2008 Memorial Day

Of my three score and ten I have seen many Memorial Day celebrations to honor the brave, and, to honor even those who were not so brave, but who made the ultimate sacrifice. Actually, most of them did not sacrifice their lives. Their lives were taken from them violently. They may have volunteered to fight, but they assessed the risk, and hoped they would return safely. They hoped to receive honors, emoluments and girls.

Since 1971 Memorial Day has been on the last Monday of May to create a three day weekend for the travel industry. http://www.usmemorialday.org/ This has led to many barbecues, parties, and promotional events that have little to do with honoring the military people who fought in wars. This has not detracted from the need for the cable companies and the other media to fill time in a 24 hour media day.

Memorial Day used to be celebrated locally. Now it is celebrated nationally with hours of videos of wars and hours of interviews with veterans. No matter how many I watch, I see the glorification and promotion of war in almost all of these. One must listen carefully to see any discussion of the causes of war. The promoters of war, the military/industrial/congressional complex, say Memorial Day is a time to honor the dead, not a time for a political discussion on the causes of war. War gives the state purpose. These war lovers never want to discuss the causes of war. They just love war. They do not need a reason for war, they just need an excuse. The more veterans we create the more veterans and dependents there are who demand a national day of gratitude to them.

These war lovers use Memorial Day as a means to recruit young men by exploiting the feelings of young men who are drifting in a life without meaning. Memorial Day reminds these young men of a place where they can become important, even in death.

Every country has their day to remember those who "sacrificed" for the homeland, the king, god, etc. Could both sides in the war between Germans and Russians be right in honoring those who fought to defend Hitler and Stalin?

Throughout history every tribal chief and witch doctor has told their tribe that an aggressive tribe over the hill in the next valley is planning on a raid and will capture our women and children so---we must strike first, in the name of freedom! They tell the young warriors to fight for freedom. If they die they will be honored, and if they live, they will get the girls, and the GI Bill.

U.S. leaders pontificate each Memorial Day about how our veterans fought for freedom in Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, Bosnia, and Iraq. The North Koreans had no ability to invade the United States and take away our freedoms. Neither did the North Vietnamese, or Saddam Hussein. No Tyrant will invade the United States and take away our freedoms. We will give them away, meekly and slowly, one election at a time.

Thirty eight thousand U. S. service men were killed in Korea to preserve our freedoms. Despite a draw, in the fifty years since, no North Koreans have come to the U. S. and been elected to any political position to take away our freedoms.

Fifty eight thousand men lost their lives in Vietnam fighting to preserve our freedoms. A Million Vietnamese were killed. The North Vietnamese won the war but they did not invade the United States and take away our freedoms. So what was all the suffering for? Nothing.

When the southern states seceded from the union, the northern states used force and aggression to "unite" the states. After World War Two the United States used force and aggression to "divide" Korea and Vietnam! When those two countries wanted to be united again, the United States used force and aggression to keep them divided! Untold horrors happened in these wars because men's egos got in the way of their reasoning power.

Lydia Sicher once said: "Wars are inevitable... as long as we believe that wars are inevitable. The moment we don't believe it anymore it is not inevitable."

Throughout human history males have fought for the right to breed. This basic animal behavior can still be seen in a troop of Baboons. Modern 'civilized' humans mask this natural trait with words such as; valor, bravery, sacrifice, duty, honor, etc, but, the basic cause for war, not the excuses, is the male's desire to mate.

This desire to mate exacerbates the need for war in countries that practice polygamy and in countries who abort female fetuses. The disproportionate number or males to females in these countries is a time bomb for war. If there were four females for each male there would be fewer wars. This natural trait of the young males is exploited by the war industry, the defense industry, labor unions, and the religious missionaries. No matter how often philosophers remind the young males of the horrors of war, the young males cannot help themselves. They drape themselves in a flag, any flag of any nation, play the bugle, and charge, knowing they will be "honored" on Memorial Day.

