Xeno's Paradox: 2008

In late August of last year, I posted an article which was mainly about other things, but included a set of 9 straight-out predictions for the 2008 election, and one prediction that depended on a ballot initiative in California.

You may have read it; you may not. If you'd like to, it's here.

But how'd I do? That's the real question. How exactly did I perform as a political prognosticator?

Well, let's see.

I predicted:

There will be constant threats of terrorist action - they've already begun - running all the way through the election, at which time they will mysteriously vanish.

There will be sex scandals "discovered" about each and every Republican candidate.

There will be financial misdealings present in the portfolio of every single candidate with poll numbers over 1%. Don't worry, as we close on election time I will break out the hard numbers to back this one up.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON RUNNING will get "swift-boated" by some group or another.

Regardless of who is elected, regardless of party, regardless of publically announced sentiment, or position, or support - or lack thereof - for the war in Iraq; the United States will not pull out the bulk of our troops from Iraq in the next 3 years. REMEMBER I SAID THIS. Especially after the election. Watch as all the pre-election rhetoric turns into so much hot air, and vanishes.

The only two candidates running who have decent platforms will not get their party nominations. (That'd be Bill Richardson of the Dems, and Ron Paul of the GOP.)

At the end of the election, no matter who wins, or by how much, the Democrats will spawn a horde of lawsuits.

At the end of the election, no matter who wins, or by how much, there will have been overwhelming election fraud, across the board, in every major voting district. By both sides.

No matter the outcome of the election, there will be a slew of angry rants by people with tiny brains, demanding the removal of the electoral college, as though that would somehow improve things.

There was one more, which was that IF California passed the initiative to split their electoral votes by the percentages of the popular vote - which they didn't - the Republican candidate would win. That prediction is a moot point, as the initiative didn't pass.

So, let's look at the 9 "main" prognostications, hmmmm?

#'s 1, 3, and 4 came true almost right away, and I posted about them here.

#'s 2, 6, and 9 followed close on their heels, and I posted about them here.

#5 got a rumbling on the horizon long ago; I edited the original post to contain a link, but that link has since gone away. C'est la vie; I have another.

So, what are we missing? Well, #'s 7 and 8, of course, that there would be a horde of lawsuits, and that there would also have been massive bipartisan voter fraud.

Number 7 was flatly wrong, apparently. From my exalted vantage point in August of 2007, I didn't foresee the margin of victory for any candidate being high enough to avoid it, and I was mistaken.

Number 8, however... well, let's see? Has there been voter fraud? There certainly has on the Democratic side; there are lawsuits in 12 states about it. On the Republican side, however, it hasn't been as apparent. So, I'll call that a 50/50.

So, how'd I make out?

At the end of the election, the predictions I made a year and three months ago fall out with 7 straight-out correct; one half and half; and one that was wrong.

...It's the Republicans that are suing everyone, not the Democrats.

So, right now, I'm batting .833.

I'm gonna call that a better win-loss record than anyone you'll see on TV.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

[+/-]

Change We Can Believe In

Sunday, October 19, 2008

[+/-]

Xeno Writes Out Part 6, Is 4 Links From Posting When Abruptly Poof Like Magic, It Disappears

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

[+/-]

Sleep Deprivation, Unemployment, And Movies

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

[+/-]

The American Voter

[+/-]

ATTENTION DEMOCRATS!!!

Friday, October 10, 2008

[+/-]

Path - Apocalyptica

Saturday, October 04, 2008

[+/-]

A House Built Upon The Sand (The Mortgage Meltdown, Part Five Of Seven)

[* The series as it unfolds:

You Unmitigated Bastards
What The Fuck Are Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, Anyway?
Community Organizing
It's Like A Weed, Man
A House Built Upon The Sand...
And Like That House, Down It Goes
None Of You Is Fit To Lead

At first, the effects of ACORN and the ACLU's strong-arm use of the CRA to create thousands of subprime mortgage loans looked good, on paper. Minority home investment went up; overall home investment went up; housing values started to climb.

The first - the VERY first - concrete sign that something was going very wrong came in 1999, from none other, interestingly enough, than a man I've already called out as a criminal: Senator Barack Obama's campaign advisor, Franklin Raines. As CEO of FNMA, Mr. Raines warned in 1999 that the flood of CRA loans was risky, and that the amount of debt FNMA was securing was already greater than its assets, and that assuming even more would be very dangerous.

