Power's Price

What happens when human beings get power over your life? They use it. Because they have it they consider you weak and manipulable- less than real. We witnessed that with the behavior of Dallas Police officer Robert Powell this week.

Powell's despicable treatment of Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats, cruelly and intentionally detaining Moats even as he KNEW the man's mother-in-law was dying, even stating that he could make Moat's life a "hell", is simply indicative of human behavior. As painful as it may seem to be told such a thing we are virtually ALL capable of this cruelty.

More and more people are waking to this shared weakness. We are beginning to see assertions of states rights with roots less in insistence on local custom than in fear of the price of overwhelming governmental power. Recent examples have even pitted liberal-leaning states against conservative federal policies.

None the less we see liberals asserting that claims of the limits of governmental power are "conservative clap trap" and insisting that the only bounds on them are "expediency". This, linked above from the post of a trained psychologist, falls right in line with results of the Milgram experiments from half a century ago.


"What the experiment shows is that the person whose authority I consider to be legitimate, that he has a right to tell me what to do and therefore I have obligation to follow his orders, that person could make me, make most people, act contrary to their conscience," Blass said.
I would ask you if there is a governmentally significant difference between that statement and this from David Remer's comment linked above-
There are NO prohibitions on the Supreme Court in the Constitution regarding their power to interpret and even reinterpret the Constitution in the context of a changing nation, when questions and contests regarding interpretation are accepted by the court for review.
I personally don't think there is a difference.

What was the nature of the "action" demonstrated in Milgram's experiments?

His experiment in its standard form included a fake shock machine, a "teacher," a "learner" and an experimenter in a laboratory setting. The participant was told that he or she had to teach the student to memorize a pair of words, and the punishment for a wrong answer was a shock from the machine.
While the machine didn't generate shocks and a recorded voice track simulated painful reactions, the teacher was led to believe that he or she was shocking a student, who screamed and asked to leave at higher voltages, and eventually fell silent.
About 65 percent of participants pulled levers corresponding to the maximum voltage -- 450 volts -- in spite of the screams of agony from the learner.

A friend of mine ends all of his e-mails with this quote from Frederick Douglass-
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- (August 4, 1857)
Only the parents of the future's victims, serfs, and slaves will submit to the powerful drawing the boundaries of their own power. That is exactly what some at WatchBlog, willing to be members of Milgram's 65%, would have us do.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at March 27, 2009 10:05 AM
Comments
Comment #278873

When BHO made his move for the Whitehouse, he began a systematic move to scare the wits out of the American people. Everything was doom and gloom. When you say things long enough, people begin to believe it. The message from BHO and the dems was taking on a life of its own. Even until this day, every time BHO or his henchmen open their mouths, the stock market is affected. It became so bad that BHO had to announce “we cannot base the economy on the daily move of the stock market”. Then he advised the American people to start investing in the stock market. When was the last time a president asked the American people to invest in the stock market? The attacks on big business and management were doing such damage that the dem controlled congress had to scale back their rhetoric because BHO needed that “evil” market to buy up the “bad” loans, and the market wasn’t doing it. How come the bill passed by the House to tax AIG bonuses at 90%, when it went to the Senate it was changed to just oversight of bonuses? It was because the feeding frenze of dems and some repub in the House was causing a lot of damage.

When I was in the military, I learned this lesson; you cannot give rank to some people, because it goes to their heads. Some are good leaders and some become tyrants. The old saying, “absolute power corrupts absolutely” is true. The democrats were eager to accuse Bush and Cheney of assuming authority that was not in the constitution, and I agree there were many things about the Bush Presidency that concerned me, but they are willing to absolutely trash the Constitution to give BHO, Pelosi, and Reid absolute power. This goes with their beliefs that the Supreme Court has authority over the Constitution.

As I am writing, I am watching the news and it’s reported that the AG and Clinton are pushing for new gun controls, because of the problems in Mexico. And so it continues, absolute power corrupts absolutely. What would we face if we were not an armed nation? The American people understand this and it can be seen in the states that are pushing back on DC.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 27, 2009 11:27 AM
Comment #278876

I’d be interested in learning more about Robert Powell’s background and experiences.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 27, 2009 11:41 AM
Comment #278889

If Republicans opposed rather than supported the attitude of using harsher and harsher methods on criminals and terrorists alike, I’d be more inclined to believe you, Lee.

The trouble here, is that such concerns have been consistently dismissed by Republicans, and the reason they are being raised now is to oppose growing federal power in the wake of the Republican’s political collapse. This just strikes me as a unwillingness on the part of a number on the far right to accept that their kind of libertarian philosophy no longer works well with a world where people are by necessity interdependent.

This is about conflicts of power, conflicts that the Republicans have managed poorly, conflicts between those whose power comes from their economic sway, and those whose power comes from a mandate of the people. The Republicans let these people run amok, and the result has been disaster.

Government is not there to impose its power on everybody. People should have power of their own, power to demand fair treatment, power to demand accountability of the government, power to demand due process when they are accused of a crime. The Republicans, in their urge to relieve one side or another of the burden imposed on it by a moderating power have created imbalances of power all over the place.

The traffic stop is just one of these “git tuff” sort of situations, where the police have been encouraged not to restrain themselves in the face of niceties of civil liberties or pleas of fairness from those they’re dealing with.

The republicans have to realize that the balancing of right and freedoms with laws and regulations is a crucial part of what makes America such a prosperous and admired nation. Instead of mercilessly imposing laws on the whim of the charismatic, or protecting people’s freedoms to the point of anarchy and absurdity, we arrange a happier state of moderation.

Republicans need to learn to love moderation more.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2009 12:26 PM
Comment #278891

Stephen,

Your retort is nonsense.

Did you find out about the supposed torture? Yes you did. What rational would-be tyrant would let you find out about torture? The German people living in villages adjacent to death camps had no clue. They had to be paraded in the midst of the carnage by allied troops after the camps had been liberated to show what had happened there.

We are all about balancing the powers of government with the needs of the times. The first form of that balance is not leaving the powerful to decide how much power they need.

Feel free to let your eyes glaze and push the shock button with Milgram’s majority young man. Your concessions to the wisdom of the authorized look like the trust of the Jonestown faithful from here.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 27, 2009 12:40 PM
Comment #278893

Lee we militarized our police departments 20+ years ago, why should we expect them to not heed their training? This unfortunate instance is a systematic problem IMHO, and a power issue as you say. I would not be surprised to find out that this type of incident is fairly typical but receives no publicity because most of us are not NFL players.

How this relates to the SCOTUS is beyond me as the constitution empowers these 9 people to interpret the constitution in a court setting not a one on one in the streets.
The South Carolina rep you linked to IMHO seems to have picked a time to demonstrate his ideology when his ilk are not in the drivers seat. Where was this guy when the repubs were running the show a few years back? It seems he only wants to usurp the federal government when the dems are in power. This is partisan politics at it’s most disgusting and the man is without merit.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 27, 2009 12:45 PM
Comment #278896

Lee Jamison-
Go look at the things your party has rationalized, and then come back to me and lecture me and others on our failure to question authority. Democrats are critiquing Obama’s policy as thoroughly as they have Bush’s. We’ve not developed a culture like the Republicans have of rationalizing everything our party does. We have a bit less close of an embrace, because many Democrats alive today remember the failures of our party, and don’t apologize for them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2009 12:57 PM
Comment #278897

j2t2

There were many on the right who were not happy with the decisions of the Bush Presidency, nor were they in agreement with the republicans in congress. I, personally was very disapointed with Bush. But laying that all aside, you are willing to throw out the Constituton and give BHO complete power simply in retaliation to the things you didn’t like about Bush?

Posted by: Oldguy at March 27, 2009 12:57 PM
Comment #278898

SD

Perhaps you would be willing to list the failures of the democratic party? I would like to know what you consider to be a failure.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 27, 2009 1:01 PM
Comment #278899

j2t2,

You’re right. I should have been clearer on the connection to power I’m asserting.

In the story at the head of the article Sgt. Powell plays the role of the “teacher”, the one operating the shock machine in Milgram’s experiment. He is using authority that comes down to him from others.

In the example of the courts the court plays the role of the authority figure, the one who tells the “teacher” to push the button even when people scream. Those who assert that power even when people are screaming and requesting escape- and defend that use of power as justified- are applying the shocks.

What is deeply troubling with the Milgram experiments and with the repetitions that have confirmed their results, is that the 65% seems to be a relatively stable figure, as though it is a nature, rather than nurture, property of human behavior. It is as though a high percentage of us is supposed to be lemmings.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 27, 2009 1:05 PM
Comment #278907

Oldguy-
Vietnam, in most ways you could fail. The fiscal decisions regarding Vietnam, entitlements and welfare, which helped grind the sixties boom to a halt. The corruption that pervaded the party up until its ouster. The complicity of the party in the deregulation that ultimately helped create crisis situations in the economy, healthcare, and other fronts. The failure to properly promote oversight of Bush’s foreign policy, the excess speed with which Democrats approved use of force in Iraq, and the slowness with which they came around to questioning the policy. The capitulation, time and time again in the face of Bush’s policy excesses. The failure to force Republicans to do their filibusters for real, and the current attempts by certain Democrats who consider themselves centrists to stick with the more honest fiscal appraisal.

