Go Play In The Street

Stay In Your Own Congressional Lane

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:14:00 +0000

Wouldn't it be really awesome if everyone who isn't a Georgian got the hell out of Georgia and let the people of Georgia decide who should be the Senators from Georgia to represent the interests of Georgia and Georgians?

And while we're at it how about an amendment to the Constitution limiting campaign donations for federal offices, both monetary and in-kind, to only coming from those human individuals who are direct constituents of the candidates - meaning physical legal residents of the state a given candidate is running for? Trans-national conglomerates can keep their cash and advertising in the vaults. The George Soros and Koch Brothers contributers of the world would be more than welcome to blow all the money they want on candidates in their state of legal residence, but would need to keep their noses and their money out of other states. My Senators and My Representatives should not be determined by the capacity of Bloombergs, Waltons, Apples, and Microsofts to flood the airwaves and buy public opinion.

An amendment would short circuit your immediate whining about "free speech". Free Speech is anything but when wholly owned by billionaire individuals and corporations, so what you think such an amendment would be taking away from you has in fact already been lost.

"The Emperor's New Clothes": Fashion Statement or Reality Check?

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Thu, 03 Dec 2020 22:26:00 +0000

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

― Ronald Reagan

https://www.youtube.com/embed/iuSMV88J3W8

https://youtu.be/iuSMV88J3W8

If "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds", They Clearly Cannot Be Accused of Being Small Minded

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 23:31:00 +0000

Were it not for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all:

Left: Never accepted the results of 2016 election. Endlessly investigated Donald Trump based on false documents and impeached with frivolous and baseless charges.

Also Left: Donald Trump and all his supporters must graciously concede the 2020 election and permit us to move forward.

Left: Rioted for four years and both persecuted and prosecuted Donald Trump being in the White House, deeming him to be an illegitimate President installed solely through the nefarious machination of Russia.

Also Left: Those who supported President Trump need to accept the results of the 2020 election and come together in unity, because that is what we do as Americans!

Left: If you have nothing to hide, why should you ever worry about the government looking into your (fill in the blank)?

Also Left: It is outrageous that Donald Trump and his supporters should wish to investigate allegations of fraud or ask for recounts of ballots in the 2020 elections or otherwise question the declaration of the American Media.

Left: The Biden Transition must receive funding and office space immediately or else we will experience the total collapse of civilization! This delay is absolutely unprecedented in the history of presidential transitions!!

Also Left: (Sticks fingers in ears and completely ignores the fact that in 2000 the Bill Clinton Administration GSA did not release funds and office space to the Bush team until after December 13, 2000, on the grounds that the 2000 election remained in dispute.)

Fun Fact: Article 2 of the Constitution does not vest the power to anoint the winner of a presidential or any other federal elected position in CNN, FOX, the AP or indeed any other news agency. Indeed, by statute the Electors meet to cast their votes in the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December (December 14 in 2020). Even then, it is not until January 6 that a President elect is determined as per the Twentieth Amendment.

Bonus Fun Fact: There is no “Office of the President Elect”. Indeed, it was invented out of whole cloth by none other than one Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 who was widely ridiculed at the time for the affectation.

#DoubleStandardsOrNone (or, "It's Not Hypocrisy If We Do It!")

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Mon, 09 Nov 2020 23:46:00 +0000

Donald Trump was blamed for closing down the economy of the United States.

Fun Fact: All closures were the result of executive action at the state and local level. Other than the borders, President Trump closed nothing.

Donald Trump was berated when he said he would hope to see the economy reopen by Easter. The Left lost its collective mind. He was excoriated for attempting to be a dictator and reminded in no uncertain terms that he didn't have the authority to tell the States what to do. Just like that, a bunch of Amendment X State's Rights advocates!

So, it is looking more and more inevitable that Joe Biden is going to wind up in the White House come January 20, 2021. He has promised to be a hard liner on COVID and do whatever it takes to stop this virus and free us once and for all. (Assuming, of course, today's announcement from Pfizer isn't used as a convenient excuse to declare victory and move on. Sorry, Andy Cuomo, a vaccine is a good thing regardless of whose administration is in power at the time. Or would you rather see more deaths just so Uncle Joe can receive the credit for being our savior? If so, perhaps we are in fact referring to the wrong brother as Fredo.)

Fully expecting Pfizer's vaccine will not turn out to be the silver bullet we're looking for, and it actually takes longer than from now to Inauguration Day to beat this thing down for good, and Good Ole Joe has no other choice but to impose a lockdown "for the good of the country", I cannot help but wonder if those on the Left will be consistent to their moral convictions and rail against his attempt to quash our freedoms through dictatorial fiat or revert to their true sycophantic (psychophantic?) colors and gush over how wonderful it is that we finally have a president who cares and we all have no choice but to fall in line and save millions of lives both here in America and around the world.

Sadly, my money is on option number two.

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Sat, 07 Nov 2020 00:55:00 +0000

Dear Antifa Friends,

It appears the results of the 2020 General Election are not going to turn out to be as favorable as a substantial portion of the electorate was hoping. On behalf of many of us who will be new to this, I would like to tap in to your expertise that we have been observing over the past four years. I speak for many when I say that I am far from comfortable rioting in the streets, looting, vandalizing, committing arson and even murder, but your example appears to indicate such behavior is obligatory.

1. Dress - Is it acceptable to wear my business suit and a socially responsible mask to help minimize the spread of the COVID-19 virus when peacefully protesting, or will it be necessary to purchase full Ninja garb?

1a. - If I must purchase event specific garb, will that be tax deductible?

2. Accouterments - Many of us have limited or even no experience procuring Molotov cocktails and related equipment. Are you able to recommend reputable vendors where they might be purchased? Also, will sticks, rocks, and pallets of bricks continue to be provided in places of designated protest, or will we also need to make arrangements to obtain those?

2a. - If it is necessary to supply our own instruments of mayhem, will those expenses also be tax deductible?

3. Lodging - Is it required to sleep with multiple strangers in close quarters in a tent pitched on the city sidewalks, or is it permissible to spend one’s days recuperating in the comfort of a Marriott owned or similar establishment?

3a. - Please see 1a. and 2a. above.

4. Employment - Please advise on how to best retain gainful employment in order to feed, clothe, and house ourselves and our families as well as meet the many other financial obligations a responsible and productive citizen has in this society while also engaging in extended periods of peaceful protest. The vast majority of us have been led to believe it is necessary to report to work on a daily basis and perform one’s necessary duties in order to maintain a job, receive a pay check, and improve one’s fortunes. Your example suggests this is not necessarily the case. I hope so, as I personally would sorely lament the loss of my Country Club membership.