He was right.

He was ignored, and after months of mounting pressure from HUD and Congress, relented and joined the chorus, apparently resigned to the coming crisis. But history is clear; Raines was the first to really point out the dangers.

Why?

Most likely the major reason Raines wanted to forestall the incredibly risky lending practices at FNMA, was because his hands were in the cookie jar; he was later forced to resign under investigation for fraud, because the entire time he was at FNMA - prior to his role in the Obama campaign - he was busily robbing the public blind, and didn't want to let risky loan practices and overspeculation kill his source of extra income.

The result was a company whose managers engaged in one questionable maneuver after another, including two transactions with investment banking firm Goldman Sachs Group Inc. that improperly pushed $107 million of Fannie Mae earnings into future years. The aim, OFHEO said, was always the same: To shape the company's books, not in response to accepted accounting rules but in a way that made it appear that the company had reached earnings targets, thus triggering the maximum possible payout for executives including Raines, Howard and others.

Note that name? Goldman Sachs? Remember it. It'll come back to haunt us. That notwithstanding, his was the first red flag raised about the CRA loans, and he was ignored.

In fact, the signs had been there all along; they had simply been ignored in the rush to get every non-white person in America a house, whether or not they could afford it.

The Heritage Foundation warned - as far back as 1991 - that

The haunting fear is that if the corporations falter, the taxpayer could end up being forced to bail them out.

Gee, you think?

But the SECOND person to raise a red flag about subprimes was none other than our much-disliked President, George W. Bush. In fact, he proposed an impressive overhaul of the GSEs, including nearly all the features Newt Gingrich would recommend in the National Review seven years later.

That legislation was shot down.

But more than that, it was openly mocked by Representative Barney Frank, who said:

I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.

...Good luck with that.

Having been stymied in humiliating fashion, the president turned his attention to the Iraq War, and left the GSEs to Congress.

In hindsight, that was a huge mistake.

Congress tried its best to ignore it, with a few exceptions. One of those exceptions was Senator John S. McCain. In 2006, he gave a series of - I would call them fiery, except he's 370 years old and it was more like "banked coals" - speeches on the Senate floor, recommending basically all the same changes to the GSE regulations that the President had. He made a lot of political capital out of being a "maverick," and defying - well, someone - about the issue, before quietly letting it drop.

Of course, Senator McCain's hiding a dirty secret, too. His comes in the person of a gentleman named Leland C. Brendsel. Brendsel has been a campaign staffer and advisor to Senator McCain since 1988.

He's still on Senator McCain's staff today.

He's also the same Leland C. Brendsel who - when he was CEO of FHLMC - was removed for fraud, and forced to pay millions of dollars in fines for doing the exact same thing Franklin Raines did.

Senator McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, owns a lobbying firm that has been taking $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac since 2005 - shortly before Senator McCain let the issue of GSE regulation drop - and still is.

And let's not forget Senator McCain's campaign co-chairman, Phil Gramm, the man who authored and sponsored the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which eliminated regulations on Credit Default Swaps (remember those?) or Mark Buse, Senator McCain's Senate office chief of staff, who earned $460,000 in 2003 and 2004 from Freddie Mac for lobbying the Senator on their behalf. In fact, TONS of McCain advisors and staffers are lobbyists.

I wasn't kidding when I said that nobody's hands were clean here.

Senators Dodd, Kerry, Clinton, and Obama were the unquestioned leaders in campaign contributions from FNMA and FHLMC, true, but good ol' Maverick McCain received $21,500 from them directly, as well; nowhere near the sums they spent on the Democrats, but still.

Maybe - just maybe - the mess might have been prevented, if the warnings hadn't been ignored.

We'll never know.

But since the ones responsible for causing the mess are the same ones we're relying on to fix it, we'll continue to see corruption as usual from Washington.

[* As promised, here is the information you'll need to contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators about this mess, if you are so inspired. I hope you will. I hope you're furious. I hope you're as furious as I am. I hope you tell them so at great length. Here's the info; enjoy.

