Ignorance isn't Patriotism

One more  quick rant: Massive tax scofflaw and world class bigot, Clive  Bundy came to the defense of his son Ammon and the other domestic terrorists involved in the standoff with federal officials in Oregon, following the arrests of several and the suicide by cop of one. He plaintively said that they were "Just trying to teach people about the Constitution."  This joke of a patriot can barely spell the word. Let's look at what is really going on here.

        In the mid to late 1800s, ranchers in the West used a system called "Open range" grazing to avoid having the expense of maintaining pasture land to feed their cattle and supply the ever increasing market for beef back East.

        This was especially common in the region east of the Rockies, the sites of current day Montana, Colorado and Wyoming. Of course they had paid nothing for the land, simply squatting on it minus deed. If they owned land, they grazed their herds elsewhere, far and wide and they liked it that way - free cattle food, all profit. This became especially significant (and even more profitable) as the Union Pacific pushed ever westward into  Nebraska and beyond, as now the "long drives" were not as long to get beef to the railhead.

        In 1826, to encourage settlement in the West, Congress had passed the Homestead Act, which provided that persons moving west onto land which was, even at that time, not privately owned and under the aegis of the Federal Government, (regardless of what the wealthy and formidable "Rancher's Associations" thought) could acquire "homestead" the land for five years and then gain title to it.   .  Between 1862 and 1934, the federal government granted 1.6 million homesteads and distributed 270,000,000 acres (420,000 sq mi) of federal land for private ownership. This was a total of 10% of all land in the United States, and some  following the law had moved from the  Midwest farther west  into cattle country, homesteading farmland along river bottoms.  Even worse, in the eyes of these free range freeloader ranchers was the fact that some of these homesteaders practiced  sheep farming., and others, mining.

        Remember, the ranchers had never owned most of the land they grazed their herds on, and the homesteaders had complied with  federal law in gaining title to it. Complicating the issue was the fact that not all homesteaders were actively claiming their 160 acres in perpetuity, but some gained title and sold to larger entities who used the land for timber or mining efforts. Either way, the federal government, which held title to the land had legally transferred some of this land to persons other than the ranchers who believed it was theirs to use as they saw fit.

        So what did these paragons of American frontier virtue do?  They hired men like legendary shootist Tom Horn as "range detectives."  Regardless of the Steve McQueen portrayal of Horn in the eponymous 1980 biopic, Horn was, simply put, a hired killer who shot not only rustlers, but miners and sheep farmers. In one instance Horn and associates bludgeoned 60 or so sheep to death as a "message" but  local law enforcement had largely ignored Horn's exploits due in no small part to political influence of the wealthy cattlemen who used his services.

        The last straw was the shooting death of a 14 year old, son of a sheep rancher. Horn  confessed to killing the young Willie Nickell with his rifle from 300 yards, which he boasted as the "best shot that I ever made and the dirtiest trick that I ever done."  Horn was arrested the next day by the county sheriff.  Judge Richard H. Scott, who presided over the case, was running for reelection. Horn was supported by his longtime friend and employer, cattle rancher John C. Coble. He gathered a team for the defense headed by a Judge and 4 or 5 high powered attorneys.  Reportedly, Coble paid for most of the costs of this large team. According to Johan P. Bakker, who wrote "Tracking Tom Horn", the large cattle interests by this time found Horn "expendable" and the case provided a way to silence him in regard to their activities. He wrote that 100 members of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association paid $1000 each toward the defense, but wanted a minimal effort.  

       Tom Horn was found guilty and hanged in Cheyenne in 1903 on an experimental water powered gallows (trivia bit)! While some dispute his role as the Nickell shooter, no one disputes that he was a hired killer who worked for large cattlemen's associations in opposition to rightful owners of the land which had, indeed, been the federal government's to sell.   

    Cliven Bundy and his litter  obviously miss one key factor in their  assertions regarding land usage and rights, and that is simply that the Constitution is "The Supreme law of the land." Congress and the President  pass and sign into law bills. The land in question, both Cliven Bundy's government owned grazing leases ( for which he owes 20 years worth of fees) and the Oregon territory held until recently by his son, are and have been for centuries, property of the federal Government until purchased by private entities. The Bundys, far from being heroes or champions of the "people," are simply throwbacks of the same ilk as those who hired Tom Horn to do their dirty work. 

Trust Fund Hubris and Slimy Adverts

        If you had asked me to predict who would run the most disgustingly self serving and tasteless campaign ad given the choice of current Republican  poseurs, I'd probably have said Donald Trump or Rafael Cruz. Neither has, to date,  displayed  any obvious problem with being deceitful and self aggrandizing with truth as the victim. I might even have , on a whim, picked Ben Carson, because of his obvious belief that Jesus speaks through him, and is historically insane. I would have missed the boat on all three counts. As a Floridian of some thirty plus years, I have seen some "serious shit," to quote Doc Emmet Brown,  as far as  strange and  questionable political adverts, but the latest from one John Ellis ("Jeb") Bush sits atop the dung heap that is modern campaign filth.