4a. - Is reliable valet parking typically available at riot venues? It would be distressing to return from an exhausting night on the streets fighting for The Cause only to discover the Bentley had been taken for a joy ride or simply scratched.

Thank you so much in advance for your assistance in these matters. Perhaps we can do this all over again in another four years.

Wait, I’m sorry. I forgot the struggle never ends.

Faithfully Yours,

The Other Half Of The Country

Orange Man Bad?

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:12:00 +0000

First, I was a Racist/Sexist/Bigot/Homophobe/Probable Child Molester because I would not vote for Obama.

Then, I was a Racist/Sexist/Bigot/Homophobe/~~Probable~~ Confirmed Child Molester because I voted for Trump.

And you want me to give credence to your "argument" that "Orange Man Bad!"

Donald Trump is far from the perfect avatar for the Republican or any other party. Far, far away. Far enough away to call Shrek to mind. I certainly wouldn't want a daughter to marry him, even with a healthy pre-nup and very generous dowry. Heck, I wouldn't even want to sit down with him for a beer - two, actually, since he doesn't drink so I could have his - which is something I would still like to do with Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama. Heck, ole B. J. Clinton even exhibits some of the more controversial tendencies ascribed to Trump yet strangely no one on the Left seems terribly keen to disown him.

What Donald Trump has provided during four years in office is on balance a fairly consistent conservative leaning view of government and its role under the Constitution. Completely setting aside COVID-19 into a uniquely 2020 expense category all its own, caving in to several of the spending demands of the Opposition in the name of political expediency is probably his greatest fault, and one repeated too often. The best government is the government the gets the hell out of the way at every opportunity. Anything a federal program can do, a self reliant and personally accountable individual can do many times better. Let similarly unfettered individuals band together and there is no limit to the success and prosperity that can be realized.

The alternative choice this election believes that Americans are generally incompetent to manage their own affairs and incapable of providing themselves with even the most basic of necessities. Without designated government caretakers available to stuff their faces, wipe their cracks, and generally carry them through the trials of adulting from cradle to grave it is assumed the average American will perish. Probably on the nearest street corner, with the cause of death being a toss-up between starvation and unmet medical needs. Because, you know, people (not you of course, just everyone else out there!) are too damn stupid to know how to breathe without instruction.

I prefer the Shining City On a Hill to Idiocracy. I believe we are all capable off muddling through, nay succeeding, just fine without turning this great nation irrevocably into Venezuela. I could certainly do with Twitter suffering a catastrophic system failure so that somewhat more of a filter might exist between thought and public broadcast. It would be outstanding to see the seats of the House and Senate filled with men and women of character, interested in serving the best interests of the country over those of the Party and the spines and gonads to back that character rather than hoping that appeasing those on the other side of the aisle will bear fruit. Even though many today are too young, and the victims of publicly funded education, to remember that Neville Chamberlain proved in the 1930s that appeasement does not work, most should recall that Lucy proved inconclusively that the appeasement football will always be snatched away whenever the kick is attempted.

As long as we're visiting Fantasy Island, it would be refreshing to have a Press that was the Fourth Estate rather that the Fifth Column.

All of that and more is why I voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and will unashamedly do so again in 2020. The approbation of those who feel differently is not in the least bit daunting.

While always striving for perfection, wisdom lies in settling for as good as you can get today and continuing to reach for the ultimate goal tomorrow.

Orange Man Not Bad, just orange. And not nearly as bad as the alternatives.

Civil Rights, Not Special Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Sat, 12 Sep 2020 18:50:00 +0000

Civil Rights are Human Rights. They are not dependent upon the color of one's skin, the plumbing they were issued at birth and whether or not they deem that to be a factory defect, who they choose to be intimate with or how they choose to express that intimacy - as long as all parties involved are freely consenting adults.

At the same time, I reject the currently popular notion that due to the color of my skin - colloquially referred to as "white" - and genitals issued at birth - a penis - I am somehow guilty of offenses that occurred long before my birth and perpetrated upon victims dead long before my birth, and therefore liable for compensatory reparations in matters I was not a participant either directly or indirectly.

Since I reject the premise of the conviction, it is not incumbent upon me to mount a defense against what is no more than preposterous nonsense.

Socials, It's Time To Let the World Grow Up

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:59:00 +0000

It is not surprising, but thoroughly disappointing, that Facebook felt compelled to censor this post remembering the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the United States of America, planned by Osama bin Laden and executed by fanatic followers of his organization that is premised upon a perversion of the Islamic faith, al-Qaeda.

Yes, the images chosen may well be deemed "sensitive content". The content is unquestionably violent and graphic. It is also historical fact, not a shameful event to be shunned or avoided simply because it may make one uncomfortable to encounter.

This impulse to "protect" everyone from anything that is not wholly pure white light and fuzzy bunnies is brought to you by the same crowd who insists that President Trump should have been shrieking in panic over COVID-19, and that they could have handled the "truth". What truth exactly is that though? Even the Greatest One Himself, Saint Anthony of Fauci, proclaimed in multiple interviews that Trump stated publicly and accurately all the concerns discussed in private and executed or advocated for all the steps that needed to be taken at every point in time. This group wants more panic and despair over what might be, but can't handle images of what was?

This is the same crowd who feels our children should be taught there is nothing more terrifying for a child to do than walk outside the home without being firmly tethered to a trusted adult. That those same children should be raised in an environment that shields them from the existence of alcohol, drugs, sexuality, the word "no", and any outcome that is other than the one desired - then are shocked when their poor little babies are thrust into the real world at 18, or 21, or 36, and suddenly can't manage to get out of bed without counseling and medication.

We only learn to win through the disappointment of losing. We only learn to overcome challenges by being challenged. We only learn to make good and responsible choices by being exposed to choice and discovering what the results of making a poor one can be.

No good purpose is served by "protecting" us from the horror that was September 11, 2001. Remember and honor the victims of circumstance in New York City, Shanksville, PA, and at the Pentagon. Remember and honor also those who were victims by choice, who were confronted with an impossible situation and chose to go in anyway and try to help those who were unable to help themselves.

Placing a veil over reality does not mean 9-11 did not happen, and softening the blow will only hasten the day that the unthinkable is faced once again.

Fact and Nuance vs All Things in the Universe Are a Single Shade of Gray

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Thu, 10 Sep 2020 22:34:00 +0000

It should not go unremarked that the same folks who cannot discern the difference between legal immigrants and illegal aliens are also seemingly incapable of differentiating between individually requested absentee ballots and bulk dumped "mail-in" ballots, and the far greater opportunity for fraud and abuse inherent in the latter category.

It is almost enough to make one suspect these folks are in fact willfully ignorant rather than merely collectively still more stupid than a box of rocks.

West Virginia Teacher Strike 2018

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Thu, 01 Mar 2018 22:34:00 +0000

Note: This post was updated at 8:30 PM on March 1 to add the table data at the bottom of the page. It was unintentionally omitted from the original version. JDV

Summary: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli

West Virginia’s teachers have certainly faced challenges over the last decade, as have nearly all Americans who are not independently wealthy. While their claims of poverty and unfair treatment can be proven statistically viewed one way, those claims do not stand up to contextual analysis. Everyone wants a bigger paycheck, and there is no harm in making a case for that. However, teachers in West Virginia knew the terms of their contract when they signed on the dotted line. Striking because one doesn’t like an agreement voluntarily entered into can charitably be described as unethical behavior worthy of a toddler. As long as a valid contract remains in force, these teachers belong in the classroom. Once the contract expires, they are more than welcome to negotiate changes to the conditions of their employment, and refuse to return to the classroom until a satisfactory agreement can be reached. There is no question that a teacher strike under those circumstances would be every bit as frustrating and disruptive to the lives of parents and schoolchildren alike as is the current strike. The difference is that teachers would be striking from a position of integrity rather than foreswearing the obligations to the community they freely chose to accept.

There’s a funny thing about statistics. Using exactly the same set of data, different people can “prove” wildly different conclusions depending upon the objective.

(Note: the data set used here is not the same as the one West Virginia teachers cite, but the numbers are close enough to make the illustration valid. The data used in this piece ranks the WV teachers at 47^th nationwide in pay, and includes Washington, DC, for a pool of fifty-one locations.)

Take the West Virginia teacher strike. Among other concerns, they are outraged that they are ranked 48^th in pay nationwide. Concern has also been expressed that compensation has been nearly flat over the past decade, and over the fact that their insurance costs are increasing.

For the vast majority of employees, wages have been flat to declining over the past decade or longer. Inflation affects all income levels, though without question it is the middle and lower income groups who experience the greatest hardship. Inflation has officially been low – except for those people who eat, heat and cool their homes, or drive to and from work. WV teachers certainly have not been exempted from these challenges, but then neither have all other folks in their communities.

Health insurance costs have risen for everyone in recent years, particularly since 2013. The two areas of direct out of pocket expense for the majority of consumers, insurance premiums and deductibles (the amount that must be spent before having the insurance provides meaningful benefit) have increased dramatically from 2008 to 2017. For individuals, average premiums rose 147% and deductibles 107% during that time. Those who married and produced offspring fared even worse, seeing increases of 176% and 202% respectively. For WV teachers to be upset with rising health care costs and expect taxpayers to cushion the blow for them is to deny the realities of life in the United States in the second decade of the twentieth century.

	Average		Average		Average Family		Average Family
		Individual Health		Individual Health		Health Insurance		Health Insurance
		Insurance		Insurance		Premium		Deductible
		Premium		Deductible
First two months of 2017 open enrollment		$393		$4,328		$1,021		$8,352
2016 open enrollment		$321		$4,385		$833		$7,983
2015 open enrollment		$286		$4,120		$727		$7,760
2014 open enrollment		$271		$4,164		$667		$7,771
2013		$197		$3,319		$426		$4,230
2012		$190		$3,079		$412		$4,079
2011		$183		$2,935		$414		$3,879
2010		$167		$2,632		$392		$3,531
2009		$161		$2,326		$383		$3,128
2008		$159		$2,084		$369		$2,760

Source: https://news.ehealthinsurance.com/news/average-individual-health-insurance-premiums-increased-99-since-2013-the-year-before-obamacare-family-premiums-increased-140-according-to-ehealth-com-shopping-data

Then there are wages, the high profile complaint teachers and their representatives have been most vocal about. From the data here, teachers rank 47^th nationally in average pay. Devoid of any context it certainly sounds as though they are receiving the rawest of raw deals – except perhaps for their brethren in North Carolina, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and poor, abused South Dakota whose teachers find themselves dead last in the compensation rankings.

Providing a bit of context for the compensation numbers paints a very different picture, however.

Dollars received for the teaching job will never be the same across the country. The cost of living, and the tax bases that support public employee salaries, are dramatically different in New York City and Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Perhaps a more accurate baseline for comparing of the relative value of teacher compensation would be to evaluate their salaries as a percentage of the Median Household Income (MHI) for their state. That would identify how well off a teacher is as a single income earner compared to the combined incomes of all members of a household in their state. That is a far more accurate reflection of how their compensation compares to the other citizens in their community, and how that compensation “fairness” compares to their peers in other states.

Looked at in this manner, the teachers of West Virginia find themselves ranked twelfth in the nation compared to their peers in average salary as a percentage of MHI. Not bad at all for a state that ranks 48 out of 51 in MHI. Even better, for those who are taking their newly minted credentials and entering the teaching profession for the first time, West Virginia’s teachers enjoy an average starting salary that comes in sixth in the nation.

Alas, South Dakotans are still dead last in average salary as a percentage of MHI, but they are a more respectable 43^rd just starting out.

Teacher Compensation Data

Rank	STATE	AVERAGE STARTING SALARY	AVERAGE SALARY	% of MHI	% of MHI Rank	Starting % MHI	Starting % MHI Rank	State MHI Rank
1	New York	$43,839	$75,279	156.18%	1	75.58%	7	23
3	District of Columbia	$51,539	$70,906	150.16%	2	73.55%	8	5
27	Louisiana	$38,655	$51,381	135.42%	3	84.18%	1	45
9	Pennsylvania	$41,901	$63,521	132.91%	4	69.39%	16	20
28	Kentucky	$35,166	$50,326	130.83%	5	82.96%	2	50
11	Michigan	$35,901	$61,560	130.80%	6	66.23%	23	31
2	Massachusetts	$40,600	$73,129	130.04%	7	59.83%	35	8
29	Montana	$27,274	$49,999	129.43%	8	53.07%	45	37
14	Oregon	$33,549	$58,758	129.18%	9	55.15%	41	17
5	California	$41,259	$69,324	128.93%	10	64.84%	24	13
15	Ohio	$33,096	$58,092	126.74%	11	62.09%	27	32
47	West Virginia	$32,533	$46,405	124.65%	12	75.97%	6	48
39	Alabama	$36,198	$47,949	124.63%	13	81.33%	3	47
16	Wyoming	$43,269	$57,920	122.64%	14	71.02%	12	15
10	Rhode Island	$39,196	$63,474	122.06%	15	70.37%	14	27
40	South Carolina	$32,306	$47,924	121.47%	16	69.69%	15	44
13	Illinois	$37,166	$59,113	119.95%	17	61.52%	29	19
50	Mississippi	$31,184	$41,994	119.09%	18	77.89%	4	51
36	Tennessee	$34,098	$48,289	118.72%	19	72.04%	9	42
4	Connecticut	$42,924	$69,766	116.33%	20	58.89%	37	4
26	Indiana	$34,696	$51,456	114.84%	21	66.74%	21	35
12	Delaware	$39,338	$59,679	114.30%	22	68.11%	17	24
46	New Mexico	$31,960	$46,573	114.07%	23	70.83%	13	46
7	Alaska	$44,166	$65,468	113.58%	24	58.80%	38	2
23	Georgia	$33,664	$52,880	112.89%	25	66.31%	22	39
20	Wisconsin	$33,546	$55,171	112.88%	26	60.53%	33	28
45	Arkansas	$32,691	$46,632	111.88%	27	76.38%	5	49
38	Texas	$38,091	$48,110	110.79%	28	67.45%	19	26
49	Oklahoma	$31,606	$44,128	110.32%	29	67.14%	20	43
18	Nevada	$35,358	$55,957	110.11%	30	67.99%	18	34
48	North Carolina	$30,778	$45,947	109.24%	31	60.59%	32	38
25	Iowa	$33,226	$51,528	108.51%	32	54.60%	42	16
43	North Dakota	$32,019	$47,344	108.21%	33	55.77%	40	25
42	Kansas	$33,386	$47,464	107.23%	34	60.85%	31	30
6	New Jersey	$48,631	$68,797	107.21%	35	71.14%	11	7
33	Idaho	$31,159	$49,734	107.20%	36	60.36%	34	36
37	Maine	$31,835	$48,119	106.84%	37	62.72%	26	40
30	Arizona	$31,874	$49,885	106.75%	38	61.01%	30	33
41	Missouri	$30,064	$47,517	106.42%	39	50.79%	46	22
44	Florida	$35,166	$46,944	105.62%	40	72.02%	10	41
8	Maryland	$43,235	$65,265	104.64%	41	58.75%	39	3
24	Vermont	$35,541	$52,526	101.75%	42	59.74%	36	21
35	Nebraska	$30,844	$48,931	101.67%	43	50.77%	47	18
22	Washington	$36,335	$53,571	100.25%	44	54.04%	44	9
17	Minnesota	$34,505	$56,268	98.09%	45	50.20%	48	6
32	Colorado	$32,126	$49,844	92.24%	46	48.24%	50	10
19	New Hampshire	$34,280	$55,599	91.92%	47	45.30%	51	1
31	Virginia	$37,848	$49,869	90.49%	48	61.56%	28	14
34	Utah	$33,081	$49,393	89.51%	49	49.93%	49	11
21	Hawaii	$41,027	$54,300	89.48%	50	63.59%	25	12
51	South Dakota	$29,851	$39,580	88.70%	51	54.21%	43	29

National Median Household Income Data

Rank	State	2015[42][43]	2009	2008	2007	2004–2006
47	Alabama	$44,509	$40,489	$42,666	$40,554	$38,473
2	Alaska	$75,112	$66,953	$68,460	$64,333	$57,639
33	Arizona	$52,248	$48,745	$50,958	$49,889	$46,729
49	Arkansas	$42,798	$40,489	$41,393	$42,229	$41,679
13	California	$63,636	$58,931	$61,021	$59,948	$53,770
10	Colorado	$66,596	$55,430	$56,993	$55,212	$54,039
4	Connecticut	$72,889	$67,034	$68,595	$65,967	$59,972
24	Delaware	$57,756	$56,860	$57,989	$54,610	$52,214
5	District of Columbia	$70,071	$59,290	$57,936	$54,317	$47,221
41	Florida	$48,825	$44,736	$47,778	$47,804	$44,448
39	Georgia	$50,768	$47,590	$50,861	$49,136	$46,841
12	Hawaii	$64,514	$64,098	$67,214	$63,746	$60,681
36	Idaho	$51,624	$44,926	$47,576	$46,253	$46,395
19	Illinois	$60,413	$53,966	$56,235	$54,124	$49,280
35	Indiana	$51,983	$45,424	$47,966	$47,448	$44,806
16	Iowa	$60,855	$48,044	$48,980	$47,292	$47,489
30	Kansas	$54,865	$47,817	$50,177	$47,451	$44,264
50	Kentucky	$42,387	$40,072	$41,538	$40,267	$38,466
45	Louisiana	$45,922	$42,492	$43,733	$40,926	$37,943
40	Maine	$50,756	$45,734	$46,581	$45,888	$45,040
3	Maryland	$73,594	$69,272	$70,545	$68,080	$62,372
8	Massachusetts	$67,861	$64,081	$65,401	$62,365	$56,236
31	Michigan	$54,203	$45,255	$48,591	$47,950	$47,064
6	Minnesota	$68,730	$55,616	$57,288	$55,082	$57,363
51	Mississippi	$40,037	$36,646	$37,790	$36,338	$35,261
22	Missouri	$59,196	$45,229	$46,867	$45,114	$44,651
37	Montana	$51,395	$42,322	$43,654	$43,531	$38,629
18	Nebraska	$60,747	$47,357	$49,693	$47,085	$48,126
34	Nevada	$52,008	$53,341	$56,361	$55,062	$50,819
1	New Hampshire	$75,675	$60,567	$63,731	$62,369	$60,489
7	New Jersey	$68,357	$68,342	$70,378	$67,035	$64,169
46	New Mexico	$45,119	$43,028	$43,508	$41,452	$40,827
23	New York	$58,005	$54,659	$56,033	$53,514	$48,201
38	North Carolina	$50,797	$43,674	$46,549	$44,670	$42,061
25	North Dakota	$57,415	$47,827	$45,685	$43,753	$43,753
32	Ohio	$53,301	$45,395	$47,988	$46,597	$45,837
43	Oklahoma	$47,077	$41,664	$42,822	$41,567	$40,001
17	Oregon	$60,834	$48,457	$50,169	$48,730	$45,485
20	Pennsylvania	$60,389	$49,520	$50,713	$48,576	$47,791
27	Rhode Island	$55,701	$54,119	$55,701	$53,568	$52,003
44	South Carolina	$46,360	$44,625	$43,329	$40,822	$39,454
29	South Dakota	$55,065	$45,043	$46,032	$43,424	$44,624
42	Tennessee	$47,330	$41,725	$43,614	$42,367	$40,676
26	Texas	$56,473	$48,259	$50,043	$47,548	$43,425
11	Utah	$66,258	$55,117	$56,633	$55,109	$55,179
21	Vermont	$59,494	$51,618	$52,104	$49,907	$51,622
14	Virginia	$61,486	$59,330	$61,233	$59,562	$55,108
9	Washington	$67,243	$56,548	$58,078	$55,591	$53,439
48	West Virginia	$42,824	$37,435	$37,989	$37,060	$37,227
28	Wisconsin	$55,425	$49,993	$52,094	$50,578	$48,874
15	Wyoming	$60,925	$52,664	$53,207	$51,731	$47,227

None of this necessarily suggests West Virginia teachers are not deserving of greater compensation and benefits. What the broader data picture does show is that they are not as ill treated as the case they are making claims. They have left the classroom at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. The ones most harmed by this poorly considered strike are the children they claim to place above all else in this world and their friends and neighbors in every community from Morgantown to Bluefield and Charles Town to Huntington.

Source for teacher compensation data:

https://articles.niche.com/teacher-salaries-in-america/

Source for Median Household Income data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Fear and Loathing In the Nation's Capitol and Across the Country

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:25:00 +0000

In September of 2009, Representative Joe Wilson, R-SC, was famously condemned for daring to call out "You lie!" to President Obama as the president addressed a Joint Session of Congress. Was it a violation of proper decorum? Probably. Was Representative Wilson speaking truth to power? You bet he was.

During the 2010 State of the Union address, in violation of all protocol, President Obama condemned the members of the United States Supreme Court for their decision in the Citizens United case. Justice Samuel Alito was seen to mutter "Not True", and with near uniformity across the Donkey side of the Politisphere there was outrage that a mere Justice would so disrespect The President in public.

So what can be expected when President Donald J. Trump steps to the lectern on the evening of February 28, 2017, at 9:00 PM EST?

To suggest that members of the Democrat party have less than positive sentiments regarding Trump would be a phenomenal understatement. Based upon their clear history of respect for propriety and decorum though, would it not be reasonable to expect them to conduct themselves in a manner befitting the dignity of Senators and Representatives participating in a Presidential Address to Congress?

One can certainly hope. This particular One certainly does.

Being hopeful is not the same as being confident. The public activities of the Opposition in this country since the evening of November 8, 2016, make it abundantly clear crude, vulgar and violent self expression as a method of communicating political dissent are deemed reasonable and acceptable to a certain segment of the populace. As good politicians, it can be expected that those under the leadership of Senator Schumer and Representative Pelosi will be tempted to do anything they believe they can get away with in attempts to solidify support among the unruly mob that is the vocal face of their base these days.

Many Democrat members of Congress will be inviting illegal aliens, Muslim immigrants, and other minority constituencies to attend the address. Is there perhaps more than a little bit of hope these guests will relieve Democrats of the need to conduct their own Joe Wilson attack against acceptable behavior? Then these Senators and Representatives will be able to shrug their shoulders in sadness and muse solemnly in front of the cameras how can one possibly condemn the spontaneously erupting passion of a public feeling personally threatened by a man and his minions who is supposed to be the President of All The United States of America, but is instead actively against their own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness?

Should such outbursts take place, Democrats would do well to remember that if a can of kerosene is poured over a pile of brush and then a match tossed on top, it is not the wood that is at fault for the fire.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Press: WTF?

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:37:00 +0000

So, The Press had it's feelings hurt last week when CNN, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Time, Politico and others were excluded from a gaggle in Sean Spicer's office at the White House. Never mind the pool representatives, the "big three" broadcast networks and others were included; the Real News outlets didn't get to go on the date, while others they derided as being something less than legitimate journalistic endeavors were allowed in.

Mainstream media needs to be a bit careful there. Deriding their "lessers" in such a manner dangerously close to defining those competitors as "fake news". Is it really safe to go there?

While they were busy bawling their eyes out over this existential threat to the First Amendment (even though it isn't), a much more disturbing comment was made by a MSNBC anchor. Despite the fact this comment directly assaults the credibility of a free press, the majority of the Mediacracy who define themselves as the Guardians of Democracy ignored it as though they were farting in church after covering the baked bean festival and desperately praying no one would notice or at the very least not trace it back to them.

Mika Brezezinski cut loose with the ultimate That Which Must Not Ever Be Uttered truth bomb as far as the press is concerned: "[Trump] is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job,"

The general silence from the mainstream media was deafening, and speaks volumes. That which you refuse to condemn, you tacitly condone.

The less than divine Ms. B later compounded her error by claiming not to have said what any casual listener to the videotape can clearly hear her say. Criticizing the promulgation of false facts by making up false facts is far from a winning tactic.

No child, when caught with his arm elbow-deep in the cookie jar, has ever been successful at convincing Mom that he doesn't even know where the cookie jar is. Or what cookies are.

Town Hall 2017: Flashback to 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:04:00 +0000

So, you're a Republican Representative or Senator in 2017 and all you want to do is hold a Town Hall meeting. Press the flesh. Sell yourself. Reassure your constituents they are the only reason you get out of bed in the morning.

And instead showing you proper deference and respect, instead of conducting themselves with due decorum, whole swaths of the hoi polloi only want to shout you down and express their frustration that Donald J. Trump is President of the United States.

Man (or woman, as the case may be), that must really suck.

In fact, just about this time eight years ago the tables were reversed. Hordes of Tea Party supporters and other rational minded Americans showed up at primarily Democrat sponsored Town Halls to express their outrage at the health care plan that was taking shape and eventually shoved through with zero support from the Republican side of the aisle. Some of you may well have participated in those protests. Many no doubt applauded Americans exercising their First Amendment rights to give their servants in Washington a piece of their mind.

Servants? That's right, servants. Too quickly, elected officials from the United States Capitol all the way down to the smallest Town Council seem to forget they are public servants, not exalted lords and ladies bestowed with wisdom beyond the ken of the masses.

Remember that: You, Senator, and you, Representative, are a public servant sent to Washington to serve the best interests of your constituents and your country. Not to get re-elected. Not to enrich yourself beyond your wildest childhood mud-hut imaginings. Not to line up a "job" with a think tank or Fortune 50 company. Your job description is Servant.

So serve. Don't run and hide. Don't complain that folks showing up at the Town Halls you host are mean or unruly. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Right now, it is happening to you. Suck it up, Buttercup.

There are fair and very reasonable steps you can take to maintain some degree of order. You represent a very specific district or state. When you hold a meeting open to your constituents it is very reasonable to exclude those who do not reside within your district or state. Require photo identification indicating a residential address within the borders of your area of representation in order to gain access to the meeting. This will eliminate many of the concerns that have been raised about protesters being brought in from distant points to disrupt your proceedings. If you are the Representative from Wyoming there is no reason you should entertain residents of Chicago, or Los Angeles, or New York. They have their own representatives and should raise their concerns in those appropriate venues.