U.S. House Of Representatives Member Directory By State

U.S. Senate Member Directory By State

And while I'm at it, the president's email address - I hope he gets a ton of viagra ads - is president@whitehouse.gov, and the Veep is vice_president@whitehouse.gov - so use them wisely and OFTEN. *]

Friday, October 03, 2008

[+/-]

Multiply Photo Importer

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

[+/-]

Start my new 15-hour-a-day job. I LOVE OVERTIME!!!

Monday, September 29, 2008

[+/-]

It's Like A Weed, Man... (The Mortgage Meltdown, Part Four of Seven)

Saturday, September 27, 2008

[+/-]

The Presidential Debate!

[+/-]

Community Organizing (The Mortgage Meltdown, Part Three Of Seven)

[+/-]

What The Fuck Are Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, Anyway? (The Mortgage Meltdown, Part Two of Seven)

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

[+/-]

You Unmitigated Bastards: The Mortgage Meltdown, Part One Of Seven

A note before I begin: the reason for a SEVEN PART posting on this issue is two-fold. First, it keeps the chunks small enough that I can actually attempt to post them in my limited free time, and second, it prevents your head from exploding with boredom. So, please, bear with me.

Because the story of Horatio Bunce and Davy Crockett has more relevance today than it may at first seem, I will share it with you as an introductory section to my series on this ongoing, engineered meltdown.

"A'way back when,"

my father began,

"there was a feller by the name of Davy Crockett; you may've heard of 'im."

I nodded.

"Well, this feller Crockett was genr'lly c'nsidered t' be a decent enough sort; well-spoken, well-thought-of; and he spent some time in Congress.
"Now, y'see, ol' Crockett had voted on a bill to help out some folks's homes had got burned up in a fire; not too fur gone f'm the kind of thing Congress mos'ly goes in fur now. Well, Mr. Crockett had come up fur re-election, and so he tuck out on horseback to ride up and down in his district, so's to drum up support.

"'Long the way, he noticed a feller plowin' a field, and stopped to glad-hand 'im; but the farmer warn't havin' any of it, and said he wasn't voting for Crockett.

"But further, he went on t' say that ol' Crockett either didn't understand the Constitution, or had no honor to defend it with, and either way warn't a fit representative, 'least not of that farmer.

"You can bet that-all didn't sit well with ol' Crockett, who asked the farmer why.

"That ol' farmer told Crockett 'twas that bill for the fire that done it; he said that Crockett could give his own money away all he wanted, but had no right to give away tax dollars to charity.

"Now, I'm keepin' this short, y'understand, but the upshot of it all is he convinced Crockett, and Crockett promised to tell everyone he talked to that he'd done wrong, and why, and that he was sorry; and Crockett did it, and won that farmer's vote.

"That farmer's name was Horatio Bunce, and there ain't hardly a schoolbook to be had that'll tell you that story; but I'd bet you can find it somewheres, if'n you look."

And I did.

The story appears as the essay "Sockdolager" in the book The Life of Colonel David Crockett by Edward R. Ellis, who was privileged to know Colonel Crockett himself.

His version follows.

     CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
     I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support -- rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
     "Mr. Speaker -- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
     He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
     Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
     Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
     I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
     "You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
     He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:
     "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
     I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
     SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
     The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
     The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
     So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
     He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
     I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and --"
     "'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
     This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
     "Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
     "I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
     "No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
     "Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
     "Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
     Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
     "Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
     "It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
     I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
     "So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
     I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
     "Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
     He laughingly replied:
     "Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
     "If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
     "No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
     "Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."
     "My name is Bunce."
     "Not Horatio Bunce?"
     "Yes."
     "Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
     We shook hands and parted.
     It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
     At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
     Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
     I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.
     I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him -- no, that is not the word -- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
     But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted -- at least, they all knew me.
     In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
     "Fellow citizens -- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
     I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
     "And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
     "It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
     He came upon the stand and said:
     "Fellow citizens -- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."
     He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
     I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
           "NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
     "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men -- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased - - a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

The difference here between Col. Crockett and our existing government is that when he was wrong, Col. Crockett was man enough to not only change his ways, but to tell people he'd had to, and why.

For that alone, notwithstanding his valor at the Alamo, I would have voted for him.

This is not true of our current government, nor the Presidency or Congresses that preceded it.

Let this story provide the contrast.

I am going to - over the six follow-on articles - dissect the mortgage meltdown, and along the way, hopefully you will see what i see - that this intended bailout bill serves as both things Mr. Bunce warned about; not only theft from the taxpayer, but a staggering and naked power grab by an increasingly tyrannical government.

I will note, before you read part two, that although I've never been an ardent McCain supporter, I've felt that Senator Obama was far worse.

I would hope that reading this series will display for you why I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either of these men.

I WILL not vote for either of these men.

Senator Obama directly contributed to the single organization most responsible for the events leading to the crash.

Senator McCain is "waffling" on the bailout bill.

If you possess the ability to "waffle" on the question of whether or not to nationalize the entire damned economy, you are no fit leader for this nation or any other.

I know many of you, of either political stripe, are most likely fuming right now over my vagueness; I will ask you to be patient. I have little "free" time, and research isn't quick; I have no intention of leaving anything out, or making any allegations I cannot at least partially substantiate, so this will take time; I will try to have the entire series posted by Sunday night, links, evidence, substantiation, and all.

Please, be patient; and then be FURIOUS.

The government - all of it, regardless of party - is trying to steal this country out from under us.

I will show you how.

Then it's up to us to prevent it.

I will include the links to the House and Senate member directories, as well as the White House, in each part of this series, so that if at any point in my presentation you feel the need to fire off an angry letter, you will know exactly how to get it in the hands of your relevant government officer.

The conclusion of the series is MY letter.

I will be sending it to ALL the members of Congress, the President, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and anyone else I can think of that has even the slightest hint of complicity in this.

Some things are too important to let party politics cloud the issue. This situation is one of these. I hope you'll all agree with me to suspend the acrimony until we're past this one.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

[+/-]

Casshern

[+/-]

Death Magnetic

Saturday, September 20, 2008

[+/-]

Ladies And Gentlemen, I Am A Racist... Or Am I?

There are some potent arguments supporting the idea that I am racist. First, I am not voting for Senator Obama. Second, I am white. Third, I oppose hate crime laws and affirmative action. And, fourth, I oppose "reparations for slavery."

But frankly, I'm getting tired of being accused of racism, by people who clearly and obviously don't understand what racism is, or what the word itself even means.

So, I'm going to talk about these four issues. And afterwards, you can make up your own mind. Am I a racist? Or are the arguments against me simply not what they seem?

The first and second arguments - that I am voting against Senator Obama, and that I am white, go hand in hand. You see, the imputation by the Obama campaign, and many of his supporters, is that the ONLY reason a white person could possibly vote against Senator Obama is because of his skin color.

This argument, of course, is inherently racist, as it is making a judgement about me and my decisions based solely on my skin color. BECAUSE I'M WHITE, my disapproval of Senator Obama MUST be predicated on HIS skin color - because as a white person, I am incapable of seeing any other factor as important.

There are a plethora of reasons to avoid Senator Obama at the general election; his total lack of experience in executive authority, his blatant and obvious communism, his association with terrorists former and current, his participation in the single organization - ACORN - most responsible for today's mortgage market meltdown, and his appallingly communist voting record, are all major reasons to stay away from him. Presuming that it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to have taken any of those factors into account in my decision, BECAUSE I'M WHITE, is openly, shamelessly racist.

The core of the first argument against me is that as a white person, I MUST make all decisions based entirely and exclusively on the basis of race.

I reject that notion utterly.

However, the second argument also acts on its own; I'm white, and therefore purportedly congenitally incapable of understanding oppression, injustice, and insult; especially since, as a white person, I of course have never experienced any of those things, and even if I had, it wouldn't count, because when those things happen to white people "it's just different" than when it happens to a black person.

In fact, this should be evidently racist to anyone; the entire structure is predicated on my skin color as the sole evidence of my "obvious" incapacity of understanding; BECAUSE I'M WHITE, clearly nobody's ever made unfair assumptions about me, or personally insulted me, or held me back from something I deserved; BECAUSE I'M WHITE, if any of those things did happen to me, they would be inherently different than those same events happening to a black person, because they're black.

The word "racism" has a meaning; that meaning is "making judgements based solely on race."

If the premise of your statement is "you are white, and therefore..." that is a racist statement.

The core of the second argument against me is that based strictly on my skin color, I lack the capacity to comprehend injustice and act against it.

I reject that notion utterly.

