Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > November > 22 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USDoes your past matter? Absolutely.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Does your past matter? Should significant transgressions of your youth — murder, robbery, theft, selling dope — disqualify you for the remainder of your life for some positions of trust? What about adulthood, and with lesser offenses, like for example, being one of seven federal judges in history to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and banished from the bench by the U.S. Senate?
The answer to all is — or should be — yes. Any act committed by a person capable of rational choice, especially an act that conveys a wanton disregard for human life, carries with it a lifelong burden and is a permanent disqualifier for some positions. Armed robbers, for example, should never be allowed to handle other people’s money and I’d never want them to own weapons. Armed robbers rationalize killing innocents before they ever pull a gun on their victim. Bad people,
I feel similarly about people who violate the public trust. Few honors are more sacred in a democracy than the public trust. Those who take an oath to uphold the law, and to work for the betterment of the common good, and then enrich themselves or otherwise dishonor their oath, as former School Supt. Linda Schrenko did, as former Mayor Bill Campbell did, and as former federal judge Alcee Hastings did, should forever forfeit the privilege of holding that trust again.
After being impeached and removed from the federal bench almost 20 years ago, Hastings was elected to Congress from Florida. The charge against him was conspiring to solicit bribes from criminal defendants. He was acquitted at trial, but Congress found the charges credible and he was tossed from the bench. But, as is their right, voters elected him to Congress. Bad choice, but voters have the right to set the bar for public service as low as they choose when picking their own representative.
Hastings rises to national interest now because there’s a a real possibility that incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi will make him head of the House Intelligence Committee. The woman who would normally be in line for the job, California Rep. Jane Harman, is insufficiently far to the left for many Democrats and, besides, she and Pelosi are political adversaries. The Black Caucus is pushing Hastings, who ranks second to Harman on the committee.
Pelosi has blown it once in backing Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania for majority leader, a pick rejected by her caucus. If she picks Hastings now — a decision will come before January — here’s a prediction: Democrats will not keep the House in 2008. The country will not tolerate an impeached federal judge as the U.S. House’s chief keeper of state secrets.
Comments
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
November 22, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this
The Pope used to have a secret clearance when we worked in the defense industry. Hastings shouldn’t even be on the committee with his background. Of coiurse, Karla Rove, Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby should have had their clearances pulled too for their involvement in outing Valerie Plame.
So this morning, James, we agree - hang all of them!
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. There was no question in my mind that the incoming Democrats would seize the opportunity to show middle America that they were competent and reasonable, and more importantly could be trusted with the reins of governance. But so far….
Murtha was a laughable potential choice for house majority leader, given the purported Democrat interest in “ethics.” And certainly he did little to make himself a more credible candidate with his four-letter description of the proposed changes in earmarks. For conservatives and libertarians and ethical leftists, analyzing that case was shooting fish in a barrel, but there was no real potential harm to the republic. (As Brother Dirksen said, “a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”)
The Hastings case is a different matter, and I am not smiling now. Intelligence Committees have always been famous for harmful leaks when Democrats controlled Congress. Admittedly most of those leaks were beneficial to international leftism, and with the demise of the Soviet there is no real incentive for leftists to compromise the safety of the US today. With Hastings we have a proven-corrupt politician. If this is Ms. Pelosi’s individual call, we may well wind up with this crook on Intelligence. Surely our friends on the left will lobby to prevent such political suicide, because Jim is right. Such a poor appointment, coupled with the buffoonery we anticipate (and indeed, have already seen) from Rangle and company, will undermine the little credibility the left has with the American public today.
By Spoon Fed Liberalism
November 22, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this
There’s an old saying - give a man a rope long enough, and eventually he’ll hang himself with it. In this particular case, it’s a woman. Are we to honestly believe that Hastings is the best man for the top spot on the HIC? What are this man’s qualifications for advising on intelligence gathering? What’s his professional background? Was he picked because he’s a minority? If he’s put into power, based upon his background, will he be tempted to take bribes from Iran, North Korea, or even China like some Clintonians?
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=99-D_01
I won’t even go there on Murtha, who took a real good whiff of that bribery jar. The very idea of Pelosi to say she will put together the most ethical congress in history is laughable.
I cannot believe what I’ve been witnessing since the morning of November 8. What are these Democrats thinking? Nancy Pelosi and friends have been promising for months now of tax increases and an immediate pullout of Iraq. Now suddenly the Democrats are backpedaling and looking at alternatives on those proposals. Well, it’s about time they start paying attention to the mainstream - raising taxes will go over like a lead balloon with the voter base and even though most Americans are not happy with the way the Iraq war is going, very few support an immediate withdrawal.
Now suddenly the Democrats are having to look through a new set of lenses and get the bigger picture of the real world. See what happens when reality hits you?
By @@
November 22, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this
Well Jim, if you’re a Democrat your past doesn’t matter. Gerry Studds, sex with an underage page…still serving. Harry Reid, five family members as lobbyists…still serving. Ted Kennedy, Chappaquidick, undermining Reagan’s efforts in the Cold War…still serving. Jay Rockefeller, treasonous acts against the U.S…still serving.
Is it any surprise that the democrats rarely consider the unintended consequences of the policies they advocate?
The reason they don’t is because they’ve never had the word defined for them until Murtha. I agree with you, Pelosi blows.
By Van
November 22, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this
Hmmm, it appears Pelosi’s grand plans are starting to come undone.
I would have to imagine that, as Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda I said, a security clearence would be necessary for just being on the Committee.
Of course, I do disagree with him on the outing of Valerie Plame, you can’t out someone who is already out!
That would be like trying to “out” Elton John.
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
November 22, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
Van, here are the rules about secret information - if the information is secret, you’re not supposed to talk about it, ever.
There was a leak of Plame’s cover, the answer to the reporters should have been “what? Don’t know. Don’t ask me”. Fitzgerald had to chase down several conversations because Rove, libby, Cheney, etc. were participating in the gossip with reporters.
By getalife
November 22, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
My goodness.
Let the investigations begin before you pass judgement on others.
I predict many of the gop will go to prison.