There are a number of failures, and I don’t kid myself that my party won’t make more. I don’t kid myself that my party’s politicians won’t need any less supervision than the Republicans were supposed to have, but didn’t get from their people.

I think the problem for anybody, Republican or Democrat, is that power always holds the capacity to corrupt, and only by investigating and constantly keeping attention on these people can we discourage that kind of deception and trickery. We cannot be complacent and be big government at the same time. Power requires checks and balances, and that’s what the Right has neglected for far too long. I don’t want my people making the same mistake.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2009 1:33 PM
Comment #278909

Here’s an interesting article from Judicial Watch.

“Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is not known as a shrinking violet. He’s been described as rude, crude, aggressive, mean-spirited, dogmatic and loquacious. Passive, quiet, inconspicuous? Not so much.

So how is it that Emanuel served on the Board of mortgage lending giant Freddie Mac for 14 months without making any noticeable mark, while at the same time reaping huge financial rewards? And why did the normally obtrusive Emanuel keep his lips zipped when presented with an illegal accounting scheme designed to defraud Freddie Mac investors?

These are questions The Chicago Tribune has been asking lately. And here’s what The Tribune found out:

Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

“Little effort” may be an understatement. The Freddie Mac board does most of its work in committees. According to the Tribune, there is no documented evidence Emanuel even served on a committee.

But it gets worse.

On Emanuel’s watch, Freddie Mac hatched an accounting scheme – reviewed by the board –to defraud investors by artificially inflating the value of the company in order to pay out big bonuses to executives. The company was also slapped with a $3.8 million fine by the Federal Election Commission for using corporate funds to bankroll political fundraisers. In fact, after Emanuel finished his 14-month stint at Freddie, the company held one of these illegal fundraisers on his behalf!

And this is the man we’re supposed to trust operating the levers of power at the Obama White House?

Of course, Judicial Watch is trying to dig up as much information as possible on the political corruption that enabled Fannie and Freddie (and their congressional co-conspirators) to operate above the law.

In fact, one Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request relates directly to the political fundraising scheme that resulted in the FEC fine referenced above. On December 18, 2008, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the Treasury Department regarding political contributions and political contribution policies at Fannie and Freddie.

We are looking into the deliberate campaign by these two agencies to buy political protection on Capitol Hill (mostly from liberals) so that they could continue on their reckless programs to hustle “subprime” mortgages to unqualified homebuyers.”

Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 1:36 PM
Comment #278911

Interesting survey results from: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/just_11_say_government_can_run_financial_institutions_better


Friday, March 27, 2009
Email a Friend Email to a Friend
Advertisement

Only 11% of Americans think a financial institution will run better if it’s run by the federal government, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) say the institution will not run better, and 22% aren’t sure.

Republicans are the most skeptical. While 18% of Democrats say the government can run the financial entity better, just five percent (5%) of Republicans – and seven percent (7%) of adult s not affiliated with either party - agree.

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans, 67% of unaffiliateds and 56% of Democrats do not believe the government will run it better.

Investors are dubious of government control as well: 73% say the government will not run the institution better, as do 62% of non-investors.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Thursday detailed to the House Financial Services Committee a major expansion of the government’s powers to intervene in the financial sector. The plan calls for an expansion of the government’s ability to take over large financial institutions other than banks, including insurance companies and hedge funds, that are at risk of collapse. The plan must be approved by Congress.

Interestingly, seven-out-of 10 government workers (70%) do not believe a financial institution will run better under government control, nearly identical to the views of entrepreneurs and those who work in the private sector.

In terms of income, those earning $20,000 to $75,000 per year are the most critical of government-run financial institutions.

Forty-five percent (45%) of adults say it’s time to stop all bailout funding for the financial industry. But there is a huge gap between the Political Class and Mainstream America on the issue. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the Political Class believe the bailouts should continue, while most other Americans say they should be stopped.

Geithner’s new proposal targets companies like the ailing American International Group (AIG), but 59% of Americans say it’s better for the economy to let the insurance giant go out of business rather than give it a taxpayer bailout to stay afloat.

Americans have expressed similar concern about greater government involvement in health care and in the troubled domestic auto industry. Only 14% of U.S. voters think the Big Three automakers will run better if they are run by the federal government.”

Posted by: Jim M at March 27, 2009 1:46 PM
Comment #278915

Stephen,

I think the problem for anybody, Republican or Democrat, is that power always holds the capacity to corrupt, and only by investigating and constantly keeping attention on these people can we discourage that kind of deception and trickery. We cannot be complacent and be big government at the same time. Power requires checks and balances, and that’s what the Right has neglected for far too long. I don’t want my people making the same mistake.
So your check on the powers of the courts to rubber-stamp the powers of the other branches is—

The Supreme Court placed in power by those branches.

That’s brilliant.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 27, 2009 1:57 PM
Comment #278939

Here’s an example of power over small minds.

Pat Sessions of the National Republican Congressional Committee writes to those over whom the NRCC has power,

House Republicans have pledged to stop the “Pelosi Recession” caused by a bloated Democratic budget that spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.

And NRCC followers actually believe this recession was caused by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic budget on the table, not even passed into law yet? Yep, they sure do. With mental capacities that small and out of touch with the real world, it is no wonder the NRCC has such power over its supporters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2009 4:14 PM
Comment #278945
Government is not there to impose its power on everybody.

Um, that is the only real difference between the government and private organizations, Stephen…

And NRCC followers actually believe this recession was caused by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic budget on the table, not even passed into law yet?

I’m sorry, David, but the first fully Democratic budget was passed from the House and Senate in the spring of 2007 and took effect in October of 2007. When did the recession start? In November of 2007. When the Pelosi-budget was full in effect.

That Bush passed that budget, another of his mistakes, does not take away from the fact that it was the Democrats in both houses that wrote and passed those budgets.

Now, I am not going to suggest that it was the Dems who CAUSED the recession, that would be putting way too much cause and effect into the government’s hands here. But they sure were in charge when things started going belly up and did nothing to alter, change or slow down the recession as it picked up steam. My conjecture is that they were allowing the problems to continue and do nothing about them to win the presidency in 2008. Of course, I may be too harsh, it could have just been sheer incompetence on their part.

But I find it sad that so many people want to blame Bush and the republicans alone when the democrats were right there leading the charge in those years leading up to the problems with Fanny and Freddie and AIG and Bear Stearns (most of them getting their contributions from those organizations) and feel as if they should be let off scott free. This includes Obama who was in the Senate during this time and did nothing as well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2009 5:27 PM
Comment #278949

Rhinehold,
Actually the argument can be made that America has been in a recession since 1998 when the tech bubble was about to blow up. For since than Americans have watched as more and more sectors grew unchecked and pop. So to say that it started in 2007, I refer you to look at what some people were saying well before the Market hit 14,000 and started falling.

Money chasing money without regard to who will pay the Piper is the best way IMHO to explain why people were buying stocks at a 30% levarge.

Lee, as far as the Cop that stopped the NFL Player I would love to be at that hearing. For why the Officer may have had the Authority to stop a person running a red light in a hospital zone. If the mans’ mother-in-law would have been in the car than wouldn’t we be talking about something that everybody knows to be wrong?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 27, 2009 6:15 PM
Comment #278950

Rhinehold less we forget the administration was saying we were not in recession for until Dec ‘08. What exactly do you think Pelosi, who I guess passed the budget all by herself, was supposed to do regarding the budget at that time?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/05/bush-admits-us-recession/

“Today’s job data reflects the fact that our economy is in a recession,” Mr. Bush said, during a statement to reporters on the South Lawn. “

Posted by: j2t2 at March 27, 2009 6:17 PM
Comment #278955

Jim M.-
You do realize that by publishing large portions of articles that you could be violating copyright law, don’t you?

As for the poll? I want people to use their brains. The economy will not respond well because a policy wins a popularity contest. Results matter. Take this whole thing about increased powers for Geithner.

We’re seeing banks go under on a regular basis. But we’re not seeing a run on banks, not seeing people putting their money under their mattress. Main reason? FDIC. Depositors know that if a bank fails, or is failing, the FDIC will swoop in, take the bank over, insure the deposits, and sell off the banks to private owners once more. You could call this socialism, or you can call it a better alternative to that scene you saw in It’s a Wonderful Life, where poor George Bailey has to essentially fight off a mob to keep his bank solvent, because the depression has caused a run on banks

This is what we’d like Geithner to be able to do with the Big Banks if it’s necessary. Rather than keep these behemoths on life support, the Treasury Department could take over, clean out the bank, and sell these complex financial institutions, or their parts, back to private hands. The Republicans, though, are more concerned about whether this conflicts with their philosophy about big government.