        This political hack, once described by a Dallas print journalist as "the smart one,"  would have us believe that he stands for those Republican values of freedom from government  intrusion in our lives and legislative restraint. How does he show these beliefs? Why, by showing a picture of Terry Schiavo as an exemplar of how he as Florida governor protected these sacred trusts. 

        For those who were spared the Florida portion of this circus,  The Terri Schiavo case was a legal struggle involving Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo, a woman in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. Following her doctors' decisions that she was brain dead and permanently vegetative, Schiavo's husband and legal guardian elected to remove her feeding tube, while her  (Schiavo's)  parents argued in favor of continuing artificial nutrition and hydration and challenged Schiavo's medical diagnosis. Fought almost nightly in the media, the highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges presented by her parents,  ultimately involving then Governor Jeb Bush  and federal politicians up to the level of President George W. Bush, caused a seven-year delay before Schiavo's feeding tube was ultimately removed. In the meantime, we were treated to such spectacles as Senate majority leader  Bill Frist, a cardiac surgeon, pronouncing based on grainy video that she was "alive in there" and her brain was functioning.

        Of course, the upshot was that the USSC wisely decided that the doctors knew better than the politicians, the tube was removed and she died. Because, and only because, of the continued Far Right interest in the case an extensive autopsy was performed. Terry Schiavo's brain  damage was, in the words of  the Chief Medical Examiner, "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons." In other words the physicians, licensed by the state, were correct from the first, and the politicians, led locally by Governor Jeb Bush and nationally by his short bus brother and various equally reprehensible posturing  state and national  Congressmn, drug out  a family tragedy for political gain over a seven year span.

        Bragging about  his role in this pathetic overreach and intrusion into private lives, while refusing to label the Oregon domestic terrorism for what it truly is, shows how utterly shameless Jeb Bush is in his desperation to gain the vote of persons who are so single issue oriented that they are easy dupes for his "man of faith" shell game.  Deliver us from trust  fund spoiled brat poseurs like Trump, Bush et al. 

False Prophets #2

False Prophet #2

    "Unemployment will remain stuck at over 8%"

        In September 2012, Mitt Romney predicted that "If  Barack Obama is reelected “you’re going to see chronic high unemployment continue four years or longer.”  At the time, the unemployment rate was 8.1% and had been between 8.1% and 8.3% for the entire year. So we ask ourselves, what would breaking out of “chronic high unemployment” look like in a Romney presidency?

        First and foremost,  let's reflect on the unending  bullshit storm of undeterminable claims by Far Right politicians that things like Gasoline prices and Jobs are simply a matter of electing the right (Right) person to the presidency.  Many Republicans followed (in 2012, and still do)  the  fiscally conservative University of Chicago School, which argues that Keynesian stimulus can’t heal a sick economy — only time can. Chicagoans believe that economies can only truly recover on their own and that policy interventions only slow the recovery. It’s one of the  wonders  of modern politics that Republicans have had electoral success with a policy that fundamentally asserts there is nothing the government can do to create jobs any time soon!  A second, and equally discredited (by all but the wealthy) is the beloved "trickledown theory" which has been likened by one wag to, "The rich pissing on the poor."

        Of course, Romney, Perry, Herman Cain and the rest were loathe to  directly state their position as , “If elected, I will tell you to wait this thing out.” Instead, Republican candidates filled (and fill) their "jobs plans"  with Chicagoan ideas that have and had  nothing to do with the then current crisis, like permanent cuts in taxes and regulation. These policies might (or might  not) make the economy healthier in 5 years or 10, but the immediate 2013 impact would have meant  firing a large number of America’s roughly 23 million government workers.

        As for his predictions of  2012, Mitt Romney, that canny businessman,  pledged that, if elected, he would bring the unemployment rate down to 6% by January 2017. Read that again. If only we gave ol' Mitt 8 years, added to Obama's four from 2008, a span of nine years,  since the economy receded in 2008, he would, by virtue of his personal economic savvy, bring unemployment  (see paragraph above regarding the time frame if nothing was done!) below 6%!

        Wowser, why didn't  we choose him?  Oh, but wait, the unemployment rate currently stands at 5.8% and has been under 6% since September 2014. Since January 2013, the economy has created nearly 5 million new jobs. had we elected Romney, and had he even been dead on in his predictions, and assuming he really could affect the economy, we'd still be two years from his promised 6% unemployment!  Do you need any more reason s to ignore him and his far more obnoxious clones?  The next time you hear any Republican say the words "economics, job creation, or "trickle down" put your fingers in your ears and say "La La La, not listening."  

False Prophets #1

                   False prophets (aren't they all?)

This is the first of several analyses of dire predictions made ca 2008 and/or 2012 after President Obama was (re)elected. The common thread here is that in every case, there was a complete lack of any real thought process, partisan rhetoric having overwhelmed logic.

         " Gas prices will rise to  $5.45 per gallon."