Investigate.
Indict.
Impeach.
Incarcerate.
By Diogenes
November 22, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
Jim,
You disappoint me. Your logic is as shaky about Hastings as Pelosi’s but for different reasons. You build up such a beautiful case for banning convicted felons and convicted violators of the public trust from ever holding office again. All reasonable voters could agree with you, then you assure us that Hastings was not found guilty. That’s the end of the discussion. He was not found guilty; therefore, he has but to persuade the voting public that he is qualified for the job for which he is a candidate. Your logic, Jim, falls apart; it is but another incidence of the conservative arrogance that they know better than the voter, which they ignore at their peril.
On the other hand, it does not sound as if Madame Speaker should consider this man for the head of the House Intelligence Committee because there is a taint. Madame Speaker, who has sworn to run the cleanest legislature in history, seems to have a skill for choosing colleagues who fail the test in the public eye. I am disappointed in Madame Speaker, as well. Your argument Jim is not whether or not Hastings is guilty but the simple assertion that she is failing to raise the standard for political appointees above that of the Republicans who preceded her. Both of you are misrepresenting the electorate’s concerns.
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
November 22, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
Thanks get, for getting us back to the real topic - 6 years of total incompetence and unfettered corruption.
You left off impale again.
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
November 22, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Thanks get, for getting us back to the real topic - 6 years of total incompetence and unfettered corruption.
You left off impale again.
By Bemused Humanist
November 22, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
Dear Mr. Wooten,
A Humanist would argue the existence of the wondrous, infinite power human beings have to change themselves, to reject the pernicious for the benign, to heal and renew the mind and the spirit in a manner which redeems past acts, however heinous. Indeed, it is one of our strongest arguments against capital punishment.
I understand why you and other conservatives do not share this view. I suppose that means you believe that a habitual drunk with a DUI on his record who is also reputed to be a serial cocaine abuser should never become president of the United States, correct?
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
Dear Diogenes @ 8:59, I am truly a fan of your logical writings, but you have not yet had your coffee. Wake up. Hastings was impeached by a Democrat-run congress. I agree that he fooled at least one juror, but you are asking the meaning of “is.” The man is a crook. The fact that he is not a convicted crook does not mean he is not a crook. Jim’s logic is sound, and he marshals the facts legitimately.
I agree with that portion of your thesis that implicitly says Democrats do not have to appoint honest people to sensitive positions – indeed, the electorate will judge that in 2008. Jim analyzed, correctly in my mind, that the Democrats are squandering their political capital for foolish reasons. There is no lack of rational thought in working toward that conclusion.
By getalife
November 22, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
I see bad karma around w.
Two motorcycle cops crash in his motorcade.
Daughter robbed in Argentina.
Cut and run Daddy crying about his son being a failure.
Bad karma and the investigations have not even started yet.
I predict bad times for the Bush family.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Dear @@ @ 8:41, I am a fan, but a technical correction is in order. Gerry Studds retired from congress after the 1996 elections, with 20 years of uninterrupted service, so the thrust of your argument is true, but the specific fact is not. Also, he died during the 2006 elections.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
Dear Bemused @ 9:07, I think you argue, falsely, that Alcee Hastings has confessed and renounced his prior evils. Is that not a pre-requisite for any 12 step program? I am comfortable that Hasting’s deception is unyielding.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
Also, dear Bemused, we do distinguish youthful stupidity from that of one appointed to a position of government trust. After all, that is Jim’s topic today. Or perhaps you argue that a sitting judge should be measured by the same ethical standards as a 25 year old working stiff?
Had you framed your argument in apposition to, say, a sitting president who lies under oath in a civil suit, I would perhaps have to yield to your argument. Certainly a president testifying under oath should be held to the same standard as a sitting judge.
By abc
November 22, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
Bunch of nutbag neocons (JIM), get over it with your notions of Democrats being so far to the left. We’re not. We’re middle-of-the-road conservatives, and we’re the majority in this country.
By CJ
November 22, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
Wooten: “If [Representative Pelosi] picks Hastings now — a decision will come before January — here’s a prediction: Democrats will not keep the House in 2008.”
Jim,
I’ve observed over time that the predictions from prognosticators of the extreme right (that’s you) are usually wishful thinking that is meant to persuade, not inform. Such predictions are usually wrong.
I agree with you that appointing Hastings to head the intelligence committee would not be the right decision. However, the Democrats will be judged in 2008 on the whole of their ethics reforms and their actions or inactions on behalf of the American people – not the past acts of a single committee chairperson.
For balance, maybe you could consider devoting a post to some of the past acts of the new Republican minority leader, John Boehner, and minority whip, Roy Blunt. If you applied the same standards to Republicans that you do to Democrats, you’d find that they, using your words, “violated the public trust” as well (of course, you don’t apply the same standards to Republicans that you do to Democrats).
Suffice to say that with the current weakened state of ethics rules and campaign laws providing so many temptations for elected officials, both parties will always have corrupt politicians – although in scale, Republicans have shown themselves to be more easily tempted. Republicans had their chance to strengthen ethics rules, but they chose to weaken them instead. Let’s watch and see what the Democrats do.
By Diogenes
November 22, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw (909),
Jim started his argument by talking about felons, then he talked about violations of the public trust. Hastings was impeached, but not convicted. The people of his home state saw fit to elect him, even though there was, to our eye, a taint on his character. He has been elected; therefore, by definition, he is eligible for appointment to a position of power. Jim tries to argue against him by clouding the issue with felons and others found guilty in court of violations of the public trust. Your point is far more valid: “the Democrats are squandering their political capital for foolish reasons.” Had Jim argued that point, he would have a prima facie case for excluding Hastings, but he tried to make us think “felon” before he even talked about Hastings. It’s what one calls a “cheap debater’s trick.” Your point, however, is unassailable.
By Curious Observer
November 22, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
It is typical of the rightist dogma to assert, in essence, that humankind is irredeemable, that any past act is unforgivable. It’s the kind of thinking that leads to support for capital punishment for a widening array of acts. In many ways, the hypocritical right, which attempts to impose Christianity on all of us, is the most unChristian of entities, for it denies the very essence of moral and spiritual transformation.
