The 47-year-old nuclear elephant in the room

The 47-year-old nuclear elephant in the room: A growing number of U.S. experts say that feigning ignorance about Israel’s nuclear arsenal creates more trouble than it averts.

Ben Stein is Aggreived.

 

 Not often do I find some commentary so incisive, humorous and literary that I want to share it.  These comments speak volumes about the complaints of the well-to-do about how they are being taxed to pay for things they don't want and how that taxation is keeping them from creating jobs.  I totally love it.  Thank you, Wanda.

Bob

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wanda Haynes Fries shared Carl Paladino's photo.

1 hr · Edited ·

Meanwhile, think of all those shut-ins who have to pay for roads and all those childless people who have to pay us teachers (police officers are different because they have guns and they protect us from people who want to take our stuff). Shouldn't people who have children have to be responsible for educating them? Why should I have to care one way or another whether some poor child born to a drug addict or born of grape pickers or a hotel maid learns to read, or for that matter, gets a vaccination? Poor Ben Stein. So rich and clever and yet so stingy and easily annoyed. Imagine what would happen if he smiled every now and then. Do you think it might make him feel better about this horrible, third world country he has to live in, where your average comedian is so burdened by taxes and hordes of the unwashed, he can barely get ahead? Why should he even keep working? He might as well become like the Big Liebowski, unwashed and stumbling to the grocery store in his bathrobe.
Okay, sometimes liberals are so sincere and so naive, they make your teeth hurt. But at least they're usually trying to create utopia. Dumb, but it's at least sweet. But, Jesus (and I mean that as a prayer and not a curse word), I get so tired of rich white people whining that they're going to starve to death any minute and barely can stand to go to work anymore because they just can't make any money because the socialist president thinks the maid ought to be able to go the doctor or that they're really worried that it's Hispanic immigrants who have taken all the good manufacturing jobs. One thing we did learn from Ferguson for sure, though, is that liberals and conservatives both hate the government; they just hate different parts of it.
 
The difference is, that conservatives at least love the flag, especially at ballgames. And they love the military, because they are sure that the military will so ditch the commander in chief and storm the White House with Ted Nugent carrying the colors when the time comes for armed rebellion, so they won't have to shoot any National Guard troops in the coup. Oh, and they like to complain about high taxes and neglected veterans in the same breath because they are sure that it is educating Hispanic children--and not letting Mitch McConnell tax shelter his wife's inherited money that has so strapped the VA. I mean, it does add up, all those Social Security payments to widows and orphans. And it's true that even if Mitch had to pay more taxes or the CEO of KCTCS made less money, it still would only be a drop in the bucket. But be sure to post that bit about how the Congress shouldn't get all their great retirement, but live on Social Security because they totally read Facebook. Oh, and we did know, didn't we, that we don't have a direct vote on Congress's paychecks? So, like, we might have to vote in some different guys, and we might have to term limit them by voting in ALL the elections, not just the ones where we get a holiday? Vote? Oops! Look! Look! Immigrants! Nancy Pelosi is coming to get your guns!
Anyway, Mitch McConnell explained what the problem is, and it is certainly not income inequality or laying off teachers or NASA engineers, leaving them free to seek employment in the private sector, which has the really good jobs, like barrista and sales associate. Liberals should never suggest that rich people should love their country and forgo making gazillions by relocating rather than keeping the jobs here and paying good wages and making only zillions. Mitch McConnell was really irritated about that in the last election. And he really wanted to let the Koch brothers make some dough on that pipeline and screw the aquifer that supplies water to the west or that Obama's administration has really lowered our imports of foreign oil. Goodness knows, the Democrats aren't going to point it out. They're too busy pointing out that they love Big Oil! They love Big Coal! They hate the EPA! They're Clinton democrats, from back when the treasury still had money in it and before George Bush decided to send us our money back. By the way, does anybody remember what you did with those two checks?
I think when children are two years old, their parents should NEVER force them to share their toys. And for heaven's sake, don't buy them those bracelets that ask, "What would Jesus do?" All that stuff about "giving away all you have," and "if a man needs you to walk a mile with him, walk, two, or one coat, give him two." You better keep that coat. What if your coat gets a hole in it, and anyway, why doesn't he have his own coat, and why is he hungry? And what was that guy doing anyway when the Good Samaritan picked him up and kept paying his medical bills and checking on him? Was he in drag? Did he have on a hoodie? Was he in the right neighborhood? I mean Jesus was okay then, but he would so not make it in the modern world.
Give the poor advice, that's what you do. Tell him to pull himself up by his bootstraps. Tell her to get three jobs at whatever wage the employer wants to pay, because she can work 70 hours if she wants to, 90 if she can stay away awake, she can get as many jobs as he wants because this is a free country. As for who will watch her children, children are a luxury commodity. If you can't afford them, don't have them. As for the immigrant and the stranger, tell him to go home and fix his own damn country because he is not our problem.
That's how you begin to build a liberal, you know. Telling them all that nonsense about sharing and including everybody. Some of them grow up thinking we mean it.

Just Shut Me Up

Just imagine, if you will, that your brother is skateboarding down the sidewalk when a police officer orders him to get off the sidewalk. When your brother, surprised, spins around the officer sees the AirSoft pistol in his hand and, mistaking it for a real weapon, shoots and kills him. Yes, an unlikely scenario but one with precedent and, in light of recent events, not so farfetched. Has this officer overreacted or was he justified in the killing because he perceived that he was threatened with death or injury. What is the proper forum for determination? Is it a matter of public interest or should it be determined behind closed doors and in secret? Should the victim's family (that is the family of the one who was killed) be able to closely examine the evidence? Who represents the interests of that family and the one who was killed? Who is the victim and who is the accused?

I try to avoid arguments that involve the founders but sometimes one has to look at the basis for the provisions of our legal system. Under British rule a person could be accused, locked up for an indefinite period and be tried without ever knowing who had accused him or having he opportunity to defend himself by examining the witnesses against him. These considerations were the basis for the creation of our system of hab

eas corpus, presumption of innocence, right to confront one's accusers and a public trial by a jury of peers. The aim was to create a transparent system of jurisprudence that was open to be seen and appreciated by the public so that everyone could see that justice had been addressed and, by doing so, give the public confidence in fairness and lessening the chance of a public uprising. This is what was denied in Ferguson, Missouri and the perception of the African-American community there is that this kind of behavior is the norm rather than the exception. True or not, perception is important here.

In the American system of jurisprudence a sitting Grand Jury is perhaps the most powerful body that can affect your life. It has the power to charge, investigate or indict to trial practically anyone for anything. It also has the power to refuse to do so. Prosecutors have the power to charge presumed offenders on their own or to convene a Grand Jury to do so. It has been famously said that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wishes. The reason for that is that the prosecutor will usually only present evidence of guilt and withhold exculpatory evidence and there will be no defense witnesses or cross examination. No attorneys present to represent the victim. That was not done here in Ferguson.

So, who speaks for Michael Brown, the kid who was killed? Admittedly, the videos and eyewitness reports make it difficult to feel any sympathy for Brown but that is not the point. All the Grand Jury was charged with was the investigation as to whether Officer Wilson acted within his authority. The real question is whether or not justice was served in a public manner concerning the death of Michael Brown and that deserved a public trial. One in which evidence is presented and witnesses are cross-examined and a jury decides to convict or exonerate. That is the minimum that was necessary to quell the suspicion that Brown's death was business as usual and a whitewash by the law enforcement and judicial system. It is the minimum any of us would expect if it were our son or brother lying dead in the street. That was not done in Ferguson.

I don't mean to intimate that the Grand Jury acted improperly since that is almost impossible given the scope of the powers granted to that body. Did they err in choosing not to indict Officer Wilson and passing the choice of guilt on to the trial court? Maybe. But what about the prosecutor? I find it implausible that he did not intend that this decision be the result. Prosecutors learn early on how to best bring a case to trial and the probability of conviction. He knew that at a trial he would have to speak for the victim, Michael Brown, and he did not want to do that. Whatever his culpability he most certainly has violated the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law and this is what the people of Ferguson and elsewhere are reacting to. If the population can't feel that the law is being administered impartially to all citizens then there exists no rationale for support of the law. If it is perceived that favoritism is being shown to some and not others then the only avenue for recourse is protest since the system has failed to address their concerns. This is what the hubbub in Ferguson and elsewhere is about.

Our system is not perfect but it is accepted because there is a presumption of fairness. People can accept system failure if the perception of fairness survives. This should have gone to trial where the public's concerns could be addressed publicly in an impartial court. Where witnesses for the prosecution and defense could have been presented and testimony examined. Then guilt or innocence could have been established by a jury of peers and that would have largely dealt with the perception. Now none of these concerns can be addressed. Maybe the Feds will bring a civil rights suit but the bar is very high for that. Maybe the Browns will bring a wrongful death suit which has a lower threshold for proof and that is likely but the needs of the citizenry will never be met and that is unfortunate.

This is My Take. If this prosecutor will handle whether or not to indict the same way in the rest of his cases I will shut up. I feel certain you will be hearing from me for some time yet.

Why The Blowout

The Red State Wedding: Why McConnell blew out Grimes - Page 3 of 3 - Insider Louisville





Very interesting, and I think accurate, theory as to why the margin of victory was so large in the Kentucky Senate race.  Also, some thoughts as to how that might have been avoided.