We made dueling illegal. We made slavery illegal. Now it is time we made war illegal.

Here is a salute to those young men who tried to do the right thing. To those young men who trusted older men, please forgive us.

Bilbo Baggins, a veteran

"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it." ~ Oscar Wilde

Senate votes 70-26 to fund Iraq war, again!

For His Treatment of Children in the ‘War on Terror,’ Bush Is a War Criminal
Dave Lindorff http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/21/9116/

Many liberals call for charging President Bush with war crimes. Should the congressional members who vote to fund the war also be charged as conspirators in these war crimes? And should the voters who vote for these members of congress, again and again, that fund the war, also be charged with a conspiracy to commit war crimes?

Congress will say they are exempt from prosecution for war crimes. The real reason they do not charge President Bush with war crimes is because in any investigation, those members who voted for the Iraq war would be implicated as conspirators.

If however, the Muslim world ever became united and had the strength to conquer the United States, then many members of congress who voted to fund the Iraq war would likely be charged, along with President Bush and his staff, with war crimes.

Maybe congress should at least be charged with racketeering for spending other people's money. They should also be charged with child abuse for imposing debts on children of America who cannot vote.

Charles Tolleson
-----------------------------------------------------
Senate passes Iraq war funding bill with add-ons By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Senate Republicans have broken with President Bush to help Democrats add support for veterans and the unemployed to a bill paying for another year of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.The 75-22 vote also added billions of dollars in other domestic funds such as heating subsidies for the poor and money for fighting wildfires to funding for military operations overseas. Shortly afterward, the Senate voted 70-26 to approve $165 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring,when Bush's successor will set war policy. All told, the measure contains $212 billion over the coming two years, plus about $50billion more through 2017 for veterans education benefits.

Deadbeat Dads and Deadbeat Citizens

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.
~Albert Camus

Judges can and often send fathers to prison because they have not paid what the Judge decided was "Child Support". Excuses for failing to make child support payments are not sympathized with by the judges.

The Judges will often tell the father to get a new job, work harder, etc.
"In most states, the judge is authorized to examine a parent's ability to earn as well as what he or she is actually earning, and order higher child support if there is a discrepancy. Actual earnings are an important factor in determining a person's ability to earn, but are not conclusive where there is evidence that a person could earn more if she chose to do so. For example, assume a parent with an obligation to pay child support leaves his current job and enrolls in medical or law school, takes a job with lower pay but good potential for higher pay in the future, or takes a lower paying job that provides better job satisfaction. In each of these situations, a court may base the child support award on the income from the original job (ability to earn) rather than on the new income level (ability to pay). The basis for this decision would be that the children's current needs take priority over the parent's career plans and desires." http://fatherhood.about.com/cs/divorceddads/a/childsupport_2.htm

I think it's time to apply this principal to the Deadbeat Citizens. Those citizens who do not work and accept their responsibility to carry their burden in society should be charged with "Government Support". It is up to the judges to make these deadbeat citizens live up to their duty to help pay for; police, fire, parks, schools, and free emergency room service. The judges should make the "Dead Beat Citizens" who can take care of themselves, do so. As the previous paragraph shows, parents who choose a lesser paying job may be required to pay child support based on previous earnings. I see nothing wrong with applying this principal to "Deadbeat Citizens".

Neither does Michelle Obama, who said in a speech at UCLA in February 2008, her husband, Barack Obama, if elected President, would; And Barack Obama will require you to work. "He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism ... that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed." http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker052108.php3

My solution however would leave the state out of the child support business. Mothers then would find reliable men, not just a sperm donor. Mothers would compromise and negotiate to make the marriage and parenthood work. Today there is no economic or social reason for a mother to make the marriage work, or to share a child with its father.

Nor would I compel people to work, as Michelle Obama says. Of course I would not offer them services that someone else is compelled to pay for.