Hastings is but a straw man here. For a better example, see TFTT’s continual abuse of Senator Robert C. Byrd. In his early 20s, Byrd made the mistake of joining the KKK. He quickly withdrew from the organization, and he has since apologized profusely, including in his recent autobiography. Yet, TFTT continues to assail him, even 70 years after the fact.
I wonder whether such rightists ever made a mistake when they were in their early twenties.
To see a single act in the past as a total disqualification for honest service in the future is to take the dimmest view of human nature possible. These Original Sinners, who always see humankind as essentially inclined to vice and immorality, have made the Republican Party the immoral collection of dissemblers it is today.
By Realist
November 22, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
I wonder whether such rightists ever made a mistake when they were in their early twenties.
We’ll never know because no “rightist” who made such a mistake would ever stand a chance of making it in politics because the democrats and liberal media would publically execute and castrate the man beyond repair.
You asked for it, well you got it America. A house full of crooks, drunks, thieves and ultra-liberal socialists!
By Van
November 22, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda I
I can only assume you are ignoring the former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage’s confession that he was the leak to Bob Novak.
By Bemused Humanist
November 22, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
Dear Mr. Jmblaw,
I did not argue that Mr. Hastings has redeemed himself, only that he — like all of us — has the innate power to do so.
Would you forgive him if he takes responsibility for his past and appears genuinely contrite and transformed? If not, why are you and your fellow conservatives so quick to forgive Bush, Cheney, Rush, et. al. their transgressions — some of which not being so youthful?
(As an aside, I remember with much bemusement Ann Coulter arguing that Rush wasn’t a real drug addict like Those People because he didn’t take 30 or so Oxycontins per day to get high, to enjoy the drug, but because he was medically hooked on them.) I guess by Ann’s reasoning a person can have a lot of pre-marital sex so long as the sex is lousy and isn’t enjoyable. Which in her case …)
By Diogenes
November 22, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
Curious Observer (928),
You are correct, of course, to say: “To see a single act in the past as a total disqualification for honest service in the future is to take the dimmest view of human nature possible.” In this particular instance, however, Madame Speaker is trying to overcome the scandals and corruptions of the rascals who preceded her. The best way to achieve that is to assure that there is no taint of ethical violations in the rascals she appoints or supports. jbmlaw (0909) had the right approach when he claimed that Madame Speaker was squandering her political capital on questionable candidates for positions of power.
By Realist
November 22, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
Btw to Diogenes, Bill Clinton was never found guilty of snorting or possesing coke either, but his brother Roger on FBI surveillance tape saying that his brother Bill has a nose for good coke like a vacuum is good enough for me…..
By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It
November 22, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda November 22, 2006 08:47 AM The Luckovich Blog - The Official Blog of the Special Olympics.
This person parades itself around as some kind of superior intellectual being, not having to prove anything, not having to share any of this supposed intelligence, just having to tell everyone how smart they are.
Now you tell me, has anyone ever seen anything more from this person than this stupid, childish bomb throwing?
Ever?
I sure would like to know exactly what gives this clown the ability to set themselves up on a pedestal and look down on the rest of us.
Or is that good enough for you people?
Is this what passes for intelligence in your shallow little world?
By Political Foreskin
November 22, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Murder…Robbery…Theft…Selling Dope. Wooten is saying that one night disqualifes me and my date from ever holding public office? (prom night, so what?)
that’s crazy talk, sir.
Dont worry, Jim, Nancy will make a circus out of the Speaker’s office as much as Newt did, and Hastert and probably every clown who ever was Speaker.
SO what? We have bigger problems in the person of a little guy named Bush. He’s the bad egg here. Bush is meeting with Iraqis now. Carefully scrutinize his language in the press conference following his discussions. Then blog on it.
My predictions. The door will be open for easy spins to start cutting and running, timetables, in fact, a very complicated bunch of scenarios that break from the “go long go strong” option that the bitter right are poor-sporting.
The reality of a Shia Superstate will first pass W’s lips after that discussion. I wonder what bush-speak spin word W will create for the “Shia Superstate”?
Should be fertile material for one and all.
By Diogenes
November 22, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Realist (940),
Exactly the point: as the voter that is your perogative. The voters of Florida chose to overcome that objection. If Madame Speaker, however, wants to achieve an ethically unassailable House, then she needs to make sure that there are no doubts in the minds of the electorate.
By Diogenes
November 22, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
got to go now. bye
By LMAO
November 22, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
I guess half of all Catholic priests are ineligible to run for Congress under Jim’s reasoning. How sad. LMAO.
Haggart and Swaggart in ‘08. LMAO.
(Unless Ralph Reed throws his hat into the ring.) LMAO.
By @@
November 22, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Oops Jbmlaw: You are, oh so right about Gerry Studds. I forgot all about his recent death.
My apologies. My thrust and parry should have avoided the RIP of Studds.
Shame on me!
I have returned to apply a proper, and sincere Rest In Peace Gerry Studds.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Dear Bemused @ 9:39, your question is fair. “Would you forgive him if he takes responsibility for his past and appears genuinely contrite and transformed?“ My short answer is, “yes” and my standard of “genuineness” is actually pretty liberal, if you will pardon the expression.
Indeed, had Cynthia McKinney truly apologized for her behavior, instead of being sorry this blew up or whatever phony-bologna apology she offered, I would hold her in reasonable ethical regard; she did not, and I don’t. “I’m sorry people misunderstood what was going on” is not an apology, and that seems to be the fashion among our “betters” (and I don’t exempt Republicans from my scorn.)
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
One other confession, Bemused, re: my hero Rush. I remember my reaction to the drug confession was, “Wow. He can take that much oxy and perform at the level he performs? Better man than I.”
By Jim Wooten
November 22, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
I’m getting caught back up. But one question: What did you all do with Mid-South in my absence? We seem to have lost one of our early-morning greeters.