      In March 2012, on the floor of the United States Senate, Mike Lee (R-UT) predicted that if Obama was reelected gasoline  would cost $5.45 per gallon by the start of  2015. Lee said that gas prices would rise 5 cents for every month Obama was in office, ultimately reaching $6.60 per gallon.  The good senator  failed to actually provide any basis for these dire predictions, and it was obviously, as so much anti-Obama carping is, an election year scare tactic. Former Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann also in 2011, testing  presidential waters,  promised gas "under $2 per gallon."  Amazing that she was able to accomplish this while losing her seat in 2014!  

       Lee and Bachmann were not alone, however. . Newt Gingrich, running for the GOP nomination, predicted that if Obama was reelected he would push gas to “$10 a gallon.” Gingrich said he would reduce gas prices dramatically by reversing Obama’s energy policies. Gingrich flanked himself with campaign signs promising $2.50 gas if he was elected.

        So what's the story? The real story is that just as presidents, governors and mayors  don't create jobs,  they don't really have any control over fuel prices either. In our rather ignorant "blame anything you don't like on the president" society we've seen the current occupant of the White House blamed for PTSD, school shootings, the creation of ISIS, a resurgence in Al Green' s popularity, and a host of other ludicrous accusations.  The current administration has proven one thing, however. When confronted with executive resolve to disallow questionable practices, American  business will find a legal way to make it work. The fact that there is no North Slope drilling in ANWAR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) and gas is $1.77 per gallon is sufficient proof.

Who's to Blame?

Thought about this for several days before deciding to write.

I have been reflecting on the (delectable and talented)  Jada Pinkett Smith and her recent criticism of and decision to boycott this year's Academy Awards presentations. It seemed to me that she was mostly perturbed that the Academy's voters/selection committee had failed for the second year in a row to recognize  a Black actor with a nomination in one of the four "major" categories, said categories being supporting and lead actors, male and female.

        I think there is an issue here, I just don't agree with Mrs. Smith on the location of the "problem", if we call it that. My first thought was to reflect on whether the fact that her husband, the equally talented and beautiful Will Smith, was overlooked for "Concussion" factored in to her displeasure. I feel that it probably has to some extent.  Regarding her allegations of favoritism among those on the nominating committee, it would seem that she had no such reservations when  Will was nominated for "Happyness" and "Ali."  The committee was essentially the same racially and gender wise. Of course he didn't win for either role. So who won? Well, the nonpareil Denzel Washington won for "Training Day" and Forrest Whittaker won for "Last King of Scotland."  Last I looked, both were Black actors.   

        So? So if "Training Day" had been made 10 years earlier and Al Pacino cast in the lead, he'd have won. Why? because the vehicle was a strong role and a great opportunity for a great actor (Pacino or Washington) to show their craft.  When the current leading producer of Black oriented films alternates between playing a grandma in Drag and writing/directing  his own stuff, there may well be a shortage of Oscar worthy material. This is the same reason Adam Sandler is constantly rebuffed.  Prolific and "good" are not synonyms, Mr. Perry. 

        Selection committees must choose from what they are presented with in any given year, and when that year provides a classic like "The Help" (or Pulp Fiction, Million Dollar Baby, or  Dreamgirls) there will be nominations to reflect that. The people Mrs. Smith should be angry with if any, are casting directors who overlook talented actors in favor of "safe" choices.  Additionally, it is obvious that the film industry is a "butts in the seats" business, and that affects casting decisions. Of course, it is also true that when films are seen by viewers as either "Black" or "White" films, the audience is fractioned before release. A secondary note is that sometimes movies become "niche movies."  "Concussion" is such a movie, not because of race but because of subject matter.  A prime example of a casting decision which overlooked race in favor of talent would be the casting of the divine Audra MacDonald  in "Rikki and the Flash."  The film isn't Oscar material, but my point is that the casting was race neutral, dealing with story rather than making race the story as happens sometimes. Meanwhile will there be complaints when "Ride Along II" is snubbed?    

        There are a ton of great Black actors doing television right now, some of whose absence from the big screen are surprising. Shemar Moore, Lawrence Fishburne, and Anthony Anderson, immediately comes to mind, and Viola Davis is too long absent from movies as well. Chicago Fire, PD and Med are pools of talent none of whose cast members  I have seen in movies. So in conclusion, boycott if you will, but your anger is misplaced. Casting directors, writers and producers need to realize that a good story is a good story and great roles need not  necessarily be defined by race.  Don't blame the selection committee for the lack of choice offered for consideration.

Proof at Last!

Proof at last, Time Travel is real!

        Ever since my childhood years, I've been fascinated by the idea of  time travel, and have read any number of books, all classified as science fiction, on the subject. Favorites include the H.G. Wells classic, "The Time Machine,"  "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court", and more modern efforts such as Asimov's "The End of Eternity."  All these were entertaining, but  related to clearly fictional events and modalities.

        I would admit that my current research on the subject is based on circumstantial data and the result rather than the method. My conviction that time travel has occurred  least twice  in this century is based  on the impeccable observations of two great Americans who obviously travelled into the future, observed the current GOP candidate debates and press statements, and returned to their own eras and wrote down their observations. I offer the following paragraphs in evidence:

        My first examples come from the writings of American humorist Will Rogers, whose travel through the temporal wormhole  left him with several cogent observations which must have been inspired by current events:   "A fool and his money are soon elected."  Obviously an analysis of the Trump campaign, although one hopes he hasn't predicted the actual result.   

        Additional evidence points to his observation of candidate Ben Carson's  epic journey of foot in mouth events: " There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."      Even if Carson hasn't actually performed said micturition  yet, he falls into the last category!

        Listening to the militaristic ravings of Trump, Cruz and others clearly shows that Rogers was observing their behavior when he opined, " Diplomats are just as essential to starting a war as soldiers are for finishing it... You take diplomacy out of war, and the thing would fall flat in a week." I would add that referring to Trump, Cruz and diplomacy in the same sentence is a stretch. In like manner, watching the Huckabee, Santorum, Rubio and Cruz efforts to "out religion" each other, was clearly the inspiration for, "Now if there is one thing that we do worse than any other nation, it is try and manage somebody else's affairs."

        Finally as proof , consider this as both a reflection from almost 90 years ago and a projection of the probable 2016 GOP love in. "The 1928 Republican Convention opened with a prayer. If the Lord can see His way clear to bless the Republican Party the way it's been carrying on, then the rest of us ought to get it without even asking."

        Ok, ok, not convinced? No less observer of the human condition than H.L Mencken, has obviously also made the trip and returned to his time to write about it. Need proof? Ok, here goes:

        Consider any of the current clown car full of GOP candidates. Who else could this Mencken quote relate to so perfectly? " The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

        The same cadre of alarmists , touting the "war on Christianity," while really pandering to the mass of single (and wrong)  issue morons must have been the inspiration for, " We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart!"

        The GOP carping re: intellect vs. patriotism has surely led to this, " The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression." A Cruz or Huckabee  in office would fir that descriptor to a tee.

Finally, two generalities which are so apt today that they must have been based on actual observation:  Re: Trump  adherents - "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."  And in general and in summary, "A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in." to this point this is the perfect description to the GOP travelling menagerie and freak show.

RIP David Bowie

The man was an original in an era of copycat Brit invasion music. Like him or not, and some didn't, he was different, he was an innovator, he was never boring and reinvented himself several times, I shall miss his music.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8IXx4tsus

American Liar

American Liar: Chris Kyle's problems with the truth.

"American sniper" Chris Kyle has almost  become a national idol.  He is/was  not, by any means, the only sniper deployed to a war zone over the course of the last 10 years, he is however, the only one to return and become a media darling, primarily due to his death and the lies he told before it to "embroider" his reputation with a public who only knows him through his book and the movie made based on it. Billed as "autobiographical" the book is heavily ghost written. The movie, based on the book is, as movies are, an entertainment first, star vehicle second and truth, such as it is, a distant third.     His death was lamentable, but then so is his post-mortem deification, in light of the (at least) five huge lies he told to gain notoriety  Do we really want our children to look up to a liar?

The movie was engineered to give America something it's lacked since the start of the war -- a war hero on a truly national, cultural scale...with the success of this movie, Chris Kyle has entered the pantheon of American warriors ... giving a new generation of young boys a warrior-hero to look up to, to emulate. After all, our kids' heroes shouldn't be, must never be,  exclusively quarterbacks, rappers, or point guards.

No one, including the producers of the movie has ever claimed that Chris Kyle is Jesus. Every human being has flaws. It is critical to point out however,  that  he risked no more and probably far less than the thousands upon thousands of anonymous soldiers and Marines who fought house-to-house during their own turns downrange. It is also worthy of consideration  that, while his fame is largely self generated, he had a very tenuous relationship with the truth. let me rephrase that, Chris Kyle was a liar on an epic scale,  examples follow:

#1 Lie:  Kyle claimed he beat-up Jesse Ventura in a bar for making disparaging remarks about NAVY SEALS and the war in Iraq:

Like Ventura or don't, (I don't) Jesse Ventura sued for defamation and won a $1.8 million settlement which Kyle's wife is appealing. Once the trial actually began, however, the truth began to emerge. For instance, Kyle, who sat for a lengthy video deposition prior to his death, was inconsistent in his story. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune describes the testimony:  "Afternoon testimony may have shifted some sympathy to Ventura's side. In the deposition, videotaped a year before his death, Chris Kyle said he could not remember who told him that Ventura had hit his head when he fell to the sidewalk, could not recall how he learned that Ventura had a black eye, and conceded that tables did not go "flying" during the 2006 confrontation in a bar near San Diego, which he described in his book "American Sniper."

#2 Lie: Shot dozens of looters while he was on top of the New Orleans Superdome after Hurricane Katrina :

A spokesman for U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, told The New Yorker, "...There were no West Coast SEALs deployed to Katrina." When I related this account to one of Kyle's officers, he replied, sardonically, "I never heard that story." The SEAL with extensive experience in special-mission units wondered how dozens of people could be shot by high-velocity rifles and just disappear; Kyle's version of events, he said, "defies the imagination."

#3 Lie: Shot 2 men who tried to carjack him in TX:

Tommy Bryant, the sheriff of Erath County, told a reporter that he could "guar-an-damn-tee it didn't happen here." Greg Doyle, the sheriff of Somervell County, said that he had "never heard" the story, which he found "kinda shocking," and added, "It did not occur here." Bob Alford, the sheriff of Johnson County, told a local reporter, "If something like that happened here I would have heard of it, and I'm sure you all at the newspaper would have heard of it."

#4 Lie: Found WMD's in Iraq

Another lie Chris Kyle tells in his book is about those pesky missing WMDs.  Here is the passage: 'At another location, we found barrels of chemical material that was intended for use as biochemical weapons. Everyone talks about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they seem to be referring to completed nuclear bombs, not the many deadly chemical weapons or precursors that Saddam had stockpiled."

If he really found WMD's, the CIA, George Bush, Jr., and Tony Blair would have called a press conference to exonerate themselves for attacking Iraq based on false evidence.

#5 Lie: Donated 100% of Book Profits

An article in the Blaze definitively proclaimed: "A perfect reflection of his character, Kyle gave all proceeds from his best-selling book American Sniper to the families of soldiers killed in combat."   Kyle himself perpetuated this idea, telling the same "all proceeds-went-to-charity" tale to the Texas News Service and even adding that he regularly received tearful calls and letters of thanks.

Here's the problem: It isn't true. It isn't even remotely close to being true! Out of the staggering $3 million that American Sniper collected in royalties for Kyle, only $52,000 actually went to the families of fallen servicemen. (Rather than 100 percent of the proceeds, as the public was led to believe, try 2 percent!)"

CONCLUSION(s)

If Chris Kyle was willing, as has been proven, to lie about such easily debunked things here in America, why should we blindly consider his war stories as categorical truth?
According to The New Yorker, "Like many soldiers, Kyle was deeply religious and saw the Iraq War through that prism. He tattooed one of his arms with a red crusader's cross, wanting 'everyone to know I was a Christian.'"   Really? Did he act in a "Christian" manner?
He was a hypocrite and an unrepentant liar. While some may differ, in fact, patriotism is not a Christian virtue. Patriotism is amoral/neutral depending on the justice of the cause. And the Iraq war was NOT a just cause. False patriotism is war profiteers' trick to motivate naïve citizens and soldiers to support their wars.

In contrast, another Cavalry Scout sniper  Garett Reppenhagen, writes:

"...Unlike Chris Kyle, who claimed his PTSD came from the inability to save more service members, most of the damage to my mental health was what I call "moral injury," which is becoming a popular term in many veteran circles.

As a sniper I was not usually the victim of a traumatic event, but the perpetrator of violence and death. My actions in combat would have been more acceptable to me if I could cloak myself in the belief that the whole mission was for a greater good. Instead, I watched as the purpose of the mission slowly unraveled.  I served in Iraq in 2004 and 2005. During that time, we started to realize there were no weapons of mass destruction, the 9/11 commission report determined that Iraq was not involved in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, false sovereignty was given to Iraq by Paul Bremer, the atrocities at Abu Ghraib were exposed, and the Battle of Fallujah was waged.

The destruction I took part in suddenly intersected with news that our reasons for waging war were untrue. The despicable conduct of those at Abu Ghraib was made more unforgivable by the honorable interactions I had with Iraqi civilians, and, together, it fueled the post-traumatic stress I struggle with today. My war was completely different than Chris Kyle's war..."

(ed note: Perhaps the real difference is in the character of  Mr Reppenhagen and the lack of same in Mr. Kyle.)

here's a footnote related by a former SEAL TEAM member in response to another Kyle article:

 "According to a member of Kyle's SEAL Team 3, Brandon Webb, and actor Pat Kilbane, Kyle told them in a bar conversation that he and another SEAL had driven to New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and Kyle killed over 30 'looters' from the top of the Astrodome.   U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM has responded that there were no "West Coast SEALs deployed to Katrina." 

If Kyle was actually telling the truth about his exploits, which include over a hundred killings in addition to his official SEAL record of 165 "clean" kills, he would be liable for dozens of counts of murder in the United States alone.   But Kyle himself told a reporter from 'D Magazine' (Dallas) that he had special phone number for police which resulted in no police records related to his 'extra curricular' kills, foreign and domestic. 

I know there's a lot more to the story that's been white washed over by all the publicity.  I suspect Kyle's "adrenaline Jones" for killing didn't end with his last deployment.  If he really had special immunity - quite possible if he was a covert hit-man for a government agency - CRAFT International would be a great cover for a Homeland Security version of 'Murder Inc.'   If that were the case, maybe he was killed for shooting his mouth off too much.   One thing's for sure - he was worth far more dead to the propaganda machine that he'd be if he were alive to continue sticking his foot in his mouth"

Welfare Kings

        Y'know who I really marvel at?  Of course you don't, how could you? So I'm gonna tell you! I marvel at the attitudes of people like the current occupiers of the wilderness refuge building in Oregon, and even more at their eastern cousins, the farmers who grow corn on large farm acreage.

        Typically, both these groups show the facade of  fiercely independent souls who, don't like the government much in their lives and almost constantly, sort of like  Greta Garbos with shit on their shoes, just "want to be left alone."  If they actually lived their lives in this fashion, it might be possible to generate a tiny bit of sympathy for them, but alas, a closer look shows a very different story. many of these folks who seem so anti-government actually are biting the hand which feeds them and, by extension, all of us.

        Former President Bush (43-"W"), certainly a friend of the petroleum industry managed to sign into law several pieces of legislation which not only kept alternative energy research in a subordinate position to Fossil fuels, but gave US corn producers an even bigger handout than the already significant corn subsidies they were being paid by the government they profess to dislike so much.

        The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a federal program that requires transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. The RFS originated with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and was expanded and extended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). Remember, this was under the aegis and at the recommendation of a committee which was largely comprised of energy corporation execs and chaired by Dick Cheney! The RFS requires renewable fuel to be blended into transportation fuel in increasing amounts each year, escalating to 36 billion gallons by 2022. This is the E-10 gasoline at your local pump. Each renewable fuel category in the RFS program must emit lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) relative to the petroleum fuel it replaces. Yes, you are correct, the Government actually created a guaranteed market for  a non-food use of corn - ethanol for fuel addition. Not only created the market,  but mandated its use. Now this was at a time when the principal concern re: fossil fuels was actually US supply and cost, to some greater degree that emissions.

        Now gasoline prices are at an all time low. Wait, before you call bullshit on me, read on. Average  household income in 1950 was  $3,300 annually. Gasoline was about 29.9 cents per gallon. in 2014, average household income was $51,017 annually. If gas prices had simply kept pace with inflation, a gallon today would cost $4.48 per gallon! In spite of prices being half that or less, we're still subsidizing farmers to raise corn, not for food, but for ethanol production.

        As an aside, The average automobile only gets  about 93% as much mileage with 10% ethanol as with straight petroleum. This means having to purchase more E-10 gasoline.  Even while the price of the actual refined petroleum has dropped markedly, the price of ethanol, subsidized as it is, hasn't declined at all!  

        Subsidies in general have been a way of every American, urban, suburban, or rural, paying more for certain foods to keep farmers solvent.  Initially, during the Great Depression, subsidies took the form of payments to farmers to let land remain fallow (unplanted)  in exchange for government money. This was to keep prices higher by creating lower supply for the same demand.  But what began as a temporary stimulus measure gradually became  something much more permanent and unwieldy. Skip ahead through several decades of back-and-forth tinkering with the policy (see: “target prices,” “price floors,” “short crop,” “deficiency payments”) to the mid-90s, when we introduced something called “direct payments.”  And yeah, That’s pretty much what it sounds like: Paying money. Directly. To farmers. These payments were given out to certain commodity farmers, based on the historic records of what their land could produce. They were paid out rain or shine, whether prices were high or low. Some of our wealthiest members of Congress do, and have for generations, collect these handouts while criticizing the Government which redirects our money to their pockets.

        In 2014, after much squabbling, Congress approved a new farm bill, more than two years after they were scheduled to. The main emphasis of the federal farm policy is now on subsidized “crop insurance.”  This sounds promising at first — “insurance” should come with a focus on minimizing risk, right?  In actuality,  these insurance plans largely help guarantee that farmers can sell their crop above a certain price (Price Loss Coverage) or make a certain amount of revenue (Agricultural Risk Coverage), and do little to encourage, say, better drought-planning measures or a more diverse spread of crops. With the federal government spending over $5 billion a year to subsidize these insurance premiums, all that corn (and soy and wheat) doesn’t come cheap.

        Since 1995, 75 percent of federal subsidies have gone to 10 percent of farms, the same consolidated group of commodity crop growers who will continue to eat up a disproportionate share of the subsidy pie under the new system, too.  These payments fund a massive industrialized food system that takes its toll on our land and water, while our diets are full of all that extra corn, from our corn-fed burgers to our Halloween candy — and so are our cars.  

      Meanwhile, many of these same rustic  welfare kings bitch about how they want the government out of their lives. They also stereotype welfare recipients unfavorably. Funny how they exclude themselves from the mix. Odd, ain't it?

As Dysfunctional as the TV Bundys but Even More Ignorant

Just on the off chance that you might actually be gulled into believing anything you might hear from the criminals who have seized some federal buildings in the Oregon wilderness, here's my poor attempt at clarification as well as a brief history lesson. (you knew that was coming, didn't you?).  Their chief complaint, of course, remains the current administration and they would , if allowed, spin their current illegal activities as citizens exercising their rights in the face of increased "gummint" (read this as "Obama administration" ) incursion into their lives.

In fact, their criminal activities  in the current matter stem from, and are extensions of,  their actions of several years ago when rancher Cliven Bundy was assisted by many of these same thugs when faced with the legal consequences of over 2 decades of breaking federal law by refusing to pay the grazing lease fees as he had contracted to do. In so doing, Bundy, his son Ammon, a  leader of the current morons,  and others would apparently wish to make it appear that some recent government plot or unwarranted change to standing land management law was to blame for their discontent. Bundy the son, said, "It is the people's facility, owned by the people," and it has been provided for us, to be able to come together and unite in making a hard stand against this overreach, this taking of the people's land and resources." Golly that's inspiring! The problem is that not one word of it is true! 

The land in question has never been the rightful land of any white man. Now if the Molalla, Cayuse or Sahaptin  Indians were occupying the building, that'd be different.  Unfortunately the ancestors of the Bundys have expressed no such concerns about the real original "owners."
Complicit in the father's case of several years ago  was Fox News, especially Sean Hannity ("This can spiral out of control. You get one wrong person out there, this can spiral out of control really fast," and "If it keeps going, this is going to end very, very badly." He (Hannity) even demanded, "The government needs to stand down" because "this is only a symptom of how one person, standing up to the government, I'm telling you, [it is] my opinion that this crisis could come to a head, and lives could be lost."

So what was that situation Hannity referred to?  The Bureau of land management is an organization created with the merging of two US government agencies in the Truman administration in 1946. For the math challenged, that's 70 years ago! The propose, then and now, is the control and management of  public land, especially to prevent  overgrazing and other misuse  such as the excessive removal of  grasses which hold soil and prevent a "dust bowl" effect.  

The Bundy's of the west would, of course, have the rest of us believe that this is an infringement of their rights, even though they have never purchased one acre of that land and it belongs to the nation, not to them. In the case of Cliven Bundy, he had, for several decades refused to pay the agreed upon annual lease price for grazing his cattle on this land he doesn't own. After over a decade in court, largely consisting of Bundy simply refusing to respond or appear, the BLM resorted to what an auto dealer would do in their place, they planned to repossess enough of Bundy's illegally fattened and fed cattle to pay the owed money. Oh my! Immediately in the view of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, this makes the government the bad guys and Bundy a populist hero.  When Bundy opened his mouth and the rest of his imbecilic and wide ranging hatreds spewed forth, Hannity  backtracked, unfortunately saving his career, such as it is. Beck, already fired by Fox, echoed those sentiments. That by the way is how a conservative hate monger can judge the "shark hurdling" moment of his career, when even Faux News can no longer  tolerate you. 

In truth, The BLM's roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which  provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. After the Revolutionary War, the Treaty of Paris of 1783, signed by the United States, England, France, and Spain, ceded additional territory to the United States. In the 1780s,  states relinquished their own claims to land in modern-day Ohio. By this time, the United States needed revenue to function, and as a revenue measure land was sold so that the government would have money to survive. The Land Ordinance of 1785 instructed a geographer to oversee surveying these. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office as part of the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition and sale of these federal lands. 

  Eventually, A system of local land offices spread throughout the territories, patenting land that was surveyed via the Office of the Surveyor General of a given territory. This pattern gradually spread across the entire United States. In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. Of course these lessees, being legitimate businessmen, actually paid their lease obligations!

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the United States Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands by establishment of advisory boards that set grazing fees. Similar legislation in 1937 requires sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon. None of these laws functioned to take any private land, but were designed to manage public,  land. In 1946, when the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office, the Bureau of Land Management was formed within the Department of the Interior. As it exists today, In the end, the Bureau of Land Management is far less focused on land disposal and more focused on the long term management and preservation of the land. The agency achieved its current form by combining offices in the western states and creating a corresponding office for lands both east of and alongside the Mississippi River. As a matter of geography and economics, course, the BLM's emphasis falls today on activities in the western states as most of the mining, land sales, and federally owned areas are located west of the Mississippi. The BLM has never "taken private land" even though this charge openly contradicts the other statements such as "this is the people's land."  These dullards  don't even recognize it when they are self contradictory! 

To place the current activities of the Bundy clan in perspective, what they are doing is about the same as agreeing to pay rent for a spot of land on the National Mall in DC and, after refusing to pay the agreed upon rent for 20 years, claiming the government is at fault for doing its job in evicting them. Or maybe if a local farmer decided to graze sheep on the lawn at Mount Vernon and refused to move. In essence these shit kicker scofflaws love America as long as they are free to use its assets free of charge, but God forbid they be required to actually fulfill any other responsibilities of citizenship.

A Tale, Told by an Idiot

        Comedian Eddie Griffin has apparently gone insane. His claim that  recent criminal charges against Bill Cosby are an "effort to destroy every black male entertainer’s image" has so many flaws that one wonders why it is even news. Oh wait...race is involved! Why?  Because, and only because, Eddie Griffin has decided to make it so. I'll revisit possible reasons at the end of this monograph.

        The 55 women (the current total) who have over the years accused Cosby of sexual impropriety include the gamut of American women from supermodels like  Beverly Johnson and Janice Dickinson to relative unknowns whose only apparent mistake was being attractive and near Cosby at the same time. These women  cover essentially the entire range of human skin pigmentation, so at least for Cosby, it wasn't racial, simply pathological.

        Perhaps the most abused woman of all is Cosby's wife Camille, who is either blissfully ignorant of her long term husband's proclivities or simply resigned to the fact that he is/was a horn dog with little self restraint. After 51 years of marriage and numerous public indications that she has known he was a serial philanderer, I'm opting for the latter.  

        An excerpt from a recent New York  Post article confirms much of this position:  "Bill Cosby’s wife knows her husband is a serial philanderer, but believes his scores of accusers consented to drugs and sex, two confidants of the couple say. Last week’s revelation that Cosby admitted during a deposition that he plied women with Quaaludes before bedding them barely fazed Camille Cosby, the ­insiders told The Post.

“Camille still doesn’t believe that Bill provided drugs and had sex with women without their consent,” said a source employed by the Cosby family. “She’s well aware of his cheating, but she doesn’t believe that her husband is a rapist.”......You might say  that she’s standing by her husband, but really, the more people stand against him, the more she perceives it as an affront to her and all that she’s done to make him a star,” said another source who’s done business with the Cosbys and remains close to them."  In fact The most meaningful and telling statement may be this, from the same article:  “I created him, I knew what I was getting and we’ll fix this,” she told the gathering at a meeting at the couple’s Shelburne Falls, Mass., home Tuesday night."

        Now, a story I have alluded to here previously:  We have a  friend of some 40 years, now a prominent medical  practitioner in North Florida, who when we first made his acquaintance was a singer/entertainer in New England. He told my wife and I of his first trip to Las Vegas, a sort of "testing the waters" excursion, and how delighted he was to meet his idol (he did a fair amount of comedy in his act) Bill Cosby.  He asked Cosby for career advice and was , instead, propositioned for sex. Cosby was married at the time but, as indicated above, not fanatic about it or, apparently,  gender exclusive.

        So, when Eddie Griffin or anyone else decides that this is all some diabolical racially motivated  sham to smear a good man who is above reproach, he is, simply put - full of shit. Anyone else with this many accusations of abuse from this widely varied group of accusers would have already been tried and convicted. I mean, hell the man has blatantly admitted in a deposition  drugging women for sex by giving them Quaaludes!

        So why Eddie Griffin? Might  his outrage, feigned or not, is more a reflection of the way he views women?   Could his lack of respect for women make him view all of them as simply items to be used and discarded, as Cosby did? we can't know his mind but his actions provide a little insight. At a fairly recent club gig, he did and said this to a pair of women, a couple, who made the mistake of coming to his show and sitting near the stage:

        “You are a lesbian!  All you need is a good man and I’ll volunteer my services.  You won’t be needing any strap-ons or vibrators with me!” He (Griffin) then approached (them) and according to the angry woman, “He started to pump his hips into my face.  I felt sexually assaulted and I wanted him to stop, then I threw the drink at him to defend myself.” After the drink was thrown at the performer,  Griffin went berserk, he began grabbing anything he could find within his reach and threw it at (the woman)  and her partner.  The women were bombarded with items, even salt and pepper shakers.  “Before we  could get away,  he poured a water bottle on my head and threw it at us” she lamented. He is currently being sued for his lack of control.

        Do we have race issues in America? You bet we do. Does someone like an Eddie Griffin enforcing a stereotype  do any conceivable good? Of course not, but then that wasn't his intent, was it? When one's career is flagging (we're still waiting for "Undercover  Brother II" [Not!]) and accusations of writing bad checks to charities  - $150,000 bounced check, suit in progress - and an assault charge from last March....well, I guess any press is better than none.  

        It seems to me that,  diametrically contrary to Griffin's loudmouthed rant, the media, all of it, has been remarkably restrained with respect to the Cosbys, providing more than a few opportunities to present their "side" of the story in the absence of direct confrontation by his victims. I use the word "victims" because this is really a story about the use and abuse of women, and a man who has made a career of it, enabled by a wife who liked the money enough to tolerate the cuckolding.  

        As for Eddie Griffin's ludicrous rant: He may have strutted and fretted too long, because his accusations are "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." This last with appropriate apologies to Shakespeare for using his words  and Eddie Griffin's in the same essay.

New Year's rant!

      As usual, while doing the crossword puzzle this morning, I had Good Morning America on in the background. Yeah, ABC is a Disney subsidiary and you get a lot of promos for their product, but overall, I love the cast and format. They manage to make Today's cast seem bland and "stick in the muddish" by comparison.

        As I was half listening, half cursing under my breath (the Friday puzzle is a bitch!), I heard the name Joel Osteen, and they cut to a pre-taped Robin Roberts segment with this shill and scam artist extraordinaire. After about three words from his recently medically sculpted face I felt like I needed another shower! What a smarmy, sorry piece of work this man is.  Every word was a platitude, and a tenth grader could have written his banal, trite and meaningless message. In other words, he was consistent with every other televangelist ever.

         What saddens me even more, on reflection, is that people who can't afford to do so send him and his ilk lots of their money. It reminds me of a line from one of the truly great western films  of all time - The Magnificent Seven. In the film, ,  the bandit Calvera, played superbly by master character actor Eli Wallach, says of the small border town he terrorizes and extorts: " If God didn't want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep."  Come to think of it - televangelist/Mexican bandit?...the only difference is the gun.