Charles Tolleson, divorced dad

Links--
Single Parents/ http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/deadbeat.htmDead Beat Dads info http://www.ancpr.org/deadbeat.htmlDead Beat Dads Stats http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/supportfacts.php
http://www.falseallegations.com/bench5-beat-dead-dads.htm

A country talking to its enemies is not appeasement

"If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side." Orson Scott Card

President Bush has accused people who will not support his violence and aggression against other countries as appeasers, comparing them to those in the 1930s who negotiated with Adolph Hitler. I imagine President Bush would like for his enemies to appease him.

President Bush gave a speech in Israel, on Israel's 60th anniversary. President Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

President Bush said in his speech that critics' calls for talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were comparable to the "appeasement" of Adolf Hitler before World War Two. Yet, despite President Bush's admonition, the Bush administration has been in diplomatic talks with Iran! I think President Bush is being somewhat haughty. He simply does not deign to meet certain leaders he dislikes.


What does it say if we negotiate with our enemies and get what we want, or 75% of what we want, without war; death, debt, and destruction? Does negotiating with your enemy and winning in the negotiations mean you have appeased your enemy? Of course not. Spouses are always negotiating. Some are appeasers. Business and labor negotiate without appeasing. We all negotiate in our daily lives. Talking with our opponents does not mean we are appeasing each other.

Egos and hubris should never prevent negotiations between countries with armies capable of killing millions. During WW I, ten million people were killed, all because of poor negotiators. Countries should never abandon the negotiating table. As long as they are talking, men are not dying. Inflated egos can cause a catastrophe.

All negotiations between countries should be on the record and made public so the citizens could know when their governments are lying.

President Bush does not have time to do all the negotiations, and diplomacy is a delicate art. The trouble is, there are too many foreign policy decisions that make so much diplomacy necessary. President Bush just declared HIS vision for the Middle East! He has no right to impose his vision on other countries. If he would stick to protecting the United States instead of fighting Israel's wars, then we would not be talking about meeting with our enemies, because we would not have as many enemies.

"Talking" with "terrorists" will not lead to submission or appeasement. Our own police "talk" to serial killers and criminals all the time in order to get what the police want. This is not appeasement.

The definition of 'Appease'- To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle.

Discussions with your enemy is not appeasement. Semantics, prevarication, and subdolous rhetoric are however, part of politics.

The essay below by Auberon Herbert describes a terrorist as simply wanting to share in the power of government. All relationships are about power and self interest. President Bush, put aside your ego and start talking to our enemies. You just might save millions of lives.

Charles Tolleson

From -Auberon Herbert, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State and Other Essays (1978 ed.) [1885] Essay Five, The Ethics of Dynamite.

"With a hideous leer upon his face, he turned to the governments and said: You govern, you do what you choose, you take possession of body and mind, you wring from this subject human material all that you imagine that you want for your own purposes, you send men hither and thither to be shot for the quarrels that it amuses you to make, you burden them with all the restrictions and vexations that in your belief can add some little thing to your own security or convenience or dignity, and you do it just because you are strong enough to do it-because you have discovered and perfected the trick of the majority. You say that you have a majority on your side-that this majority is strong enough to inflict its will upon all others. Let it be so; I make no pretense to possess a majority; a minority is good enough for me-a small minority of desperate reckless men, believing in their ideas, and not caring much for their lives. But such as we are, we, too, have power.It is not like your power, disguised under innumerable forms and ceremonies; it is just what it professes to be-power, brutal, naked,and not ashamed. Come now, let us reason for a moment together. Where, after all, is the difference between us? We both of us are believers in power; we both of us desire to fashion the world to our own liking by means of power. The only difference between us is in the form of the power which we each make use of. Your power depends upon clever electioneering devices, upon tricks of oratory, upon organized wealth and numbers; mine is the power that can be carried in the pocket of any ragged coat, if the owner of the ragged coat is sufficiently endowed with courage and ideas. We are both seeking to govern. Why, then, do you turn your faces from me, flout me, and disown me? I am your brother, younger, it is true, than you, a little down in the world and disreputable perhaps, but for all that, child of the same family, equal in rank, and claiming by the same title deeds as yourselves. True, I am not magnificently equipped as you are; I have no court as you have, no army, no public institutions, no national treasury, no titles, no uniforms resplendent with decorations; I have only a few fanatical followers; and yet, perhaps, as regards the truetest of power, I can command the fears of men and possess myself of their obedience quite as effectually as you can. Let us greet each other and shake hands, even if we are opposed. Believe me, though you shrink from recognizing me, I am in very deed your own brother, your coequal, flesh of your flesh, and spirit of your spirit. Henceforth from today we divide the government of the world between us. You are the force of the majority; and I am the force of the minority."