By getalife
November 22, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
I predict there will be 100 Iraqis found tortured and executed everyday and more of this:
Bomb Aimed at Iraqi Speaker Hits Green Zone
The disaster in Iraq will continue.
By Bemused Humanist
November 22, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
Mr. Jbmlaw,
We find ourselves in agreement. I believe it takes a special grade of arrogance for a public figure not to admit he or she was wrong and made a terrible mistake and will make amends.
As someone who suffers from a bad back (too many years of distance running and weight-lifting), and whose doctor doles out pain medication as if it were dirty bombs and I a member of al Qaeda, I wholeheartedly agree with your observation about Rush.
Is this a sign of the impending Apocalypse?
(By the way, this might interest the Christians and the secularists.)
Mr. Jbmlaw,
We find ourselves in agreement. I believe it takes a special grade of arrogance for a public figure not to admit he or she was wrong and made a terrible mistake, and will make amends.
As someone who suffers from a bad back (too many years of distance running and weight-lifting), and whose doctor doles out pain medication as if it were dirty bombs and I a member of al Qaeda, I wholeheartedly agree with your observation about Rush.
Is this a sign of the impending Apocalypse?
By the way, this might interest the Christians and the secularists ….
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087%0A&em&en=72c4421f06b21e1b&ex=1164344400
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
Bemused has me pondering a hypothetical: if Colin Powell confessed and apologized for his role in the concealment of the “outing” of Valerie Plame, would I consider him presidential material? I have to admit that I probably would not. That seems to me to be an unforgettable breach of trust, much like Hasting’s crime. Forgive, but not forget. The breach of trust, even if non-criminal, as in Colin’s case, is a different sort of evil, and directly related to the prospective trust contemplated.
That trust is not a decision one could delegate to others. I think that is where Diogenes (whom I respect and who is gone for the day and unable to defend his position, which precludes me from ethically disputing the correctness of his position) and I disagree. “Because the voters in Hasting’s district ratify his innocence (or whatever), therefore he should not be disqualified from appointment on Kantian grounds.” I don’t think the voters can absolve a crooked politician of the sin of “breach of trust” even if the actions are found to be legal. Certainly I do not delegate my analysis to popular whim.
By Spoon Fed Liberalism
November 22, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
To curious observer at 9:28am -
Robert Byrd’s KKK membership wasn’t an accident or sloppy youth experiment that came to pass. Guess who rose to the rank of Grand Kleagle? Guess who fillibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for over 14 hours? Guess who wrote this three years after allegedly cutting all ties with the Klan in 1946? -
“The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia” and “in every state in the Union.”
No, as Mr. Wooten said, the past does matter, just not to Democrats who happen to be fellow Democrats. Had the old senile kook been a Republican, he’d have never made it to the Senate.
Guess who’s coming to dinner.
By Bemused Humanist
November 22, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Mr. Spoonfed,
“Had the old senile kook been a Republican, he’d have never made it to the Senate.”
Strom Thurmond?
By Southern Democrat
November 22, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
I agree wholeheartedly with Jbmlaw and Spoon Fed’s early posts. The thought of someone impeached and removed from the federal bench (an incredibly rare feat) heading a committee vital to our national security gives me pause. I really do not understand what is going on in the Democratic leaders’ minds recently.
One small dig, however, if you’ll allow: I seem to recall certain members of our military and the Reagan administration playing a little fast-and-loose with national secrets during Iran Contra (that little forgotten scandal).
I would like to clarify and hone what I think Jim is trying to say: I, personally, think any past transgressions affecting your job performance should be deemed an albatross around your neck, but I also believe in a right to privacy; only my wife should know that I have never strayed from her and it’s not anyone else’s business.
By Bemused Humanist
November 22, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Strom Thurmond brings to mind George Wallace surprise visit to Montgomery’s Dexter Ave Baptist Church – the church where the young MLK led the bus boycott — where he asked forgiveness for his past racism from the parishioners (who, I understand, reacted favorably.) I am not aware that Strom Thurmond ever asked forgiveness for his racist “Dixiecrat” campaign in 1948, among his other public and private transgressions. Even racists can be redeemed: the former triumphed over his past; the latter did not.
By CJ
November 22, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw @10:43 “I do not delegate my analysis to popular whim.”
Uh-huh.
Of course, this statement contradicts the “my views are popular, therefore correct” argument that jbm frequently makes on this blog.
Another day, another rationalization.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Dear Bemused, you offer an interesting NYT essay. My respect for philosophy is greater than that held by our scientist-brothers. I believe the great truths of the world are not always fact-based. By way of non-exclusive example, I would propose the parables proffered by Christ as such “truths,” even though they were not obviously true. (I think that argument originated with Joseph Campbell, whom I believe is now deceased.) Mortimer Adler, the late, agnostic philosopher, argued his proof for the existence of God in “How to Think About God,” an early-1980s tract (which, at my risk of reductio ad absurdum, argues “uncaused first-causation.”) Adler concluded that, while there “unarguably” is a God, his nature cannot be established by logic, but is exclusively the purview of faith. That strikes me as a tolerable compromise of the perspectives.
By Van
November 22, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
My real question is why did Congress allow him to be seated?
Article 1 sec. 5 clearly states that each house of Congress can judge the qualifications of its members.
So, I can only guess that Congress did not have a problem with seating an impeached judge. So much for their judgement.
By Van
November 22, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Bemused Humanist,
Interesting, but not quite the same. Alcee Hastings was impeached not for breech of trust, but of corruption and perjury.
If there were criminal charges brought and he was convicted, that might change the situation. A felony conviction can bring a suspension of your voting priviledges and I am not sure but running for office might be included -A felon can’t vote, but can he run for office - Interesting thought.
By Howard
November 22, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Jim…great columnas usual, but don’t expect “Bela” Pelosi to reject Hastings. The Democratic Party is a morally bankrupt group of anti-American leftists who will do and say anything. I hope she does appoint that hoodlum…infact, I want all of these liberal scum-suckers to do everything that’s within the realm of their normal behavior and attitudes. Then maybe the ignorant masses that elected these morons to take over the Congress will see just what they have done. Bush ain’t perfect by a long shot, but to choose between him and the GOP and the Democrats is like trying to decide if you want a root canal or a colonoscopy. Neither one is pleasant, but one is definitely preferable over the other.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Dear Southern @ 11:03, your “dig” is not only allowed, but is appreciated with amusement. If only I had such wit!
