Conservator

It’s Constitutional… No it’s not…. Yes, it is…

John P. Schumake — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:41:03 +0000

There is quite a lot being said lately about what is one’s Constitutional Rights. These two words are being thrown about almost carelessly. Particularly with issues on the border with Mexico, Arizona’s current lawsuit involvement with the Federal government over immigration issues, and matters regarding the proposed ‘Ground Zero’ mosque, I have heard the word Constitutional used so frequently, I know that it is not likely that all of the people using the word ‘Constitutional’ have even read the entire document, much less comprehended any of it.
I decided to apply myself to reading the Constitution. After all, I am a programmer. I read technical books on how to tweak pre-compiled code using an intermediate language disassembler. I have read books on C# with great relish, musing at the differences between this language and C++, so how hard could the Constitution be? I decided to apply myself to reading it in the context of the issues impacting us today, the issues of the infamous mosque and the border issues. I jumped in reading. I did actually read it all, racing through certain sections about electoral processes. Having done that, I paused, of course, at Article I in the enumerated amendments. The Articles looked to me something like functions in a computer program. This first function provides you not only with the freedom of religion, but also the freedom of speech, and it’s logical that the two should go together. For, without the freedom of speech, you would certainly have no freedom of religion. I reflected for a moment that the very freedom that ostensibly gives one the right to build a building to practice a religion is the very same freedom that provides the opponents of this procedure with the right to speak in opposition. Remove the one freedom, and you would necessarily have to remove the other.
I found myself, again looking at this function like a programmer wondering whether this right was retrieved by value or by reference once the function was executed, and of course, the function is only executed when put to the test. We won’t worry about that yet. In order to achieve the appropriate context, I found that I had to go back to the very opening words of the Constitution. Though seldom cited with specificity in courts of law the Preamble is often glossed over, and, from what I understand, rarely used in courts to support or argue against a matter, I must say to this that I believe that this will change as more technologically minded people begin to appreciate and comprehend the writings.
This is where the Constitution reads,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to Form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I believe in legal, or at least traditional parlance this section is usually referred to as the Preamble. In Programming Parlance we would call this the ‘Declarations’ section. All of the references, tools, and global level variables you will use throughout the source will be found here.
I realized what the framers meant to do here. It is not only in this original statement that the rest of the source code must flow, but all of the rest of the words of the document, need to comply, in essence with these first words. They aren’t just a nice little introduction.
In other words, no matter what is said throughout the entire document it must be understood in the context of ‘The People of the United States’, it must be a proponent or necessary piece of the machinery that helps to form ‘a more perfect Union’, it must be a part of not only clarifying ‘Justice’ but establishing it, and it must in no way go against that. The objective contained needs to always work towards domestic Tranquility. That is the defined purpose and ultimate objective. If the authors had written, ‘to foster Debate, Conflict and Mayhem, for it is out of this that the growth of a truly mature society will come’, we would have quite a different Constitution, but the purpose and direction was clear. Allow me to continue, ‘to provide for the common defence’. Here we can see that the honorable and brilliant James Madison was listening to that illustrious and reverent Thomas Jefferson, perhaps looking over his shoulder at this juncture. We know that the securing of the National Defense was at the core of Jefferson’s intentions and thoughts. Indeed, he felt the Federal government should be strong in defending the people, borders, businesses, and commerce and land of the nation. He also felt that the Federal Government needed to be weak in just about every other area. (hence, the seeds of the animosity between Jefferson and Hamilton). I will continue, ‘to promote the general Welfare’. My, my, my… (and I almost never in my life have said, ‘My, my, my…) The general Welfare. Not the ‘specific’ Welfare of just one group, not the needs and ambitions and hopes of just one group, but, ‘the general Welfare.’ And we see this later in the constitution that the document states that no article, statement or right enumerated in the document can be construed as denying another right or guarantee. At that point, the document begins to reflect upon itself, as all good well-woven source code does. However, in the beginning the document is not reflecting upon itself.
You can not say that the Justice was meant, in a Civil sense, but not a military sense, or that it was Criminal Justice, but not emotional Justice, because at this point the document has just begun. It has no parameters or limits. We cannot say, that the Declarations (or Pre-Amble) are constitutional, or ‘unconstituional’ because, it is the Constitution. In other words, that global declaration, those first words subordinate themselves to no previous declaration. They are beholden only to their own continuity with each other, (as also Declarations of Computer Programs must be, rather unambiguous) and this Opening we find almost totally unambiguous.
I will continue, ‘and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity’. This is a phrase worth thinking about. Know this: Blessings are bestowed. They are by definition ‘transitive’, or in a programming sense they would be functions that provide a value. They do not exist in a vacuum. You would say, therefore, ‘I bless you, with this tractor.’ Or, ‘You have blessed me with this bread,’ or, ‘God has blessed us with rain. You would never say, with any sensibility or knowledge of how the word works, ‘I bless’ ‘Joe blessed!’ , or simply just, ‘Bless!’ Like it or not this little phrase must be fundamental to the entire framework of the document.. Lastly, ‘do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.’ In other words, all of the words that precede this are to be directed towards this, this ordination, and establishment. Interestingly, the ordination of it, or the anointing of the document precedes the completion of the building of it. Therefore, this is absolute incontrovertible reinforcement of the concept, that all of the words must absolutely agree with and flow from this initial Declaration, or the establishment would defy the anointing, which is, at first brief and conceptual.
So what do we have? We have words that tell us that though freedom of religion and speech are essential, obviously to say anything to anyone at anytime can not necessarily be done with impunity and immunity, because if it so exceeds the boundaries set by the Declaration or any other part of the Constitution, it may in fact be injurious or damaging to another party, and may in fact deny someone else of the fundamental purpose in this Declaration, i.e. justice, domestic tranquility, a common defense… The old example of, ‘One is not free to yell, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, if in fact there is no Fire, might well be heeded.
It was with this understanding that I began to realize, that the guarantee of Freedom of Religion, does absolutely guarantee that you can freely practice your religion anywhere at anytime. Yet, as is stated by the constitution, under the Amendments, Article IX: ‘The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’ I love the word ‘enumerate’. Programmers use it frequently. This article, of course, must be appreciated in the context of the original very first declaration that I have been looking at. It is the global declaration. Future more technologically orientated generations will certainly see it that way. No doubt, for all of the reasons I have stated, James Madison and his fellows must have seen it that way.
Here is where I will state something alarming: the right to freedom of religion, while it does guarantee that you can freely practice your religion, does not (and I have shown you in two places in the Constitution, one global-> the Declaration and one local-> Article IX)… does not give a group the right to practice that religion in absolutely any way that they want in any locality. Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees that one should be able to build a building of one’s choosing anywhere one wants, one of course being an individual or a group of individuals. Local building ordinances alone can prohibit someone from building a building for a place of worship on a particular tract. Why? Proximity to toxic waste dumps, unstable ground, or the fact that the school building is attached to the Church and both are too close to a tavern or liquor store to satisfy a municipal ordinance. Does this deny a Constitutional Right? Usually, the ordinance is built, or established, with the ‘General Welfare’, ‘Tranquility’ and ‘Justice’ in mind.
I will now refer to items being passed by Value or By reference. This is important. If an item is passed by Value, the recipient will receive a physical copy of that item, a new item that represents the original. If it is passed by Reference, the recipient will have received the exact original item. So if I alter the item in any way, I change the original. Here’s the difference between ‘By Reference’ and ‘By Value’; It may seem counter-intuitive to you: If I have a grape arbor all of one big interconnected vine, and I cut a shoot from that vine, and successfully transplant it and it is genetically equal to the vine I possess, and I then give it to you, I have given it to you, ‘By Value’. If you destroy it, you haven’t destroyed my vine.
On the other hand, if your yard is next to mine and I tell you that you can train my vine to grow over your fence into your yard, and you then train it over a pergola, you really possess a vine, “By Reference’. It’s the same vine. Should you get mad and poison your vine, you will likely also poison my vine, because, they are really the same vine. That is, in a programming sense, ‘By Reference.’ Why is this distinction important? I asked myself earlier, ‘Are these rights in Article I of the Bill of Rights, By Value or By Reference?’ Well, if they are ‘By Reference’ then if I destroy it in one place for one person, I have destroyed it everywhere for everyone. That’s just something to ponder.
While you mull that more serious issue, I will get back to a less serious, but important matter: If a person says, “I have a Constitutional Right to Speak in any way I want,’ or I have a Constitutional right to build a building where I want, then I would say that that imbecile has not read the Constitution. The Constitution is so woven with completely referenced, or threaded connectivity to that opening declaration that to make such a statement brings into question whether that Individual understood the intentions of the original declaration, and even brings into question whether the group or individual understands what is meant by ‘We the People’. I am not at all saying a person or group does or doesn’t have a right to build a certain building in a certain place. I am simply saying that when one oversimplifies and says, “Well, this is my constitutional right! and anything else is bigoted!”, Causes me to realize that most of these people have not read and do not comprehend the Constitution, certainly not from a programmer’s standpoint, and possibly not from the standpoint of a student of the Constitution. Having read the Constitution, now – though I do recall having to study it in grammar school and take an exam on it, bit having read it again, I will say that the only fair statement a person could make who wanted to situate a physical building of any type where the general public will be able to, indeed, will in some cases have to be in the presence of it is this, “I believe that this building is an expression of our religion. I therefore believe that we do possess a constitutional guarantee to be able to build that building in such and such a location.” To flatly state, ‘It is my Constitutional Right’ is an admission of one’s complete ignorance of this document. Here: If I were to state that my Constitutional Guarantee of Freedom of Religion permitted me to build a building of worship where I then planned to enslave people inside of that very building, both Article IX enumerated in the Amendments, and the original Declaration serve to defy this alleged Constitutional Freedom. Remember that the ordination or Intention of the actual building generally precedes the construction of the building. What one’s intentions are should never be ignored when one discusses constitutionality. It must be understood in the context of ‘We, the People,’ a ‘more Pefect Union’, ‘Justice’ for all, and not just for one, Justice that is legal, social, psychological, civil, economic, national and local and can in all ways be comprehended. Think of this lastly. When Mr. Madison wrote the first line of the Constitution, he did not know what the fourth and fifth sentences would be. He certainly had not yet penned the Bill of Rights, and the ensuing Amendments had not been written. Yet, he knew that the first line, no matter what, must be true. Therefore, he knew, quite logically, that anything he wrote to follow, or anything anyone wrote to follow must logically support and agree with that very first line, or it would not remain to be true.

In historical fairness, I must say that the Preamble is often glossed over, and, as I have said, rarely used in Courts to support or argue against a matter. I must say to this that I believe that this will change as people trained to understand the flow of source code have a crack at it, and as technically trained people who understand the necessity to read ‘All of the Directions’, and not skip the part where you were supposed to have a good look at the packaging, begin to review it. This must happen, for if the Preamble did not have the significance I have expressed, then Mr. Madison may as well have copied any writing from a bathroom stall and thrown it up there, and then proceeded with the rest of the Articles.

One More Time

John P. Schumake — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:13:20 +0000

The song starts out like this, “Oh I’m goin’ down south just to see my gal singin…”
I was shocked to see that my daughter did not know the rest of the words to this song. In fact, in an independent study, financed completely by me, I have deduced that only people over 50 are relatively assured to know the rest of the words. I thought I taught my children well. I was certain that I had imparted the wisdom I had acquired through the years to my children, but evidently not. So I sit here, staring wanly out the window, singin’ “Polly Wolly Doodle all the Day.”
There was an experiment routinely performed a number of years ago that was rather cruel, but perhaps somewhat necessary, though I’m not sure. It was an experiment where monkeys, or orangutans were placed in a chair and there was a device built into the chair that simulated the sudden impact of a collision from the rear of a car, and it generally resulted in breaking vertebrae of the orangutans. Animal rights groups argued, and rightfully so, that the experiments were performed in unnecessary superfluity. Whatever data needed to be gleaned from so damaging the animal could have been gained from one or two, or even ten experiments, but the experiment did NOT NEED TO BE PERFORMED OVER AND OVER BY DIFFERENT SCHOOLS AND DIFFERENT LABS ALL OVER THE United States. The experiment was performed perhaps hundreds upon hundreds of times.
There was a court ruling this past Monday by Judge Royce Lambert, U.S. district Court, that will prohibit Federal Grant money for going to use in projects that result in the destruction of a human embryo. It appears that the Judge’s ruling will even prohibit the federal money from being used in cases where cells were from the ‘already gleaned line of cells’ that were approve by the Bush administration for continued government sponsored research. Here’s my interest in this: There are cells that have been researched to considerable extent in Europe and Asia and to some degree in the U.S. They are called IPS cells. In layman’s terms, these are basically cells derived most often from human skin cells. They show great promise in the areas of research with regard to cell regeneration, nerve and tissue repair, and all of the areas that stem cell research was hoped to show promise in. They have one great advantage over embryonic stem cells:
They are gleaned from the skin cells of the individual who needs the repair work done, thus the possibility of rejection by the body is practically zero.
Unfortunately, embryonic stem cells do not share this. Research on cell embryos, which ploughed ahead originally in Europe and Asia, was stalled here partially because of the legal wrangling over government funding and to a greater degree because private groups for some unknown reason just didn’t see fit to sufficiently fund it; ironically, this very research has caused labs in Europe and Asia to move ahead in a different direction than embryonic stem cell research. In part this was due to the revelation that even embryonic stem cells when used to repair the tissue of an individual share all of the potential for rejection that is experienced in any other sort of tissue transplant between individuals. As a result, embryonic stem cell research has been somewhat left in the dust as the dawn of new promises and brighter hopes ala IPS cells and other technologies arrive.
What is it about certain areas of Science where we have to perform the dismantling ourselves; we can’t read the studies and plethora of research that has gone before. Instead, we have to spend government money to redo what’s been done, instead of building upon the foundation that’s been painstakingly set. (Mathematicians don’t do that!) Think of how much progress we could make, if instead of starting at square one, and redoing what many others have done, we put out energies into moving ahead with new work on the amazingly promising IPS cells. Sometimes it’s just about politics. It’s about, “We won’t be told we can’t do this!” Whatever side you are on in the issue, there should be something comforting in the idea that the system our forefathers set up over two-hundred years ago, to make sure one group with a particular way of thinking didn’t completely run rough-shod over another group, still somewhat works. We’ve lived through a year and a half of untested and very expensive policies, bills and laws flying past our eyeballs. Laws, bills and braggadoccio flurried around in a storm of ,”Just a few short months and the housing market will be booming,” Just eight months and the economy will be right on track with lots of new jobs!”, and for an additional 6 years of a very liberally controlled Legilature we have heard, “Soon we’ll have all sorts of treatments from embryonic stem cell research!” Not a single one of those empty promises bore fruit. It’s nice to see someone with power and authority say, “Whoa! Slow down there! Now with whose money were you going to do this?”
Note that there is nothing to stop the private sector from funding research on embryonic stem cells. If there are people who feel very strongly that, despite the possibilities of tissue rejection, and despite more promising strides in other more positive directions embryonic stem cell research is still promising and worth putting money into, there is nothing to stop people from funding it, and supporting it through private labs and private research. It’s a matter of how deeply you believe in it. Do you believe in it when it’s your own money?

-copyright August 28th, 2010 by John P. Schumake

Come Close. I Have a Secret to Tell You

Juan Zapatero — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:48:07 +0000

We all have secrets. Some of them are things that might embarrass us. Some of them are things that we consider essentially private, and though not embarrassing, still, even potentially hurtful to ourselves or others, and therefore, very private. Some of them can be bad things, things we are a bit ashamed of. Most are not serious in anyone’s eyes but our own. Some of them are very good things, things that we are compelled to keep secret, yet, very good, perhaps even powerful.

Everyone hearing Obama vie for the Ground Zero Mosque thought they had discovered the great secret of his religion, ‘Cat’s outa the bag, Obama’s a Muslim’. His recent appeal for recognition of ‘Religious Freedom’ for the Muslims desiring to build the Cordoba House Mosque, and then his reeling in of much of his statement a few days later, coupled with his austere, respectful and dutiful demeanor to King Abdullah in 2009, coupled with a George Stephanopoulos interview and a few other things seem to point in that direction. He may in fact be a Muslim, however: I suggest that the hype created by all of this is really just welcome cover for a deeper darker secret, the squelched secret, of course, which most logical people would come to, that the president may indeed be a vampire, he along with Nancy Legosi, alias Nancy Pelosi.
(You have to picture him, Barracula, in a long silk cape, protruding front canines saying, “Let them build the Mosque, Ah… Ahhhh… Ahhh… ” his finger pointing out menacingly…)
Don’t let the purchase of new Inversion Tables for Senate, House and White House exercise rooms fool you. Oh yeh, it’s to keep people’s backs stretched out alright. Don’t be a fool! Vampires need to hang upside down! Close your eyes, now I want you to hear Harry Reid’s voice in your head. Dosn’t it sound almost exactly like Peter Lorre’s? I’m not sure if Peter Lorre was ever a vampire, but he played a few demons in a few movies. I think the cartoons stretched him into a vampire a few times.

So what’s my secret? Well, I couldn’t tell you, or it wouldn’t be a secret. I actually have quite a number of them. A few, I let out every now and then, sort of like a jubilee for secrets. A few of them I hold close to my vest, ….or Tee-shirt. I will tell you this, though. I have learned that there are some secrets we do not even tell ourselves for, perhaps many years until, one night when we are dozing or reading, the light suddenly goes on, and our brain (I have mine and you have yours) tells us a little something about our lives or our pasts, and we just sit there (I wanted to say lay, but I wasn’t sure which wasn’t correct, lay, lie, lain…) and upon receiving this great epiphany we say, “Son of a gun! I never realized that till now!”

I’ll tell you a little secret. Here goes one. ‘Always have a secret that embodies something very good or even great about yourself. If you don’t have one, develop it, work on it. Make it a project. Don’t tell anyone. It will give you strength. If you feel it is something people should, at some point know, you can do as Mark Twain did, seal the writings with instructions for them to be opened at a later date. My son informed me that the autobiography of Samuel Clemens is currently being released. Evidently he gave instructions for them to be released 100 years after his death.

Even secret societies have derived their power from the fact that they are secret or have secrets. I think that most of those societies have probably forgotten their secrets, or lost the key, or lost the door, or realized that the secret wasn’t that great of a secret anyway. I will venture to say that people probably graduate, or migrate or laterally move from one secret society to another because of improved quality of secrets.

Lastly, I will tell you this:
One of the secrets about vampires that most people don’t know is that, when they are doing their most powerfully devious work they have to be wearing the clothing that they first went into the coffin with, which, you can imagine after a few hundred years gets awfully nasty.
That is, of course, a nasty secret.
I’ll tell you another secret. We all know what a vampire is, but if you walk backwards through the name, you learn even more. Remove the ‘V’ and you have ‘ampire’, the dictionary pronunciation for ampere, or a basic unit of electricity. Don’t be surprised, but vampires generate great amounts of electricity from their devilish deeds. Then remove the ‘A’ and you have ‘mpire’. Of course, an attempt to pronounce this gives us ‘Empire’. That is what every Vampire from Vlad Drac to the present group has tried to acquire. Generally, they have all been frustrated in this. Arguably, given their longevity they may be the same people, different names. Okay, now remove the ‘M’ and you have ‘pire’. At first glance when you see PIRE you, of course, think of the Partnership In International Research and Education, which is a scientific sort of research partnership between the U.S. and Russia for the purpose of studying volcanoes, and we all know that dormant volcanoes can provide access to the underworld, albeit temporary. However, a deeper look, again at the pronunciation brings us the word ‘pyre’. A burial pyre is where some cultures would burn or cremate a deceased individual. Just as kryptonite was a key to Superman’s weakness, so the final burning of the vampire on a pyre after the stake has been driven through his heart seems to be central to his assured demise… maybe.
Then of course, we remove the letter ‘P’ and we have ‘ire’, and it is readily evident that all vampires possess ire. They are capable of great ire. They will shake their finger at you, pull that silk cape in front of them when you have displeased them and turn into a bat, or just glower at you, sort of like grand-pa pa on the Munsters or Harry Reid trying to comprehend why any Hispanics wopuld be Republicans.
Lastly, we remove the ‘i’ and we have ‘re’. This goes back to ‘Empire’ because they all want to be king, back to Julius Caesar, who some people believe actually was a vampire and Brutus and Cassius actually may have stabbed him on the Ides of March with a wooden stake, but that’s another story. And then there is the ‘new’ secret, unknown to previous generations. If you remove the ‘R’ from the remaining ‘re’ you have ‘e’. Okay, I’ll help you; ‘Email’, ‘E-trading’, ‘E-learning’, ‘E-bloodsucking’. Yes, the new technology gives vampires, at once the notoriety and e-lectricity they briefly love, and yet the ability to hide in the shadows, which is a custom of all vampires.

Get some secrets.

Forget about your wallet.

Watch your neck.

It Is the Best of Times, It Is the Worst of Times

Juan Zapatero — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:07:46 +0000

There have been very many different revolutions: The American Revolution, the Industrial revolution, the Technological revolution, the French revolution, the Russian revolution. If there were going to be another revolution in the United States what would it be? Revolutions tend to try to move you away from what isn’t working, from that which is a sort of constrictive or oppressive force. Not all Revolutions are beneficial. The Russian Revolution moved a great people from the oppression of an aristocracy to the oppression of a bureaucracy.

Picture a world where, if a thief comes to your place of business an electronic eye locks on her (the criminal) immediately, and a vertex of laser beams focused on her chest becomes immediately visible. She (the criminal), can see the beams change configuration as she is moving. Will she be shot? Will she just be recorded by a security camera? The crime is no longer secret. The element of surprise has been turned around. Picture a world where no one tries to be politically correct. In this world everyone is initiated into society by a method practiced since ancient times: Creators of children’s cartoons caricature each and every individual from each and every nationality and race in ways that exaggerate the accents, features, traditions of that particular race or nationality. Few people are offended, most laugh.
Picture a world where gun laws have become irrelevant, because weaponry is daily being developed that isn’t even addressed by the laws, weaponry like auto-responsive clothing that is able to address only the attacker with sharp invisible, yet painful barbs, or intense flashes of light momentarily disable the perpetrator of a forced entry.
Picture a world where smaller social institutions, and inter-corporate affiliations, even guilds, if you will, become the defender of those abused by a drug infested gangs, because the large, lumbering government has become a slow and overstuffed dinosaur that is ready to collapse under its own weight. It’s unable (or unwilling) to respond to issues of drug-lords creating an escalating terror. The weighty dinosaur has too many directions to watch, too many mouths to feed, too many internal parasites, too large of a surface area to keep cool in the heat and warm in the cold. Are we there yet?
Maybe this isn’t a good revolution.
Maybe the abortion issue becomes somewhat irrelevant because people begin utilizing new technologies to freeze embryos at every stage of development. Still very wrong in the eyes of the church and many people, the skittishness of people to bring children into an uncertain economy, impels them to freeze their little conceptions. The Western World experiences a new crisis, alarmingly dwindling populations. Economic times have always been uncertain. Technologies are new. Or, perhaps, the abortion issue finally helps to ignite an already great divide filled with nothing but the fuel of their intense disagreements. Issues mount on both sides, like kindling heaped and tottering near an already blazing oven.

People become learned and brilliant in areas of great specificity, and sadly ignorant in areas of general understanding and knowledge that help them appreciate the issues that their counterparts or neighbors are concerned with.
The government has refused to govern. Guilds set up the virtual, electronic and social blockades against drug runners and gangs.
The Internet is filled with people selling body parts, even body parts of infants at large. The government has refused to govern. It only taxes. The guilds seek new and creative ways to avoid the taxes,
The government seeks to absorb, to commandeer the guilds. Pieces of kindling, heaped high begin to topple.
The government doesn’t know how to govern.
It just knows how to eat and grow.
Who will restore hope and order? Thomas Jefferson? Eli Whitney? Andrew Carnegie perhaps, or maybe…
Madame DeFarge.

Passing The Torch

Juan Zapatero — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:10:46 +0000

A friend of mine who owns a small ice cream shop was robbed the other day at gunpoint. We’ve had a few robberies in our community lately, and people have gotten hurt. It has sparked the debate in households over gun ownership, and in houses where guns are already owned, it’s probably sparked the debate about more guns. Some of the ‘more crime’ is due to the economy, and I will argue that that probably didn’t have to happen. I have argued that the Obama administration used a very bad mathematical model when planning an economic come-back. When John McCain ran against Obama he flatly declared, “I’m not an economist.” Little did we know, neither was Obama. He, too, is totally lost when it comes to the economy. So the crime, because of the state of the economy, will be there, though it was preventable.

Worse, probably, is the bad Drug Prevention model Obama is using. In fact there is no model. There is no plan.* That’s the other reason for the crime, the reason local vendors are being held at gun point, duct-taped together, kicked, punched, in some cases, executed. The Obama administration has cut military spending, gotten into a sibling rivalry with the states over immigration issues, (it’s a sibling rivalry because there’s nothing adult about this), they have not beefed up money for Coast Guard or other agencies that protect against drug importation, and they have provided no new solution to close the yawing illegal-drug aperture left by the Federal Government impasse with the border states.

Over 8 years ago the Clinton Administration concluded their tenure with at least one thing to their credit: they had kept federal spending at a respectable size, and reduced the deficit. This is laudable. What many people forget is that they used what was then known as ‘the peace dividend’, that set of circumstances ostensibly produced by the Soviet Union falling apart, which didn’t seem to demand that we as a nation pump much money into our military. This was shortsighted. When 911 hit we discovered that our military was badly under-equipped, outdated in many respects, command centers, like NORAD, had all but been disassembled. So, yes, Bill Clinton did present a balanced budget, but arguably, Ronald Reagan, with his tenaciousness towards military supremacy that taxed the Russian machine to the brink with their inability to keep up with electronic miniaturization, exposed their inability to financially keep pace with us, and finally with a refusal to back down at Reykjavik, produced that Peace-Bond, that was sadly exploited as a means and reason for cutting military spending.

People forget that part of the disarray we were left in after 911 cost our economy dearly, and the rebuilding of the military, was an expensive proposition, partially reflected in the cost of two wars. We’re now in a drug war. It’s a World War. It’s being waged against us in the poppy fields of Afghanistan, and in the countries in our own hemisphere. It’s a war that our administration doesn’t seem to know about.
President Bush had a stimulus act also, while the economy staggered after the attacks on 911. It was known as the Patriot Act. Money went to state and local police departments, money went to improve crime laboratories, and money went to specially certified state laboratories for improving their ability to do DNA analysis. Is there any doubt but that this has helped us resolve the day-to-day crimes that occur? Money was spent, not just for the goal of spending money, but for the sake of actually accomplishing a long term goal, a goal of assuring domestic safety for the North American people. Money was put into border patrol, and coast guard, and the FBI and the CIA. Drones were developed from some of this money, which have helped protect the lives of our pilots.

Presidents will do good things, presidents will do bad things. Some presidents will do nothing, but there is one torch that should be passed from one president to the next, no matter how much they may hate or like each other’s policies or parties, and that is the torch to fight the insidiousness of drugs. That is because this is an internal War, and if you don’t fight it, the nation will succumb to an illness from within. The current malaise will prevent money from being creatively channeled into innovative security developments with long-term benefits; whether its drones, miniaturization, or DNA labs, the foresightedness of past presidents has given the current administration tools. President Obama has used drones in Afghanistan to a great degree, the war against violent crimes has benefitted from research dollars put into DNA labs. But what will President Obama leave the next President. Will he sufficiently fuel the torch to pass it on?
There is currently no evidence that this administration has even taken up that torch.

*If there is any sort of a plan that anyone is aware of, please share it with us.

Dropping the Big Ball, or From Ventures to Dentures

Juan Zapatero — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:34:39 +0000

There’s an old story, which I heard down in Mexico, and I am told is true, about a man who daily rode a bike across the border from Mexico into the U.S., and then at night went back, and everyone suspected him of selling some sort of illegal contraband, probably because he always had money. The guards at the crossing always checked him, and they too seemed convinced that he was somehow smuggling something into the United States, but no one could figure it out. Finally, either because the economics of his little venture changed, or simply because an intelligent person figured the caper out, he was busted. It turns out that the contraband he was transporting was the bicycle he rode across the border daily. No one noticed that in the evening he was on foot. The bicycles, at the time, were on the list of items not allowed to be sold across the border.

The drug problem in the United States has gotten completely out of control. It is the worst it has ever been, involving people on all levels. Drug related deaths and injuries range from the drug-fueled gangland killings on the street to the person who drives his car in the wrong direction on the expressway, under the influence, and kills a car full of other drivers.
People who survive death, but are active participants in the drug nightmare generally become unable to be productive members of society. The man/hours of productivity lost in this country, due to addictions are a weakening factor in our economy. The drain on the health care system, the lives destroyed and the crimes committed make drugs the single most damaging element in our society. More people are killed yearly in drug related incidents than any wars we have been involved in over the past 40 years.

It should be the WAR. I would never venture to say that the Arizona Immigration Law is any sort of a panacea to stop the drug traffic. It’s not. I will say, however, that the Obama Administration has totally and completely dropped the ball on the most critical, dangerous and damaging war in our history. If the Obama Administration had made fighting drug use, stopping its importation, educating the youth, defeating the smugglers on the Federal level at the point of origin the priority, the Arizona border law would never have been considered.

Instead, the Administration has focused so much on the outcroppings of the drug problem, ‘people with drug addictions who need stimulus money for sanitation reasons, or people unemployed and on drugs who need healthcare. These are noble and necessary things, but they completely fail to address the point of origin in this plan. Drug use and traffic has escalated beyond being track-able. It has been historically part of many transactions that fund terrorists. Supposedly, every single dollar bill that has been in circulation for a year, if you look at it closely under a microscope has drug traces on it.

Unlike the last three Presidents who went before him, who were the first to appoint drug czars and implement new or expanded programs to fight the problem (though they too fell short), there has been little or no mention of any effort by the Obama Administration to aggressively attack and wage war against the must fundamental and core problem that we have and to make it a targeted priority. There doesn’t even seem to be an initiative to recognize that it is a major problem. I have searched and found no documentation since he took office that any such pronouncements have passed through his teeth or across Speaker Pelosi’s dentures. (Side-thought: How do you make dentures for vampires… Is plumbing involved?)
Oh, sorry, I used the word, ‘War’.

It’s possible that I have mis-remembered the story, and therefore mistakenly misspoke: It’s possible that the bicycles were made in the United States, and sold into Mexico, which would mean that the man was walking across the border in the morning and riding back at night.

ITS ALL ABOUT SHARING

Juan Zapatero — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:11:40 +0000

I was amused by the clever ploy of the Obama Administration to be willing to sabotage their own proposed extension of the unemployment benefits just to make Republicans look bad. Republicans in Congress agreed provisionally to extension of the benefits providing the Obama administration would pay for them out of the existing stimulus. Obama wanted to incur new debt, and, of course, characterized the Republicans as not wanting to help the unemployed, at all – no, not a bit, and he shook his finger to prove it. The sad irony is that it would have actually been the Obama Administration and the Congressional Democrats refusal to use existing funds for the Benefit Extension that would have resulted in the denial of benefits for the unemployed. The gain for the Democrats? It’s purely political.

This brings up an important issue of ‘Cross-Purposes’ as it relates to what the administration should do to help the country and what is politically expedient. Take this ‘Energy’ example as it pertains to the average home energy user. What would unquestionably help to reduce the strain on Coal producing Energy Plants, and also reduce the potential of total electrical brown-outs during High Usage Periods would be an incentive for home owners to invest in Natural Gas Generators to Power their Houses in the event of an energy outage. This would help on many levels. It would reduce the necessity for immediate emergency response that overwhelms first responders, because many people relying on electrical equipment for life assistance would be covered. It would reduce the impact of power outages on areas that have been hit by storms resulting in interrupted electrical service. It would provide a balance to the electrical load, especially if there were an incentive for individuals to schedule the natural gas generators to run periodically during peek usage times and periods. Particularly interesting are the new micro-CHP mini-power plants.

After a lengthy search I have found no such incentives.

Unfortunately, a failure of the Utility Grid suits the government Share-Bears just fine, because it opens the same sort of door that the failure of auto industries opened for the far-left leaning current administration. It opens a door to an even more vast expanse of utilities control and revenue than one could even dream of , dwarfing the government take over of large portions of the auto-industry. The United State’s citizen’s (or should I say ‘home-dweller’s) reliance on energy for the home and workplace goes well beyond our need for new automobiles.

The best thing the government could do, if they were truly interested in reducing coal burning, without hurting any of the energy companies that are heavily invested in coal (who also happen to be invested in Natural gas) would be to provide extremely attractive and well-advertised incentives for a shift towards energy independence.
If such an initiative to change the home and business use of energy were initiated, there would not even be the need for a Cap and Trade law. Hmmmmm…..

Now, there’s what an Administration says, and then, there’s what an administration does. Actions speak much louder than words.

-Copyright July 24,2010 by Juan Zapatero

What Does He Feed Off Of?

John P. Schumake — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:51:56 +0000

Could it be that there is actually a solution, or at least a workable set of solutions to the border issue between the United States and Mexico that has gone completely untapped?
With the ‘dog in the manger’ disposition that the Obama administration has taken with the Arizona immigration law issue, is it possible that something has been completely overlooked, or perhaps avoided for political expediency? Of course there is. It’s important for us to realize that a President is elected for his leadership ability, his ability to be able to enact in a variety of situations (I stole that definition from an old Stanford-Bennet definition of Intelligence Quotient, but it should work). Is there a Creative solution? If there is, why are we not getting it?
The answer requires a little bit of an historical real-estate lesson. It is a little known fact among the general populace, that Mexico, has a very constrictive policy towards ownership of land, or even leasehold estates by foreign interests. It is one of the reasons major corporations have avoided, or limited the construction of facilities in Mexico. While willing to brave potentially oppressive state governments in places like China, even willing to risk the dangers of the very invasive police actions in a place like China, corporations are still willing to locate operations there, and it’s not simply because of the cheap labor force, as that is rapidly being consumed in China, and will soon not be so readily available. There’s a cheap labor force in Mexico, as well. It is because the future hopes and investments in China have some durability.
The problem related to Mexico’s lack of advancement really lies partially, in a very stubborn position by Mexico not to offer any assurances that can provide for some of the long-range durability of factories and facilities coupled with the appropriate assurance of markets and workforce. All of this is possible in Mexico. The mix, of Course, would be different than China’s. Mexico would have to offer up more by way of ownership, at least, of leasehold estates, because they cannot currently offer up much by way of a growing economy. (However, part of the original recognition of China’s potential growth was simply a business awareness of the growing population, the expanding consumer market.) An even more creative solution where our southern neighbor is concerned, however, that could help mitigate the entire border problem is this: Dual Citizenship, not just for Mexicans who want to become U.S. citizens, but for U.S. citizens that would like to become Mexican citizens.

‘Why would anyone ever want to do that?’ you might ask. Well, for the same reason that venture capitalists from the U.S. and other countries are willing to locate and do business in China or other Asian markets. That’ s one reason. Another reason is, Mexico is beautiful! It’s a beautiful place to build a home, or a vacation spot, or a domicile where one can work. Mexico, however, has been dogged about protecting and constricting the ownership or use of property in Mexico, yet they have no problem with, and seem to feel completely entitled to exploit the developed resources of the United States. We are at a juncture where an American Government could push the issue basically with, ‘You’ve got something we want, and we’ve got something you want,’ ‘Let’s trade’. The trade, or the arrangement of allowing dual citizenships for those who have lawfully applied, or the potential of extending leasehold rights to U.S. companies and citizens would go a long way towards providing stability in the relationship, increased investment in Mexico, diminution of the sort of crime that flourishes under oppressed economic conditions, and a new hope for Mexican Nationals.
Why doesn’t the Obama administration do the obvious and say to Mexico, ‘Look, clearly I am willing to allow aliens to work in the United States, but you have to give something as well. You have to allow American corporations to have leasehold estates, some ownership rights to assure durable and long-lasting relationships.’ Why doesn’t Obama do this? Why does’t he make this trade? He’s certainly been willing to trade some of our own privacy and security rights, even compromising our own Federal Privacy Act by ceding to Mexico extensive private infomation on American citizens, ala CIFTA. (Not sure what he traded it for? some shiny turquoise beads maybe?)
Evidently it’s easier to look like the hero of an oppressed race, ‘The One’, than to come up with a real solution.” Real solutions are kind of boring.

So, “What’s a dog in the manger?”
The dog in the manger doesn’t want to eat out of the manger, but he won’t let anyone else eat. He just sits there and growls, baring his teeth at any entity that ventures close.

The Persistence of Memory

Juan Zapatero — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:39:16 +0000

For years, I used to think that John Kennedy was just this interim President who really didn’t have enough time to do anything great. After a little bit of study relative to crisis management, I have gradually come to shift my viewpoint. I have realized that his handling of the Cuban missile crisis was timely and brilliant. I have also realized that this was an intelligent man who liked to surround himself with intelligent people. It’s no mistake that, early in his administration, he chose to provide tax cuts as incentives for companies and individuals to encourage the growth of a sluggish economy.

The problem with the current Administration is simply in their understanding of mathematics. Here, this will exemplify the point: Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech in Las Vegas. He mentioned how the last 10 years of the Republican administration had left him with a car driven into a ditch that he had to get out of the ditch. Now, I’ll abandon the analogy of the car in the ditch and just stick with the numbers. First of all, President Bush wasn’t President for 10 years. Terms are for four years each. The Democrats were in complete control of both houses of Congress for the last two of those years. So the President seems to have been under the impression that a decade is 6 years.

Since then, the Current administration has been in control for an additional year and a half. From an economic standpoint, the market jobs and GDP, the best portion of the ‘Bush Decade’ was the time period when Bush actually was the President, and the Republicans actually controlled Congress. I would tend to agree with President Obama, that the last three and a half years of the Bush decade, especially those that have been governed by President Obama, have been rough.

This doesn’t exemplify the real math problem. Here’s the interesting part. Here’s where the math gets a little trickier, with the concept of the stimulus. This is why Kennedy, and Presidents after him wisely chose to provide tax cuts to encourage growth rather than driving down the street in the Brink’s truck throwing cash out the window, hoping it would take root and grow. I will illustrate:
If you consider on a graph, with X and Y axes that X, the horizontal Axis is time, you will realize that both Tax Cuts and Stimuli are limited, or finite in terms of time. Arguably stimuli are more finite because there is only so much money to go around, but we won’t argue that point right now. It’s the vertical axis we are concerned about. If you are already bored and confused, close the window, accept a grim economic future and vote for an administration that has more than quadrupled our debt. If not, here’s the point. Vertically, the only economic gain that a stimulus can hope to achieve is the graphing of X number of Newly employed Government Employees purchasing N number of appliances, vehicles, etcetera. The number of additional Government employees, and the objects they can or will buy is finite.
Now consider the Tax Cut scenario: Businesses hope to sell not only to however many people are benefitted by a tax cut (still finite but much larger than the number of people added to the government payroll), times a percentage gain of all income taken in, which any organization that hopes to grow would have to regard as infinite the tax break, or savings, or, in real DOLLARS, EARNINGS, generated by sales, not only to a finite added work force, but more significantly to a global population which is of potential consumers which is massively larger than that temporarily enlarged workforce, and growing, (since man first walked the earth), infinitely. In other words, the tax cuts the corporation or small business can receive to increase real capital growth is only limited by their product line, imagination, desire to sell, all of the things that really drive business growth anyway.

It’s real simple math. Kennedy understood it. Regan may not have understood it, but he appreciated it. George Bush did it, probably had no concept of why it would work and probably didn’t care, but, despite current claims, an honest look at GDP and the market reveals that it did work.

We are about to give up that sound mathematics to go into a new realm, a strange new Daliesque physics, the realm of expired tax cuts, huge debt compounded by stimulus spending, a world where 6 years is a decade, a surrealistic world where a finite number of jobs and a finite amount of money parsed to each person suddenly becomes an infinite potential market boom! a world where job creating companies drape like melted watches over immovable regulatory rocks, a world where 2 + 2 equals five.

Roll Out the Barrel

John P. Schumake — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:21:23 +0000

Freedom is under attack.

In just a few short years we have watched as publicly traded car industries have been nationalized,
banks have been held entirely responsible for a mortgage crisis that was, in large part caused by the irresponsible persuasions of House and Senate Financial Oversite Bodies who not only didn’t stop the irresponsible lending to unqualified parties but actually encouraged and promulgated it;

we have watched as
Individuals who are returning from tours of duty in the military and people who are active in Pro-life groups are flagged by our Homeland Security department, according to their own statements as Potentially dangerous;

we have watched
as The Fairness Doctrine was presented as a bill with both state and federal versions that liberal groups are trying to foist upon the country, which would force Conservative T.V and radio talk shows to provide equal time for Liberal Points of view, yet, interestingly, there is no similar doctrine proposed to force the many liberal newspapers to balance their point of view with equal length and visibility coverage in the newspapers with a contrary viewpoint, not that that would even be a good idea.

We watched as the proposed State and Federal FOCA bills were presented and, if passed would not only force all tax-payers to pay for abortions, but it would essentially provide for the construction of the clinics on the tax payers nickel, which would do this. This would render meaningless any alleged caveats against Federal Funding of abortion in the new and invasive Health Care Act.

We watched as the Federal Government ignored the pleas of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to provide sand berms and boom to keep back the oil spill from Louisiana’s marshes and shores.
We watched as the Federal Government refused for over 40 days the offer of the Netherlands to provide us 4 ships each capable of vacuuming up 35,000 barrels a day of oil to help mitigate the problem. Why?
Evidently so the Administration, alla Rham Emanuel’s statement of never wasting a good crisis, could take advantage of this crisis in order to try to pass their cap and trade agenda.

We watched as the Federal Government refused to provide sufficient personnel to secure the borders.
There are many people who say that illegal aliens only perform jobs that we do not want to do. This is not true. For many years the trades were a bastion of hope for young men who didn’t want to go to college, but wanted to be gainfully employed in a productive career. Today, the trades, particularly in the metropolis sectors of the country, have been completely overwhelmed by illegal aliens, and no longer provide the hopeful option of employment and learning that they once did for young American citizens.

Yet the Obama administration pretends to be friendly to the trades.

We watched as people who intimidated voters during the presidential elections, large and menacing at polling places, striking batons and clubs against their hands, were let off of any charges by the Federal Government, all legal action against them dismissed.

We watched as President Obama expanded the role of the faith based initiative to include neighborhood activist groups, groups like Acorn, groups like those who stood at the polling places brandishing the clubs, groups who finally, once exposed for their many unconscionable acts, had to be removed from the Federal doles due to their shameless abuse of the system.

We watched as the economy, straining under the weight of a Federal deficit that was quadrupled in just the last 18 months, gave up more and more jobs.
We watched, as an administration, unfriendly to business, opened its mouth with threats of controls, lawsuits, fines, regulations and taxes, drove a hopeful and rallying stock market down into that area the market hates, doubt and uncertainty, and bringing with it the jobs we badly needed created.

We lost, in part, the freedom to fish the Gulf,
the freedom to provide well for our families,
the freedom to serve in the military without becoming a suspect of our own government,
the freedom to belong to organizations that gather money for pregnant mothers who have chosen life, without becoming similarly suspect,
the freedom to show up at a poll without fear of having someone brandish a baton at us,
the freedom not to pay for the mechanisms that will ultimately provide for abortions,
the freedom not to be taken over by the Federal Government if we appear to be failing (apparently true of both corporations and individuals).

We risk losing, the freedom not to pay for something we may consider to be murder,
the freedom of speech and expression, without which
no other freedom can exist.

People who do not care about these freedoms, or are actually happy about the Leftist direction tend to be dismissive of words like these.

What would Thomas Jefferson think, who felt that the Federal Government should keep its hands out of all aspects of American life, with the sole exception of providing us a military to protect us.

What would James Madison think, who authored most of our constitution, and expressed so well those quintessential checks and balances that were designed to help keep one party or group from oppressing another.

What would George Washington think, who refused to be called King.