Lee Jamison-
I’m sorry, what? I didn’t even talk about the courts. I was responding to his question about what Democrats have done wrong, an answer I gave frankly.

The courts are held in check by the fact that they are appointed and confirmed by those elected officials. Most of the folks on the Bench now were put there by Reagan and Bush.

I’m really sick of hearing Republicans complain about the courts not rubberstamping their opinions. Judicial Activism, that’s what I always hear.

It’s not their job to cater to our politics, though. Their job is to interpret the law. If it comes out in favor of our beliefs. Good. If not, well that’s the rule of law for you: people not getting everything they wanted. Don’t you think we’ve been handed our share of rulings? However, we haven’t been trained to believe that every decision since Warren was the chief justice is politically suspect, or worse a miscarriage of justice. The Republicans don’t want to have to submit to anybody who isn’t one of them. But when they do have somebody like them in charge? You get the Bush administration, where everybody kept buying the Bush line until it was too late to take back all the failures and fiascos. Don’t you get it? Your willingness to be a check on your own party’s behavior is a key part of how your party keeps from sliding into decline.

The Republicans were too busy saying ditto to ask “why are we doing things this terribly?” You were too busy trying to defend America from the threat of liberal politics to make sure your own policies weren’t even worse in practice.

Going back to the Geithner thing, you realize that part of the reason why we couldn’t just cancel the bonuses and clear out those who mismanaged the company, is that the law didn’t allow us to do that. It might have been the better idea, but instead, what we have here is essentially a half-assed takeover, which essentially leaves federal regulators less able to basically get these businesses off the American Taxpayers dime, and back operating on their own dollar.

Republicans are like an overly permissive parent. They write things up in a way that lets things get out of control, but leaves them with little choice but to either be ineffectual, or excessively heavy-handed. Democrats are willing to bite the bullet and expedite the business of untangling the mess. That’s why Americans are turning to the Democrats. They’ve had enough of half-hearted, overly lax responses. They want their government to do better than that.

Rhinehold-
I’m serious. It’s not their merely to use power for its own sake. That’s tyranny, power justifying itself. It’s about law, order, and the public good. Beyond that, we neither need, nor should tolerate government intrusion on our lives.

This thing about timing is thin. The economic situation didn’t just get that way in the space of six months. If you recall, the Enron mess was partly related to derivatives trading. The market was a key part of Bush’s plan, and the housing bubble didn’t just develop that year. The foundations of this recession were laid long ago. I don’t know why you, as an independent Libertarian should be acting like it was all the Democratic Party’s fault. We were more lap dog than pit bull on this issue, which only makes it more of a shame.

Understand this: both side should share blame on the way in which this went down in law. A Democratic President signed the law that allowed banks to get this dysfunctionally large, and his treasury secretaries supported the Securities Modernization legislation which prevented proper regulation of the derivatives markets.

But in addition to the responsiblity for the actions, we have to deal with the responsibility for the ideas and politics behind this. That we see an economic libertarian like Phil Gramm in the lead on both pieces of legislation, which the Republicans just loved, tells you what you need to know about who pushed for this hardest, and not just to look like they were taking the “moderate” path.

We cannot condemn the legal environment that allowed this and hold responsible those who pushed this legislation, but then fail to acknowledge that this was done according to the philosophical prescriptions of a certain faction of free market true believers.

Which is why, I think, you’re so inclined to place as much responsibility on liberal and left-wing shoulders as you can. What you don’t know, since you don’t likely frequent the left’s blogs, is how much the Democrats and their pundits identify their own as being among the people responsible. But the message we were pushing is far different than the ones you pushed, and only recently did we start to win that argument within our own party.

What probably leaves you looking for scapegoats is how much the collapse is a repudiation of free-market libertarianism. We gave these people the opportunity to do just what you said: police themselves, let the market determine things. But that didn’t work like it was supposed to. It went horribly wrong. And nobody wants to admit how much at fault they are at.

The Housing situation could have been taken care of by more careful methods, with more careful laws and regulations on how lenders dealt with potential homeowners. Instead, we tried things your way. And we got burned.

The time has come to leave behind the ideas that didn’t work. Yours are among them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2009 6:43 PM
Comment #278960

“But laying that all aside, you are willing to throw out the Constituton and give BHO complete power simply in retaliation to the things you didn’t like about Bush?”

I don’t think anyone is advocating for a unitary executive type administration any longer oldguy. I don’t want it , never did and I believe most in the center and on the left were against it during the Bush administration. I really don’t remember those on the right throwing much of a fit about it then. I wonder why now those on the right have a change of heart on the matter?
My point on the South Carolina State Rep Michael Pitts is why now? He has been in office since ‘02 and now he is saying states should decide for themselves on stem cell research? This come to Jesus moment reeks of self serving partisan politics to me and I question Pitts real intentions. Were he a strong advocate of states rights, as he claims one has to wonder where has he been when his party was leading a charge for a marriage amendment to the US Constitution?
A revolution led by the likes of Pitts just doesn’t appeal to me oldguy. Even if I may agree to a certain degree with states rights a scenario like California is facing with medical marijuana amplified in 50 states and numerous issues doesn’t appeal to me. I would prefer to see the repubs come up with ideas that are relevant to the problems facing the American people today and addressing them in the US Congress, for the most part, in lieu of trying to convince me the Obama administration is trying to….. what ever the charge is today. This “states rights” crisis is simply a bunch of angry conservatives trying to usurp power from a duly elected Congress and President. It just doesn’t fly with me. Were it coming from the center politically it might have merit coming from the far right it is just sour grapes and a power grab. I would caution those already on the bandwagon and those thinking about it to consider how you feel about the unitary executive concept created by GWB. It was ok then but if you are choking on it now remember how the tide turns.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 27, 2009 7:04 PM
Comment #278996

Since this post deals with power, corruption, and socialism I want to include this link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html

The story was broke by Fox News, has anyone heard any of this on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, or CBS? I don’t think so.

Global Warming is a scam, BHO’s “Cap and Trade” is a fraud, which is in bed with the UN’s plans to re-distribute wealth from America to all nations.

This is a scam of major proportion. We are in trouble, big time.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 12:48 AM
Comment #278999

Oldguy,
Why you can believe that Global Warming is a scam, you should look at the business opportunies that can be had through a Cap and Trade System. For why you may want us to believe that the U.N. plans on redistributing wealth from America. I do believe that they are betting on it because some Americans still do not realize that America can become Energy Independent.

Yet, you blame President Obama for wanting to break the cycle of using Foreign Oil and want your grandchildren to keep buying gas?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 28, 2009 3:51 AM
Comment #279015

Old Guy, “I will clean up the planet,” McCain said. “I will make global warming a priority
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/mccain_vows_to.html

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 28, 2009 10:54 AM
Comment #279018

oldguy-
I suppose they have help from the space aliens and the Illuminati to help create climate shifts that mirror the expected results under Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.

Or maybe you’re just alleging that scientists are engaging in an organized fraud that’s never been leaked or had the whistle blown on it. No incriminating documents, no evidence of pervasive pressure. Just a bunch of people complaining that they’re not getting equal time for your ideas, while making broad categorical statements about how climate change science should be carried out.

Often enough, they pose alternatives with either poor scientific support, or which have already been ruled out by scientific methods. Take extra irradiation from the sun. They already looked at the possibilities, but found that instead of the expected warming at the upper stages of the atmosphere, they found cooling, which is generally considered to be a result of the way CO2 adjusts the curve on radiation and reabsorption of heat in the atmosphere. They also saw that in places where warming should be proportionate to the rise and fall of radiation, like in the Arctic or during night, the warming instead exceeded what it should be.

Some suggest that it could be cosmic rays increasing and decreasing cloud formation. But nobody’s even offering a decent model as to how that would work, much less done the science to show that this is working.

Climate scientists, nearly all of which have done the work, have confirmed the theory, in many places and in many ways. But some take advantage of the non-final nature of science, and the scientific call to consider more than just one’s own theories as possiblities, in order to discredit and create doubt about the science, this so they can go about business as usual.

Many of these people don’t go through the usual channels of the scientific community, publishing in journals that deal in the humanities. They claim that politics is shutting them out, but neglect to mention that there’s a good reason studies and research are subject to such scrutiny and refereeing, a practical reason indeed. Even if the politics is against you, if you can prove a theory by scientific standards, the stonewalling can’t last forever. But that’s not what’s done.

Instead, doubt is most of what they sell, financed by companies that have a vested interest in having the results look good for them. The payments aren’t fictional, the plans are not fictional. This conspiracy has been proved more real than those claimed by the contrarians.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who see this all as some attempt to defraud a population into embracing socialism. Again, a claim for which there is little evidence, especially when we’re dealing with cap and trade, which is by it’s nature a market-based solution.