Dear Jim @ 10:30, you ask about MidSouth. He left a pretty good post the week of the election, and then disappeared. I guess he was disheartened by absence of the Wooten imagination?
By Mallory
November 22, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
J.Wooten, If Pelosi wants to push the defrocked Judge Hastings as Chairman of the HIC, it would be a big hiccup for the democrats.
The American voters sent a miniscule message this month. They want change, & the liberal leaders dawn their leopard coats for all who can see.
The left eye will see what they’ve always seen and admired in their party. The right eye sees that leopards never change their spots.
Some on the right who voted democrat should have popped in a monocle before reaching out and touching our national security on screen.
I trust they’ll drop their monocle & the democrats in 2008.
By getalife
November 22, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Pelosi will replace Hastings with Jefferson to keep the gop standard going.
Get real people, the bar is set very low and I doubt she will appease the perverts like Foley.
Anything she does will be an improvement from the gop corruption.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
Dear CJ @ 11:37, the extent of your willful blindness is truly staggering. While there is little doubt that my views are popular (at least when leftists allow people to vote with the pocketbooks and without a leftist thumb on the scale), it does not necessarily follow that “I delegate my analysis to popular whim.” When I point out the flaws in your arguments, you get my arguments; I do not take a Clintonesque-poll to determine what I should think.
By CJ
November 22, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw @11:38 “I believe the great truths of the world are not always fact-based.”
This is the most honest line that jbmlaw has ever posted — although if he had deleted the word “always”, he would have nailed it.
By James
November 22, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Its a good day in Atlanta, the kimmer has been fired from his right wing biggot talk show, traffic was light this morning and tomorrow is turkey day. Please tell the kimmer the marines are still looking for a few good men, and have raised to age limit such that he should now qualify. Lets see if he can walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
By jsc3
November 22, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
It was Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, who outed Valerie Plame. He has admitted it, and Robert Novak confirmed that Armitage was his first and primary source. Why do the Democrats keep insisting that it was Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney? Is it willful ignorance, just plain ignorance, or just plain lying?
By Not Kidding
November 22, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
I’m so glad you brought this up, Jim. But if you felt that way why your past support for George W. Bush? I believe cocaine use is against the law.
By time for the truth
November 22, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
I see the execrable pinko observer is lying again … I haven’t actually mentioned the hate monger KKK Byrd for a little while as in fairness the ignorant black racists and bigots in Atlanta/Georgia have been more active with their hate than KKK Byrd has. But when Byrd lectures folks about morality and race etc it is deeply nauseating … when he contemptibly uses the n word on Fox News Sunday (I still don’t understand why one cannot actually write that word on the blog - its petty censorship) as another poster pointedly pointed out earlier KKK Byrd hardly did a convincing U-turn on his racism. Now contrast this leftist glossing over KKK Byrd’s despicable record with the hysterical (media) leftist lynching of Lott when he made one innocuous remark to Thurmond at a very old man’s birthday celebration. Clearly there is one “rule” for racist lefties/demoNcrats - like say the undeniably racist and bigoted AlBore’s pappy who is rarely if ever criticised by his unhinged demon seed son and Senator Allen who was vilified for months for an alleged remark made decades ago. Which was the greater “thought” crime - Allen’s supposed remark or the alBore senior’s systematic opposition to the civil rights act etc. Also the alBore and sick Willie did NOTHING to remove confederate symbolism in their states -yet both these corrupt glib racebaiters vilified GOPers at every opportunity for supposed/alleged bigotry. One of sick Willie’s greatest mentors was a segregationist Arkansas senator. Fritz Hollings was another southern demoNcrat racist/bigot … yet little is said by the left about his shameful past.
DemoNcrat hypocrisy and one sided racebaiting on race is as nauseating as it gets. And lets NOT forget the shameful systematic black bigotry and racism by elected and non-elected demoNcrat politicos in GA and elsewhere.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Dear CJ @ 11:37, the extent of your willful blindness is truly staggering. While there is little doubt that my views are popular (at least when leftists allow people to vote with the pocketbooks and without a leftist thumb on the scale), it does not necessarily follow that “I delegate my analysis to popular whim.” When I point out the flaws in your arguments, you get my arguments; I do not take a Clintonesque-poll to determine what I should think.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Dear Not Kidding @ 12:47, answered, in part, @ 9:25
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Dear CJ @ 12:27, I realize that most of what I write is over your head. I assure you that I do not draft such ideas with the intention of confusing you, nor to induce you to post writings that cause people to question the wattage of your bulb.
By Spoon Fed Liberalism
November 22, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
To James at 12:35 -
-Its a good day in Atlanta, the kimmer has been fired from his right wing biggot talk show-
Let me guess - you were the little mouthy hipster war protester punk who got his skinny butt kicked, no?
By Redneck Convert
November 22, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
I guess not being able to forgive is the reason why the Revrend Jim Bob Buice won’t be preaching anywhere soon. It’s a shame, too, because he gave the libruls the what for. But he shoulda thought about all that when he decided to take off his clothes to rescue that nekkid boy in the bushes. Not wanting to get them dirty and all.
If I can get my beer deliverys done and park this truck for the day, I’m going to the church to join the big rally against Sunday sales of booze. The libruls want it, but I say if you ain’t Christian enough to stock up on enough booze on Saturday to keep you high thru the weekend, you got no business being allowed to buy it on Sunday. Sister Dusty is leading the whole sheebang. I thought I smelled booze on her breath last week, but she said it was just mouthwash.
Anyway, I want everbody but the libruls to have a grate Thanksgiving. And don’t forget to stock up today, cause they probly won’t sell booze tomorrow.
By james
November 22, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
No, that was a 62 year old man with arthritis, cataracts, and asthma. I am a 28 year tri athlete.