Once you have exercised proper and reasonable gate control though, stand up and be an adult. Those folks are your constituents, whether they voted for you or not. You are obligated to represent all of them, not just the ones who make you feel good. You can't do that of you won't grant them a fair hearing. Once you have heard them out, know who you are. Own your positions and explain your actions. Be patient. You may be shouted down or derided. Steadfastly explain your positions and motivations between the outbursts. You may not change any minds, and you certainly won't enjoy many of the insults directed at you. At least you won't be labeled a coward, too unprincipled or afraid to face those you are charged with effectively representing.

You're the one who signed up for politics. If you wanted soothing you could have taken on an easier career such as high school teacher for delinquent students or battlefield sapper. And if you still aren't happy, were you aware you aren't required to run for re-election or even serve out the entirety of your current term?

Anti-2A Crowd: Please Pick a Side

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:53:00 +0000

Assault Weapons Are Not Protected By the Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules

On February 21, 2017, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the assault weapons ban imposed by the state of Maryland passed Constitutional muster. In part, a passage was cited from the 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia decision allowing governments to regulate weapons similar in design and function to those issued to the military, itself a highly questionable interpretation.

For years, one of the loudest arguments offered by those who oppose the notion that mere Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms for their own private lawful purposes was that the Second Amendment was adopted to provide for the creation of what is today recognized as the National Guard. State level organized military units, not individuals concerned with protecting themselves and their property from individuals or governments unlawfully intending harm.

So which is it, Anti-2A Crowd: Does the amendment only refer to the creation of a State Militia (military), or does it permit private citizens to bear arms, just not scary ones? The argument that "yeah, you can have guns but not guns that might prove effective in a crisis" seems to blur your message just a bit.

The language of the amendment itself seems relatively unambiguous.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Shall not be infringed. Period. End of amendment. No invisible ink, no secret decoder ring required, no list of entirely subjective and arbitrary list of exceptions included.

"Shall not be infringed" does not appear to offer a tremendous amount of wiggle room. "Arms" does not impose a limit on size, features or lethal capacity. While I cannot imagine a scenario in which I could possibly want or need to possess a nuclear weapon, as an uninfringable right I should be able to do so as long as I command the resources and the desire to acquire one. Through the years there have been neighbors who I would be uncomfortable with having access to a sling shot. Regardless, my discomfort does not negate their rights. Preemptively punishing (restricting) someone for a non-specific act they might conceivably commit at some undefined future point in time is an undeniable infringement, and a denial of the concepts of freedom and personal accountability the United States Constitution enshrines.

Pepsi, No Coke!

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:44:00 +0000

So, you have a job in the Executive branch of the federal government. Good for you!

Guess what? Your boss is the duly confirmed Secretary of your agency, and your Chief Operating Officer is President Donald J. Trump. Your marching orders come from these individuals, and they do in fact get to define the objectives of your job.

You do not have the privilege of defining your own "mission". Your organization's mission is what your bosses say it is, and your priorities need to be what they define them as being. If you find you do not agree with the defined objectives of your job, just like any other employee in any other business in the country you are free to leave. You are not free to stay in place and wage guerrilla war against the chosen path your "business" has embarked upon.

In the Real World, as opposed to the Fantasy Island many entitled government employees believe themselves to inhabit, anyone who accepts a job at the Pepsi Factory is obliged to further the mission of producing and distributing Pepsi. They are not required to drink Pepsi, or even like Pepsi, but when wearing the uniform they need to do everything they can to make Pepsi the number one product on the planet. When they change out of their work clothes at the end of the day they are more than welcome to swing by the convenience store, pick up a six pack of Coke, and drink away their sorrows in the glow of TV Land emanating from their television sets. First thing next morning, it's back to "Rah! Rah! Pepsi!!"

If they can't handle that, then they are honor bound to leave their job at Pepsi and find something else to do they can feel good about.

You, federal employee, have that same obligation. The voters have spoken, and if you cannot abide their choice you must as a manner of honor and integrity get out of the way. If you can grit your teeth, do all that is asked of you as it is asked of you to the very best of your ability then you are welcome to hang in there. Who knows, you might even get a new set of leaders in four years, or eight years, or whenever who might better suit your ideals. Bully! Until then, keep your nose to the grindstone doing as you are asked by your rightful leaders, or let your feet hit the streets and find the life that is better suited to who you are.

A False Premise Does Not Make One Right

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:43:00 +0000

Below is but one example of several similar memes making the rounds:

Though no doubt the messengers are high-fiving each other for their brilliant insights and put-down of the anti-human haters they struggle against on a daily basis, the sign is based upon a totally invalid premise.

When one invokes the KKK, clearly one is not implying that all Christians support the agenda of the KKK in whole or in part, nor is there a suggestion that the KKK represents them to any degree.

Likewise, when one invokes terms such as "radical Islamic terrorist" and similarly specific designations, the clear intent is to identify that small portion of the population who have co-opted specific elements of a religion for their own ends. Having wrapped themselves in the mantle of Islam does not automatically mean the terrorists, "supported" by the declaration of a Caliphate, magically represent every Muslim on the planet or that all or even most followers of Islam support ISIS et al.

Twisting what is said and defining it to represent that which you claim to abhor is to transform yourself into exactly what you profess to fight against. The ends do not justify the means.

Similarly, anyone who expresses a desire to stop individuals from entering the United States through other than legally authorized means, and to ensure that those who were granted entry for specific purposes or for a defined duration leave when those purposes no longer obtain or the duration has expired, is accused of being racist or worse and of wholesale loathing all who are immigrants.

Immigrants as a group are not a problem. The problem is those who do not feel obliged to follow established protocols to enter the country. Those and only those individuals are the specifically defined subset of the entire immigrant population. No matter how desperate or heart-wrenching their personal stories may be, no one has the right to come here outside the law just because they want a better life for themselves or their families.

And no, we are not all immigrants. Mindless chanting of an untruth, no matter how fervently it is desired that it be truth, does not make it a fact.

Lawfully practiced immigration is a healthy and vital part of what built this country into the nation that was able to win two world wars and build the greatest economy with the most opportunity for its people in the history of the planet. That is precisely why so many are eager to come here. Throwing open the doors to any who wish to pillage the treasury is one of many factors degrading the United States into a country that the Greatest Generation would not recognize, and would not wish to be a part of.

Gerrymandering Is Like Representatives and Senators: They All Stink - Except For Mine!

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Thu, 09 Feb 2017 22:37:00 +0000

I've missed the Liberal outrage over one of their own not only admitting to unabashed gerrymandering while governor of Maryland but proudly stating "As a governor, I held that redistricting pen in my own Democratic hand. I was convinced that we should use our political power to pass a map that was more favorable for the election of Democratic candidates."

Is this something Liberals only find deplorable when Republicans are doing it and thwarting their compulsive need to take over the universe?

How about getting behind an initiative to have congressional and legislative districts drawn by computers programmed to create districts that are as geographically compact and contiguous as possible without giving any consideration whatsoever to age, race, religious or other demographic factors?

Or is a world without blatant bias in Liberal favor the stuff of nightmares too horrifying to even be imagined?

O’Malley now supports non-partisan commissions to draw congressional districts he admits gerrymandering

Elizabeth Warren - Madam Senator, Please Sit Down

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 17:42:00 +0000

NPR - February 8, 2017 - Republicans Vote To Silence Sen. Elizabeth Warren In Confirmation Debate

On Tuesday night, between February 7 and 8, 2017, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was silenced and prevented from participating further in the confirmation debate for Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as the next United States Attorney General. Her sin was a violation of Rule XIX, in this case "impugn[ing] the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama" according to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

In his comments, McConnell incorrectly cited Warren quoting from a letter by Coretta Scott King (though she did also do that during her remarks) written during Sessions' failed confirmation hearing to become a federal district court judge.

Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) admonished Warren "you stated that a sitting senator is a disgrace to the Department of Justice." In audio from her floor remarks, Warren is clearly heard to reply that the comment seemed to have been made not by King, but by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy — whom she also quoted — "although I would be glad to repeat it in my own words," she added.

Warren later observed "So, quoting Sen. Kennedy calling then-nominee Sessions a disgrace is a violation of Senate rules? It was certainly not in 1986."

That would be correct, Senator Warren. At the time Senator Kennedy made his disparaging remarks about then U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions, Mr. Sessions was not a Senator.

Rule XIX.2.: No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

The fact that McConnell misspoke when he rose to invoke Rule XIX and cited Mrs. Kings letter provided an opening for much of the print, audio, and video media to report inaccurately that Warren was silenced for quoting the words of Coretta Scott King on the floor of the United States Senate. The fact the story is totally false is not relevant to those who wish to seize upon any opportunity to malign the character and intentions of the Republican Party and those who support them. If a lie is told loudly enough and often enough, eventually few if any will question its veracity.

Get a Clue, America

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Mon, 06 Feb 2017 14:43:00 +0000

Black Lives Matter!
Marriage Equality!
Gender Equality!
Gender Multiplicity!
Hyphenated-American!
LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ Rights!

Organic bovine-derived fertilizer.

As long as you buy into the splintering and factionalizing of America, you’re doing it wrong. If you are due a right it is because of your humanity, period. Who you are attracted to; what you do with them; what is, is not or you wish were or were not found between your legs; the melanin content of your skin; or where your six generations removed ancestors came from are not relevant.

Until we are all worried about all of us inclusively, and this is exclusively our concern, we all lose.

Burn the Flag, Go to Jail!

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:31:00 +0000

Do you agree, America?

This question predates Facebook, or even the internet, and yet it still pops up on a far to regular basis. The underlying presumption would seem to be that the flag of the United States of America is to be elevated to an equal status with the deity of one's choosing and treated with similar if not in fact greater respect. Anyone who disagrees is at best sub-human, bent on removing God, Motherhood, and fluffy bunnies from the universe.

The flag of the United States, or any other country, is just a symbol.

So, to answer the question: Regrettably, no. The strength of the American flag is its ability to endure any desecration, degradation, or denunciation and continue to fly proudly in defiance, affirming all that is right with the idea that is the United States of America. If it cannot survive unless coddled like a hothouse flower, then it has no power or meaning at all.

If you choose to answer the question in the affirmative I respect your feelings while refusing to support them. Let me ask: Do you share the same respect and deference for the flags of other nations, and what those flags mean to the people who by birth or choice live under them? If not, then I submit you suffer from a bit of a hypocrisy problem.

Establishing a Partial Baseline for 2017 - Disagree With Civility and I Will Always Welcome Your Disagreement

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:52:00 +0000

The following is from a conversation I initiated on Facebook January 22:

Original Comment: I remain optimistic that the new President will be able to shake things up in Washington and change "the way it's always been" there for the better. However, the way he comports and expresses himself leads me to the inescapable conclusion that somehow Xxx Xxxxxx has managed to occupy the Oval Office.

Rejoinder: If you think " shake things up" means destroying the progress made toward slowing climate change, removing health care for more than 20 million Americans, preventing women from getting proper advice and help during or before pregnancy, or alienating the U.S. from the international community, then I think you need to study these and other issues more carefully. We are all in this together;it's how we get there that matters.

Response: Respectfully, Sir, I firmly believe that despite the many reservations I have regarding President Trump he is far better for the long-term well being of our country than the alternative choice in November would have been.

I have now awakened on two consecutive mornings following the inauguration to discover the oceans have not risen, the young and elderly have not all died, all women have not become pregnant and subsequently killed by their undesired parasites, we have not gone to war with anyone, and in the bonus round we aren't even speaking Russian. There is far more Chicken Little than substance so far to the shrill hysteria of the Opposition.

Climate change is unquestionably real. It has been taking place for billions of years before humanity stepped on stage and will undoubtedly continue long after we are gone. Climate change is not exclusively human caused, and no scientist can honestly ascribe a value between zero and one hundred percent that defines what our contribution to the current phenomenon might be. No amount of consensus will change that.

Regarding health care, the "removing health care for more than 20 million" scare relies on the assumption that nothing will be put in place to cover any repeals of the ACA which may take place. Heck the argument even conveniently ignores the false assumption that "health insurance" equates to "health care". There are many who are now insured but can not afford to use that insurance because of the mushrooming premiums, deductibles and co-pays that are a hallmark of the misnamed "Affordable" Care Act. Also, prior to implementation of the ACA and continuing through this very day it is against the law for any hospital to turn away an individual presenting themselves for care regardless of their ability to pay. It is an inefficient and needlessly cost inflated means of delivering health care, but the care is in fact available. Even without insurance.

Regarding women getting proper advice and help during or before pregnancy, I submit that such is in fact available without the intervention of the government. If one is unable to afford a condom, or incapable of insisting upon its proper use, then perhaps both individuals involved should not be engaging in sexual intercourse. Treat our citizens like irresponsible children incapable of making even the most basic decisions for themselves and you will indeed have the country of irresponsible children we find ourselves with today. Demand personal accountability from each and every citizen and it will not be necessary to assume that every failure to attain equality of outcome is someone else's fault.

The jury is still out on international relations, and I will wait to see how things develop rather than render a proactive judgment regarding results not yet in evidence. I will say though that if entities such as Iran, ISIS, and North Korea don't like the way we are treating them then my feelings will not be even a tiny bit hurt. And I certainly will not be at all apologetic over restrengthening ties with old and valued allies such as Israel.

I conclude, Sir, the way I began, earnestly and in all seriousness respectfully. I have given far more consideration to the issues you raise and many others than you appear to credit me with. My conclusions are far more considered than "Barry Bad - Donny Good!!" I firmly believe that the path we as a nation have been on for much longer than the past eight years is inadvisable and unsustainable, and that supporting the Democrat vision of the future would have brought about complete disaster sooner rather than later. I am far from totally sanguine about the map for the road ahead or our currently selected pilot. I do believe, though, that we stand a much better chance for a positive and prosperous future on our current path than on the road not taken in November.

Is This An Unbiased Survey?

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:48:00 +0000

I took a survey over the weekend. The further along I got in it, the more disturbed I became by the underlying assumptions that seemed to have been made.

My responses are posted below, but if you are so inclined you may take the survey as well first so your answers are not influenced by what you might read further down:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JPBHPP2

I would certainly be curious to hear comments from those who take the survey - or simply from those who read my responses and simply feel like beating me up! :-)

“Rich and Poor Survey”

1. A person of middle-class passes by a homeless man. Should the cause of the man losing his money (job-loss due to recession vs. gambling) influence the decision for the middle-class person to spare some change for the man?

Yes
No

Why?
The decision to aid should be based upon need, not the cause of that need. Also, how many people are going to get involved in an extended discussion to determine how the homeless man came to be in his circumstances?

2. The government is considering to pass a law obligating households of middle-class and higher to pay a tax to assist people in the lower class. Do you agree or disagree with passing this law?

Agree
Disagree

Why?
Redistribution of wealth does nothing to ameliorate the plight of the less well off, and punishing success does not encourage others to strive for success in their own right.

3. Would a person of higher-class be more responsible for providing charity for the poor than a person of middle-class?

Yes
No

Why?
Charity is a matter of conscience, not class. Having more perhaps permits one to give more but certainly does not obligate that increased giving.

4. Would a higher-class person with inherited money have more responsibility to give charity to the poor than a higher-class person that has earned their fortune with hard work?

Yes
No

Why?
Of course not. How one's resources are obtained does not dictate how those resources should be deployed. To carry the question to a ridiculous extreme, is the lower-class person who benefited from charity more obligated to share their resources than an equally resourced lower class person who has obtained their money without the generosity of others?

5. Does the rich give or take from society?

Give
Take

Why?
It is trite, but true: wealthy people employ people, poor people do not.

6. What is the purpose of charity?

In my never to be confused with humble opinion, charity should first be a private concern and not a function of any government. Charity should strive to help those who are incapable of helping themselves and stabilize the condition of those who need a hand getting back on heir feet becoming self sufficient once again. In no case should charity ever enable the recipient to feel comfortable or complacent in their poverty.

7. Is universal equality ideal? Why or why not?

Universal equality is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to any society. When all are absolutely equal there is nothing to strive for, no reason to better oneself or one's position. Such a society would inevitably find itself in a downward spiral toward extinction.

8. Should we focus on non-financial aid more than financial aid? Why or why not?

Aid should be given in whatever manner most effectively accomplishes the aims of helping the helpless or aiding those who can become productive once again but need a hand in overcoming their present circumstances.

9. Should the rich give to the poor? Why or why not?

What is the imperative behind the "should" in this question? If the assumption is that simply having resources obligates one to share those resources then the answer is absolutely not. If, however, the questioner is posing the question based upon the assumption that a society comprised of productive achievers functions to the ever increasing benefit of rich and poor alike then by all means the rich should give to the poor. Not due to any moral or societal obligation but because it is in their own self interest to do so, with a by product being that it benefits not only the recipient of the charity given but other members of society as well.

So That's My Problem

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:27:00 +0000

In a March 27, 2010 opinion piece in The New York Times, Frank Rich goes to great lengths of hyperbole to take some completely gratuitous cheap shots at Karl Rove, John Boehner, and others.

Frank's Momma should have also taught him that even more important than not being a sore loser is to not be a sore winner. Grace and dignity will win you far more cosmic brownie points in the long run. Though if that is a lesson he and his ilk refuse to take to heart, I'm okay with that.

Mr. Rich did, however point out one little fact in his essay that until now I was completely unaware of. He notes, "The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from."

All along I've been thinking it was the shredding of the Constitution, the Federal Government takeover of private institutions and constraint of freedoms, and the economic policies that leave us the option of experiencing bankruptcy as a nation either in either the near future or even sooner than that with which I disagreed.

Instead, it seems I'm just a garden variety Racist Sexist Homophobe (who also happens to believe in God and owns a gun, can't forget that!). So much simpler than actually having to waste cognitive effort on coming up with reasons for disagreeing with those in control.

I do have one question for you, Mr. Rich. If your thesis is accurate then why do I also feel the same way about Harry Reid and his policies as I do about Pelosi, Obama et al.? As the slam dunk winner of The Whitest Boy in America Pageant, I should be calling him up and asking if he'd like to chug a few brewskies with me at the next NASCAR event. Shouldn't I?

Email to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:26:00 +0000

The Speaker of the House has her (his, too, when it is a man?) web site, in addition to her congressional web page. I have taken advantage of the Speaker's page to contact her, as it invites me to do. I have done so fully understanding that she is no doubt disinclined to respond in any event, but also aware of the admonition from her district web site that ". . . the rules of Congressional courtesy prevent Representative Pelosi from replying to emails if she cannot determine that you are a constituent,. . .".

Speaker,

It is no longer surprising, yet continues to be distressing, that you seem compulsively incapable of opening your mouth without uttering a misrepresentation of fact. Your complete lack of honor and integrity diminishes you as a human being and arguably disqualifies you for the office you hold. More importantly, your actions demean that office in a way that is unfair to your predecessors and those who will follow after.

One more recent example of your non-existent ethics:

(http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/pelosi_breaks_pledge_to_put_he.asp)On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was "absolutely" committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:

TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?

PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.

But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager’s amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that."

Apparently Pelosi's agreement to leave the "final" bill online "at the very end" of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge.

Who's the Joker?

noreply@blogger.com (Lokhi) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:31:00 +0000

One is racist hatemongering. End of Discussion.

One is patriotic dissension and an exercise of constitutionally protected free speech.

Really?

Can anyone out there provide a rational justification for this double standard? Disagreeing with a set of ideas based upon the substance of those ideas is not a function of the skin color of the mouthpiece for those ideas. Pulling out the race card every time one is challenged cheapens that defense, and will render it meaningless when it is truly deserved.

Anyone recall the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf?