics extolled the traditional, the personal, the particular, the subjective, the rural, the hierarchical and the metaphorical.

By the turn of the century, Romanticism was fast losing all vestige of its initial empathy for the concerns of common folk. One solitary artist -- or entertainer or lost prince or angry poet -- loomed larger in importance, by far, than a thousand craft workers, teachers or engineers (a value system shared today by the mythic engine of Hollywood). Just as in Homer's time, 10,000 foot soldiers mattered less than Achilles' heel.

This fits the very plot of "Lord of the Rings," in which the good guys strive to preserve and restore as much as they can of an older, graceful and "natural" hierarchy, against the disturbing, quasi-industrial and vaguely technological ambience of Mordor, with its smokestack imagery and manufactured power rings that can be used by anybody, not just an elite few. (Recall the scene where Saruman turns away from the "good" side and immediately starts ripping up trees, replacing them with mining pits and smoky forges. The anti-industrial imagery could not be more explicit.)

Consider the rings. Those man-made wonders are deemed cursed, damning anyone who dares to use them, especially those nine normal humans who tried to rise up, using tools to equalize and then usurp the rightful powers of their betters -- the High Elves.

The nine Ringwraiths aren't just evil henchmen and cardboard monsters. In my opinion, they are among the most important figures of the epic. Tolkien himself calls them tragic figures and dwells on their background. These fallen mortals -- men who were hauled into service to the "dark side" -- can be looked upon as cautionary figures, conveying the universal lesson that "power corrupts."

On that much we can all agree. But I think there's more to the Ringwraiths. To me, they distill the classical Greek notion of hubris -- a concept that Romantics often embrace -- the idea that pain and damnation await any mortal whose ambition aims too high. Don't try putting on the trappings or emblems or powers that rightfully belong to your betters. Above all, don't try to decipher and redistribute mysteries. In other words, exactly the same morality tale preached in "Star Wars." Romanticism has come full circle, now unctuously praising the very same lords -- the über-men -- that it started out bravely opposing.

Were any orcs or "dark men" offered coalition positions in King Aragorn's cabinet, at the end of the War of the Ring? Was Mordor given a benign Marshall Plan? I think not.

In fact, J.R.R. Tolkien was himself far more critical of the situation portrayed in his universe than any but a few of his myriad readers ever chose to notice. Certainly more self-critical than most of his contemporary readers or those watching the new film trilogy.

In several places, Tolkien openly stated his authorial judgment that the elves who made the Three Rings were ultimately to blame, having set the stage for tragedy in Middle Earth. They made their own rings (preceding Sauron's One Ring) in order to control the world, stopping time and preventing change, forbidding anything to die and decay and thus blocking the potential for new growth. In an oft-quoted letter, Tolkien wrote:

"They wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal historical Middle Earth because they had become fond of it ... and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it as a pleasaunce." There are moments scattered throughout LOTR when Tolkien seems to be warning that Romanticism can lead one down the road to genocide. He was disturbed to see the Nazis, for example, embrace many of the same Nordic mythic stories and symbols that he used as source material.

In other books, like "The Silmarillion," Tolkien went deeper into this self-exploration, even going so far as to cast an analytical eye upon the elvish hierarchs of Middle Earth, in much the same way that Isaac Asimov reevaluated his Second Foundation and the meddlesome-patronizing robots of his famed science fictional universe. (This is the kind of self-examination the "Star Wars" cosmos desperately needs, alas, while there's still time.)

Indeed, many academics have cited the obvious parallel between the retreat of the High Elves in LOTR -- who abandon Middle Earth to return "west across the sea" -- and the dissolution of the British Empire that began with the emancipation of India about the same time that Tolkien was writing his epic. In fairness, J.R.R.T. did not rail against this change: He saw it as regrettable but inevitable -- like the end of his mythical Third Age, an approaching time of iron, when aloofly noble figures like Elrond and Galadriel must go back whence they came.

But those self-critiques never had the widespread readership or influence of the original LOTR. And ultimately, Tolkien could never bring himself to cross the gap that another Oxbridge don was writing about at roughly the same time -- the infamous "two cultures" gulf that C.P. Snow mapped between the world of science and the world of the arts.

Try as he might, and even confronted with the blatant Romantic excesses of Nazism, Tolkien could not escape his own deep conviction that democratic enlightenment and modernity made up the greater evil. That hated trend, he feared, would ruin all the beauty that he found in tradition. In aristocratic-mystical hierarchies. In the ways of the past.

The urge to crush some demonized enemy resonates deeply within us, dating from ages far earlier than feudalism. Hence, the vicarious thrill we feel over the slaughter of orc foot soldiers at Helm's Deep. Then again as Ents flatten even more goblin grunts at Saruman's citadel, taking no prisoners, never sparing a thought for all the orphaned orclings and grieving widorcs. And again at Minas Tirith, and again at the Gondor Docks and again ... Well, they're only orcs, after all.

Lev Grossman made a similar point in a recent Time Magazine article, when he asked, "Where are the women? Peter Jackson filled out Liv Tyler's role for the movies (it's much less prominent in Tolkien's version), but the Fellowship is still as much a boys' club as Augusta National."

Let's not ignore but instead openly acknowledge the underlying racism and belief in aristocracy that J.R.R. Tolkien wove into the books, without even much attempt at subtlety. Nor do I much blame him. He couldn't help it, coming from the imperialist and class-ridden culture that raised him.

Moreover, the characters whom the reader comes to know best -- Frodo, Sam and even the king-in-waiting, Aragorn -- are themselves not very snooty or racist. Aragorn has an easygoing, common touch -- much like Luke Skywalker, the only unpatronizing Jedi. The snootiest and most relentlessly aristocratic characters in LOTR stand off in the wings -- for example, the preachy, secretive and patronizing elf-lords Elrond and Galadriel, coaxing maximum effort from their allies while letting others do the fighting for them. (I'd point out endless parallels with a fellow named Yoda, but that would stir up too many hornets at once!)

Obsession with either past or future can almost define a civilization. Worldwide, most cultures believed in some lost golden age when people knew more, mused loftier thoughts and were closer to the gods -- but then fell from grace. Under this dour but recurrent worldview, men and women of a later, coarser era can only look back with envy, hearkening to remnants of ancient wisdom. Recognize this motif? It drenches every page of "Lord of the Rings." It is the old classic, the eternal verity -- the worst of all human clichés.

Only a few societies ever dared to contradict this dogma of nostalgia. Our own scientific West, with its impudent notion of progress, brashly relocated any "golden age" to the future, something we might work toward, a human construct for our grandchildren to achieve with craft, sweat and good will.My point? Well, LOTR is obviously an account written after the Ring War ended, long ago. Right? An account created by the victors.

A Guide to the Tangled Financial Reform Bill

It has been a struggle for me to write about the financial reform bill, and I haven't commented before on it yet. But yesterday I came across an excellent article in the Washington Independent called A Guide to the Tangled Financial Reform Bill which breaks down each important provision of the proposed financial reform bill and attempts to give a balanced analysis of it. I urge you all to read this article before making any further thoughts or opinions on the bill- whether you are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, it is important to look at the world around you with good information and analysis, which this article provides.

Here are the best pieces (edited and shortened by me) of the article A Guide to the Tangled Financial Reform Bill:

Audit the Fed. The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet is more than double its size before the financial crisis — swollen with $1.1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities purchased from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plus toxic assets from failed companies like Bear Sterns — and a bipartisan group of senators want to force a thorough independent audit of the Fed’s books. A strong provision did not make it into the final Senate legislation.

End too big to fail by capping bank size. Dodd’s bill as currently written gives the Federal Reserve and other regulators the ability to seize and break up financial firms it deems systemically important and systemically dangerous. But that is meant only as a “last resort,” and members of both parties consider the language too wan. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) last week introduced the Safe Banking Act, which they plan to offer as an amendment to the Dodd bill. It mandates hard leverage and size caps on banks and other financial firms; limits commercial banks’ assets to 2 percent of GDP and non-banks’ assets to 3 percent; and imposes a 16-to-1 leverage cap, among other provisions.

Reinstitute Glass-Steagall provisions. Another popular way to effectively limit bank size is to return to the Depression-era Glass-Steagall rules. The Glass-Steagall Act, mostly repealed in 1999, prevented banks from having both commercial and investment banking arms — as, for instance, J.P. Morgan Chase does today. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plan to introduce an amendment reintroducing the rule and thus requiring big, diversified banks to split themselves up. Shelby, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) also support the measure.

An effectively similar, if functionally different, way of breaking up banks or limiting their size is by instituting the Volcker Rule — which bars banks from speculating with their own money by “prop trading” or investing in hedge funds. The current Dodd bill promises to institute something like the Volcker Rule, creating a commission to look at how to institute it down the road. But Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) have ready a measure introducing a more-stringent version immediately.

Fix the ratings agencies. The Dodd bill does little to fix the credit ratings agencies, whose profligate stamping of AAA ratings on collapsing subprime mortgage-backed securities helped to stoke the crisis. (The companies have a conflict of interest at the core of their business, in that they are paid by the companies whose securities they rate.) The Dodd bill creates a new office at the Securities and Exchange Commission to look closely at credit ratings agencies — but does little more to further reform them. Numerous Democratic senators have cited the issue as a major weakness in the bill, and Senate staffers say it is unlikely to go unchanged. Sanders has said he will introduce new language to strengthen oversight over and regulation of the agencies.

Guarantee no taxpayer money will go to bank bailouts. Republicans have derided the Dodd bill’s resolution authority fund — wherein the government will tax $50 billion from the banks, creating a pool of cash to be used by the Federal Reserve to shut down failing firms — as creating “permanent bailouts.” GOP politicians including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have cited it as a major point of contention. But Senate staffers say that rather than killing the resolution-authority fund, Republicans want language explicitly guaranteeing taxpayers will not be on the hook for future bailouts.

Keep the Fed the regulator of little banks. Under the Dodd bill, the Federal Reserve would have oversight only of banks with more than $50 billion in assets. But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) oppose this measure and want the Fed to have oversight of small banks as well — ensuring that the Fed does not become overly concerned with the business of big banks and ensuring that it keeps an eye on the small financial companies that can be the bellwether of bad economic times. Hutchison has said she plans to “certainly have an amendment that assures that state banks and community banks will be able to have access to be members of the Federal Reserve.”

Make the Consumer Financial Protection Agency truly independent. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) has promised to introduce amendment moving the Consumer Financial Protection Agency outside of the Fed.

Improve hedge fund reporting. Reed also plans to introduce an amendment closing a loophole in the Dodd bill that might let some private equity firms, venture capital firms, and hedge funds avoid registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This is a reminder that whatever the original bill that the Democrats brought to the floor, what matters is the bill that is passed at the end (and I don't mean by 'the end' when it passes the House and Senate and is signed by the President- now that Democrats run things in DC, that outdated model of passing legislation isn't followed and instead they deem things passed and then our dear leader runs things, and that is what I men by 'the end').