The third argument, that I am a racist because I oppose "hate crime" laws and "affirmative action," is also fundamentally a racist argument, but to understand this, you must first truly understand the message and intent of "hate crime" laws, and "affirmative action."

There are certain types of things that are illegal. We call those things "crimes." As they are against the law, when one performs those actions, there is a penalty, a punishment, for violating the rights of others. Most of the worst of these - specifically, many of the things deemed ready for "hate crime" status - are crimes against persons, crimes which are inherently more heinous than others, like murder, rape, assault, and arson.

As such, they are afforded higher penalties than other kinds of crimes, because they afford the victims more permanent or serious consequences than such trivialities as vandalism.

However, there is a segment of the American public which wants a certain subset of those crimes to be deemed even MORE heinous; "hate crimes." This is because - so the argument goes - the crime is inherently worse when perpetrated against any other ethnic group, by white people.

This nation is founded on the fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law. Claiming that a crime is worse if someone white commits it against someone black, than it would be if someone white committed it against someone white, is openly claiming that black people need special, extra protection not needed for anyone else; protection specifically not afforded to white people, who obviously don't need it.

What this claims - quite openly - is that the racists are right; black people AREN'T as good as white people. If they were, after all, the normal, already-enforced protection of the law would be sufficient. The fact that people are advocating special protection for a group - based on race - implies that those advocates believe that group is incapable of functioning without that special protection; that they are inherently weaker, lesser, than everyone else protected by the law.

I reject that notion utterly.

Affirmative action uses the identical argument, but in the opposite direction. Affirmative action claims that black people - or really any ethnic group that's not white, but let's not be picky - are inherently incapable of keeping up with white people academically or in job performance, and thus require special treatment to be able to compete "fairly."

Special treatment based on race, is racist.

Affirmative action makes the claim that "ethnic minorities" aren't as good, or as capable, as white people, simply because of their skin color.

I reject that notion utterly.

The fourth argument against me, that I am a racist because I oppose "reparations for slavery," presumes that I must make such opposition because of my skin color, and for no other reason.

In fact, I personally have never owned a slave. I personally have never oppressed anyone. And yet, the supporters of "reparations," would forcibly take from me my own hard-earned money, and give it to someone else, because I share a skin color with people now dead, who committed an offense against other people now dead.

The reality is that no-one now alive has ever been a slave. No-one now alive has ever owned a slave.

It is therefore impossible for me to share any guilt for slavery. Not only was I not alive when slavery existed in this country, no-one remains alive to whom "reparations" might fairly be paid. Had the government apologized for slavery at the end of the Civil War, in 1865, and paid reparations to all former slaves, that notion would not only have had merit, it would have been fully justified, and I would have supported it; it was the government of this nation which allowed that practice to continue, and therefore the government owed an apology, and a debt, to those who suffered from it.

But not only the victims are gone, but the members of our government who owed the apology are gone as well; in fact, everyone involved is gone.

Arguing that "reparations" are justified now, is to argue that people innocent of a crime owe a debt to those against which no crime has been committed, because of skin color; an idea which is inherently racist.

The core of the fourth argument against me is that because I am white, I am responsible for the actions of all other white people.

I reject that notion utterly.

So, you tell me. Am I a racist?

Or is the reality that the people accusing me of it are simply trying to cover their OWN racist issues?

Am I a racist because I assume that a black person is just as capable of doing well in school, or at work, as a white person?

Because it never occurs to me to vote for a communist - because I've been to communist countries and have no urge to see that here?

Because I refuse to pay someone who is not a victim for something I didn't do to them or anyone else?

Am I racist...

...Because I am white?

And if you answered "yes," to that last question...

...What does that make YOU?

Start:	Oct 19, '08 7:00p
Location:	Hell

Start:	Oct 16, '08 08:00a
Location:	Lewistown, PA

Rating:	★★★
Category:	Music
Genre:	Hard Rock & Metal
Artist:	Metallica

Rating:	★
Category:	Computers & Electronics
Product Type:	Other
Manufacturer:	Microsoft

The Highlight Reel

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Friday, December 12, 2008

Monday, December 01, 2008

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Friday, October 10, 2008

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Friday, October 03, 2008

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Monday, September 29, 2008

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Current Post!

Search Xeno's Paradox!

Twitter Updates

Blog Archive

Contributors