How quick, and how often do you want to jump to conclusions you can’t successfully defend to a disinterested population? You’re not in a decent position here to defend your arguments. Most of what this does is freeze your opposition in place so that industry friendly politicians have cover to push what the science, taken at face value, is a dangerous, short-sighted energy and environmental policy.

But what’s the consequence of this? Well, to put it plainly, fewer and fewer people trust your party’s record or claims. Changing over to more sustainable, more ecologically sound technology is not going to be easy or painless, and folks have been dragging their feet long enough.

Attributing all these results to a conspiracy demands the extraordinary proof of the scame, its organization, it’s players, it’s communications and so on and so forth. Otherwise, it’s just a deceptive card game that manipulates the political feelings of persons like yourself to advance their economic interests at your expense.

Oh, and if you talk about the recent cooler weather, recall that you folks like to believe that this is natural variability, and the science says that natural and artificial variability are fully compatible. You can have a cooling trend in the weather (which is short term atmospheric conditions, even as there’s a warming trend in the long term climate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2009 11:18 AM
Comment #279021

I think even McCain came to the conclusion With his middle ground listen Folks speech, Even if we’re wrong it’s the right thing to do IE. getting off Oil .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 28, 2009 12:28 PM
Comment #279033

Henry,

For why the Officer may have had the Authority to stop a person running a red light in a hospital zone. If the mans’ mother-in-law would have been in the car than wouldn’t we be talking about something that everybody knows to be wrong?
You seem to miss the point. What the police officer did was an act without mercy. It didn’t escape my notice that a white officer held a black man (whose identity he didn’t know) until he was sure the black man’s mother-in-law was dead. This he did in spite of the pleas not only of staff nurses from the hospital, but of other law enforcement officers!

Someone above asked how often things like this may happen when the victims of governmental abuse are not celebrities. Is it possible Officer Powell made other black men’s lives “a hell” when they were conveniently anonymous? Is it not also possible that other functionary agents of governmental power do the same?

For everyone,

What I’m saying is that this is exactly the problem with empowering the government to be the arbiter of its own access to power. Those who exercize that power, the functionaries like Officer Powell, perceive themselves as being authorized to lower the barriers of their personal moral boundaries by the power structure for which they are merely a conduit. They are individually depersonalized by the social structure of the organization and are thus desensitized to their individual interpersonal constraints.

I’m going to extrapolate on my anecdotal obserations from a lifetime of experience that the “depersonalization of the human interface” happens in all large organizations. This is why I, as a conservative, don’t take the conservative line that the for-profit corporations are necessarily superior to government corporations. Where for-profit corporations are better constrained is that they receive their necessary sustaining resources at the points where they deliver their product, their customer interface. They can die of failing to interface sensitively.

This is not true of governments. This is how the Milgram experiments should serve as a warning. Modern liberalism ASSUMES human beings in command of, and serving as interfaces for, governmental systems will be constrained by social mores. Modern liberalism designs the assignment of power to government around this assumption.

Milgram’s experiments prove this assumption is false, and with it the cental tenet of modern liberalism.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 28, 2009 2:10 PM
Comment #279036

It’s kind hard to carry on a conversation when I can’t post. And there is nothing in my post that is worthy of blocking.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 2:13 PM
Comment #279038

j2t2,

Were he a strong advocate of states rights, as he claims one has to wonder where has he been when his party was leading a charge for a marriage amendment to the US Constitution?
The proposed constitutional amendment is not mutually exclusive of states rights, in as much as it places a restraint on the behavior of the government solidly in written law, which would, by definition, have to have been approved by two-thirds of the states.

This is unlike the course taken by the courts, which have whittled away at the clear intent of the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments with willful assertions of novel powers for the convenience of the governors in a contest with the governed.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 28, 2009 2:27 PM
Comment #279040

SD

“I suppose they have help from the space aliens and the Illuminati to help create climate shifts that mirror the expected results under Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.
Or maybe you’re just alleging that scientists are engaging in an organized fraud that’s never been leaked or had the whistle blown on it.”

Again, the same argument is used as the politicians pushing the global warming scam. First try to ridicule and make fun of anyone who has not fallen for the lie, hook, line and sinker. I am not a conspiracy nut, but I believe there is a concerted effort to shut up or make fun of anyone with a differing position. I have stated on this site many times before that global warming is the new religion and we must all bow at the altar of the priests (Al Gore) who promote it. There are differing opinions concerning climate change and the goal is to make them look like fruitcakes, as you do to me, or shut them up altogether.

This is a statement from one of the links I provided:

“Global Warming may go down as one of the greatest attempts to suppress the truth in known history, but even this colossal effort can’t outlast reality.”

Protectionism…

Weather Channel Founder: GW greatest scam in history

Comments about global warming

Everything else stated in this post is nothing more than opinion, based upon personal religious beliefs. What happened to separation of church and state? Those on the left are so fast to demand that our religious beliefs have no say in our political beliefs.
The new religion is Global Warming

And, from the Pittsburg Tribune -

Leiberman- Warner debate

And, from UFO Digest…

Rodney Brown

McCain’s beliefs have nothing to do with this because he lost. And his stand on Global Warming as well as other liberal thought is the reason he lost. He was not a conservative and he does not hold to conservative thought. He has gone the way of Senator Dole, who also thought it, was his “turn” to run for president. When are conservatives going to stand on their beliefs, instead of sitting around the campfire and singing Kumbaya with liberals?

The old saying, “follow the money” applies here: who stands to gain from terrorizing people into believing this lie? Could it be politicians who want, again, to find a reason to raise taxes? Just like the bailouts, this is a critical thing that must be moved upon with great speed. Why, so that it can be passed by politicians, without ever studying the legitimacy or the effects of passed laws. I have no confidence in the UN whatsoever and for the UN to be pushing Cap and Trade on a global level throws up red flags all over the place. When has the UN ever done anything in the best interest of people, and especially for America?

I believe God gave us the natural resources we have for a purpose, and I don’t think that purpose was to destroy what he created.

The real problem is that every law the government passes, every standard placed upon industry, every move to suppress our own ability to produce energy, and every tax imposed is based upon the theory of global warming, with no debate on the subject, it is to be accepted as fact. This will destroy our nation.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 2:33 PM
Comment #279051

“This is how the Milgram experiments should serve as a warning. Modern liberalism ASSUMES human beings in command of, and serving as interfaces for, governmental systems will be constrained by social mores. Modern liberalism designs the assignment of power to government around this assumption.”

Lee I assume you somehow are trying to convince us that modern conservatism is somehow better and therefore superior in this respect that modern liberalism. Do you also assume that smaller government as not practiced by those who have reached power in the name of conservatism would correct this problem, as if the void of power would not be filled by the very same 65% of people/corporate entities that would do what they are told to do without question? The most notable tenant of modern conservatism is the pack mentality demonstrated by the many conservatives that stood by and watched the previous administration do wrong without objection and yet find themselves today in a tizzy over supposed outrages of the new administration.

One more point Lee, are we to assume the 65% of people that would pull the trigger when ordered to do so are all in government? Perhaps it is the 35% of people with the wherewithal to not pull the trigger that find themselves in government positions and the 65% are corporate employees willing to do the bidding of the boss man without question, and/or law enforcement types militarized by training to not ask questions.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 28, 2009 4:55 PM
Comment #279056

Just a general FYI- Oldguy was having trouble posting earlier because there is a flag in the system for comments with five links or more.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 28, 2009 5:33 PM
Comment #279058

j2t2,

I am in a career that has been materially affected by people’s responses to my political writing. I have also had to apply for grants mediated by people who worked for government. In both private and public life I’ve met people with the courage to stand up for what they believe, and in both arenas I’ve met people with no more courage than kittens.

I’m sorry, that’s and insult to kittens.

All I’m saying is- 1. -that the mechanisms at work in human responses to the social dynamics of large organizations are weighted in the favor of those who wish to use that power badly. On top of that- 2.-the resource-gathering mechanisms of governments do nothing to counter that dynamic.

This is not so much a screed against liberalism as an explanation of why I personally am a conservative. I honestly, genuinely, think liberalism today is failing to understand how dangerous regular people like you and me are.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 28, 2009 5:48 PM
Comment #279059

I will try to send this again amnd I may have to seperate the thoughts:

SD

“I suppose they have help from the space aliens and the Illuminati to help create climate shifts that mirror the expected results under Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.
Or maybe you’re just alleging that scientists are engaging in an organized fraud that’s never been leaked or had the whistle blown on it.”

Again, the same argument is used as the politicians pushing the global warming scam. First try to ridicule and make fun of anyone who has not fallen for the lie, hook, line and sinker. I am not a conspiracy nut, but I believe there is a concerted effort to shut up or make fun of anyone with a differing position. I have stated on this site many times before that global warming is the new religion and we must all bow at the altar of the priests (Al Gore) who promote it. There are differing opinions concerning climate change and the goal is to make them look like fruitcakes, as you do to me, or shut them up altogether.

This is a statement from one of the links I provided:

“Global Warming may go down as one of the greatest attempts to suppress the truth in known history, but even this colossal effort can’t outlast reality.”

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58586

http://www.theclimatescam.com/2008/04/01/comments-about-global-warming/

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 6:14 PM
Comment #279060

Second part to SD:

Everything else stated in this post is nothing more than mumbo-jumbo, based upon personal religious beliefs. What happened to separation of church and state? Those on the left are so fast to demand that our religious beliefs have no say in our political beliefs.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4139

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_286440.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/05/lieberman-warner-debate-senator-rohrabacher-do-you-really-think-the-world-is-filled-with-morons/

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0307/globalwarming.html

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 6:15 PM
Comment #279061

Rodney Brown

McCain’s beliefs have nothing to do with this because he lost. And his stand on Global Warming as well as other liberal thought is the reason he lost. He was not a conservative and he does not hold to conservative thought. He has gone the way of Senator Dole, who also thought it, was his “turn” to run for president. When are conservatives going to stand on their beliefs, instead of sitting around the campfire and singing Kumbaya with liberals?

The old saying, “follow the money” applies here: who stands to gain from terrorizing people into believing this lie? Could it be politicians who want, again, to find a reason to raise taxes? Just like the bailouts, this is a critical thing that must be moved upon with great speed. Why, so that it can be passed by politicians, without ever studying the legitimacy or the effects of passed laws. I have no confidence in the UN whatsoever and for the UN to be pushing Cap and Trade on a global level throws up red flags all over the place. When has the UN ever done anything in the best interest of people, and especially for America?

I believe God gave us the natural resources we have for a purpose, and I don’t think that purpose was to destroy what he created.

The real problem is that every law the government passes, every standard placed upon industry, every move to suppress our own ability to produce energy, and every tax imposed is based upon the theory of global warming, with no debate on the subject, it is to be accepted as fact. This will destroy our nation.


Thank you lee for your help.

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 6:17 PM
Comment #279070

Stephen,

I don’t know why you, as an independent Libertarian should be acting like it was all the Democratic Party’s fault.

I have suggested no such thing, perhaps reading what I write instead of suspected what I write is a good idea for future criticism?

The time has come to leave behind the ideas that didn’t work. Yours are among them.

When we try my ideas, and they fail, I’ll let you know. Until then, perhaps dismissing them out of hand is a bad idea, especially since you have no problem backing ideas that we have tried in the past and have failed before.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 28, 2009 7:55 PM
Comment #279084

I appreciate lee helping me post my thoughts. I did’nt realize he was able to post them so I reposted in three sections. Just in case anyone wonders what the heck is going on. One of the problems with being old is, we’re not too technical:)

Posted by: Oldguy at March 28, 2009 10:23 PM
Comment #279089

Ok Oldguy fair enough give me an example of a Conservative, Burke , kirk , Hamilton , Buckley, Eisenhower, Reagan, Goldwater, Nixon.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 29, 2009 1:09 AM
Comment #279093

Lee writes: “What happens when human beings get power over your life? They use it. Because they have it they consider you weak and manipulable- less than real.”

This is where you and I hold diametrically opposed views of elections and government, Lee.

I see elections and government this way to borrow some of your words: ‘What happens when human beings give power to leaders over their lives? Those people given power use it. Whether they use it beneficially for the people that elected them or not, depends upon a host of factors, not the least of which is their fear of the people revoking their power in the next election. Hence, it behooves voters to inform themselves independently of the words of their representatives with power over them, whether their actions have, in fact, benefited the voter or not.’

It appears clear to me, that enough independent voters exercised this criterion in 2006 and 2008 to have altered which party was chosen to lead them. With independents controlling election results along party lines, I suspect we will see a more rapid changing of parties going forward, since, structurally, our government is not optimized for either party being able to effect the kinds of broad sweeping changes needed to appease the sensibilities of a majority of independent voters seeking vastly improved government results in the way of corruption, bribery by wealthy special interests, and a beneficial multiplier effect on quality of life for their tax dollars.

Allow me to show you what happens to people when they are thrown out of power: The NRCC Chair, Pete Sessions, writes the following absurdly fallacious and laughable b.s. to NRCC nincompoops who will buy it without question:

Dear Fellow Conservative,

House Republicans have pledged to stop to the “Pelosi Recession” caused by a bloated Democratic budget that spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much. “

WOW! First, this recession, as intelligent, informed folks know, has its beginnings back at the end of the Clinton Administration with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a Republican sponsored bill, which 92 Senators, Democrat and Republican, voted for, and which Pres. Clinton signed. The years of non-enforcement of existing oversight regulations and failure to pass new ones for credit default swaps, hedge funds, and doing away with the uptick rule, since then, were also heavy contributors to this recession.

To label this recession as Pelosi’s Recession is just laughable, though certainly hers may have been one of many other votes in Congress which contributed to this outcome.

Second, it is the dumbest thing I have ever heard for Session to say that this proposed Pelosi bloated budget, not even passed yet, is responsible for this recession. Does Sessions have any sense at all of the logical inconsistency and contradiction contained in this statement? Apparently not.

What is truly funny is that recipients of his letter (available for read at GOPUSA) will never question the illogical inconsistencies within this absurdly constructed and blatantly false sentence. Thank Buddha, it is a small minority who will accept Session’s view without questioning and condemning it failures and falsehoods. Getting thrown out of power apparently makes some people abandon reality and sanity, altogether, such that their utterances make no logical sense whatsoever to an objective mind.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 29, 2009 2:59 AM
Comment #279102

Lee,
What the cop did was to follow the Letter of the Law which his is job. And why I wish someone would have explain to him what “To Sevre and Protect” means I do believe that we still teach every American that it is wrong to run a Red Light.

So was the Law officer wrong to want to give the man a ticket? IMO no! However, that being said it is the Duty and Responsibility of Every Law Enforcement Person to exercise “Great Care” (whatever that means) when proforming their job. As well as the Duty and Responsiblity of Every American Citizen to use Common Knowledge and Common Sense when applying the Law toward their Daily Life. Now who is at fualt?

Could have the Man called 911 and reported to them that they were headed to the hospital due to a call from them that his mother-in-law was about to die?

Could have the man approached the Red Light and treated as a Four Way Stop to proceed with caution through the intersection?

However, must important to what I have seen on tv so far is that the Man did nothing to claim the fear of the Officer so that reasonable conversation could take place.

And why I can only speak for myself. If I was caught in that problem I would of handed the Officier My Drivers Lisence and walked into the hopital while calling 911 and his supervisor. For claerly Mr. Powell pushed the limits of Conduct unbecoming an Oficier whem he stated that he would tow the car and have the man thrown in jail.

BTW, under my first statement Mr. Powell would be facing murder charges (I think).

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 29, 2009 8:00 AM
Comment #279105

Henry,

Don’t forget that during this exchange a separate police officer who was in the hospital at the time told the arresting officer to let the man go see to him mother-in-law. It was a simple moving violation.

In fact, this is my real problem with these types of laws in the first place. It reminds me all too much of the old question ‘If you approach a red light at 3:00am in the morning and there is no one around, do you sit for it to change?’ In a free society, there would be no question that we would be free to go, using our own judgment. However, since we don’t live in said free society, we have to hesitate, afraid that a hiding policeman, looking to help make his paycheck, would nab us the minute we go through.

We are systematically teaching common sense OUT of the society. No need to think or use judgment, our government has already done that for us. Bravo!

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 29, 2009 8:39 AM
Comment #279107

Rhinehold,
That is not the Governments fualt. However, it is the fualt of Individuals who before did not understand the meaning of flashing yellow and red lights and the Lawyers who took advanrage of the problem IMHO.

For how many law suits where filed before Americas’ Community Elders were forced to keep every traffic light in town on 24/7/365. Granted even today there does exist certain intersections that require the flow of traffic be regulated; nevertheless, the government has worked with the Private Sector trying to get a Smart Traffic Light that can understand and regulate the flow of traffic. Yet where is such an Invention?

See, blaming the cop for knowing better is IMHO just as bad as blaming America first. For if “We the People” truely want Freedom than it is up to us to learn how to use the Law to avoid mishaps and misunderstanding. Because I am still loking for the Law Officer who is going to pull me over to tell me that I am doing a good job driving down the road. But wait, that did happen. Only that is another story.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 29, 2009 9:09 AM
Comment #279111

Henry said,”the government has worked with the Private Sector trying to get a Smart Traffic Light that can understand and regulate the flow of traffic. Yet where is such an Invention?” None to my knowledge, They do install a device in most cities that works like a remote that allows Law enforcement and emergency traffic to push a button in their vechiles to reset the lights so they can keep moving, And i believe those black strips you see at the intersection is a switch that Mr& Ms Doe drives on at a red light so he or she doesn’t have to sit in their cars forever at night while main st is Green.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 29, 2009 10:37 AM
Comment #279120

Lee, I am not aware that Dr. Milgram queried his teachers as to political persuasion. Thinking in sterotypes I can only assume the liberals would be in the 35% much more than those of a conservative bent. Many more repubs/conservatives favored torture as a means of extracting information from those of middle eastern descent. In fact one one the main differences between liberals and conservatives, IMHO, is the liberal ability to see things in gray as well as black and white. Perhaps you consider that a weakness that would allow liberals to abound in the 65% group but I would disagree. Which of course leads me to believe it is a mistaken opinion of the liberal mind that has swayed your political judgment to the dark side;)

Posted by: j2t2 at March 29, 2009 1:47 PM
Comment #279124

j2t2,

Actually this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. By and large the leaders of both ends of the political spectrum are probably people who are capable of not following the crowd. What it has to do with is the people sloshing within the system. What systems are more likely to bring out the worst in the 65% who can’t separate themselves from the course authority sets them on?

ALL large corporate systems, all of them, liberal or conservative, promote the kind of behavior Milgram revealed. The way to reduce the dangers inherent in the surrender of humanity to large organizations is to minimize the exposure of the populus to large organizations.

The trouble is that most conservative pundits these days favor large private corporations, and virtually all liberals are sold on the benefits of large public corporations.

All of those folks are dangerously wrong.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 29, 2009 2:13 PM
Comment #279125

Lee I think the real power in this country is held by those with money. The wealthy exert power and influence in many ways and for the sole purpose of benefiting themselves. The power to shock a learner is a limited power and not in the same league as the power wielded by the wealthy. Those that influence the teacher have more power then those that are the teacher. It seems a conservative ruse to me to view the SCOTUS as a seat of power that has been usurped by those seeking to ruin the country as any decision they may come to can be overcome by the proper writing of a law in the Congress.
Power is held by those that do not choose to rewrite a bad law or a law overturned in court that the public favors. Until the shift to conservatism in the ‘80’s the people had power to overturn any unwise court decision through the Congress. The wealthy and their conservative supporters have weakened this power over the years. It is hard for me to see the conservative viewpoint on this issue as anything more than sour grapes as it seems to be a self inflicted wound.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 29, 2009 2:17 PM
Comment #279144

j2t2,

It is naive in the extreme to think the wealthy can have the influence you believe in without the outright conspiracy of the political class. Choose the left and you are not eliminating the influence of the rich. Seven of the ten richest senators are Democrats. Instead you are choosing a different coalition of the rich, lawyers and financiers, rather than industrial executives and small business owners.

Even with Democrats the rich will have far, far more influence than even their academic supporters.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 29, 2009 6:22 PM
Comment #279145

Lee Jamison-
The temptations of power are universal, as are the tendencies in people to blindly follow authority. We are social creatures with an instinct for deference.

We’re also intelligent creatures that can reconsider such instincts, who can plan out ways to check and balance our impulses.

Rather than perpetually suggest that we cannot possibly resist the draws of power and authority, we need to institutionalize, within ourselves and others, the kind of reason and instincts that allow us to reconsider and resist such draws. It may sometimes mean we don’t get to do everything we want to, but those are the breaks.

Oldguy-

Again, the same argument is used as the politicians pushing the global warming scam. First try to ridicule and make fun of anyone who has not fallen for the lie, hook, line and sinker. I am not a conspiracy nut, but I believe there is a concerted effort to shut up or make fun of anyone with a differing position.

Maybe my response was a bit sarcastic, but it amounts to this: it’s easy to say there’s an organized effort to sell the lie. Where’s the proof?

I used to believe in UFO’s and Alien Autopsies. But what began to bother me more and more as time went on is that nothing conclusive ever came from one direction or another as theories became more eleborate. There was always somebody to bag up the evidence, always somebody who kept secrets faithfully, without fail, never any break in the perfection of the conspiracy.

But in reality most conspiracies contain enough idiots to where nothing ever stays hidden, like people would like. Human nature is that most foolproof plans just haven’t met the right fools yet.

One day, somebody in Global Warming Scam Inc. would lose a laptop, or would smuggle out incriminating files in a thumb drive or under their sweater. Somebody would reach a moral breaking point and speak out.

Frauds and lies are complex things to maintain. Sooner or later, most deceptions reach the end of their half-life, and decay. This one supposedly has been around for two or three decades.

Somebody has to talk. Somebody has to reveal the ugly truth. Somebody has to wear a wire during the meeting in the smoke filled room.

And when that happens, somebody can follow up on the information. Once that starts happening, the cracks spread and create new cracks. Sooner or later, secrets come out.

So pardon me if I don’t buy this notion of a Global Warming Scam. I just don’t see the evidence to make it seem like something else than a misanthropic way of avoiding facing the scientific consensus, and the necessity of what it implies needs to be done.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2009 6:24 PM
Comment #279152

Stephen,

We’re also intelligent creatures that can reconsider such instincts, who can plan out ways to check and balance our impulses.
Rather than perpetually suggest that we cannot possibly resist the draws of power and authority, we need to institutionalize, within ourselves and others, the kind of reason and instincts that allow us to reconsider and resist such draws.
“We” demonstrably are not what you claim we are. You are living in a fantasy, and a dangerous fantasy at that. I have explained a MECHANISM by which the powerful use people to increase their power. It explains how THE MOST CIVILIZED NATION ON EARTH methodically murdered six million people, all the while denying to itself that any such thing had happened.

None the less you blithely say we, or the government, or some other agency of miraculous intent that otherwise you would fail to acknoweledge belief in, will guide us to fly in the face of their access to unlimited power two-thirds of the people will nominally follow like drunken sailors.

Hogwash!

The first step to such “intelligence” is the capacity you flail madly to avoid of recognizing a mechanism that works against your goals. I recognize, for example, the mechanism of carbon dioxides trapping of infared heat in the atmosphere while at the same time understanding the social pressures of “consensus” have no place in science. Hence I can believe we must be concerned about increased levels of CO2 and the possiblity mankind is materially altering the climate.

Your denial of the obvious and repeatedly demonstrated mechanism the Milgram experiments show falls in line with priestly foolishness of assuring people their faith will save their children from cancer, even without treatment. You do a Goebbels or an Alexander Garasimov proud.

Giving the government the capacity to increase its power without an arduous and difficult applications for the people’s permission is the folly of the mindless hoard. Given the chance to stand against the hoard, the two-third of the population Milgram revealed, you have promulgated the dogma of the exploiters of their weakness.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 29, 2009 7:43 PM
Comment #279167

“Actually this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.”

My thoughts exactly Lee perhaps that is why I was confused when you kept implying the superiority of conservatives in this thread.

“ALL large corporate systems, all of them, liberal or conservative, promote the kind of behavior Milgram revealed. The way to reduce the dangers inherent in the surrender of humanity to large organizations is to minimize the exposure of the populus to large organizations.”

I would even go so far as to say large corporate systems are neither liberal nor conservative Lee instead they are apolitical opportunist. I concur wholeheartedly on limiting the size of corporations as the answer to many problems that ail this country Lee. With smaller corporations even government could be made smaller. Competition would return to the marketplace and better decisions could be made by the market and the government.

“It is naive in the extreme to think the wealthy can have the influence you believe in without the outright conspiracy of the political class.”

Of course Lee, the Congress is bought and paid for by the wealthy. Laws are made to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the people of this Country and the Country itself. This has been turned into an art form by the conservatives this past 30 years, Lee. Why do you think the conservatives have held such sway, certainly not because they have made good law.

“Instead you are choosing a different coalition of the rich, lawyers and financiers, rather than industrial executives and small business owners.”

I would also think that by choosing dems/liberals you are choosing a much wider selection of more than just the rich Lee. The repubs/conservatives have a much narrower selection to choose from and it seems to me they use the small business owners as pawns to allow the big and rich to hide behind while excluding them from the table at every opportunity. Just my opinion Lee.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 29, 2009 10:58 PM
Comment #279171

SD

It’s not a conspiracy in the sense of an organized plot. It is a willingness by politicians, hollywood, and MSM to accept global warming theories as truth without considering all evidence. The reason is control(power)and money. Can’t you see that all decisions are based upon global warming? What if there is no manmade crisis? Aren’t we surrendering our rights on an unproven theory?

Posted by: Oldguy at March 29, 2009 11:33 PM
Comment #279178

Oldguy,
Why we can debate that Global Warming is an organized plot or a conspiracy until the cows come home. I do not believe any Man or Woman wants to debate the fact that to date about half of the Worlds Trees no longer exist. So why you may not want to believe CO2 is a problem, do you want to tell me that you are breathing better air than our ancestors did just a few hundred years ago?

Yes, the manner in which some are using the problem of losing oxygen in our atmosphere should be punished; however, saying that we need more oxygen in the atmosphere as the population of Man grows would probably be a little radical don’t you think?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 30, 2009 1:40 AM
Comment #279179

Rodney,
Can you come up with a better word that can discribe what the military uses on the battlefield? Now, having a City that wired would be Cool to quote My Generation IMHO.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 30, 2009 1:45 AM
Comment #279181
about half of the Worlds Trees no longer exist

You are going to have to provide something to back that up, Henry. Because I don’t believe it.

In addition, less trees (the right ones) might be the right idea:

Forests, after all, cool the atmosphere by drinking in carbon dioxide from the air. A new study, however, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that forests’ other climatic effects can cancel out their carbon cleaning advantage in some parts of the world. Using a three-dimensional climate model, the research team mimicked full global deforestation and also studied the effects of clear-cutting in different regions of latitude, such as the tropics and boreal zones. Apparently, these natural carbon sinks only do their job effectively in tropical regions; in other areas, they have either no impact or actually contribute to warming the planet. In fact, according to this model, by the year 2100, if all the forests were cut and left to rot, the annual global mean temperature would decrease by more than 0.5 degree Fahrenheit.

“I’m not sure the slight amount of cooling is necessarily significant, but that removing all the forest produced little change” on temperature is, says study co-author Ken Caldeira, an ecologist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, Calif. “I think what’s interesting is this global cancellation was a product of very different responses at different latitudes.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 30, 2009 2:22 AM
Comment #279190

Rhinehold,
About the number of forests that has been lost over the last two hondred and some years in America and the World. Look at a map of that era and today and see the difference.

However, you missed the point I was making. Sure you can cut down all the tress, but than what do we do for oxugen? You know that stuff we need to breath as Carbon Units. Explain to me how “We the Corporation” are going to start allowing citizens to buy “Bottled Air” as they do “Bottled Water?” For if you have no trees where will Nature make the oxygen that we get for free today?

Can you say a $1.00 for every breath you take?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 30, 2009 4:16 AM
Comment #279218

””“Rodney,
Can you come up with a better word that can discribe what the military uses on the battlefield? Now, having a City that wired would be Cool to quote My Generation IMHO”” Henry I like you but i’m not sure what lingo you use sometimes beatnik or Henry VII.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 30, 2009 11:37 AM
Comment #279244

Rhinehold, watch the science based series program “The Planet”. That is where I first learned that 1/2 of the planets trees have been lost with human civilization, and most of those in just the last two centuries. There are other sources, but, since you say you refuse to believe the fact, why should anyone expect you to believe the sources? We understand how that cognitive dissonance works. Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarian party leaders have it down to an art form.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 30, 2009 4:40 PM
Comment #279246

Lee Jamison-
I am not taking advice on checks and balances from Republicans. You folks pushed for the sacrifice of more and more civil liberties, and berated those who didn’t buy into your talk of necessity as weak.

Step back. Consider this. Understand how it seems to somebody like me, to be told by people who advocated torture- that is, what that experiment simulates- that limited government should be the logical conclusion of this experiment.

I would say its not that simple, because the torture that a torturer inflicts is not the same as regulations, or other sources of government power, and what really seems to be the agenda here is the rolling back of much of the progressive agenda reforms concerning workplace safety, pollution, and other hazards of unrestrained corporate capitalism.

What I’ve spoken of earlier is what you might call the theory of generalized rule of law, which is to say that we trust nobody with absolute power. Not the individual, not the majority, not the corporation, not the government, not the special interest group nor the average person.

Nobody. Everybody has to answer to somebody else. Everybody’s got rights, got obligations, and some degree of freedom to figure out how to use the first and fulfill the second. Only with this relative level of freedom can we get close to the sun of absolute freedom without melting the wax of our nation’s wings. The greatest possible freedom is reach by the optimal mix of responsibility and personal initiative.

And its not something for people to sit on the sidelines for. It doesn’t work that way. But folks have to realize that their freedom, in part, depends on the freedom of others. How many Republicans now have second thoughts about the boundaries their people pushed? How many breathe a sigh of relief when the Obama administration closes a door to a particular policy?

You accuse me of not understanding the Milgram Experiments. Oh, I understand them very well, thank you. People’s biases and their trust in authorities can lead them astray. Nobody’s immune. That’s why I don’t want the Obama administration to have the powers that I didn’t trust the Bush Administration with. I hope they completely repudiate that crap.

There’s a reason that people like me were shocked and dismayed at the Bush Administration’s behavior: it never occurred to us, that within our lifetimes we would see the practices we denounced from the Nazis, the North Vietnamese, the Soviets, and dozens of other global bad actors practiced by our own country, complete with a chorus of apologetics. These were practices reverse engineered from a program that was in turn reverse engineered from the practices and crimes of our enemies. That’s the bitter irony of this.

And its the bitter irony of a person of your political persuation bringing up these experiments. In a very real sense, the Republicans willingly turned the voltage up, willingly looked the other way, willingly talked themselves out of moral outrage. Let those who will teach a lesson learn it and understand it themselves first.

I always tell you guys to read the fine print when it comes to sources:

Clear-cutting mountains to slow climate change is, of course, nuts. The broadest goal is neither to slow the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere nor to slow climate change, but rather to preserve the irreplaceable natural balance that sustains life as we know it on this planet. We want to avoid climate change so that we might pass these diverse natural riches on to future generations. In this light, preserving and restoring forests is a valuable activity, regardless of its impact on climate — we need more trees, not fewer.

There are record of deep, primeval forests existing in Europe, in Great Britain, and in America. This is documented fact.

The guy is arguing that it’s the placement of the reforestation that matters most. But he also argues for the kind of social engineering you probably would argue against.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2009 5:47 PM
Comment #279256

Stephen,

I am not taking advice on checks and balances from Republicans. You folks pushed for the sacrifice of more and more civil liberties, and berated those who didn’t buy into your talk of necessity as weak.
And that comment right after Remer talks about cognitive dissonance…

Don’t take the advice from Republicans or Democrats either one. Take it from republicans (little “r”). You keep attempting to negate logic by association, as though two and two may equal four, but it doesn’t matter if a Republican says it.

I’m saying it is worse than foolish to abandon the protections laid out in the writings of the Founding Fathers, protections they felt the need of with every fiber of their being because they and all their near ancestry had lived close at hand with tyrrany. I’m not saying that because I’m a Republican, but because I’m a student of history and human nature.

Two thirds of the American people did not support the Revolution that made us a free nation, but they were happy to be free once they had been made so. That is the way people are. That is what the research noted above shows.

What I see from liberals is a people willing to fight tooth and nail as long as they fight people they hate. But let Obama relabel the same damn “abuses” and continue them and liberals become sheep. You don’t really believe anything, based on what I see, unless it is a convenient foil for a fight.

The same is true on checks and balances. You rail against the imperial presidency until it’s yours. You believe the courts should have the power to decide what powers the courts and the Congress should have. That is intellectual suicide.

Your resistance to governmental abuse of power is utterly expedient.

Apply whatever associational logic filter you can stomach hearing fall from your own lips. All you must do is err in small numbers of those whom you then utterly trust and the future will curse your name if they find cause to remember you at all.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 30, 2009 7:49 PM
Comment #279282

Rodney,
Why I do believe that you will agree with me that it would be easy to make Any Town Any Where wireless. Getting into a debate about what technology may or may not exist in America to put everything in motion and track it for me would be useless. Nevertheless, making and living in a Wired City would make getting traffic lights to work better don’t you think?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 31, 2009 3:13 AM
Comment #279302

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer You can get from Point A to point B Henry but we still need the infrastructure to distrubitute the billions of connections , Electric needs a load unlike a AM or FM Signal. Microwaves and Lasers can transfer the power to but i’m not sure if it’s safe and praticle to do it for the billions of connections at least today in the future I’d say yes.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at March 31, 2009 11:11 AM
Comment #279304
Take it from republicans (little “r”).

LOL

Back to Republicans are not Republicans. Love these semantic games. If you vote Republican and/or are registered Republican, you are Republican and need to own it.

It gets old. And where were you in the last administration?

Posted by: womanmarine at March 31, 2009 11:21 AM
Comment #279320

womanmarine,

I was here, fighting for what I believe no matter who I had to fight.

Prove to me that you have the guts to stand against the people on your side of the aisle, marine.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 31, 2009 2:15 PM
Comment #279330

Lee:

I do and have. I don’t have to prove it to you or anyone. I don’t try to call myself anything different than the Democrat I am. No semantic or spelling games.

Nice post, you came right to the point!!

Posted by: womanmarine at March 31, 2009 5:21 PM
Comment #279345

Lee,
Many of Men throughout History have fought for what they believed in only to be proved wrong. However, Warriors do not seek to prove their Political Leaders right or wrong, but it is the Unbridled Truth that they seek. So a word of advice; before you go tell a Marine or any othe Member of the Armed Services of America “do you have the guts?” you better be ready to hear the Truth even if that Warroir happens to be a Lady. For I do believe the expression is “No Guts, No Glory.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 31, 2009 8:52 PM
Comment #279367

Henry,

I respect womanmarine’s courage and her service. No one has more right to challenge me to prove I can stand up to those on my side than does she. Courage comes in many forms, though. All of us will, at some time, be called upon to look those with whom we would normally side in the eye and challenge them for violating indivisable moral foundations.

She challenged me on those grounds. I gave three examples of my bona fides (and would be happy to give more) and then returned the favor.

If, by the way, she , or anyone, wants to link specific comments proving her point it can be done by clicking on the red-highlighted comment number (comment #xxxxx) at the top of the individual comment, highlighting and copying the address that appears in the address bar, and then linking the address in a comment post as directed in the “HTML formatting tips” just above the “Comments” text window.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 1, 2009 10:21 AM
Comment #279371

Lee:

The only challenge I made to you was to essentially call a spade a spade. Republicans for all intents and purposes are conservatives and vice versa. To play games like small r or to separate conservatives from republicans and vice versa is to try to muddy the waters. Frankly, I don’t think those in the republican party have done enough of challenging their party to do better. It’s why we are where we are now, and why we call you out on your protests that come much too late.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 1, 2009 11:27 AM
Comment #279379

Lee Jamison-
I learned the majority of what I learned about my government from a Teacher who had diametrically opposed political views to my own. She was likely a Republican.

But when it comes to taking political advice from those who defend the betrayal of such policies for expedience’s sake, I’m not interested.

To put it plainly, if the courts declare some part of Obama’s law unconstitutional, even if it’s an important part, a crucial part, then Democrats and myself will just have to live with it, or otherwise propose and ratify changes to the constitution to accommodate our desire to continue laws of that kind. If it comes down to that, we’ll have our work cut out for us.

The Republicans rarely, as I recalled it, accepted the checks and balances laid on Bush or the Republican Congress. If anybody’s expedient, it’s your side. When the Supreme court agrees with you, you waste no time in holding it over others. When it disagrees with you, you waste no time in disparaging the legitimacy of the decisions and those who make them, darkly speaking of judicial activism.

When Bush makes signing statements into a means of refusing to carry out the law, your people support him. When he claims questionable powers through the Unitary Executive theory, you folks hardly question the legitimacy of that.

We don’t want to return to that. We don’t want Obama that powerful. We want Obama to close down Gitmo. We want Obama to shut down unconstitutional surveillance. We want him to de-politicize hiring, and let the USA’s have their freedom to prosecute and indict without political interference from the top. If some CIA agent’s husband disagrees with Obama’s policy, we want that CIA agent left the hell alone.

We do not think the rise of our party’s power is worth endemic corruption. There are many Democrats who don’t care for Murtha and would gladly see him gone. We weren’t sad to see William Jefferson go, or Traficant, or others.

We don’t think of government in your terms. Winning isn’t everything. We’re not going to apologize for every Tom, Dick, and Harriet who has an “D” by their names.

We pushed for Obama for the restoration of good government. In our terms, truthfully, but we do not see it as a victory to have to defend corruption, apologize for incompetence. We have more pride than that. We want to run Washington for the long term, not just those of duration but in practical terms, as well. We want people to be thankful we’re in charge. We’re not there trying to endure long enough to try and destroy our opponent’s political legacy. We want a majority born of people’s trust, not their ignorance, their sympathy, not merely their complacency or resignation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2009 12:53 PM
Comment #279413


“We do not think the rise of our party’s power is worth endemic corruption.”

Stephen, I’m not understanding what you mean by “endemic” corruption.

If I were going to choose an adjective to describe the corruption associated with the international banking community, Wall Street and our government, both political parties, I would choose systemic. Not all are corrupt but, enough of them are that it has caused grievous hardship for most of the rest of us, both here and throughout the world. And, wheither you want to admit it or not, Obama’s cabinet has several of them in it.

Posted by: jlw at April 1, 2009 8:52 PM
Comment #279414

Lee,
Thank you. For why I may have reconized the challenge you made to Womanmarine I am not sure that all would take it in the manner it was intended. However, I do standby my point that it is unwise to tell a Member of the Armed Services that they cannot do something.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 1, 2009 8:52 PM
Comment #279421

Henry, you’re making more sense all the time!!!

Posted by: jane doe at April 1, 2009 10:54 PM
Comment #279427

Jane Doe,
Thanks! But I am still not saying WHY!!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 2, 2009 1:47 AM
Comment #279449

womanmarine,
Everyone THINKS they operate from the rational center. Hence it is easy for me to look over the fence to my left and think I see Democrats and liberals in the same bunch, though many on the left would vehemently disagree.

The same thing is true with Republicans. Big-government Republicans are not conservatives because they are standing with Democrats in believing government is the solution to our problems. Conservatives do not, and will not concede that foolishness as wisdom. George Bush substantially advanced the concept not merely of globalism in economics, but globalism in government. Again, very, very bad idea. What is the use of having laws to protect the people if the intenational community can negate those laws?

GWB also made subtle moves toward eroding the sovereignty of the individual states. Again, bad for those who fight to use state law to protect the rights of citizens.

We conservatives were, and have been since 2006, mad as hell at the Republican Party. They lied to us to get their jobs through 2004, then did something else to lose our support since.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 2, 2009 1:40 PM
Comment #279456

Lee Jamison-
Everybody can operate from a rational bias, but sooner or later we have to resolve at least some of our disagreements.

If we keep everything in the realm of the subjective and abstract, then it becomes very easy for the disagreements to proliferate.

Meanwhile, we’ve got a real world to deal with, one which limits the selection of proposals and policies which actually work.

You can fight that, or let it moderate your ideas, so you’re not simply disagreeing with others out of a desire not to agree.

It’s also easier to win arguments, or at least keep confidence in them when you can support your position on actual solid grounds.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2009 3:20 PM
Comment #279471

Stephen,

When I’m defending what I know for a fact, from the pens of those who wrote it, was the founding principle of the Constitution underlying all the law in the land the one thing I simply can’t compromise is that all changes in that law must, without any exception whatsoever, pass through the amendment process.

Any other form of “change” grants people power to make up their own power. That is THE single most corrupting form of power.

I can compromise on any specific power or constitutional provision as long as it goes through that process.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 2, 2009 5:47 PM
Comment #279545

Lee,
Did America and Humanity require an Amendment in the 1970’s or 80’s to change the way Americans do business and live their lives?

For by your standards, should have Trickledown Economics been unconstitutional?

Because I don’t remember it getting a Constitutional Amendent, yet know that Americas’ Democratic and Republican Citizens have been living under those terms for the last 25+ years.

No, not everything needs to be a Constitutional Amendment or should have to be put into a Written Law of Man in order for Humans of Logic and Reason to agree that certain things are or are not in Their Inherent Best Interest.

However, for those specific powers granted to Government and the Societal Provisions that allow the Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders to govern I do believe that is one of the reasons behind the Founding Fathers of America gave “We the People” the Principles and Standards of the Constitution.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 4, 2009 5:57 AM
Comment #279651

Henry,

“Principles and Standards” mean nothing if they can mean things they don’t say.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 6, 2009 2:54 PM
Comment #279747

Lee,
Able to bring the Learned of Society an Argument beyond the Known Universe of Man, Princioples and Standards mean Everything even without a word being said.

In fact, go tell you wife that her body language doesn’t mean anything and see just how quick you lose that battle. For sometimes it is the words that are not said that ring the loudest.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 8, 2009 2:45 AM
Comment #279869

Henry,

You know quite well I’m speaking of the words on which people are supposed to agree on meaning. Body language is highly negotiable between individuals. That’s a good reason we don’t write it down for future reference.

If I say I am pleased to be your friend, the words are recorded, and a later generation reinterprets them to mean I intended to live with you and have your children, we would both be justified in looking down from the hereafter with considerable dismay. So it is with reworkings of the contract the people of the 1780s made with their government.

If the words of an agreement can be changed with impunity by those who benefit most from the change no agreement means anything. There is no law. Power is simply the property of the powerful. That makes US property, too.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 9, 2009 10:12 AM
Comment #280002

Lee,
Technology speaking, we are property. For just as Robert Powell was following orders so do most Amercans from Their Family, Their Work, and yes even Their Government. The others we call criminals or terrorists do we not?

And why I do not fault the Hierarchy of Society or Their Lawyers for keeping such things as the words is being is up in the air. I know of no contracts in history that are Absolute. In fact, I do believe that they are written in such a manner that the contract serves as a guidline to whatever issue is being talked about by the parties and not set in stone as some are or would be lead to believe.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 11, 2009 4:05 AM
Comment #280203

Lee,

I think you ought to blame the officer’s insensitivity on TV and the movies…

My Republican wife says we have so many problems of police insensitivity and brutality because we fail to pay enough to hire the best people for the job…I don’t think she realizes that paying higher police wages would entail higher taxes…oh, well…it ain’t easy being Republican.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 15, 2009 6:18 AM
Comment #280737

How about getting a few more black police officers? just a suggestion.

Posted by: Aaron Hughes at April 21, 2009 4:15 PM
Post a comment