Charity and Character, Myanmar's Disaster

It has been said that character is something you do when no one knows. What you do that others know about is your reputation. Would you spend money on expensive designer clothes if no one would ever see them on you?

I read that the United States wanted to offer aid to the victims of Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar. The United States wanted to have labels on the packages of aid that showed the items came from the U.S.

Myanmar's junta did not want to be shown as inadequate providers. It would be embarrassing to them if it was known by the starving Myanmar citizens that some other country had to help out. Power corrupts.

Of course the U.S. and other aid providers should be concerned that the junta will hoard much of the food aid. But, if the U.S. wanted to be real humanitarians, they should agree not to label the food packages, which embarrassed the Myanmar junta, and just do some air drops in unmarked helicopters over the area.

If the U.S. could not label the food as coming from the U.S. it would not get to enhance its reputation. It would however enhance its character.

Charles Tolleson

$15 billion grants to cities to buy foreclosed properties

The federal government created the housing crisis by making lenders lend to bad credit risks, and then having government created institutions like FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac guarantee these bad loans.

Now the federal government has a bill that would "grant" cities $15 billion of taxpayers' money to buy foreclosed properties. The House on Thursday also passed, 239-188, a bill to send $15 billion to states to buy and fix up foreclosed property. Bush has threatened to veto that measure also, contending it rewards the very lenders who helped caused the housing chaos and could act as an incentive for them to foreclose rather than find ways to help struggling borrowers stay in their homes. H.R. H830

Why would the cities want to buy bad, foreclosed loans from the banks? Why not let the banks deal with the problem?

The bill was proposed by Democrat Congressman Barney Frank. He is the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Sixteen mayors of the 25 largest cities in America are democrats. The large city mayors see a way of getting the rest of the country to send them 15 billion dollars to buy foreclosed properties that are not paying property taxes. If the cities buy the properties, they will have to pay the back taxes, to themselves, with other people's money. What a deal. The properties will still be vacant, and for sale, as if the banks still owned them. The only difference is the back property taxes will be a windfall for many big cities, who already spend too much.

The banking lobby did a good job of getting congress to force the taxpayers to buy the foreclosed properties from the banks. The banks and lenders will be happy to unload these properties, at the expense of the taxpayers no less.

The promoters of this bill dissemble when they say they are helping the economy and helping the little people. Falling home prices have made homes more affordable for more people than before. People are buying vacant condos and townhouses and renting them with a positive cash flow. New home construction is down, therefore reducing the supply of houses, while the population of the United States increases. There is no reason, not one, nor is it justified in the constitution, for the Congress to forcibly take money from the taxpayers and give to the cities to buy foreclosed properties from banks and lenders.

Fairness

“What the superior man seeks, is in himself; what the ordinary man seeks, is in others.” (Analects, bk. xv., c. xx.)

Barack Obama is about fairness. In regards to tax cuts helping the economy, "I believe we should institute not just because it would be good economic stimulus, but because it would be important for fairness in the economy".

Barack Obama is not talking about fairness in the "economy". He is talking about envy. He sells an illusion of fairness. He wants government employees to decide what is fair. Too much "fairness" is already in our politically correct society. It will be a dangerous precedent to give the government employees the power to decide what is fair.

Already our society has become obsessed with fairness, the product of envy, a deadly sin. The female tennis players who compete in the Wimbledon Tennis Championships receive the same prize money as the male players. The male players draw more ad revenue, and they must play five sets, while the females only have to play 3 sets. If the females had to compete with the males they would not even be in the top fifty, and would receive no recognition, let along top prize money.

The same "fairness" doctrine applies in the Boston Marathon. The top female runner wins the same amount in prize money as the top male runner, yet she cannot even compete with the top 100 male runners. The fastest female finished 13 minutes behind the fastest male, yet she collects the same "first place" prize money.

Another example of the interlopers' desire for "fairness" is California's payment method to drive on "freeways" with no tolls. People who buy expensive cars pay a license tax based on the value of the car. A person driving on a California freeway in a very expensive car will pay more than a person in an inexpensive car will pay for using the same freeway, no matter how many miles they drive. A person with an expensive car will pay much more in a license tax for the permission to drive, not for the miles driven, than a person with an inexpensive car.

If government employees have the power to determine what is fair in life, were will they stop? Will they determine that it is only fair if some ugly women get to marry rich men? Will they determine that it is only fair that short men get to play in the NBA. And will they determine that it is only fair that dumb students also get a good grade in school? I think they will, and I think they have.

Many schools and team sports do not keep scores. There are no winners and losers for those kids. Each team gets a trophy. Someday these kids will be voters who decide public policy. Their policies will be less competition because competition has losers. Losing hurts. Interlopers try to eliminate hurt. When using their power they become corrupt, and do more harm than they would if they stopped trying to micro manage 300 million U.S. lives.

We have been practicing fairness and equality for many years, ever since the State made polygamy illegal. The state decided it is only fair that weak men, who are failures, drug addicts, and idiots, should be allowed the opportunity to find a mate.

You may think you will benefit if the government employees decide what is fair. The first decision the government employees will make is that they have better working conditions and benefits than you have.

Charles Tolleson

Senator Webb wants a "New GI Bill"

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

Senator Jim Webb wants to increase the GI Bill benefits for veterans.
http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=269299
I received the GI Bill for 4 years of college.

It is not strange at all that Senator Webb would introduce this welfare bill in an election year. It is another scheme to buy votes.

The GI Bill was enacted after WW II to compensate the veterans. Later there were student grants, then student loans. Colleges tried to admit students that were not qualified. Colleges started offering "Soft" degrees that had little market value. Today some degrees do not earn enough to justify the cost of college tuition. Most businesses now require a college degree for an interview, but a degree is not necessary for the work done.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/931855,CST-NWS-college05.article

Even if one chooses not to go to college, one should not choose to stop learning.
The United States spends more per student than any other industrialized nation, yet it ranks at the bottom in degree completion (54%), says a 2007 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The organization average is 71%; the high is 91% in Japan.The cost of college has gone up much more than inflation during the past years. It seems anytime the government interferes in the market place by forcibly taking money from some and giving it to others, like big colleges, the market gets out of balance. The big colleges have more money coming in so they simply raise their prices.

From 1977 through 2006 the average college inflation rate was 7.25% while the CPI was 4.30%. -CPI Source: U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212 Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers – (CPI-U), US city average, All items, 1982-84=100 (year ending June 30). College Inflation Source: The College Board, New York, NY -

College graduates make almost twice as much as high school graduates. About 28% of the population has a college degree. If this percentage was reversed and 72% of the population had a college degree, the difference might be more or less, but unimportant.

If an 18 year old could place the cost of college tuition, $40,000, into an IRA earning 6%, by the time she reached age 65 she would have $618,000. Since 1925 the S&P 500 index has an annual return of 10%. If an 18 year old invested $40,000 of college tuition earning 10% for 47 years they would have-$3,500,000!

Maybe Senator Webb should just give ever GI recruit $40,000 invested in the S&P 500 Index for their retirement at age 65.