By time for the truth
November 22, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
The Kimmer was the ONLY Atlanta radio jock who spoke truth to power. It is a bare faced empty LIE to assert he was in way racist. Whilst his show was perhaps rather too often somewhat boorish and pupulist (shallow) at least he had the stones to stand up to the shameful antics of local racist/bigoted blacks in GA and the nation and he had the vision and backbone to succinctly sum up the laundry list of liberal failures, hypocrisy, cut and run cowardice etc. KImmer whilst not the world’s greatest conceptual thinker was honest and blunt and pandered to no one. That rare (media) intellectual honesty, his sound political vision and often biting, pointed humour will be sorely missed.
By CJ
November 22, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw @12:25 “the extent of your willful blindness is truly staggering. While there is little doubt that my views are popular (at least when leftists allow people to vote with the pocketbooks and without a leftist thumb on the scale), it does not necessarily follow that “I delegate my analysis to popular whim.” When I point out the flaws in your arguments, you get my arguments; I do not take a Clintonesque-poll to determine what I should think.”
jbm –
Your concern regarding allowing people to vote with the pocketbooks is the second honest thing you’ve said today – since your pocketbook is the one and only issue of importance to you.
What is truly staggering are the lengths you’ll go to bolster any politician who seems to support your single cause and the lengths you will go to demonize any politician who does not. For example, on the same blog in which you continually support your conclusions with the false notion that they are popular – you take issue when others do the same — or when you put up a straw man by claiming they do the same. Your “I do not delegate my analysis to popular whim” quote was intended to accomplish the latter.
I did not imply, nor do I believe that you delegate your analysis to popular whim. I believe that you delegate your back and forth analysis entirely to self-interest. In fact, I know it.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Funniest line of the day, from Tom Sowell’s current essay (on bad congressional leadership decisions, by remarkable coincidence):
“Defenders of the selection of Senator Lott praise him as a savvy political technician who knows how to count votes and make deals. In other words, he is a pure politician, untainted by any tinge of statesman.”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/11/21/sneak_previews
By james
November 22, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Well, if kimmer should ever manage to get another job in radio, I will be sure to send copies of the newspaper articles about the gang beating of the old hippi, and your analysis above Mr. Truth, to the local newspaper, and his local competators.
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Dear poor CJ @ 1:16, “Your “I do not delegate my analysis to popular whim” quote was intended to accomplish the latter. I did not imply, nor do I believe that you delegate your analysis to popular whim.” At 11:37 you wrote: ”jbmlaw @10:43 ‘I do not delegate my analysis to popular whim’ Uh-huh. “
Is there no limit to your disingenuity? Or exactly what did you imply with your commentary @ 11:37. CJ, get a grip. There is intelligent leftist commentary on this blog - read my friend Southern Democrat. He is intellectually honest and consistent.
I truly think you have some intellectual skill, otherwise I would not waste my time with critique. You need guidance on making your points. As is, you sound like a typical unhinged Leftist. You are capable of so much more.
By time for the truth
November 22, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
HAPPY THANKSGIVING to all my fellow conservatives … not forgetting a warm Bush-Cheney type Thanksgiving greetings to all the leftist scum of the earth on here -including the inimitable rednekkks vermin!!
Enjoy your turkey day folks - watch out for that micky mouse football with crash helmets though (grin).
By Bemused Humanist
November 22, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
Just want to tip my cap to Redneck Convert (and the all-too-reclusive Captain Freedom.) Keep the satire coming, gents!
And Pope, what do these fellas have to do to rise up in your “church” hierarchy anyway? Both should have at least made Monsignor now, for goodness sakes ….
By jbmlaw
November 22, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Dear CJ @ 1:16, I truly want you to understand. You write: “Your concern regarding allowing people to vote with the pocketbooks is the second honest thing you’ve said today – since your pocketbook is the one and only issue of importance to you.” You seemingly do not understand the idea so much greater than your disparaging thought: On Freedom It is important to emphasize that economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, “freedom” in economic arrangements itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so “economic freedom” is an end in itself to a believer in freedom. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom… . A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing, unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom. The reason it is important to emphasize this point is because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving special attention. But for the ordinary citizen of the country, for the great masses of the people, the direct importance of economic freedom is in many cases of at least comparable importance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means of political freedom. Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are essential because of the effect which they have on the concentration of power. A major thesis of the new liberal is that the kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, organization of economic activities through a largely free market and private enterprises, in short, through competitive capitalism, is also a necessary though not a sufficient condition for political freedom. The central reason why this is true is because such a form of economic organization separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to be an offset to the other. I cannot think of a single example at any time or any place where there was a large measure of political freedom without there also being something comparable to a private enterprise market form of economic organization for the bulk of economic activity. —from Milton Friedman, “Capitalism and Freedom: Why and How the Two Ideas Are Mutually Dependent,” May 17, 1961 http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009267
By time for the truth
November 22, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
JimBob
The old burnt out protesting hippie doubtless experienced a spot of instant karma for his leftist hate speech.
If in this day and age you think that Clear Channel or any other broadcaster would allow ANY jock that made overtly racist statements to remain on the air you’ve been smoking what that sad old hippie probably still does.
By Shar
November 22, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Whatever happened to a bit of reflection before casting the first stone?
Many, if not most, of life’s most effective lessons come in the guise of mistakes, great and small. Automatically disqualifying someone from a position of trust due to a mistake that may have left them stronger is pointless and counterproductive. It is the individual, his/her actions after the offense, the nature of the offense itself and the tolerance of the constituency that must be weighed before judgement is made. Rigid definitions of unforgivable behavior are morally satisfying but self-defeating.
Who is to be entrusted with the designation of those sins which will cast the perpetrator forever among the unshriven? Do we include homicide? In that case, does Laura Bush’s teenage stupidity and carelessness, which resulted in vehicular homicide (which she admitted but for which she was not punished), outweigh her dedication to education and literacy, her understated dignity and her support of her party and therefore disqualify her to represent the country? Or are they limited to being job-related? Mark Foley drove legislation on child sexual predation for several years with a select group of his House colleagues fully cognizant of his proclivities before the truth became generally known and his enablers scurried for moral cover. Those supporters believed that Foley’s positives outweighed his negatives, and in fact his tenure on the committee was generally perceived as positive and productive.
Yes, I believe that if Pelosi chooses Hastings for the Intelligence post it would be a mistake. I also believe that, just as in the case of Murtha, her constituency in the Democratic coalition won’t put up with her choice, particularly in the existing political climate. Voters can and do weigh the past deeds of candidates and choose representatives that they believe will be most effective. Florida voters should and did have that opportunity with Hastings, even though they came to a different conclusion than did Pennsylvania voters with Congressman Sherwood. Massachusetts voters are willing to overlook vehicular homicide; the national electorate crucified Ted Kennedy for trying to run away from Chappaquiddick.
Leave the choice with voters, rather than denying the electorate the right to choose based on some externally-imposed moral imperative.
By E. T.
November 22, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want (1) another strong woman such as Jane Harmon in such an important position as chairperson of the intelligence committee, (2) a political adversary in that position, and (3) anyone who doesn’t march in lockstep to her brand of politics. As you said, Ms. Harmon is not liberal enough to suit the small bunch of liberals in charge. Oh, for the day when the moderates will band together and throw the extremists on both sides of the aisle out of power.
And one more thought - as the 2008 election draws nearer, will Mrs. Pelosi be willing to share the spotlight with a strong woman such as Hillary Clinton?
By james
November 22, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
I just love to watch a good cat fight!
By WTF
November 22, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Is a kimmer like a hummer?
By CJ
November 22, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw @1:35 “…exactly what did you imply with your commentary @11:37.”
First of all, thank you for the honor of engaging me. It is a privilege indeed.
Answering your question, I didn’t imply anything at 11:37. I said what I meant. Read the entire post (four lines total).
jbm, I understand that lawyers frequently make arguments when representing one client that contradicts arguments he or she made when representing a different client. A lawyer’s job isn’t to make consistent arguments from one client to the next or even one day to the next; it’s his or her job to make the argument that’s most likely to persuade in the client’s favor.
While such an approach is necessary in the practice of law, it’s unseemly in political discourse. You have, hypothetically speaking, taken on the biggest tax cutters as your clients on this blog. As a result, you won’t hesitate to contradict yourself whenever necessary to support these hypothetical clients. For me, that’s despicable.
I’ll come back on your 1:42
By CJ
November 22, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
jbm @1:42
With regard to the comment that “intellectuals” have contempt for the material aspects of life, Camus addressed this idea beautifully yesterday. I can’t top him (or his references from the Bible).
Regarding economic freedom, is it your position that polluting the air that others breathe and water that others drink is a manifestation of economic freedom? Is it your position that deceptively selling unsafe products and services is a manifestation of economic freedom? Is it your position that ridiculous salaries for upper management, regardless of performance, at the expense or other workers and investors are manifestations of economic freedom? Is it your position that large-scale mergers that eliminate jobs and competition are manifestations of economic freedom? Is it your position that regressive taxes are manifestations of economic freedom? Is it your position that misleading investors is a manifestation of economic freedom? Is it your position that breaking promises to retirees regarding health and pension benefits is a manifestation of economic freedom? Is it your position that using public resources without properly compensating the public is a manifestation of economic freedom? Is it your position that cronyism in government is a manifestation of economic freedom?
Me? I view such activities as exploitation, theft, assault and murder.
Your definition of economic freedom does not and has not separated economic power from political power. It has intertwined them more than ever and created the plutocracy that we live in today.
No jbm, “intellectuals” (as if there’s something wrong with education, learning and thinking) have no bias against real economic freedom. To the contrary, it is the contemporary robber-barons who despise economic freedom. Today, the robber-barons are primarily represented by Republicans – and on this blog – you.
By James
November 22, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
No, a kimmer is more like a dead fish, a large mouth bass that has washed up on shore bloated and half eaten. He and his bully boys beat up on an old man who was carrying an antiwar sign. It took three of them to stomp him, sort of like what the Nazi’s did in the early 1930’s to silence their critics. We all know were that led. The picture of kimmer in the paper yesterday looked a lot like one of those early nazi’s. Of course today they are called neo-cons, and are here to defend Germa—- America from foreign enemies.
By tyrone
November 22, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
CJ @3:42—
Great leftist talking points, now kindly address jbm’s point, if you can. I surmise that you know what he has posted is true, but you just can’t suppress your leftist/socialist beliefs enough to admit he is historically correct.
By james
November 22, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
jmblaw is full of smoke and mirrors. He wants to argue the issues on the refusal of the gov to allow people to follow the occupation of their choice, but the real argument is on taxation, specifically to special lower tax rates for capital gains over earned income. jmblaw somehow believed capital gains are somehow more important to society that income earned by a man or woman working a 40 plus hour week. I argue that capital gains and all such unearned income should be taxed at a much higher rate than earned income. Why? Because much of what passes for capital gains today is just the government pumping money into the economy, and the folks collecting that money in the form of capital gains know that buying stocks, or real estate is the best way to benefit from that government money pumping. Unearned income is already exempt from social security and medicare taxes, so they are already getting a 13 plus percent free ride. People like jmb lie with conviction because the only thing they have ever accompolished in life is to collect that unearned income, and they think they are genius’s because of it.
By Political Foreskin
November 22, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
The most important words in Islam are these two: Islamics. Islamist.
One gives you the key to the mosque. The other is a set of steak knives.
Now ordinarily you wouldn’t think that a steak knife could actually cut through an entire Kurd, but watch this: (Camera to ned beatty).
Osama has a vendetta against the Royal Saudi Family. He views the US as merely an extension of the same Royal Family who rejected his stupid jihad.
Clinton refused to sacrifice this same Royal Family when Osama was again in an easy kill zone, probably getting the word then that his stupid jihad was being rejected.
What could we have had with Osama’s pre-911 death? The end of his observation that Saudi Arabia should be a holy land where nobody from the USA should ever visit ever. Osama ultimately wants to live in a islamic world, but he’s not willing to go any further than being King of Saudi Arabia right now, and of course to guillotine on the internet, the entire Royal Family ( thousands of royals). I think you can get OJ’s book on there too.
The USA created this monster Osama, by allowing a Saudi Royal Family to actually underwrite our legislation and direct our foreign policy. That’s like so much of our government, and like the definition of treason. Like.
911 was the direct result of Cheney's personal career as it intersected with the unwarranted Saudi Royal FamilyCheney is the face of the Saudi Royal Family. We the people may have just been annointed with oil in a holy war as good as one gets….
By CJ
November 22, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
tyrone @4:17
I suspect that your reference to “talking points” is a reflection on you. I think for myself. You should try it.
What point did I miss from jbm’s copied/pasted Milton Friedman post? I’m happy to oblige.
By tyrone
November 22, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
James don’t be bitter. You can save and if you invest your savings wisely you can earn a good bit of money. Or have your life choices precluded you from this activity? Oh and about government pumping money!?!? You must be taking about tax cuts/breaks and as I suspect, you believe that taxes are good and necessary. They are necessary but not good if only some people pay the income tax and the majority gets a free ride because chose to not study, not make the hard decisions, not to look to the future, yes just live for the day and the government will take care of it by taxing the producers.
By Andy
November 22, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
yeah, there’s nothing worse than someone who thinks they’re a genius just because they collect unearned income. I collected unearned income once, but believe me, I werent’ no genius. I weren’t even square root! I were binary.
By james
November 22, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this
tyrone, tyrone, tyrone if only you knew…
By Van
November 22, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this
james,
So, capital gains hould be taxed at a higher rate. I think that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Every dollar paid in dividends is earned income. I earn dividends by investing my money in a well run company.
Capital gains are portions of the profits from companies to stock holders - we capitalists like that. These companies provide jobs, these jobs provide income spent by familys, impacting all levels of the economy.
With the great economy we have today, higher taxes on the capital gains would apply the brakes to this growing economy and would result in less revenue coming into the IRS.
In addition you would be cutting into the 401k retirements finds. There would be bad times at the Seniors Center if that happened.
By james
November 22, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this
Taxes are a necessary evil in life, but what is unfair is when the poor and middle income folks pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes of various kinds than the upper income and rich. Every cent the poor earns (by working, a foreign word no doubt to the talking heads out there, who confuse talking and typing with working) is taxed as income by the feds, state, and sometimes city, than taxed again as sales tax, and again for social security and medicare. Now take the capital gains living fat cats, they get stock options, buy more stock, buy expensive homes, and sometimes rental units. They save a significant part of their income, usually tax defered, thus not paying sales taxes. They do not pay ss or medicare taxes above a ~90k, capital gains taxes on fed and state taxes are lower than earned income. It goes on and on, but you know, there is a change in the works, a change that could impoverish the fat cats, and give a real economic chance to the working man.
By james
November 22, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this
My god van, you can not be as ignorant as your statements in the above post imply. Dividens are not capital gains, and capital gains are not portions of the companies profits. Dividens are taxed as ordinary income, but they are not earned income subject to social security and medicare taxes. We do not have a great economy today, we build fewer things every year, and have been doing so for well over a decade now. Google deindustrialization for more info. What appears to be a good economy is the direct result of the fed working thru the banks to creat one trillion new dollars every year since 2000. Those dollars appear as debt on some balance sheets, and as assets on others. They have stimulated a consumer binge unlike any in history, an orgy of mini mansion construction, shoping mall and office building constuction. But not of factory building, not of rail road building, not of refinery construction, or pipeline construction. This is a fake economy on the verge of collapse, a cascading debt default collapse. Look a the dollar as it dies in foreign exchange markets.
By Van
November 22, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this
james,
Not a great econmy, what world do you live in.
Consumer Confidence is up, personal income is up and personal spending is holding steady. This is not a false economy. If it was then wall street would not be advancing as it is.
Your right dividends are not capital gains, but the profits I earn when those stocks are sold are, and if they are taxed at a higher rate, the growth we have to day will slow down.
You sound just like a a uber liberal with your socialistic sounding whinng.
If you are not doing beter today than 4 years ago, the problem might not be with the economy.
By james
November 22, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this
Oh, I’m doing ok. I have a couple hundred thoudand euro denominated cd’s, more in yen, and australian dollars, along with several hundred pounds of silver, and more than 100 ounces of gold. I earn (by working) in excess of 130k per year. I own out right my own modest home, I drive a seven year old toyota, and I have no debt. What I do not do is invest in America, I want no part of this fake economy. When it implodes, it will take none of my modest wealth with it.
By Will Jones
November 24, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Actually I’m an independant tradesman and Vietnam-era Army Veteran absolutely convinced to a moral certainty that Bush is culpable for 9-11 - just as his father is guilty of JFK’s assassination to keep us in Rome’s Vietnam, and his grandfather is guilty of financing the rise of Hitler on behalf of Rome’s papal aristocracy and their American Fifth Column - whose shoulder was “worn out” by Kim Peterson’s face after he, untouched and unprovoked, tackled me with the assistance of two of his four accomplices, while I was peacefully walking home from the 2005 Veterans Day Parade.
The statue of limitations has not run on the felony he committed and I hope to see him brought to justice in Fulton County.
The same sign, made on the spur of the moment to inform my fellow Veterans of the existing treason and threat to the Nation and Constitution we placed our lives at sacrifice to defend, for which Peterson and his gang tackled me last year, was carried the length of the 2006 Atlanta Veterans Day Parade to thumbs-up, loud applause, cheers, affirmation and knowledgeable agreement.
Doubters please read PhD Professor Emeritus David Ray Griffin’s “The New Pearl Harbor.” Youtube has Norman Mineta’s witness of Cheney’s stand-down order treason, and “Loose Change 2” is available on video.google.com.
BUSH DID 9-11 END TREASON NOW
The truth then, the Truth now.
Truth and justice must rule in Our America.
Death for Treason.