An Alternative View

MAP: How much energy is the world using?





Quite interesting when you consider the use per capita.

Occupy The Farm - Official Theatrical Trailer

This is not really about trying to feed hungry people.  It is about the privatization and patenting of the public food supply.  How can the common man or woman seek to feed themselves and their families if nutritious food is unavailable to them either by dint of location or price?  It is about the allocation of public lands to private enterprise.  It is about taking objection and protest out of the arena of debate and placing it in the arena of action.  It is the same method that was used to occupy lunch counters during the civil rights movement.  The people are being slowly made into peasants who exist on land at their lord's pleasure to create wealth for him.  Watch the video.






                                                                                                

How Do We Talk About It

Finally. The election is over and the interminable television ads that tell you in an ominous tone how the opposing candidate is going to ruin the republic, spoil your milk and turn your children into deviants are at an end. Hallelujah! What not is at an end is all of the trash that is left in your mind that was planted there to create an emotional urge for you to rush out to crush the evil opposition and stamp out any vestiges of its existence. It is the political equivalent of spraying images of pornography on the city's sidewalks and not coming back to clean it up. Neuroscientists are beginning to discover the basis of emotions as being the impact of various chemical combinations on the different areas of the brain and what has happened is that these imprints have been set free in your gray matter.

Political operatives have discovered that they can manipulate response by appealing to raw emotion using methods that social scientists would be discredited for if they used them. People think that Political Science is the study of political methods and institutions and it is that but it is also a social science that is focused on what motivates particular political behavior. Political operatives can accurately predict what a specific ad will do and largely how many people and what subsets it will impact. This leaves us, the people who have real lives and in whose hands the welfare and future of the republic lies, with a big question.

HOW DO WE TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS?

We are beset from each extreme by disembodied voices that preach to us what they say will surely result in our destruction if we do not act immediately. This comes at us from Social Media, which is surely the wild west of free speech, from television and radio networks who specialize in a certain political slant and even, to some lesser degree, our national news medial which has abdicated the role of calling into question ridiculous behavior for fear of appearing partial. It is only natural that these modes of expression would find fertile ground in the expression of individuals. Can anyone really believe that this kind of expression will lead to rational discussion of areas of disagreement? Why on earth do people believe it is either my way or the highway?

Let's face it. Rational discussion and thought are just not that exciting and they do not create all those chemicals that trigger our animal responses to slay the enemy who is not like us. Rather, being calm and rational may possibly lead to that favorite chemical of mine, oxytocin, which promotes feelings of well being and love.

So, why on earth do we persist in this flawed mechanism that can't, by its very nature, lead to agreement and compromise? In addition to the implantation of single minded trash we simply don't know how to go about debate. We don't know how to prepare an argument buttressed by facts and references. I'm talking about real facts and references and not the stuff blown out the mouths of right and left wing media outlets or those senseless memes so popular on Facebook that ridicule one side while wrapping in holy cloth the other. I am talking about stuff that one actually has to think about. Stuff that has to be rolled around in a head in order to examine it from every angle and to consider the impact on people other than oneself. We are much more comfortable with the assurance that we know the correct behavior and we certainly don't want to have to think too hard. Many of us don't know how to think too hard and the use of labels to describe the sacred self and the unholy others makes it all to easy to describe our own group. It is almost tribal.

If you can do it I urge you to consider this the next time you passionately echo some phrase that defines how you feel. Take a moment and think about it. Why do I feel this way? What is the impact of my statement on others? How can I use this to speak with someone who holds a different opinion and perhaps persuade him or her of the rightness of my position. The other side of the coin is to allow yourself the possibility of not having all the answers and to open yourself to consideration of the root causes of particular opinions and behaviors. It is liberating but most of you will refuse to do it because you don't know how or you see it as a betrayal of your clan or tribe. It is the only way our Republic will survive in a form that we will recognize.

I'm not saying to be without passion. Passion is vital to a vital democracy but it is not everything. Our welfare is not up to our leaders, they are just figureheads we elect to represent us but the powers that manipulate them also seek to manipulate us and we must refuse to be so gullible. This manipulation has done great harm to our home and it must be resisted as if it were an invader because that is precisely what it is. It seeks to deprive us of our greatness in order to enrich a special few and that is not democracy.

Religion and politics are topics that many avoid due to the propensity of passionate argument that can lead to anger and hurt. One deals with our relationship to our God and the other with our relationship to our fellow man and woman. It is vital that we talk about it. I love to engage in these discussions and entertain different viewpoints and I often find reason to reconsider my own rationale. It makes ones holdings a bit harder to define but that is OK. We are complicated and wonderfully made. We should act like it.