Employers want someone who can learn, and commit. Completing 4 years of college is indicative of the ability to comprise and commit.

During WW II military pilots did not require a college degree. After the war when demand was down the military started requiring 2 years of college in order to be a pilot. Now the requirement is a college degree because the supply of college graduates is higher, not because the job requires a college degree.

The same with United Airlines. It used to hire pilots who did not have a college degree because the job simply did not require a college degree. It still does not require a college degree, but United Airlines does, because the supply of college graduates is greater than the demand for pilots.

When every citizen has a 4 year degree, the interlopers will demand the government pay for advanced degrees. They never sleep. The interlopers are tormented unless they have someone in distress that needs help.

Charles Tolleson

Government wants to tax oil industry profits

"I might be an accident, but taxes are not." Richard Tolleson, b.1961

Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, who chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, a powerful man in congress, has a history of trying to micromanage the markets. He was one of the Marxists who helped create the housing and credit crisis by promoting easy credit for high risk borrowers. http://tinyurl.com/69dd7x Now Kanjorski wants to tax the oil industry. (See below)

Hear we go again, more fascism. They never learn. Taxing excess profits was the same excuse used to tax excess income when they started the income tax. They were only going to tax the rich! Envy and greed affects all of us. If he can tax the oil industry, which industry's profits will he tax next?

Millions of people own stock in Exxon Mobile through 401ks, mutual funds, or as private investors. A lady who retired in 1998 might have bought Exxon Mobile stock for the dividend income of $0.82. Had she bought a 1000 shares at the average price of $33 per share in 1998 she would have had income of $820. Because of dividend increases over the past ten years, the dividend in 2008 will be $1.60 per share. Our retiree would now receive $1600 per year in dividends on her original purchase of 1000 shares. This would be a 97% increase in income over 11 years! The yield on her original purchase of $33,000 in 1998 would have grown from 2.48% to 4.84%! Now people like Paul Kanjorski want to confiscate money from millions of investors, denying seniors and others profits for dividends. Kanjorski takes no risk. Seniors and other investors take the risks. Kanjorski is just like the mob, wanting a cut from the production of others.

Now they want to tax oil companies' profits because they are "excessive". This is more legal plunder by someone who has never owned a business. If he had he would know the integrated oil companies' profits of 9.6% is not excessive. He would also know there are many other industries with higher profit margins.

If one removes three zeroes from the revenues of Exxon Mobile's past 12 months of revenue you would have $361,000,000. If you removed three zeroes from the profits of the past 12 months you would have $73,000,000. Now it hardly seems excessive.

Higher oil profits means there will be opportunities for alternate power sources; hydrogen, fuel cells, electric, etc. Higher profits justify the added expense of drilling deeper wells and drilling offshore wells. To some people, higher fuel prices also justify having an ocean view untarnished with an oil rig.

The unseen benefits of high fuel prices will be the desire to find cheaper resources. That has always happened in a free market.

Another unseen benefit will be the reduction in damage done to the government roads as people drive less.

The most important unseen benefit will be the savings of thousands of lives in car accidents because people will drive less, and drive slower.

Our freedoms were not threatened by the North Korean atheists. They were not threatened by the North Vietnamese atheists. They are not threatened by the Muslim terrorists. Our freedoms are threatened by people like Paul Kanjorski, and the voters who vote for people like him, who give up our freedoms, slowly, one election at a time.

Charles Tolleson

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23183.html
May 4, 2008
Congressman Proposes that Government Establish a "Reasonable Profits Board"
by Gerald Prante
The current high price of gas has led to a lot of crazy proposals from gas tax holidays to creating a tax deduction based upon energy consumption. But Rep. Paul Kanjorski's (D-PA) may top them all in terms of its stupidity. From the Times Leader, Kanjorski's plan would do the following:
• H.R. 5800 would tax industries’ windfall profits.
• The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies’ profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.
• As oil and gas companies’ windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.
• Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates.