Chicago Tuesday PM, December 16, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Jonathan Soros' Monday, December 15 Op-ed "It's Time to Junk the Electoral College" wants all states to agree to a 'National Popular Vote compact' where state presidential electors agree to cast their electoral votes for the national winner of the popular vote for president. I suppose that if in the recent election John McCain had won the national popular vote the 21 Illinois electors would have voted against Obama? I mean, if you can't trust our governor to take the naming of a senator seriously, how you gonna trust 21 Democrat political appointees to vote against their favorite guy?
Also, after all the arm waving in the 2000 election over chads (pregnant, hanging, whatever) in a single Florida precinct, what would have happened if the final national popular presidential vote in the recent election had been 52,456,123 for Obama, and 52,456,789 for McCain? Do you think even a single state would be satisfied with their first count?
Direct election is a wonderful tool, and the founders gave it to the most numerous federal house. And to that house they also gave the most important government functions: collecting and spending taxes. But the founders also recognized the country was not just a lot of people, but a group of sovereign states, so they added a second house, membership divided equally among the states, but more important, not responsible directly to the people, but elected by the people's state legislators. But the 'direct election' fetish arose 125 years later with the passage of the 17th Amendment. This made the Senate nothing but a house of reps, with longer terms and more expensive suits. It also gave us our first Senate party leaders in 1920, a convenient three senate elections after the amendment passed (just think: we got along for 125 years without a Harry Reid in sight.)
But something certainly should be junked in a country that is replacing a president who had six years experience making executive decisions for the nation's second largest state with someone who has yet to make the first executive "buck stops here" decision of his life.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
WSJ: It's Time to Junk the Electoral College
Jonathan Soros OpEd WSJ New York, N.Y.: Monday Dec 15, 2008.
(c) 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
In his election-night victory speech, Barack Obama said he would be a president for all Americans, not just those who voted for him. But as a candidate he didn't campaign with equal vigor for every vote. Instead, he and John McCain devoted more than 98% of their television ad spending and campaign events to just 15 states which together make up about a third of the U.S. population. Today, as the Electoral College votes are cast and counted state-by-state, we will be reminded why. It is the peculiar mechanics of that institution, designed for a different age, that leave us divided into red states, blue states and swing states. That needs to change.
The Electoral College was created in 1787 by a constitutional convention whose delegates were unconvinced that the election of the president could be entrusted to an unfiltered vote of the people, and were concerned about the division of power among the 13 states. It was antidemocratic by design.
Under the system, each state receives votes equal to the number of representatives it has in the House plus one for each of its senators. Less populated states are thus overrepresented. While this formula hasn't changed, it no longer makes a difference for the majority of states. Wyoming, with its three electoral votes, has no more influence over the selection of the president or on the positions taken by candidates than it would with one vote.
We often forget that the power to appoint electors is given to state legislatures, and it is only because they choose to hold a vote that Election Day is at all relevant for us. Nowhere is a popular election constitutionally required. And, as the 2000 election reminded us, the winner of the popular vote is not guaranteed to become president.
The Constitution is no longer in line with our expectations regarding the role of the people in selecting the president. Yet several previous attempts to eliminate the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment have failed, scuttled by the difficulty of the process itself and the tyranny of small-state logic.
Fortunately, a constitutional amendment is not necessary. Rather than dismantling the Electoral College with an amendment, we can use the mechanisms of the Electoral College itself to guarantee popular election of the president.
To understand how the proposal works, one needs to understand two basic principles. First, that state legislatures are basically unfettered in how they choose to appoint electors. And second, that groups of states can enter into binding agreements with one another in the form of so-called interstate compacts. There are many examples of such compacts, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the interstate agreement that guarantees a driver points on a Virginia driver license when he or she speeds in Maryland.
Under the proposed National Popular Vote compact, state legislatures would agree to choose electors who promise to support the winner of the nationwide popular vote. For example, if a Republican were to win the overall national popular vote, even if New Yorkers favored the Democrat, New York's Electoral College votes would go to the Republican. The compact will go into force when states representing 271 Electoral College votes have entered into it to guarantee that the winner of the popular vote will become president.
It is ironic that the most common objection to the National Popular Vote compact is the suggestion that it is antifederalist. In fact, interstate compacts lie at the very core of federalism: individual states combining their powers to solve a problem. In this case, they would be joining forces to allow their citizens to act as one nation in the selection of their president.
The National Popular Vote compact has already been enacted by four trailblazing states -- Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii -- and has been introduced in 41 others. It's time that the rest of them got on board.
Mr. Soros is the deputy chairman of Soros Fund Management and a supporter of the National Popular Vote.
(See related letters: "Letters to the Editor: Consider Carefully Before Junking the Electoral College" -- WSJ December 26, 2008)
My response: "Time to jnk the Electoral College?"
Chicago Tuesday PM, December 16, 2008 Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Jonathan Soros' Monday, December 15 Op-ed "It's Time to Junk the Electoral College" wants all states to agree to a 'National Popular Vote compact' where state presidential electors agree to cast their electoral votes for the national winner of the popular vote for president. I suppose that if in the recent election John McCain had won the national popular vote the 21 Illinois electors would have voted against Obama? I mean, if you can't trust our governor to take the naming of a senator seriously, how you gonna trust 21 Democratic political appointees to vote against their favorite guy?
Also, after all the arm waving in the 2000 election over chads (pregnant, hanging, whatever) in a single Florida precinct, what would have happened if the final national popular presidential vote in the recent election had been 52,456,123 for Obama, and 52,456,789 for McCain? Do you think even a single state would be satisfied with their first count?
Direct election is a wonderful tool, and the founders gave it to the most numerous federal house. And to that house they also gave the most important government functions: collecting and spending taxes. But the founders also recognized the country was not just a lot of people, but a group of sovereign states, so they added a second house, membership divided equally among the states, but more important, not responsible directly to the people, but elected by the people's state legislators.
But the 'direct election' fetish arose 125 years later with the passage of the 17th Amendment. This made the Senate nothing but a house of reps, with longer terms and more expensive suits. It also gave us our first Senate party leaders in 1920, a convenient three senate elections after the amendment passed (just think: we got along for 125 years without a Harry Reid in sight.)
But something certainly should be junked in a country that is replacing a president who had six years experience making executive decisions for the nation's second largest state with someone who has yet to make the first executive "buck stops here" decision of his life.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
(c) 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
In his election-night victory speech, Barack Obama said he would be a president for all Americans, not just those who voted for him. But as a candidate he didn't campaign with equal vigor for every vote. Instead, he and John McCain devoted more than 98% of their television ad spending and campaign events to just 15 states which together make up about a third of the U.S. population. Today, as the Electoral College votes are cast and counted state-by-state, we will be reminded why. It is the peculiar mechanics of that institution, designed for a different age, that leave us divided into red states, blue states and swing states. That needs to change.
The Electoral College was created in 1787 by a constitutional convention whose delegates were unconvinced that the election of the president could be entrusted to an unfiltered vote of the people, and were concerned about the division of power among the 13 states. It was antidemocratic by design.
Under the system, each state receives votes equal to the number of representatives it has in the House plus one for each of its senators. Less populated states are thus overrepresented. While this formula hasn't changed, it no longer makes a difference for the majority of states. Wyoming, with its three electoral votes, has no more influence over the selection of the president or on the positions taken by candidates than it would with one vote.
We often forget that the power to appoint electors is given to state legislatures, and it is only because they choose to hold a vote that Election Day is at all relevant for us. Nowhere is a popular election constitutionally required. And, as the 2000 election reminded us, the winner of the popular vote is not guaranteed to become president.
The Constitution is no longer in line with our expectations regarding the role of the people in selecting the president. Yet several previous attempts to eliminate the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment have failed, scuttled by the difficulty of the process itself and the tyranny of small-state logic.
Fortunately, a constitutional amendment is not necessary. Rather than dismantling the Electoral College with an amendment, we can use the mechanisms of the Electoral College itself to guarantee popular election of the president.
To understand how the proposal works, one needs to understand two basic principles. First, that state legislatures are basically unfettered in how they choose to appoint electors. And second, that groups of states can enter into binding agreements with one another in the form of so-called interstate compacts. There are many examples of such compacts, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the interstate agreement that guarantees a driver points on a Virginia driver license when he or she speeds in Maryland.
Under the proposed National Popular Vote compact, state legislatures would agree to choose electors who promise to support the winner of the nationwide popular vote. For example, if a Republican were to win the overall national popular vote, even if New Yorkers favored the Democrat, New York's Electoral College votes would go to the Republican. The compact will go into force when states representing 271 Electoral College votes have entered into it to guarantee that the winner of the popular vote will become president.
It is ironic that the most common objection to the National Popular Vote compact is the suggestion that it is antifederalist. In fact, interstate compacts lie at the very core of federalism: individual states combining their powers to solve a problem. In this case, they would be joining forces to allow their citizens to act as one nation in the selection of their president.
The National Popular Vote compact has already been enacted by four trailblazing states -- Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii -- and has been introduced in 41 others. It's time that the rest of them got on board.
Mr. Soros is the deputy chairman of Soros Fund Management and a supporter of the National Popular Vote.
(See related letters: "Letters to the Editor: Consider Carefully Before Junking the Electoral College" -- WSJ December 26, 2008)
My response: "Time to jnk the Electoral College?"
Chicago Tuesday PM, December 16, 2008 Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Jonathan Soros' Monday, December 15 Op-ed "It's Time to Junk the Electoral College" wants all states to agree to a 'National Popular Vote compact' where state presidential electors agree to cast their electoral votes for the national winner of the popular vote for president. I suppose that if in the recent election John McCain had won the national popular vote the 21 Illinois electors would have voted against Obama? I mean, if you can't trust our governor to take the naming of a senator seriously, how you gonna trust 21 Democratic political appointees to vote against their favorite guy?
Also, after all the arm waving in the 2000 election over chads (pregnant, hanging, whatever) in a single Florida precinct, what would have happened if the final national popular presidential vote in the recent election had been 52,456,123 for Obama, and 52,456,789 for McCain? Do you think even a single state would be satisfied with their first count?
Direct election is a wonderful tool, and the founders gave it to the most numerous federal house. And to that house they also gave the most important government functions: collecting and spending taxes. But the founders also recognized the country was not just a lot of people, but a group of sovereign states, so they added a second house, membership divided equally among the states, but more important, not responsible directly to the people, but elected by the people's state legislators.
But the 'direct election' fetish arose 125 years later with the passage of the 17th Amendment. This made the Senate nothing but a house of reps, with longer terms and more expensive suits. It also gave us our first Senate party leaders in 1920, a convenient three senate elections after the amendment passed (just think: we got along for 125 years without a Harry Reid in sight.)
But something certainly should be junked in a country that is replacing a president who had six years experience making executive decisions for the nation's second largest state with someone who has yet to make the first executive "buck stops here" decision of his life.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
Saturday, November 1, 2008
My first letter in UK Financial Times...
...but I forget to look for it, and did not see it in the actual paper.Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Peggy Noonan on Palin's Failin'
Another letter WSJ didn't have the you-know-whats to print (well, maybe sending it in 11 days after the subject column was printed may have had something to do with that.)
Chicago ILTuesday, October 28, 2008
Wall Street Journal Letters
Gentlepeople:
In her Friday, October 17, 2008 column "Palin's Failin'" Peggy Noonan writes of "a man who came from nowhere.... Harry S. Truman.... [y]ou have to give people time to show what they have."
Then she complains "... we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools... one hopes for in a holder of high office."
Palin doesn't have the tools for high office? She has infinitely more management experience than the other three candidates put together, since their buck-stops-here decision making responsibilities are limited to deciding where their senate office staff Christmas parties will be.
What had Truman shown on May 31, 1945, seven weeks after he had been "thrust into power by a careless FDR..."? Germany had surrendered on May 7, but even HST took no particular credit for that.
But have you noticed those crowds Sarah draws, Ms. Noonan? And the numbers of conservatives, formerly ice cold about McCain, now gritting their teeth, determined to vote for him whatever.
Better yet, have you noticed the opposition? They are appoplectic, appearing sometimes to be addressing Sarah more than John whats-his-name. They were even driven to claiming Sarah's crowds were yelling stuff like "kill him", quickly proven absolutely baseless.
Then Peggy goes on a tirade about "candidates... dropping their G's. Hardworkin' families are strainin' and tryin'a get ahead." And saying 'Mom and Dad' instead of 'mothers and fathers....'" asking "Do politicians ever remember that ... our children ...look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound?"
We are faced with the strong possibility of electing a president who is an out-and-out radical socialist, whose experience is limited to four grueling pre-teen years of slogging thru the mud of Indonesia, eight years as a state senator (a job requiring no more talant than a Chicago Bears 3rd string jock strap attendant (without the responsibility,) and work as a 'Community activist', AKA in Chicago as junior precinct captain ("Here sonny, a list of voters - if they don't on election day, your 'community activist' career is over!")
And Peggy Noonan is worried about politicians dropping their G's?
There's a lot of G droppin' out here west of the Hudson, Peggy.Sometimes we even idiomatically use the gramatical abortion "Who's kidding who".
Noonan concludes with a critical reference to "...Christopher Buckley... shooed from the great magazine his father invented."
Christopher Buckley was dropped because that magazine has no room for someone who openly backs a candidate who will nationalize every inch of the private sector he can, will name SCOTUS justices who will back those efforts for the next 40 years, and who would feel better if the United States were the weakest nation on earth instead of the strongest.
Arnold H
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
PS At least I don't need to waste time reading another Noonan column after 10/17/2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago ILTuesday, October 28, 2008
Wall Street Journal Letters
Gentlepeople:
In her Friday, October 17, 2008 column "Palin's Failin'" Peggy Noonan writes of "a man who came from nowhere.... Harry S. Truman.... [y]ou have to give people time to show what they have."
Then she complains "... we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools... one hopes for in a holder of high office."
Palin doesn't have the tools for high office? She has infinitely more management experience than the other three candidates put together, since their buck-stops-here decision making responsibilities are limited to deciding where their senate office staff Christmas parties will be.
What had Truman shown on May 31, 1945, seven weeks after he had been "thrust into power by a careless FDR..."? Germany had surrendered on May 7, but even HST took no particular credit for that.
But have you noticed those crowds Sarah draws, Ms. Noonan? And the numbers of conservatives, formerly ice cold about McCain, now gritting their teeth, determined to vote for him whatever.
Better yet, have you noticed the opposition? They are appoplectic, appearing sometimes to be addressing Sarah more than John whats-his-name. They were even driven to claiming Sarah's crowds were yelling stuff like "kill him", quickly proven absolutely baseless.
Then Peggy goes on a tirade about "candidates... dropping their G's. Hardworkin' families are strainin' and tryin'a get ahead." And saying 'Mom and Dad' instead of 'mothers and fathers....'" asking "Do politicians ever remember that ... our children ...look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound?"
We are faced with the strong possibility of electing a president who is an out-and-out radical socialist, whose experience is limited to four grueling pre-teen years of slogging thru the mud of Indonesia, eight years as a state senator (a job requiring no more talant than a Chicago Bears 3rd string jock strap attendant (without the responsibility,) and work as a 'Community activist', AKA in Chicago as junior precinct captain ("Here sonny, a list of voters - if they don't on election day, your 'community activist' career is over!")
And Peggy Noonan is worried about politicians dropping their G's?
There's a lot of G droppin' out here west of the Hudson, Peggy.Sometimes we even idiomatically use the gramatical abortion "Who's kidding who".
Noonan concludes with a critical reference to "...Christopher Buckley... shooed from the great magazine his father invented."
Christopher Buckley was dropped because that magazine has no room for someone who openly backs a candidate who will nationalize every inch of the private sector he can, will name SCOTUS justices who will back those efforts for the next 40 years, and who would feel better if the United States were the weakest nation on earth instead of the strongest.
Arnold H
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
PS At least I don't need to waste time reading another Noonan column after 10/17/2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, October 10, 2008
WSJ letter: Forty per cent of Americans don't pay income taxes?
Chicago Friday evening, October 10, 2008
Wall Street Journal Letters
Gentlepeople:
The fifth sentence of Kimberley Strassel's Friday, October 10, 2008 delightful sendup of Barack Obama's outlandish rhetoric says that "...40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes!" Ms. Strassel, it's considerably worse than even that. The only Americans who can too easily give Senator Obama the chance to do all this damage are voters.
Ninety per cent of voters are wage earners, but thanks to the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 90% of wage earners don't pay any income taxes. They get statements that say they do, but the actual check that goes to DC is written on an employer bank account. If that check doesn't make it to the federal coffers, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner. Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to fix it. But they really don't need them since they can pass on this expense to consumers, effectively sucking the largest single contribution to federal income from the soft underbelly of a continuously expanding national economy. In 230 years, we have gone from rebelling against 'taxation without representation' to meekly accepting 'representation w/o taxation.'
So voters could care less about the government bailing out any number of careless lending institutions and underfunded real estate borrowers, as long as they continue get their entitlements (and how they line up for those entitlements!)
This problem could be fixed with a simple change to paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages (a) Requirement of withholding (1) In general...' from: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax...." To: "Regardless of what is provided in this section or anywhere else in US law, every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...."
The rest of the paragraph stays the same: employers calculate the tax, and inform the feds what they should expect to get from the wage earner, and the wage earner of what he is expecteed to deliver to the feds. Would this be inefficient? Sure, for an insatiable federal government, but educational for wage earner/voters, especially once they start writing checks on their own bank accounts to the feds every month for 20% of their last paycheck.
This would result in direct responsibility for 80% of federal income being given back to those who are supposed to have it in the first place: US voters. Like the 'Fair Tax', this could not be done overnite (neither could the FT, but don't tell its supporters that.) So have a monthly drawing of a single letter from the 26: Every wage earner who's last name begins w/ that letter gets converted that month from having income taxes withheld to sending in their own check.
This would be a good example of the frog in the slowly heating water: After 26 months, every wage earner would actually be paying his/her really fair share. And as it stands now, they would be very unhappy w/ that. The 26-month conversion period would conveniently include a reelection of all 435 house members, and 1/3 of Senators. The results of that election would reflect the wage earners' unhappiness w/ finally feeling what it's like to actually pay income taxes. And they would pay a lot more attention to the magician antics of a Barack Obama.
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL
Wall Street Journal Letters
Gentlepeople:
The fifth sentence of Kimberley Strassel's Friday, October 10, 2008 delightful sendup of Barack Obama's outlandish rhetoric says that "...40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes!" Ms. Strassel, it's considerably worse than even that. The only Americans who can too easily give Senator Obama the chance to do all this damage are voters.
Ninety per cent of voters are wage earners, but thanks to the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 90% of wage earners don't pay any income taxes. They get statements that say they do, but the actual check that goes to DC is written on an employer bank account. If that check doesn't make it to the federal coffers, the employer goes to jail, never the wage earner. Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to fix it. But they really don't need them since they can pass on this expense to consumers, effectively sucking the largest single contribution to federal income from the soft underbelly of a continuously expanding national economy. In 230 years, we have gone from rebelling against 'taxation without representation' to meekly accepting 'representation w/o taxation.'
So voters could care less about the government bailing out any number of careless lending institutions and underfunded real estate borrowers, as long as they continue get their entitlements (and how they line up for those entitlements!)
This problem could be fixed with a simple change to paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages (a) Requirement of withholding (1) In general...' from: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax...." To: "Regardless of what is provided in this section or anywhere else in US law, every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...."
The rest of the paragraph stays the same: employers calculate the tax, and inform the feds what they should expect to get from the wage earner, and the wage earner of what he is expecteed to deliver to the feds. Would this be inefficient? Sure, for an insatiable federal government, but educational for wage earner/voters, especially once they start writing checks on their own bank accounts to the feds every month for 20% of their last paycheck.
This would result in direct responsibility for 80% of federal income being given back to those who are supposed to have it in the first place: US voters. Like the 'Fair Tax', this could not be done overnite (neither could the FT, but don't tell its supporters that.) So have a monthly drawing of a single letter from the 26: Every wage earner who's last name begins w/ that letter gets converted that month from having income taxes withheld to sending in their own check.
This would be a good example of the frog in the slowly heating water: After 26 months, every wage earner would actually be paying his/her really fair share. And as it stands now, they would be very unhappy w/ that. The 26-month conversion period would conveniently include a reelection of all 435 house members, and 1/3 of Senators. The results of that election would reflect the wage earners' unhappiness w/ finally feeling what it's like to actually pay income taxes. And they would pay a lot more attention to the magician antics of a Barack Obama.
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Letter to NYTimes on Joe Biden
Chicago Saturday AM, September 21, 2008
New York Times letters 349 words
Gentlepeople:
The Saturday, September 20 New York Times article "Meanwhile, the Other No. 2 Keeps On Punching" is a well written, interesting take on an interesting guy. Describing Joe Biden as "a distinctive blend of pit bull and odd duck" and "part of the national political furniture for decades" is delicious.
But what seems strange is all but non-existent mention of why Joe Biden got this position. Buried deep in the article is the statement that Biden lends "foreign policy heft to Senator Barack Obama" and a guy whose foreign policy experience is limited to four crucial pre-teen years slogging through the mud of Indonesia sure needs that.
But a careful read of Biden's official biography at Congress.gov might explain the dearth. It mentions only six things Biden has actually done in his government career:
--- represented the state of DE in the US Senate since 1972
... wrote and passed the Violence Against Women Act
... authored the Rail Security Act of 2007
... authored a Senate resolution endorsing air war in Kosovo
... Authored and passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
and the 2007 Biden Crime Bill
Beyond those six measurable accomplishments, every thing else is qualified with words like "His leadership", "is recognized as", "is one of the nation's most influential voices on", “is credited with” or "has earned a rep for".
This is pretty thin stuff. Wouldn't you think that if he actually had made some real marks in foreign relations, they would be mentioned in an official on-line biography?
To Senator Biden’s credit, of the 900 words in that official biography, 214 are about foreign policy, but not too far behind are 176 words about his state, and then 168 on his personal life (and to keep readers‘ minds from wandering, 27 of those 900 words are ‘Biden‘, 22 of those immediately preceeded by ‘Senator‘.)
To the biographer's credit, it ends up on some high notes: Biden "serves as a good example for everyone in Congress", "is a good listener" and "has a very broad, comprehensive view of the world."
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
New York Times letters 349 words
Gentlepeople:
The Saturday, September 20 New York Times article "Meanwhile, the Other No. 2 Keeps On Punching" is a well written, interesting take on an interesting guy. Describing Joe Biden as "a distinctive blend of pit bull and odd duck" and "part of the national political furniture for decades" is delicious.
But what seems strange is all but non-existent mention of why Joe Biden got this position. Buried deep in the article is the statement that Biden lends "foreign policy heft to Senator Barack Obama" and a guy whose foreign policy experience is limited to four crucial pre-teen years slogging through the mud of Indonesia sure needs that.
But a careful read of Biden's official biography at Congress.gov might explain the dearth. It mentions only six things Biden has actually done in his government career:
--- represented the state of DE in the US Senate since 1972
... wrote and passed the Violence Against Women Act
... authored the Rail Security Act of 2007
... authored a Senate resolution endorsing air war in Kosovo
... Authored and passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
and the 2007 Biden Crime Bill
Beyond those six measurable accomplishments, every thing else is qualified with words like "His leadership", "is recognized as", "is one of the nation's most influential voices on", “is credited with” or "has earned a rep for".
This is pretty thin stuff. Wouldn't you think that if he actually had made some real marks in foreign relations, they would be mentioned in an official on-line biography?
To Senator Biden’s credit, of the 900 words in that official biography, 214 are about foreign policy, but not too far behind are 176 words about his state, and then 168 on his personal life (and to keep readers‘ minds from wandering, 27 of those 900 words are ‘Biden‘, 22 of those immediately preceeded by ‘Senator‘.)
To the biographer's credit, it ends up on some high notes: Biden "serves as a good example for everyone in Congress", "is a good listener" and "has a very broad, comprehensive view of the world."
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Letter to, and response from, WSJ
Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:22 DT
Subject: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
A paragraph titled 'Thailand' in your fine Thursday, August 21 article "When [Olympic] Gold Turns Green" refers to a Thai weight lifter: "The 24-year-old is the countries lone gold of these Games."
"Countries"? Say it ain't so, WSJ. Since it's the possessive of "country" not a number of "countries", it should be "country's", not "countries".
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:57 From: "Martin-Sr, Paul" To: ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for your note about the misuse of “countries” for “country’s” in the Journal article.
We appreciate readers like you who hold us to high standards -- especially when their notes are as gracious as yours.
Sincerely, Paul Martin WSJ stylebook editor
Subject: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
A paragraph titled 'Thailand' in your fine Thursday, August 21 article "When [Olympic] Gold Turns Green" refers to a Thai weight lifter: "The 24-year-old is the countries lone gold of these Games."
"Countries"? Say it ain't so, WSJ. Since it's the possessive of "country" not a number of "countries", it should be "country's", not "countries".
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:57 From: "Martin-Sr, Paul" To: ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for your note about the misuse of “countries” for “country’s” in the Journal article.
We appreciate readers like you who hold us to high standards -- especially when their notes are as gracious as yours.
Sincerely, Paul Martin WSJ stylebook editor
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Letter to WSJ on "unsubstantiated charges and smears"
Chicago, Wednesday PM, August 20, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
In the Wednesday, August 20 Notable and Quotable, Peter Wehner, writing about Jerome Corsi's Obama biography, says "it's wrong to throw out unsubstantiated charges and smears against Senator Obama."
This WSJ feature is limited in length. This one is 160 words, but a recent one is 280 words. Wouldn't 120 additional words be plenty for Mr. Wehner to give just one example of an actual "unsubstantiated charge" or "smear". I haven't read Mr. Corsi's book, but I understand it is heavily sourced. It should be easy for Mr. Wehner to demonstrate such a sweeping statement, for the sake of his own credibility.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
In the Wednesday, August 20 Notable and Quotable, Peter Wehner, writing about Jerome Corsi's Obama biography, says "it's wrong to throw out unsubstantiated charges and smears against Senator Obama."
This WSJ feature is limited in length. This one is 160 words, but a recent one is 280 words. Wouldn't 120 additional words be plenty for Mr. Wehner to give just one example of an actual "unsubstantiated charge" or "smear". I haven't read Mr. Corsi's book, but I understand it is heavily sourced. It should be easy for Mr. Wehner to demonstrate such a sweeping statement, for the sake of his own credibility.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Why & how to eliminate income tax withholding 528 words
Chicago Saturday evening 20 September 2008
Wall Street Journal letters
Gentlepeople:
A letter in the Thursday, September 18 WSJ "'We the People' in Paying and spending taxes" makes an excellent point on how the decrease in the number of people actually paying federal income taxes has a significant downside. But that downside is even more dangerous than even the writer says.
Ninety per cent of voters are wage earners, but thanks to the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 90% of wage earners don't pay any income taxes. They get statements that say they did, but the actual check that goes to DC is written on an employer bank account.
Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to fix it. But they really don't need to since they can pass on this expense to consumers, effectively sucking the largest single contribution to federal income from the soft underbelly of a continuously expanding national economy. In 230 years, we have gone from rebelling against 'taxation without representation' to meekly accepting 'representation w/o taxation.'
So voters could care less about the government bailing out any number of careless lending institutions and underfunded real estate borrowers, as long as they continue get their entitlements (and how they line up for those entitlements!)
This problem could be fixed with a simple change to paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages (a) Requirement of withholding (1) In general...'
From: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax...."
To: "Regardless of what is provided in this section or anywhere else in US law, every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...."
The rest of the paragraph stays the same: employers calculate the tax, and inform both the wage earner and the feds.
Would this be inefficient? Sure, for an insatiable federal government, but educational for wage earner/voters, especially once they start writing checks on their own bank accounts to the feds every month for 20% of their last paycheck. This would result in direct responsibility for 80% of federal income being given back to those who are supposed to have it in the first place: US voters.
Like the 'Fair Tax', this could not be done overnite (neither could the FT, but don't tell its supporters that.)
So have a monthly drawing of a single letter from the 26: Every wage earner who's last name begins w/ that letter gets converted that month from having income taxes withheld to sending in their own check ( a real pay-as-you-go collection system.)
This would be a good application of the frog in the slowly heating water: After 26 months, every wage earner would actually be paying his/her really fair share. And they would be very unhappy with that.
The 26-month conversion period would conveniently include reelection of all 435 house members, and 1/3 of Senators. I think the results of that election would reflect the wage earners' unhappiness with finally feeling what it's like to actually pay income taxes.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640
Wall Street Journal letters
Gentlepeople:
A letter in the Thursday, September 18 WSJ "'We the People' in Paying and spending taxes" makes an excellent point on how the decrease in the number of people actually paying federal income taxes has a significant downside. But that downside is even more dangerous than even the writer says.
Ninety per cent of voters are wage earners, but thanks to the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 90% of wage earners don't pay any income taxes. They get statements that say they did, but the actual check that goes to DC is written on an employer bank account.
Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to fix it. But they really don't need to since they can pass on this expense to consumers, effectively sucking the largest single contribution to federal income from the soft underbelly of a continuously expanding national economy. In 230 years, we have gone from rebelling against 'taxation without representation' to meekly accepting 'representation w/o taxation.'
So voters could care less about the government bailing out any number of careless lending institutions and underfunded real estate borrowers, as long as they continue get their entitlements (and how they line up for those entitlements!)
This problem could be fixed with a simple change to paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages (a) Requirement of withholding (1) In general...'
From: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax...."
To: "Regardless of what is provided in this section or anywhere else in US law, every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...."
The rest of the paragraph stays the same: employers calculate the tax, and inform both the wage earner and the feds.
Would this be inefficient? Sure, for an insatiable federal government, but educational for wage earner/voters, especially once they start writing checks on their own bank accounts to the feds every month for 20% of their last paycheck. This would result in direct responsibility for 80% of federal income being given back to those who are supposed to have it in the first place: US voters.
Like the 'Fair Tax', this could not be done overnite (neither could the FT, but don't tell its supporters that.)
So have a monthly drawing of a single letter from the 26: Every wage earner who's last name begins w/ that letter gets converted that month from having income taxes withheld to sending in their own check ( a real pay-as-you-go collection system.)
This would be a good application of the frog in the slowly heating water: After 26 months, every wage earner would actually be paying his/her really fair share. And they would be very unhappy with that.
The 26-month conversion period would conveniently include reelection of all 435 house members, and 1/3 of Senators. I think the results of that election would reflect the wage earners' unhappiness with finally feeling what it's like to actually pay income taxes.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Chicago Trib scare note on 'global warming'...
...debunked my me
chicagotribune.com Washington, D.C.
Arctic ice melt nears recordWednesday, September 17, 2008
"Arctic sea ice this summer shrank to its second lowest level on record, scientists said Tuesday.
"The ice covered 1.74 million square miles Friday, according to NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. Last summer, the ice covered 1.59 million square miles, the lowest since record-keeping began in 1979.
"Arctic sea ice, which floats on the ocean, expands in winter and retreats in summer."
My explanation [never printed]:
A Wednesday, September 17 Chicago Tribune news clip starts "Arctic sea ice this summer shrank to its second lowest level on record..," then 38 words later adds "...record-keeping began in 1979."
Folks, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and you are concerned with the possibility of a record... for the last 29 years?
Simple arithmetic shows the last 29 years of 4.5 billion years is equivalent to the last 8 seconds of a 40-year-old human's lifetime. So maybe there wasn't any Arctic sea at all when the earth started? Then move it up by a factor of 1,000 to where the earth was 4.5 million years old, 29 years is equivalent to the last 2 hours, 13 minutes and 20 seconds of a 40 year life time. Either way, pretty skimpy numbers to start talking about a "record."
chicagotribune.com Washington, D.C.
Arctic ice melt nears recordWednesday, September 17, 2008
"Arctic sea ice this summer shrank to its second lowest level on record, scientists said Tuesday.
"The ice covered 1.74 million square miles Friday, according to NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. Last summer, the ice covered 1.59 million square miles, the lowest since record-keeping began in 1979.
"Arctic sea ice, which floats on the ocean, expands in winter and retreats in summer."
My explanation [never printed]:
A Wednesday, September 17 Chicago Tribune news clip starts "Arctic sea ice this summer shrank to its second lowest level on record..," then 38 words later adds "...record-keeping began in 1979."
Folks, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and you are concerned with the possibility of a record... for the last 29 years?
Simple arithmetic shows the last 29 years of 4.5 billion years is equivalent to the last 8 seconds of a 40-year-old human's lifetime. So maybe there wasn't any Arctic sea at all when the earth started? Then move it up by a factor of 1,000 to where the earth was 4.5 million years old, 29 years is equivalent to the last 2 hours, 13 minutes and 20 seconds of a 40 year life time. Either way, pretty skimpy numbers to start talking about a "record."
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Letter to Chicago Sun-Times on Roger Simon Obama oped
Chicago Sun-Times Tuesday, Sept 16, 2008 5:58 AM
Roger Simon 'change' column
Gentlepeople:
Roger Simon, in the 3rd paragraph of his Monday September 15, 2008 column "They all speak of 'change'..." says "More than 80 percent of Americans tell pollsters the country is on the wrong track...."
Rather than the catchall "pollsters", Simon could add to his credibility by quoting a single, well known, respected pollster, so that figure could be independently verified by readers. They see "pollsters" quoted everyday, most working for the mainstream media, so obviously, most hate the President, for the irredeemable sin of being George W. Bush and president simultaneously. What would you expect them to report?
Simon continues: "Change is the byword... of both the Democratic and Republican campaigns for president.... Barack Obama made it the cornerstone of his campaign in the primaries...."
Wow! Did he ever. And no one says 'change' better and more meaningfully, than Obama... when he's reading it off a teleprompter. Any other time it's all but completely lost in a sea of "ums", "unhs", "ya' knows", and the general confusion of his extemporaneous speech.
More Simon: "Sarah Palin used 'change'... but she did a neat little riff on it... to bash Obama.... 'In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers,' she said, 'and then there are those... who use their careers to promote change.'"
Yes, Sarah Palin, 21 month governor of that little state way out there, the one Obama all of a sudden thinks he's running against. Has anyone heard her stutter, or say "um" or "unh"? Teleprompter? She was reading from one when she responded to McCain's naming her his VP pick, but it got unhinged - did anyone notice a change in her delivery? Had the same thing happened to Obama, he would have melted to a puddle of water on the spot.
Simon: "Obama is now a little miffed at how the Republicans are using what he considers his theme: 'They had been running on experience.... We've been talking about ... change ... for 19 months.... now John McCain is saying, 'I'm for change, too.'"
Maybe McCain was embarrassed comparing his 22 years in Congress and 5 years in a brutal enemy prison camp to four crucial pre-teen years slogging through the mud of Indonesia and 8 years in the Illinois state senate, a job offering no more experience than that of a Chicago Bears 3rd string jock strap attendant, with none of the responsibility?
But Roger Simon knows a good thing when he sees it, closing the column with: "But maybe it will be different this time. For a change."
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 773-677-3010
Roger Simon 'change' column
Gentlepeople:
Roger Simon, in the 3rd paragraph of his Monday September 15, 2008 column "They all speak of 'change'..." says "More than 80 percent of Americans tell pollsters the country is on the wrong track...."
Rather than the catchall "pollsters", Simon could add to his credibility by quoting a single, well known, respected pollster, so that figure could be independently verified by readers. They see "pollsters" quoted everyday, most working for the mainstream media, so obviously, most hate the President, for the irredeemable sin of being George W. Bush and president simultaneously. What would you expect them to report?
Simon continues: "Change is the byword... of both the Democratic and Republican campaigns for president.... Barack Obama made it the cornerstone of his campaign in the primaries...."
Wow! Did he ever. And no one says 'change' better and more meaningfully, than Obama... when he's reading it off a teleprompter. Any other time it's all but completely lost in a sea of "ums", "unhs", "ya' knows", and the general confusion of his extemporaneous speech.
More Simon: "Sarah Palin used 'change'... but she did a neat little riff on it... to bash Obama.... 'In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers,' she said, 'and then there are those... who use their careers to promote change.'"
Yes, Sarah Palin, 21 month governor of that little state way out there, the one Obama all of a sudden thinks he's running against. Has anyone heard her stutter, or say "um" or "unh"? Teleprompter? She was reading from one when she responded to McCain's naming her his VP pick, but it got unhinged - did anyone notice a change in her delivery? Had the same thing happened to Obama, he would have melted to a puddle of water on the spot.
Simon: "Obama is now a little miffed at how the Republicans are using what he considers his theme: 'They had been running on experience.... We've been talking about ... change ... for 19 months.... now John McCain is saying, 'I'm for change, too.'"
Maybe McCain was embarrassed comparing his 22 years in Congress and 5 years in a brutal enemy prison camp to four crucial pre-teen years slogging through the mud of Indonesia and 8 years in the Illinois state senate, a job offering no more experience than that of a Chicago Bears 3rd string jock strap attendant, with none of the responsibility?
But Roger Simon knows a good thing when he sees it, closing the column with: "But maybe it will be different this time. For a change."
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 773-677-3010
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Letter to Chicago Tribune on Sarah Palin
Sunday, September 14, 2008 9:36 PM
Chicago Tribune Voice of the People
Gentlepeople
In her Monday, September 8, 2008 OpEd Katha Pollitt says John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is a "blatant pander for the women's vote."
What a wonder someone still uses the cliched phrase "pander for the women's vote" after eight years of non-stop women's vote pandering by an up-to-now prominent Democrat woman.
Then Pollitt says "After a stint as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of fewer than 8,500, and barely two years as governor of a state with more grizzly bears than people.... She makes Barack Obama's résumé look as thick as Winston Churchill's.
Ms. Pollitt, how long is a stint? Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla for six years, and worked up to that job with four years on the City Council. And why do you use the fuzzy guess of Wasilla having "fewer" that 8,500 population. You're too busy to take two minutes to look on page 605 of the 2008 World Almanac and see the town's 2006 population as 9,236?
You ignore Palin's two years between mayor and governor as chairman of somthing called the "Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission" which must be important in the state that supplies 15% of our oil.
You say Palin is "governor of a state with more grizzly bears than people." The world Almanac comes thru again showing an Alaska population of 670,000 humans, but an easy computer search finds that there are about 60,000 wild grizzly bears in all of North America, with 35,000-45,000 in Alaska. Why would you make such and outlandish, easily checked claim?
And that resume that looks as thick as Winston Churchill's? Well, there is all that international experience from four crucial pre-teen years slogging through the mud of Indonesia. And then there's two pages thick of 8 years in the Illinois state senate, a job requiring less skill than a third string Chicago Bears jock strap attendant, but without the responsibility. And then of course, the years spent as a junior precinct captain, I mean Community activist. And Obama's vast writing output: two autobiographys, that piker Churchill wrote only one.
With all this attention on the Republican VP pick, how about that Democrat pick, what's his name, the one with all that "in-depth international knowledge" from 30 years in the US Senate, and all he has to show for it is a lousy t-shirt covered with plagiarized statements of a British Socialist?
The US newspaper industry is having a hard time what with the internet and all, but the Chicago Tribune seems to be more than holding its own, in spite of printing drivel like Katha Pollett.
Arnold H Nelson
5056 North Marine DriveChicago 60640
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Chicago Tribune Voice of the People
Gentlepeople
In her Monday, September 8, 2008 OpEd Katha Pollitt says John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is a "blatant pander for the women's vote."
What a wonder someone still uses the cliched phrase "pander for the women's vote" after eight years of non-stop women's vote pandering by an up-to-now prominent Democrat woman.
Then Pollitt says "After a stint as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of fewer than 8,500, and barely two years as governor of a state with more grizzly bears than people.... She makes Barack Obama's résumé look as thick as Winston Churchill's.
Ms. Pollitt, how long is a stint? Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla for six years, and worked up to that job with four years on the City Council. And why do you use the fuzzy guess of Wasilla having "fewer" that 8,500 population. You're too busy to take two minutes to look on page 605 of the 2008 World Almanac and see the town's 2006 population as 9,236?
You ignore Palin's two years between mayor and governor as chairman of somthing called the "Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission" which must be important in the state that supplies 15% of our oil.
You say Palin is "governor of a state with more grizzly bears than people." The world Almanac comes thru again showing an Alaska population of 670,000 humans, but an easy computer search finds that there are about 60,000 wild grizzly bears in all of North America, with 35,000-45,000 in Alaska. Why would you make such and outlandish, easily checked claim?
And that resume that looks as thick as Winston Churchill's? Well, there is all that international experience from four crucial pre-teen years slogging through the mud of Indonesia. And then there's two pages thick of 8 years in the Illinois state senate, a job requiring less skill than a third string Chicago Bears jock strap attendant, but without the responsibility. And then of course, the years spent as a junior precinct captain, I mean Community activist. And Obama's vast writing output: two autobiographys, that piker Churchill wrote only one.
With all this attention on the Republican VP pick, how about that Democrat pick, what's his name, the one with all that "in-depth international knowledge" from 30 years in the US Senate, and all he has to show for it is a lousy t-shirt covered with plagiarized statements of a British Socialist?
The US newspaper industry is having a hard time what with the internet and all, but the Chicago Tribune seems to be more than holding its own, in spite of printing drivel like Katha Pollett.
Arnold H Nelson
5056 North Marine DriveChicago 60640
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Letter to Financial Times on Sarah Palin
Chicago, Illinois USA
Wednesday PM, September 10, 2008
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
In his Wednesday, September 10 FT OpEd James Carville says Sarah Palin's "experience includes a mixed mayoral record in Wasilla, a town with a population of 7,000, and a half-term gubernatorial record in a state with the population of Memphis." The 2008 World Almanac says Wasilla had 9,236 people in 2006. The same reference does indeed show Memphis, at the 2006 estimated population of 670,902 leading Alaska, 670,053, by a whopping 849 people. Could Carville have deliberately chosen Memphis as the landmark because it is the smallest of the nation's 100 largest cities to still be larger than Alaska?
If so, had he studied these two entities a little more, he would have found: Using 1990, 2000 and estimated 2006 census figures, Alaska population increased 20 people per day, Memphis increased for the same period 10 people per day. Extrapolating from the 2000/2006 Almanac figures, Alaska would have caught up with Memphis on August 27, 2006, and by the time by Palin was nominated on August 29, 2008, would have led Memphis by 7200 people. With that half hour of additional study, Carville would not appear quite so foolish.
Carville mentions 5 actual or theoretical Democrat candidates ("Insert name of Democrat", "Democratic candidates", "a reform-oriented state senator from a Midwestern state" and "Tim Kaine, Virginia governor",) but strangely, not a single mention of either of the Democrat candidates. Not a mention of The Dem VP candidate’s 30 years of Senate presence on the foreign relations committee, the high point of which was his plagiarizing of a British left wing politician. And how about The Dem presidential candidate's experience "outside of North America": Four crucial pre-teen years of slogging thru the mud of Indonesia. Beyond that the high point is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, equal in experience to that of a third string Chicago Bears jock strap attendant, but none of the responsibility.
This guy is the most inexperienced, unprepared, candidate for either President or Vice president in history. He cannot say a coherent complete sentence not presented to him on a teleprompter. Since her nomination 10 days ago, Sarah Palin has been speaking publicly non-stop. Has anyone heard her say "um" or "unh" - she didn't even stutter when the teleprompter operator goofed. After ten days of being accused of everything short of running a male prostitution ring out of her governor's office or molesting a House page (with nothing proved), she keeps getting stronger. On the other hand, Biden is a disaster waiting to happen. The way things are going they will replace him before the election, as a drowning man would grasp at a razor blade.
Carville closes: "If the Republicans wanted a vice-president who favours teaching creationism in public schools, who denies the science of global warming...." James, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the thermometer was invented 500 years ago. A little simple arithmetic shows that the last 500 years of 4.5 billion years is equivalent to the last 100 seconds of a 40-year-old human's lifetime. Yet the 'science' of global warming is making all sorts of predictions based on the earth 'warming'? Global warming has no more business being taught in schools than creationism.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine DriveChicago, IL USA
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Wednesday PM, September 10, 2008
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
In his Wednesday, September 10 FT OpEd James Carville says Sarah Palin's "experience includes a mixed mayoral record in Wasilla, a town with a population of 7,000, and a half-term gubernatorial record in a state with the population of Memphis." The 2008 World Almanac says Wasilla had 9,236 people in 2006. The same reference does indeed show Memphis, at the 2006 estimated population of 670,902 leading Alaska, 670,053, by a whopping 849 people. Could Carville have deliberately chosen Memphis as the landmark because it is the smallest of the nation's 100 largest cities to still be larger than Alaska?
If so, had he studied these two entities a little more, he would have found: Using 1990, 2000 and estimated 2006 census figures, Alaska population increased 20 people per day, Memphis increased for the same period 10 people per day. Extrapolating from the 2000/2006 Almanac figures, Alaska would have caught up with Memphis on August 27, 2006, and by the time by Palin was nominated on August 29, 2008, would have led Memphis by 7200 people. With that half hour of additional study, Carville would not appear quite so foolish.
Carville mentions 5 actual or theoretical Democrat candidates ("Insert name of Democrat", "Democratic candidates", "a reform-oriented state senator from a Midwestern state" and "Tim Kaine, Virginia governor",) but strangely, not a single mention of either of the Democrat candidates. Not a mention of The Dem VP candidate’s 30 years of Senate presence on the foreign relations committee, the high point of which was his plagiarizing of a British left wing politician. And how about The Dem presidential candidate's experience "outside of North America": Four crucial pre-teen years of slogging thru the mud of Indonesia. Beyond that the high point is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, equal in experience to that of a third string Chicago Bears jock strap attendant, but none of the responsibility.
This guy is the most inexperienced, unprepared, candidate for either President or Vice president in history. He cannot say a coherent complete sentence not presented to him on a teleprompter. Since her nomination 10 days ago, Sarah Palin has been speaking publicly non-stop. Has anyone heard her say "um" or "unh" - she didn't even stutter when the teleprompter operator goofed. After ten days of being accused of everything short of running a male prostitution ring out of her governor's office or molesting a House page (with nothing proved), she keeps getting stronger. On the other hand, Biden is a disaster waiting to happen. The way things are going they will replace him before the election, as a drowning man would grasp at a razor blade.
Carville closes: "If the Republicans wanted a vice-president who favours teaching creationism in public schools, who denies the science of global warming...." James, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the thermometer was invented 500 years ago. A little simple arithmetic shows that the last 500 years of 4.5 billion years is equivalent to the last 100 seconds of a 40-year-old human's lifetime. Yet the 'science' of global warming is making all sorts of predictions based on the earth 'warming'? Global warming has no more business being taught in schools than creationism.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine DriveChicago, IL USA
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Letter to UK Financial Times on Sarah Palin, Obama
Chicago, Illinois USA Wednesday PM, September 10, 2008
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
In his Wednesday, September 10 FT OpEd James Carville says Sarah Palin's "experience includes a mixed mayoral record in Wasilla, a town with a population of 7,000, and a half-term gubernatorial record in a state with the population of Memphis."
The 2008 World Almanac says Wasilla had 9,236 people in 2006. The same reference does indeed show Memphis, at the 2006 estimated population of 670,902 leading Alaska, 670,053, by a whopping 849 people.
Could Carville have deliberately chosen Memphis as the landmark because it is the smallest of the nation's 100 largest cities to still be larger than Alaska? If so, had he studied these two entities a little more, he would have found:
Using 1990 and 2000 census figures, Alaska population increased 21 people per day, Memphis increased for the same period 11 people per day. Using the same 2000 figure, and 2006 estimates in the 2008 almanac, they both increased at slightly lower rates: Alaska, 20 people per day, and Memphis, 9 people per day, showing Alaska has been increasing its population about twice as fast Memphis since 1990.
Extrapolating from the 2000/2006 Almanac figures, Alaska would have caught up with Memphis on August 27, 2006, and by the time Palin was nominated on August 29, 2008, would have led Memphis by 7200 people. With that half hour of additional study, Carville would not appear quite as foolish.
Carville mentions 5 actual or theoretical Democrat candidates ("Insert name of Democrat", "Democratic candidates", "a reform-oriented state senator from a Midwestern state" and "Tim Kaine, Virginia governor",) but strangely, not a single mention of either of the Democrat candidates. Not a mention of The Dem VP candidate’s 30 years of Senate presence on the forign relations committee, the high point of which was his plagiarizing of a British left wing politician.
And how about The Dem presidential candidate's experience "outisde of North America": Four crucial pre-teen years of slogging thru the mud of Indonesia. Beyond that the high point is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, equal in experience to that of a third string Chicago Bears jock strap attendant, but none of the responsibility.
This guy is the most inexperienced, unprepared, candidate for either President or Vice president in history. He cannot say a coherant complete sentence not presented to him on a teleprompter. Since her nomination 10 days ago, Sarah Palin has been speaking publicly non-stop. Has anyone heard her say "um" or "unh" - she didn't even stutter when the teleprompter operator goofed.
After ten days of being accused of everything short of running a male prostitution ring out of her governor's office or molesting a House page (with nothing proved), she keeps getting stronger. On the other hand, Biden is a disaster waiting to happen. The way things are going they will replace him before the election, as a drowning man would grasp at a razor blade.
Carville closes: "If the Republicans wanted a vice-president who favours teaching creationism in public schools, who denies the science of global warming...."
James, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the theremometer was invented 500 years ago. A little simple arithmetic shows that the last 500 years of 4.5 billion years is equivalent to the last 100 seconds of a 40-year-old human's lifetime. Yet the 'science' of global warming is making all sorts of predictions based on the earth 'warming'? Global warming has no more business being taught in schools than crationism.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago, IL USA
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
In his Wednesday, September 10 FT OpEd James Carville says Sarah Palin's "experience includes a mixed mayoral record in Wasilla, a town with a population of 7,000, and a half-term gubernatorial record in a state with the population of Memphis."
The 2008 World Almanac says Wasilla had 9,236 people in 2006. The same reference does indeed show Memphis, at the 2006 estimated population of 670,902 leading Alaska, 670,053, by a whopping 849 people.
Could Carville have deliberately chosen Memphis as the landmark because it is the smallest of the nation's 100 largest cities to still be larger than Alaska? If so, had he studied these two entities a little more, he would have found:
Using 1990 and 2000 census figures, Alaska population increased 21 people per day, Memphis increased for the same period 11 people per day. Using the same 2000 figure, and 2006 estimates in the 2008 almanac, they both increased at slightly lower rates: Alaska, 20 people per day, and Memphis, 9 people per day, showing Alaska has been increasing its population about twice as fast Memphis since 1990.
Extrapolating from the 2000/2006 Almanac figures, Alaska would have caught up with Memphis on August 27, 2006, and by the time Palin was nominated on August 29, 2008, would have led Memphis by 7200 people. With that half hour of additional study, Carville would not appear quite as foolish.
Carville mentions 5 actual or theoretical Democrat candidates ("Insert name of Democrat", "Democratic candidates", "a reform-oriented state senator from a Midwestern state" and "Tim Kaine, Virginia governor",) but strangely, not a single mention of either of the Democrat candidates. Not a mention of The Dem VP candidate’s 30 years of Senate presence on the forign relations committee, the high point of which was his plagiarizing of a British left wing politician.
And how about The Dem presidential candidate's experience "outisde of North America": Four crucial pre-teen years of slogging thru the mud of Indonesia. Beyond that the high point is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, equal in experience to that of a third string Chicago Bears jock strap attendant, but none of the responsibility.
This guy is the most inexperienced, unprepared, candidate for either President or Vice president in history. He cannot say a coherant complete sentence not presented to him on a teleprompter. Since her nomination 10 days ago, Sarah Palin has been speaking publicly non-stop. Has anyone heard her say "um" or "unh" - she didn't even stutter when the teleprompter operator goofed.
After ten days of being accused of everything short of running a male prostitution ring out of her governor's office or molesting a House page (with nothing proved), she keeps getting stronger. On the other hand, Biden is a disaster waiting to happen. The way things are going they will replace him before the election, as a drowning man would grasp at a razor blade.
Carville closes: "If the Republicans wanted a vice-president who favours teaching creationism in public schools, who denies the science of global warming...."
James, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the theremometer was invented 500 years ago. A little simple arithmetic shows that the last 500 years of 4.5 billion years is equivalent to the last 100 seconds of a 40-year-old human's lifetime. Yet the 'science' of global warming is making all sorts of predictions based on the earth 'warming'? Global warming has no more business being taught in schools than crationism.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago, IL USA
Sunday, September 7, 2008
John McCain and partisan rancor
[Besides the Detroit News, within an hour this letter was also sent to the Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel]
Sunday, September 7, 2008 11:35 PM
Detroit News Letters
A Thursday, September 4, 2008 Detroit News article "McCain tells cheering GOP he'll change Washington" says John McCain "vowed Thursday night to vanquish the 'constant partisan rancor' that grips Washington...."
Partisan rancor, constant or not, will only be 'vanquished' when Republicans and Democrats are both equally up to their armpits in the federal trough.
As long as one party tends to reflect the ideals of the Declaration of Independence a little more than the other, believes in following the the Constitution a little more than the other, believes we should proudly take our rightful place as the greatest country in world history a little more than the other, there will be partisan rancor.
Arnold H Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive
Chicago IL 60640
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Sunday, September 7, 2008 11:35 PM
Detroit News Letters
A Thursday, September 4, 2008 Detroit News article "McCain tells cheering GOP he'll change Washington" says John McCain "vowed Thursday night to vanquish the 'constant partisan rancor' that grips Washington...."
Partisan rancor, constant or not, will only be 'vanquished' when Republicans and Democrats are both equally up to their armpits in the federal trough.
As long as one party tends to reflect the ideals of the Declaration of Independence a little more than the other, believes in following the the Constitution a little more than the other, believes we should proudly take our rightful place as the greatest country in world history a little more than the other, there will be partisan rancor.
Arnold H Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive
Chicago IL 60640
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Truman, LBJ, and arah Palin
Chicago, Wednesday PM, September 3, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
A letter in the Wednesday, September 3, WSJ about the Palin nomination says: "Is she like a Harry Truman or even a Lyndon Johnson? I don't think so." Let me see, what city/town was Harry Truman Mayor of, what state did he govern? Same for LBJ... but they were senators.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive
Chicago IL 60640
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
A letter in the Wednesday, September 3, WSJ about the Palin nomination says: "Is she like a Harry Truman or even a Lyndon Johnson? I don't think so." Let me see, what city/town was Harry Truman Mayor of, what state did he govern? Same for LBJ... but they were senators.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive
Chicago IL 60640
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Letter to Chicago Subn-Times on Sarah Palin
Chicago Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:43 PM
Editors, Chicago Sun-Times
Gntlepeople:
Your Saturday, August 30 front-page headline "Maverick Rolls the Dice" referring to John McCain's VP choice of a "first term" governor with "limited experience" contrasts revealingly with the second paragraph reference to "the youthful and charismatic Barack Obama."
Governor Sarah Palin is further described as "chief of one of the least-populated states." Are things so tight at the Sun-Times you don't have a $10 almanac that clearly shows Alaska is the 4th least populated state?
You say further that Palin's "elder son is fighting in Iraq" and quote a description of her as "a working mother with a child in Iraq...," and have a picture of her with "fifth child, son Trig...." A subsequent article clears up this fog by pointing out it's 18-year-old son Trig, due to be deployed to Iraq in September." [Note, I was wrong here: Track is in Iraq, baby trig is home]
Then you quote Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "John McCain put the former mayor of a town 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." Well now, how big is the town Obama was mayor of? And altho being governor of a state separated from Russia by a strait about half that of Mackinac is not the nation's number 1 foreign relations subject (right now, at least,) it has significantly more responsibility than slogging thru the mud of Indonesia between ages 6 and 10 (which is itself probably more significant than chairing the Senate Foreign Relations committee for 20 years,).
It is fun watching the pathetic attempts of Obama backers trying to inflate his top government experience, 8 years as an Illinois state senator, as any more than that of a Chicago Cubs' ball girl. To the Sun-Times credit, you do quote McCain backers saying the undeniable facts that Palin has "two years of executive experience that no one else has on either ticket" and "She made more decisions in two years as chief executive of a state than Barack Obama did in his entire career in the Illinois Legislature...."
School board, city council, mayor, governor... that's lots more significant political slogging than 'community organizer' (AKA in Chicago as junior precinct captain,) State Senator and really inspiring teleprompter reader.
Arnold H Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive
Chicago 60640
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Editors, Chicago Sun-Times
Gntlepeople:
Your Saturday, August 30 front-page headline "Maverick Rolls the Dice" referring to John McCain's VP choice of a "first term" governor with "limited experience" contrasts revealingly with the second paragraph reference to "the youthful and charismatic Barack Obama."
Governor Sarah Palin is further described as "chief of one of the least-populated states." Are things so tight at the Sun-Times you don't have a $10 almanac that clearly shows Alaska is the 4th least populated state?
You say further that Palin's "elder son is fighting in Iraq" and quote a description of her as "a working mother with a child in Iraq...," and have a picture of her with "fifth child, son Trig...." A subsequent article clears up this fog by pointing out it's 18-year-old son Trig, due to be deployed to Iraq in September." [Note, I was wrong here: Track is in Iraq, baby trig is home]
Then you quote Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "John McCain put the former mayor of a town 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." Well now, how big is the town Obama was mayor of? And altho being governor of a state separated from Russia by a strait about half that of Mackinac is not the nation's number 1 foreign relations subject (right now, at least,) it has significantly more responsibility than slogging thru the mud of Indonesia between ages 6 and 10 (which is itself probably more significant than chairing the Senate Foreign Relations committee for 20 years,).
It is fun watching the pathetic attempts of Obama backers trying to inflate his top government experience, 8 years as an Illinois state senator, as any more than that of a Chicago Cubs' ball girl. To the Sun-Times credit, you do quote McCain backers saying the undeniable facts that Palin has "two years of executive experience that no one else has on either ticket" and "She made more decisions in two years as chief executive of a state than Barack Obama did in his entire career in the Illinois Legislature...."
School board, city council, mayor, governor... that's lots more significant political slogging than 'community organizer' (AKA in Chicago as junior precinct captain,) State Senator and really inspiring teleprompter reader.
Arnold H Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive
Chicago 60640
ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Thursday, August 28, 2008
NYTimes called on global warming crap
Chicago IL Thursday, August 28, 2008 11PMcdt
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Your Thursday, August 28 article "As Arctic Sea Ice Melts...."brought back amusing memories of a similar Times article of Saturday, August 19, 2000, John Noble Wilford's "The North Pole is melting" that breathlessly declared: "[A]n ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, ... more evidence that global warming may be real...."
That was followed only four days later by an equally bedazzled climate change enthusiast's Op-Ed "In the (Un)Frozen North" that started right out: "The 19th century's dream of an open polar sea has become the 21st century's nightmare."
But then five days later, Mr. Wilford wrote another article (Tuesday, August 29, 2000) quoting another expert: "[T]here's nothing to be necessarily alarmed about. There's been open water at the pole before."
Finally, the Times made honest journalists out of themselves with this Correction:
"A front-page article in the August 19, 2000 edition ... about the sighting of open water at the North Pole misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice there...."
But there still seems to be a problem with the most recent article, that starts out "[Officials have] reported that sea ice in the Arctic now covers about 2.03 million square miles" pointing out that this could be on the way to a new "record" since "the lowest point since satellite measurements began in 1979 was 1.65 million square miles, last September."
Folks, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and you are concerned with the possibility of a record... for the last 29 years? A little simple arithmetic shows that the last 29 years of 4.5 billion years is equivalent to the last 8 seconds of a 40-year-old human's lifetime. If a doctor detected a pulse rate change in that subject over such a period, would he declare “We’re moving ... beyond a point of no return” as the head of a "multinational scientific assessment of Arctic conditions" is quoted in the article?
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Your Thursday, August 28 article "As Arctic Sea Ice Melts...."brought back amusing memories of a similar Times article of Saturday, August 19, 2000, John Noble Wilford's "The North Pole is melting" that breathlessly declared: "[A]n ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, ... more evidence that global warming may be real...."
That was followed only four days later by an equally bedazzled climate change enthusiast's Op-Ed "In the (Un)Frozen North" that started right out: "The 19th century's dream of an open polar sea has become the 21st century's nightmare."
But then five days later, Mr. Wilford wrote another article (Tuesday, August 29, 2000) quoting another expert: "[T]here's nothing to be necessarily alarmed about. There's been open water at the pole before."
Finally, the Times made honest journalists out of themselves with this Correction:
"A front-page article in the August 19, 2000 edition ... about the sighting of open water at the North Pole misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice there...."
But there still seems to be a problem with the most recent article, that starts out "[Officials have] reported that sea ice in the Arctic now covers about 2.03 million square miles" pointing out that this could be on the way to a new "record" since "the lowest point since satellite measurements began in 1979 was 1.65 million square miles, last September."
Folks, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and you are concerned with the possibility of a record... for the last 29 years? A little simple arithmetic shows that the last 29 years of 4.5 billion years is equivalent to the last 8 seconds of a 40-year-old human's lifetime. If a doctor detected a pulse rate change in that subject over such a period, would he declare “We’re moving ... beyond a point of no return” as the head of a "multinational scientific assessment of Arctic conditions" is quoted in the article?
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Thursday, August 21, 2008
WSJ apostrophe exchange
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Arnold Nelson"
To: "WSJ Letters"
Subject: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Chicago, Thursday PM, August 21, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
A paragraph titled 'Thailand' in your fine Thursday, August 21 article "When [Olympic] Gold Turns Green" has a sentence referring to a Thai weight lifter: "The 24-year-old is the countries lone gold of these Games." "Countries"? Say it ain't so, WSJ. Since it's the possessive of "country" not a number of "countries", it should be "country's", not "countries".
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:57
From: "Martin-Sr, Paul" <Paul.Martin-Sr@wsj.com>
To: ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for your note about the misuse of “countries” for “country’s” in the Journal article.
We appreciate readers like you who hold us to high standards -- especially when their notes are as gracious as yours.
Sincerely, Paul Martin WSJ stylebook editor
From: "Arnold Nelson"
To: "WSJ Letters"
Subject: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Chicago, Thursday PM, August 21, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
A paragraph titled 'Thailand' in your fine Thursday, August 21 article "When [Olympic] Gold Turns Green" has a sentence referring to a Thai weight lifter: "The 24-year-old is the countries lone gold of these Games." "Countries"? Say it ain't so, WSJ. Since it's the possessive of "country" not a number of "countries", it should be "country's", not "countries".
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:57
From: "Martin-Sr, Paul" <Paul.Martin-Sr@wsj.com>
To: ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Does the Journal have trouble with apostrophes, too?
Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for your note about the misuse of “countries” for “country’s” in the Journal article.
We appreciate readers like you who hold us to high standards -- especially when their notes are as gracious as yours.
Sincerely, Paul Martin WSJ stylebook editor
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Another Obamaphile (in WSJ)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:12CDT
From: "Arnold Nelson"
To: "WSJ Letters" S
Subject: Is a single example of an "unsubstantiated charge" too much to ask?
Chicago, Wednesday PM, August 20, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
In the Wednesday, August 20 Notable and Quotable, Peter Wehner, writing about Jerome Corsi's recent Obama biography, says "it's wrong and reckless to throw out unsubstantiated charges and smears against Senator Obama."
This WSJ feature is certainly limited in length. This one is 160 words, but a recent one is 280 words. Wouldn't 120 additional words be plenty for Mr. Wehner to give just one example of an actual "unsubstantiated charge" or "smear". I haven't read Mr. Corsi's book, but I understand it is heavily sourced. It should be easy for Mr. Wehner to demonstrate such a sweeping statement, for the sake of his own credibility.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
;Never printed, no response]
From: "Arnold Nelson"
To: "WSJ Letters" S
Subject: Is a single example of an "unsubstantiated charge" too much to ask?
Chicago, Wednesday PM, August 20, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
In the Wednesday, August 20 Notable and Quotable, Peter Wehner, writing about Jerome Corsi's recent Obama biography, says "it's wrong and reckless to throw out unsubstantiated charges and smears against Senator Obama."
This WSJ feature is certainly limited in length. This one is 160 words, but a recent one is 280 words. Wouldn't 120 additional words be plenty for Mr. Wehner to give just one example of an actual "unsubstantiated charge" or "smear". I haven't read Mr. Corsi's book, but I understand it is heavily sourced. It should be easy for Mr. Wehner to demonstrate such a sweeping statement, for the sake of his own credibility.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
;Never printed, no response]
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
New York Times and Carl Sandburg
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:14CDT
From: "Arnold Nelson"
To: "NYTimes Letters" <letters@nytimes.com.>
Subject: Shoulders
Chicago IL Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6AMcdt
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Your Thursday, August 14, 2008 sports section headline "Chicago Has Shoulders Broad Enough to Host Games" was great for an article on Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid. I mean, isn't Chicago commonly referred to as 'the city of broad shoulders'?
Well, you're not the first ones to assume that, but the headline probably got the great American poet Carl Sandburg spinning in his grave. He wrote the 1916 poem 'Chicago' describing it as "City of the Big Shoulders." And c'mon, New York Times, he was a Socialist, too.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
[Never printed, no response]
From: "Arnold Nelson"
To: "NYTimes Letters" <letters@nytimes.com.>
Subject: Shoulders
Chicago IL Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6AMcdt
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Your Thursday, August 14, 2008 sports section headline "Chicago Has Shoulders Broad Enough to Host Games" was great for an article on Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid. I mean, isn't Chicago commonly referred to as 'the city of broad shoulders'?
Well, you're not the first ones to assume that, but the headline probably got the great American poet Carl Sandburg spinning in his grave. He wrote the 1916 poem 'Chicago' describing it as "City of the Big Shoulders." And c'mon, New York Times, he was a Socialist, too.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
[Never printed, no response]
Letter to NYTimes on Chicago's "broad shoulders(?)"
Chicago IL Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6AMcdt
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Your Thursday, August 14, 2008 sports section headline "Chicago Has Shoulders Broad Enough to Host Games" was great for an article on Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid. I mean, isn't Chicago commonly referred to as 'the city of broad shoulders'?
Well, you're not the first ones to assume that, but the headline probably got the great American poet Carl Sandburg spinning in his grave. He wrote the 1916 poem 'Chicago' describing it as "City of the Big Shoulders." And c'mon, New York Times, he was a Socialist, too.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Your Thursday, August 14, 2008 sports section headline "Chicago Has Shoulders Broad Enough to Host Games" was great for an article on Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid. I mean, isn't Chicago commonly referred to as 'the city of broad shoulders'?
Well, you're not the first ones to assume that, but the headline probably got the great American poet Carl Sandburg spinning in his grave. He wrote the 1916 poem 'Chicago' describing it as "City of the Big Shoulders." And c'mon, New York Times, he was a Socialist, too.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Exchange w/ Mary Schmich, ChiTrib columnist
[I thot her reply was pretty cute]
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:00 CDT
From: "Arnold Nelson"
To: "Mary Schmich" <mschmich@tribune.com>S
Subject: Say it ain't so, Mary
Mary Schmich, you are a nationally recognized newspaper columnist, so what a nobody like me is doing writing you about grammar (something you write about often, and very well) is hard to believe.
In your Sunday August 17 column "Transitions -- 'grooviest bookstore in Chicago' -- closes" you talk about Gayle and Howard closing their bookshop. You use the sentence "They were both in recovery programs — him for his addiction, her for her enabling — the day in 1989...."
The only objects in this phrase are 'recovery programs,' so how can you refer to Gayle and Howard here with the object pronouns 'him' and 'her'? Wasn't 'he' in a recovery program, and wasn't 'she' also in a recovery program?
Outside of that, you are a great interviewer, writer, and especially, a grammarian.
Arn Nelson 5056 North marine Drive Chicago
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:04CDT
From: "Schmich, Mary"
To: "Arnold Nelson"
Subject: RE: Say it ain't so, Mary
Dang, Arn. I think you is right.
Thanks for reading so attentively and for coupling a compliment with a correction.
Mary Schmich
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:00 CDT
From: "Arnold Nelson"
To: "Mary Schmich" <mschmich@tribune.com>S
Subject: Say it ain't so, Mary
Mary Schmich, you are a nationally recognized newspaper columnist, so what a nobody like me is doing writing you about grammar (something you write about often, and very well) is hard to believe.
In your Sunday August 17 column "Transitions -- 'grooviest bookstore in Chicago' -- closes" you talk about Gayle and Howard closing their bookshop. You use the sentence "They were both in recovery programs — him for his addiction, her for her enabling — the day in 1989...."
The only objects in this phrase are 'recovery programs,' so how can you refer to Gayle and Howard here with the object pronouns 'him' and 'her'? Wasn't 'he' in a recovery program, and wasn't 'she' also in a recovery program?
Outside of that, you are a great interviewer, writer, and especially, a grammarian.
Arn Nelson 5056 North marine Drive Chicago
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:04CDT
From: "Schmich, Mary"
To: "Arnold Nelson"
Subject: RE: Say it ain't so, Mary
Dang, Arn. I think you is right.
Thanks for reading so attentively and for coupling a compliment with a correction.
Mary Schmich
Friday, August 15, 2008
email to TX gov Rick Perry on ethanol
Chicago Friday, August 15, 2008
Governor Rick Perry
Your Tuesday, August 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal OpEd "Texas Is Fed Up With Corn Ethanol" is refreshingly clear and understandable, in contrast to the usual blarney put out on the subject by the Washington Bureaucrats. Even those attributes are multiplied considering your direct knowledge and responsibility in the area.
I do wonder why we hear so rarely about attributes of the subject that influence it more than any other:
Biofuels come from only a 2-dimensional space, the surface of the earth, and only 1/3 of that not covered by salt water. And that is further limited by corn's inability to grow just anywhere. Oil on the other hand comes from a 3-dimensional space, all that's under the surface of the earth, and the entire surface, covered by water or not. The depth of that space is ultimately limited to 4,000 miles, but so far we've only tried the first eight miles, and that in only a very few locations.
Brilliant geoligists are constantly working to predict the best places to try, but I think even they would agree that the final, and absolute, proof of the existence of oil anywhere in that space is drilling a hole that results in oil coming out.
Of course, biofuels are said to be 'renewable.' But how often?Pretty much only annually, and corn especially, is effectivly less than even that, requiring rotation with other crops to avoid exhausting the ground. Oil is assumed to be 'exhaustable', but considering the number of places where we've proved it is or isn't compared to the places we've left to look, for all practical purposes it is as good as renewable.
Arnold H Nelson
Governor Rick Perry
Your Tuesday, August 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal OpEd "Texas Is Fed Up With Corn Ethanol" is refreshingly clear and understandable, in contrast to the usual blarney put out on the subject by the Washington Bureaucrats. Even those attributes are multiplied considering your direct knowledge and responsibility in the area.
I do wonder why we hear so rarely about attributes of the subject that influence it more than any other:
Biofuels come from only a 2-dimensional space, the surface of the earth, and only 1/3 of that not covered by salt water. And that is further limited by corn's inability to grow just anywhere. Oil on the other hand comes from a 3-dimensional space, all that's under the surface of the earth, and the entire surface, covered by water or not. The depth of that space is ultimately limited to 4,000 miles, but so far we've only tried the first eight miles, and that in only a very few locations.
Brilliant geoligists are constantly working to predict the best places to try, but I think even they would agree that the final, and absolute, proof of the existence of oil anywhere in that space is drilling a hole that results in oil coming out.
Of course, biofuels are said to be 'renewable.' But how often?Pretty much only annually, and corn especially, is effectivly less than even that, requiring rotation with other crops to avoid exhausting the ground. Oil is assumed to be 'exhaustable', but considering the number of places where we've proved it is or isn't compared to the places we've left to look, for all practical purposes it is as good as renewable.
Arnold H Nelson
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Texas Governor Rick Perry on biofuels
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:41 AM
From: "Arnold Nelson" <ah_nelson@yahoo.com>
To: "WSJ Letters" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>
Chicago, Wednesday AM, August 13, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople: Texas Governor Rick Perry's Tuesday, August 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal OpEd "Texas Is Fed Up With Corn Ethanol" is refreshingly clear and understandable, in contrast to the usual blarney put out on the subject by the Washington Bureaucrats. Even those attributes are multiplied considering his direct knowledge and responsibility in the area.
It makes me wonder why we hear so rarely about attributes of the subject that influence it more than any other: Biofuels come from only a 2-dimensional space, the surface of the earth, and only 1/3 of that not covered by salt water. And that is further limited by corn's inability to grow just anywhere. Oil on the other hand comes from a 3-dimensional space, all that's under the surface of the earth, and the entire surface, covered by water or not. The depth of that space is ultimately limited to 4,000 miles, but so far we've only tried the first eight miles, and that in only a very few locations. Brilliant geologists are constantly working to predict the best places to try, but I think even they would agree that the final, absolute, proof of oil existence anywhere in that space is drilling a hole that results in oil coming out.
Also, biofuels are said to be 'renewable.' But how often? Pretty much only annually, and corn especially is effectively less than even that, requiring rotation with other crops to avoid exhausting the soil. Oil is assumed to be 'exhaustible', but considering the number of places where we've proved it is or isn't compared to the places we've left to look, for all practical purposes it is as good as renewable.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
From: "Arnold Nelson" <ah_nelson@yahoo.com>
To: "WSJ Letters" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>
Chicago, Wednesday AM, August 13, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople: Texas Governor Rick Perry's Tuesday, August 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal OpEd "Texas Is Fed Up With Corn Ethanol" is refreshingly clear and understandable, in contrast to the usual blarney put out on the subject by the Washington Bureaucrats. Even those attributes are multiplied considering his direct knowledge and responsibility in the area.
It makes me wonder why we hear so rarely about attributes of the subject that influence it more than any other: Biofuels come from only a 2-dimensional space, the surface of the earth, and only 1/3 of that not covered by salt water. And that is further limited by corn's inability to grow just anywhere. Oil on the other hand comes from a 3-dimensional space, all that's under the surface of the earth, and the entire surface, covered by water or not. The depth of that space is ultimately limited to 4,000 miles, but so far we've only tried the first eight miles, and that in only a very few locations. Brilliant geologists are constantly working to predict the best places to try, but I think even they would agree that the final, absolute, proof of oil existence anywhere in that space is drilling a hole that results in oil coming out.
Also, biofuels are said to be 'renewable.' But how often? Pretty much only annually, and corn especially is effectively less than even that, requiring rotation with other crops to avoid exhausting the soil. Oil is assumed to be 'exhaustible', but considering the number of places where we've proved it is or isn't compared to the places we've left to look, for all practical purposes it is as good as renewable.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Will Obama be "at least a competent president"?
Chicago, Wednesday AM, July 23, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Your OpEds are the best in the business, never more than when they include Mr. Shelby Steele. There was more information in his Tuesday, July 22, piece 'Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama' on Barack Obama than anywhere else since he began his run for president.
Deep in the middle of this article is a thought I have not seen anywhere else: "... an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming ... he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.)"
Barack Obama is the least prepared, most inexperienced and under educated candidate for US president or Vice President in history. His most significant work experience is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, a job requiring less management talent that a Chicago Bears third string jock strap attendant, without the responsibility. And if he'd been 100% white he'd never even have got that gig.
Next on his Curriculum Vitae is "Neighborhood activist", a Chicago euphemism for junior precinct captain, itself a euphemism for an errand creature who is given a list of voters every two years, and is told: "If any of these people don't vote, you're outahere, pal!!!"
Obama has a hardly used Harvard Law Degree, teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, as Clinton at the University of Arkansas. Clinton went on to get elected state Attorney General, elected and reelected Governor of his state. OBama? See Chicago Bears attendant above.
For all of John McCain's problems with teleprompters, Obama cannot speak without one. Listen to one of his off the cuff public speeches, he says more 'uhs', 'ums' and 'ya knos' than a class of third graders. Ronald Reagan learned to speak as an actor, but practiced management by being elected and re-elected Governor of the nation's largest state.
It's unfortunate that so many prominent American blacks are so impressed with Obama - the absolutely brilliant and super educated Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, recently said "it's a remarkable accomplishment" that a black politician is on track for his party's presidential nomination.
Obama's election as President will be no less embarrassing for all concerned than the election of any run-of-the-mill far left fringe Democrat politician. Presuming Obama would be at least a competent president is a mighty big presumption if you expect to "nudge the culture forward a bit."
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Your OpEds are the best in the business, never more than when they include Mr. Shelby Steele. There was more information in his Tuesday, July 22, piece 'Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama' on Barack Obama than anywhere else since he began his run for president.
Deep in the middle of this article is a thought I have not seen anywhere else: "... an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming ... he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.)"
Barack Obama is the least prepared, most inexperienced and under educated candidate for US president or Vice President in history. His most significant work experience is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, a job requiring less management talent that a Chicago Bears third string jock strap attendant, without the responsibility. And if he'd been 100% white he'd never even have got that gig.
Next on his Curriculum Vitae is "Neighborhood activist", a Chicago euphemism for junior precinct captain, itself a euphemism for an errand creature who is given a list of voters every two years, and is told: "If any of these people don't vote, you're outahere, pal!!!"
Obama has a hardly used Harvard Law Degree, teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, as Clinton at the University of Arkansas. Clinton went on to get elected state Attorney General, elected and reelected Governor of his state. OBama? See Chicago Bears attendant above.
For all of John McCain's problems with teleprompters, Obama cannot speak without one. Listen to one of his off the cuff public speeches, he says more 'uhs', 'ums' and 'ya knos' than a class of third graders. Ronald Reagan learned to speak as an actor, but practiced management by being elected and re-elected Governor of the nation's largest state.
It's unfortunate that so many prominent American blacks are so impressed with Obama - the absolutely brilliant and super educated Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, recently said "it's a remarkable accomplishment" that a black politician is on track for his party's presidential nomination.
Obama's election as President will be no less embarrassing for all concerned than the election of any run-of-the-mill far left fringe Democrat politician. Presuming Obama would be at least a competent president is a mighty big presumption if you expect to "nudge the culture forward a bit."
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Chicago, Illinois USA Tuesday PM, July 22, 2008
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
In his Tuesday, July 22 column 'Obama for commander-in-chief' Gideon Rachman asks "why is Barack Obama just four points ahead in the polls?" Obama is the least prepared and most inexperienced candidate for US president or Vice President in history. His most significant work experience is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, a job requiring less management talent that a Chicago Bears 3rd string jock strap attendant, without the responsibility.
Obama's second biggest career move was "neighborhood activist, " a Chicago euphemism for junior precinct captain, itself a euphemism for an errand creature who gets a list of voters every two years, and is told: "If any of these people don't vote, you're outahere, pal!!!"
Obama has a hardly used Harvard Law Degree, McCain used his service academy commission for 20 years, flying in combat, and oh yeah, 4 years as POW. And you want the Harvard grad to be CinC? Obama taught Law at the University of Chicago, as Clinton at the University of Arkansas. Clinton went on to get elected state Attorney General, elected and reelected Governor of his state. OBama? See Chicago Bears attendant, above.
For all of John McCain's problems with teleprompters, Obama cannot speak without one. Listen to one of his off the cuff public speeches, he says more 'uhs', 'ums' and 'ya knos' than a class of third graders. Ronald Reagan learned to speak as an actor, but practiced management by being elected and re-elected Governor of the nation's largest state (60% of population, and 90% of GDP, of the UK.)
It's unfortunate that so many prominent, accomplished American blacks are so impressed with Obama - the absolutely brilliant and super educated Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, recently said "it's a remarkable accomplishment" that a black politician is on track for his party's presidential nomination.
Obama's election as President will be no less embarrassing than the election of any run-of-the-mill far left fringe Democrat politician. The question is not why Obama is 'only' four points ahead of McCain - why was he even nominated? Answer: If he'd been 100% white, he'd have trouble getting that Chicago Bears comparable position, AKA Illinois State Senator.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago, IL USA
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
In his Tuesday, July 22 column 'Obama for commander-in-chief' Gideon Rachman asks "why is Barack Obama just four points ahead in the polls?" Obama is the least prepared and most inexperienced candidate for US president or Vice President in history. His most significant work experience is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, a job requiring less management talent that a Chicago Bears 3rd string jock strap attendant, without the responsibility.
Obama's second biggest career move was "neighborhood activist, " a Chicago euphemism for junior precinct captain, itself a euphemism for an errand creature who gets a list of voters every two years, and is told: "If any of these people don't vote, you're outahere, pal!!!"
Obama has a hardly used Harvard Law Degree, McCain used his service academy commission for 20 years, flying in combat, and oh yeah, 4 years as POW. And you want the Harvard grad to be CinC? Obama taught Law at the University of Chicago, as Clinton at the University of Arkansas. Clinton went on to get elected state Attorney General, elected and reelected Governor of his state. OBama? See Chicago Bears attendant, above.
For all of John McCain's problems with teleprompters, Obama cannot speak without one. Listen to one of his off the cuff public speeches, he says more 'uhs', 'ums' and 'ya knos' than a class of third graders. Ronald Reagan learned to speak as an actor, but practiced management by being elected and re-elected Governor of the nation's largest state (60% of population, and 90% of GDP, of the UK.)
It's unfortunate that so many prominent, accomplished American blacks are so impressed with Obama - the absolutely brilliant and super educated Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, recently said "it's a remarkable accomplishment" that a black politician is on track for his party's presidential nomination.
Obama's election as President will be no less embarrassing than the election of any run-of-the-mill far left fringe Democrat politician. The question is not why Obama is 'only' four points ahead of McCain - why was he even nominated? Answer: If he'd been 100% white, he'd have trouble getting that Chicago Bears comparable position, AKA Illinois State Senator.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago, IL USA
Friday, June 27, 2008
Chicago Sun-Times and 2nd amendment
Friday, June 27, 2008 1700 Editors, Chicago Sun-Times
Gentle people:
According to Friday, June 27 Sun-Times articles, many intelligent people are upset with the US Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision. The lead news article is headlined "Court blows away gun ban", and starts out with "Chicago is in the cross hairs of the gun owners rights movement". A second article quotes Mayor Daley saying the decision is "frightening" and harkens "back to the Old West". An editorial says it is a tax on Chicago citizens "to be paid in blood and money."
Why don't these influential Chicago citizens fight this outrageous decision by using the Constitution itself?
The job is half done: just take the 21st amendment "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed", replace "eighteenth" with "second" then follow procedures described in Article Five:
Get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then get it accepted by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Note all three of these bodies are elected by the people, not appointed by the President. Also note, the President is not needed to repeal an amendment, nor are any unelected judges.
Good luck.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 773-677-3010
Chicago IL Saturday, June 28, 2008 6PM Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Three letters in the Saturday, June 28 New York Times show confusion about the "archaically written" Second amendment to the US Constitution, what is meant by "a well regulated militia", and "service in the militia." A fourth letter says "This decision is for liberals what Roe was for conservatives."
Justice Scalia goes a little further than the first 13 words of the Second Amendment to address the confusion, starting his majority opinion with "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” followed by 1000 words of explanation, concluding with "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."
Unlike Justice Blackmun in 1973, Justice Scalia needed only the words of the 2nd Amendment for his argument, not the penumbra.
But if people don't like this decision, why not fight it using the Constitution itself?
The job is half done: just take the 21st amendment "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed", replace "eighteenth" with "second" then follow procedures described in Article Five:
Get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then get it accepted by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Note all three of these bodies are elected by the people, neither nominated nor appointed by the President. Also note, the President is not needed to repeal an amendment, nor are any unelected judges.
Good luck.Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Chicago Tuesday, July 1, 2008 Voice of the People Chicago Tribune
Gentle people:
A 1100 word article "Roberts' record on high court defies '05 pledges of centrism" about the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court contains the word 'Constitution' only once ("execution by injection does not violate the Constitution".)
This seems strange since 'Constitution' is 14th word of the Oath Chief Roberts took as Chief Justice, as in "I ... do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
But the author spends most of his article blathering on about things like scaling back "the reach of civil rights laws," upholding "the federal ban on ... 'partial-birth' abortion," and limiting "the ability of women to file equal-pay claims."
Has the author ever given any thot to the position of the Supreme Court relative to the other two branches of the federal government, as stated in the Constitution? The most important federal government responsibility, laying, collecting, and spending taxes is given exclusively to the legislature, the branch closest to the people, in Article I; The next most important responsibility, leading the armed forces, is given to the President in Article II, because you can't lead an army by committee.
Not until Article III do you see the Supreme Court. Besides being the last of the first three Articles, it is also the shortest, and compared to the broad responsibilities defined for the legislature and the executive, those of the Supreme Court are quite clearly defined and limited to three kinds of cases and two kinds of controversies.
No mention of interpreting the Constitution, nor deciding if laws passed by the legislature and agreed to by the President are Constitutional. These did not come up until soon after our founding, when Chief Justice John Marshall came up with 'Judicial Review'.
As useful as that constitutionally undocumented power is, it should not have been used in the Dred Scott Decision effectively saying slavery was legal everywhere and forever, nor in Plessey v. Ferguson, that said it was OK to racially segregate public transportation, and certainly not used to roundup and detain 110,000 US citizens of Japanese descent, as FDR did in 1942. And it sure shouldn’t be used to move the final word in the conduct of war from the executive to an unelected committee.
But even the specifically limited responsibilities of the Supreme Court stated in Article III of the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, are concluded: "...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
So much for co-equal branches.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 773-677-3010
Chicago IL Tuesday PM, July 01, 2008 WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
A Tuesday, July 1 letter 'Stopping Hitler Was a Good Thing' remarking on Dorothy Rabinowitz's review "Forget the Good War" of Friday , June 27 shows considerable concern with "those who would rewrite history, particularly the history of the Second World War."
History rewrites don't impress me much either, but second-guessing is something else again. In this some strategic thinking by FDR could have resulted in the most important strategy in centuries: once the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Friday August 25, 1939, was broken with Hitler's invasion of Russia starting on Sunday June 22, 1941, had we stayed out of it completely, siding with neither power, the future would have been drastically improved.
There was no way Germany could defeat Russia, since to do so would require total occupation, and Russia was just to big for Germany to occupy decisively. Similarly, Russia could never defeat the superior war-making capabilities of Hitler - they would have exhausted each other completely, leaving the rest of the world in relative peace.
This would also have been the end of Communism, preventing the Cold War and Communist China.
This would have left FDR able to attend to Japan full time, specifically the prevention/preempting on any surprise attacks.
The one thing this strategy might not have done is get us out of a depression, which FDR was unable to do in 8 years of peace. He realized this, and so did 90% of US voters. Was that worth 419,000 lost US lives? Beyond fodder for hundreds of novels, absolutely irrelevant now, and no amount of rewriting history will change that.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Gentle people:
According to Friday, June 27 Sun-Times articles, many intelligent people are upset with the US Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision. The lead news article is headlined "Court blows away gun ban", and starts out with "Chicago is in the cross hairs of the gun owners rights movement". A second article quotes Mayor Daley saying the decision is "frightening" and harkens "back to the Old West". An editorial says it is a tax on Chicago citizens "to be paid in blood and money."
Why don't these influential Chicago citizens fight this outrageous decision by using the Constitution itself?
The job is half done: just take the 21st amendment "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed", replace "eighteenth" with "second" then follow procedures described in Article Five:
Get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then get it accepted by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Note all three of these bodies are elected by the people, not appointed by the President. Also note, the President is not needed to repeal an amendment, nor are any unelected judges.
Good luck.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 773-677-3010
Chicago IL Saturday, June 28, 2008 6PM Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Three letters in the Saturday, June 28 New York Times show confusion about the "archaically written" Second amendment to the US Constitution, what is meant by "a well regulated militia", and "service in the militia." A fourth letter says "This decision is for liberals what Roe was for conservatives."
Justice Scalia goes a little further than the first 13 words of the Second Amendment to address the confusion, starting his majority opinion with "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” followed by 1000 words of explanation, concluding with "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."
Unlike Justice Blackmun in 1973, Justice Scalia needed only the words of the 2nd Amendment for his argument, not the penumbra.
But if people don't like this decision, why not fight it using the Constitution itself?
The job is half done: just take the 21st amendment "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed", replace "eighteenth" with "second" then follow procedures described in Article Five:
Get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then get it accepted by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Note all three of these bodies are elected by the people, neither nominated nor appointed by the President. Also note, the President is not needed to repeal an amendment, nor are any unelected judges.
Good luck.Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Chicago Tuesday, July 1, 2008 Voice of the People Chicago Tribune
Gentle people:
A 1100 word article "Roberts' record on high court defies '05 pledges of centrism" about the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court contains the word 'Constitution' only once ("execution by injection does not violate the Constitution".)
This seems strange since 'Constitution' is 14th word of the Oath Chief Roberts took as Chief Justice, as in "I ... do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
But the author spends most of his article blathering on about things like scaling back "the reach of civil rights laws," upholding "the federal ban on ... 'partial-birth' abortion," and limiting "the ability of women to file equal-pay claims."
Has the author ever given any thot to the position of the Supreme Court relative to the other two branches of the federal government, as stated in the Constitution? The most important federal government responsibility, laying, collecting, and spending taxes is given exclusively to the legislature, the branch closest to the people, in Article I; The next most important responsibility, leading the armed forces, is given to the President in Article II, because you can't lead an army by committee.
Not until Article III do you see the Supreme Court. Besides being the last of the first three Articles, it is also the shortest, and compared to the broad responsibilities defined for the legislature and the executive, those of the Supreme Court are quite clearly defined and limited to three kinds of cases and two kinds of controversies.
No mention of interpreting the Constitution, nor deciding if laws passed by the legislature and agreed to by the President are Constitutional. These did not come up until soon after our founding, when Chief Justice John Marshall came up with 'Judicial Review'.
As useful as that constitutionally undocumented power is, it should not have been used in the Dred Scott Decision effectively saying slavery was legal everywhere and forever, nor in Plessey v. Ferguson, that said it was OK to racially segregate public transportation, and certainly not used to roundup and detain 110,000 US citizens of Japanese descent, as FDR did in 1942. And it sure shouldn’t be used to move the final word in the conduct of war from the executive to an unelected committee.
But even the specifically limited responsibilities of the Supreme Court stated in Article III of the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, are concluded: "...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
So much for co-equal branches.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 773-677-3010
Chicago IL Tuesday PM, July 01, 2008 WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
A Tuesday, July 1 letter 'Stopping Hitler Was a Good Thing' remarking on Dorothy Rabinowitz's review "Forget the Good War" of Friday , June 27 shows considerable concern with "those who would rewrite history, particularly the history of the Second World War."
History rewrites don't impress me much either, but second-guessing is something else again. In this some strategic thinking by FDR could have resulted in the most important strategy in centuries: once the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Friday August 25, 1939, was broken with Hitler's invasion of Russia starting on Sunday June 22, 1941, had we stayed out of it completely, siding with neither power, the future would have been drastically improved.
There was no way Germany could defeat Russia, since to do so would require total occupation, and Russia was just to big for Germany to occupy decisively. Similarly, Russia could never defeat the superior war-making capabilities of Hitler - they would have exhausted each other completely, leaving the rest of the world in relative peace.
This would also have been the end of Communism, preventing the Cold War and Communist China.
This would have left FDR able to attend to Japan full time, specifically the prevention/preempting on any surprise attacks.
The one thing this strategy might not have done is get us out of a depression, which FDR was unable to do in 8 years of peace. He realized this, and so did 90% of US voters. Was that worth 419,000 lost US lives? Beyond fodder for hundreds of novels, absolutely irrelevant now, and no amount of rewriting history will change that.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Sunday, June 8, 2008
New York Times on Global warming and Al Gore
Chicago IL Sunday, June 8, 2008 6PM
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
An Op-Ed couldn't start out more unequivocally than Charles M. Blow's Saturday, May 31 'Farewell, Fair Weather' with: "We are now firmly ensconced in the Age of Extreme Weather."
Strange, since the rest of the piece is a cornucopia of equivocations: The second sentence: "[T]here have been more than four times as many weather-related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years." An accompanying note defines a "weather-related disaster" as fulfilling any one of four criteria: "10 or more people killed, 100 reported affected, declaration of state of emergency, call for international assistance."
Then "The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country." Combining that statement with the disaster definition’s 4 points, all involving people, and the fact that the US is the world's third most peopled country... what did you expect?
Mr. Blow continues: "Last year [reports were issued] concluding that 'human influences' (read greenhouse-gas emissions) have 'more likely than not” contributed to this increase. The United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse-gas emissions." More likely than not? Equivocation city. Since CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', and 6 billion people breathe it out every 10 seconds, what will you do with that? The US is 'one of the'...? Equivocation number 3. Maybe you didn't hear the first time: The US is the third most populated country in the world. More equivocations: "Furthermore, a White House report about the effect of global climate change on the United States ... reaffirmed that the situation will probably get worse: In addition to temperature extremes, “precipitation is likely to be less frequent but more intense. It is also likely that future hurricanes will become more intense, with higher peak speeds and more heavy precipitation ... .”Probably, likely, likely, equivocations 4, 5, and 6.
Then an irrelevancy: “In 2005 … the estimated damage from storms in the United States was $121 billion. That is $39 billion more than the 2005 supplemental spending bill to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Does the Times’ style book require Op-Eds make at least one reference to the war?
And: “About $3 billion has been allocated to assist farmers who suffer losses because of droughts, floods and tornadoes among other things.” The 2008 World Almanac says "Total US Government Agricultural Payments" have averaged $16 billion a year for the 4 years 2003-2006 - so what?
A final point: Have the climate change alarmists given any thought to their leader, the guy who won an Oscar, and a Nobel Prize, for his 'work' on climate change? How did he get so influential? Well, he was born into US political royalty, inheriting safe seats in both the House and Senate from his very astute politician father. How about his education? Again, he got into Harvard, but owes a good deal of that good fortune to his lineage. Advanced degrees? Zero! Since he's such a big deal in the ‘science’ of climate change, what's his science education background? Two courses, one something called ‘Man's place in Nature‘ ( he got a ‘D‘ in that.) This mope is a complete fraud, and anyone who follows him should be ashamed of themselves.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640ah_nelson@yahoo.com 773-677-3010
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
An Op-Ed couldn't start out more unequivocally than Charles M. Blow's Saturday, May 31 'Farewell, Fair Weather' with: "We are now firmly ensconced in the Age of Extreme Weather."
Strange, since the rest of the piece is a cornucopia of equivocations: The second sentence: "[T]here have been more than four times as many weather-related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years." An accompanying note defines a "weather-related disaster" as fulfilling any one of four criteria: "10 or more people killed, 100 reported affected, declaration of state of emergency, call for international assistance."
Then "The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country." Combining that statement with the disaster definition’s 4 points, all involving people, and the fact that the US is the world's third most peopled country... what did you expect?
Mr. Blow continues: "Last year [reports were issued] concluding that 'human influences' (read greenhouse-gas emissions) have 'more likely than not” contributed to this increase. The United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse-gas emissions." More likely than not? Equivocation city. Since CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', and 6 billion people breathe it out every 10 seconds, what will you do with that? The US is 'one of the'...? Equivocation number 3. Maybe you didn't hear the first time: The US is the third most populated country in the world. More equivocations: "Furthermore, a White House report about the effect of global climate change on the United States ... reaffirmed that the situation will probably get worse: In addition to temperature extremes, “precipitation is likely to be less frequent but more intense. It is also likely that future hurricanes will become more intense, with higher peak speeds and more heavy precipitation ... .”Probably, likely, likely, equivocations 4, 5, and 6.
Then an irrelevancy: “In 2005 … the estimated damage from storms in the United States was $121 billion. That is $39 billion more than the 2005 supplemental spending bill to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Does the Times’ style book require Op-Eds make at least one reference to the war?
And: “About $3 billion has been allocated to assist farmers who suffer losses because of droughts, floods and tornadoes among other things.” The 2008 World Almanac says "Total US Government Agricultural Payments" have averaged $16 billion a year for the 4 years 2003-2006 - so what?
A final point: Have the climate change alarmists given any thought to their leader, the guy who won an Oscar, and a Nobel Prize, for his 'work' on climate change? How did he get so influential? Well, he was born into US political royalty, inheriting safe seats in both the House and Senate from his very astute politician father. How about his education? Again, he got into Harvard, but owes a good deal of that good fortune to his lineage. Advanced degrees? Zero! Since he's such a big deal in the ‘science’ of climate change, what's his science education background? Two courses, one something called ‘Man's place in Nature‘ ( he got a ‘D‘ in that.) This mope is a complete fraud, and anyone who follows him should be ashamed of themselves.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640ah_nelson@yahoo.com 773-677-3010
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Letter to WSJ on their illegal immigration stand
Chicago IL Friday AM, May 30, 2008
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
The second sentence of the third paragraph of your Thursday, May 29 editorial 'The Menendez Method' reads: "No one wants to reward lawbreaking." Guess the first word of the next sentence. A hint, this is a Wall Street Journal editorial, so it's obviously "But", followed by the usual contortions trying to explain that there are laws, certainly, that should not be broken, but then there's those silly immigration laws, and if they threaten in any way guaranteeing a permanent class of perpetually bent-backed, low paid, agricultural workers, then so be it.
Why, if they were enforced, "growers will continue to move operations south of the border if they can't find labor in the U.S. at a price that allows growers to stay competitive."
Remember what happened to the US banana growers? Remember when red raspberries were in the store for only two weeks in June? Then better shipping techniques allowed them to be supplied near-year-round from Chile. It used to take a busload of (short) school kids to pick enough blueberries for a couple bowls of cereal and milk, now the grower calls up a guy who shows up in two days with a single machine, and whoosh, truckloads of crated blueberries.
When I read you spout this illegal immigration fetish, I can't believe I'm reading a top newspaper like the Journal. But the immediately preceding editorial starts out: "New Jersey is about the last place one might think to look for free- market policy reform," and before that: "Republicans in Congress may be out of gas, but that doesn't mean conservative ideas aren't percolating elsewhere...." page after clear thinking page of solid conservative positions.
But no, a yelp from a single southwestern lettuce grower threatening to move out if he doesn't get coolie-priced labor, and the WSJ editorial board is back in its illegal immigration fetal position. Grow up!
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
The second sentence of the third paragraph of your Thursday, May 29 editorial 'The Menendez Method' reads: "No one wants to reward lawbreaking." Guess the first word of the next sentence. A hint, this is a Wall Street Journal editorial, so it's obviously "But", followed by the usual contortions trying to explain that there are laws, certainly, that should not be broken, but then there's those silly immigration laws, and if they threaten in any way guaranteeing a permanent class of perpetually bent-backed, low paid, agricultural workers, then so be it.
Why, if they were enforced, "growers will continue to move operations south of the border if they can't find labor in the U.S. at a price that allows growers to stay competitive."
Remember what happened to the US banana growers? Remember when red raspberries were in the store for only two weeks in June? Then better shipping techniques allowed them to be supplied near-year-round from Chile. It used to take a busload of (short) school kids to pick enough blueberries for a couple bowls of cereal and milk, now the grower calls up a guy who shows up in two days with a single machine, and whoosh, truckloads of crated blueberries.
When I read you spout this illegal immigration fetish, I can't believe I'm reading a top newspaper like the Journal. But the immediately preceding editorial starts out: "New Jersey is about the last place one might think to look for free- market policy reform," and before that: "Republicans in Congress may be out of gas, but that doesn't mean conservative ideas aren't percolating elsewhere...." page after clear thinking page of solid conservative positions.
But no, a yelp from a single southwestern lettuce grower threatening to move out if he doesn't get coolie-priced labor, and the WSJ editorial board is back in its illegal immigration fetal position. Grow up!
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Chicago IL Saturday PM, May 3, 2008
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
William Tucker's Friday, May 2 'Notable and Quotable' makes a surprisingly rarely heard, but most significant point about the vast amounts of land required by the allegedly "clean, renewable, and sustainable" so-called 'green' energy sources.
An even more significant point can be made by considering that land is a two-dimensional space, and at that only 30 per cent of the earth's surface not covered by water.
Oil, on the other hand, comes from a 3-dimensional space, a space under every square inch of the earth's surface. And with all the exploration that's been done for oil, it has been significantly limited to places where it could be economically extracted, which at this time doesn't include a very major part of the 70% of the earth's surface covered by water. Add to that the constant redefinition of the economics of oil extraction by ever improving technology, and the green arguments become even less realistic. And continuing study of abiotic sources of oil (as discussed in some detail by David J. Bardin in an article "What if Methane's Inexhaustible?" in the Thursday, January 26, 1984 Wall Street Journal) make the greenies' positions yet more precarious.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
William Tucker's Friday, May 2 'Notable and Quotable' makes a surprisingly rarely heard, but most significant point about the vast amounts of land required by the allegedly "clean, renewable, and sustainable" so-called 'green' energy sources.
An even more significant point can be made by considering that land is a two-dimensional space, and at that only 30 per cent of the earth's surface not covered by water.
Oil, on the other hand, comes from a 3-dimensional space, a space under every square inch of the earth's surface. And with all the exploration that's been done for oil, it has been significantly limited to places where it could be economically extracted, which at this time doesn't include a very major part of the 70% of the earth's surface covered by water. Add to that the constant redefinition of the economics of oil extraction by ever improving technology, and the green arguments become even less realistic. And continuing study of abiotic sources of oil (as discussed in some detail by David J. Bardin in an article "What if Methane's Inexhaustible?" in the Thursday, January 26, 1984 Wall Street Journal) make the greenies' positions yet more precarious.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
WSJ letter 'Billification' of HRC prez campaign article
Chicago IL Saturday PM, April 16, 2008
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
Your Saturday, April 26 article "He's Back; Bill Clinton gives his wife's campaign new momentum..." says Bill Clinton "has become something of a strategist-in-chief in recent weeks", "told the campaign to double the number of his daily appearances" and is "sending out fund-raising appeals, with strong results."
It almost sounds like he's running for a third term. He can't do that, can he...?
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
Your Saturday, April 26 article "He's Back; Bill Clinton gives his wife's campaign new momentum..." says Bill Clinton "has become something of a strategist-in-chief in recent weeks", "told the campaign to double the number of his daily appearances" and is "sending out fund-raising appeals, with strong results."
It almost sounds like he's running for a third term. He can't do that, can he...?
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Letter to WSJ 04/15/08 Loopholes editorial
Chicago IL Wednesday, April 16, 2008
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
No one in American media comes close to the Wall Street Journal in delivering powerful editorials, but you beat even this high standard with your Tuesday, April 15, 2008 800 word "Loophole Factory"
After 700 words describing the absolute mayhem being committed by our federal legislature on their number one responsibility, taxes and spending, there is one loose end: "The losers are taxpayers who aren't powerful or rich enough to afford a tax lobbyist."
The problem here is that ever since the enactment of the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, the number of taxpayers, people who write actual checks on their personal accounts to the federal government, has dwindled to considerably less than a critical mass.
Ninety percent of voters are wage earners, and ninety percent of US wage earners do not pay income taxes. They get a statement with every pay check saying they have paid federal income taxes, but the actual dollars in that transaction came from employers'
bank accounts, not wage earners'.
Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to change it, and are able to easily pass on the expense to customers. Also, as is so well described in your editorial, many employers are the same perps demanding, and getting, all those outlandish loopholes.
So 'income taxes' become a near-painless extraction of the fed's largest source of income from the soft underbelly of a continuously growing US economy. In 230 years we have moved from violently rebelling against "taxation without representation" to acceptance of "representation without taxation", without a whimper.
The solution to this problem is not the 'Fair tax', nor repealing the 16th amendment, just a majority vote in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the Senate, to change 11, and add 24, words deep in the federal tax code, specifically:
Change paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages (a) Requirement of withholding (1) In general...' from:
"Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or
computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary[of the Treasury]."
To: "Regardless of what is provided in this section or anywhere else in US law, every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee, and calculate upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational
procedures prescribed by the Secretary[of the Treasury] and report the amount of that tax directly to the US Treasury and the employee."
Here would be a good place to add that the employee is expected to remit a personal check to the federal government for the amount of the tax before getting his next pay check.
Would this be inefficient? Sure, for an insatiable federal government, but educational for wage earner/voters, especially once they start writing checks on their own bank accounts to the feds for 20% of their last paycheck. This would result in direct responsibility for 80% of federal income being given back to those who are supposed to have it in the first place: US voters.
This could not be done over nite (as could not be done with the Fair tax either, but don't tell them.) So pick a random letter every month, and change all employees with last names beginning with that letter, to the new, real, pay-as-you-go system.
After the 26-month conversion period, every wage earner in the country would be writing a check to the feds for 20% of his pay every pay period. They would not be happy. That same period would include a re-election of all 435 members of the House and 1/3 of the Senate, that would reflect some of that voter unhappiness.
Employers could include an additional note with the pay check, suggesting the wage earner encourage their congressional candidates to bone up on Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution that lists all 18 things the congress is allowed to do, with a minor mention that the founders had no idea what future congresses would do with the 'general welfare' clause.
Unfortunately, a lot of citizens would be as outraged as the feds over this change. Rather than see it as their responsibility as citizens to have first hand experience with how much money the feds are playing with, they would want the present system to continue, where deep down, they like to feel they are getting something for nothing. Convincing them otherwise would be a major PR task, but better now then telling future generations why their nation is collapsing underneath them. 788 words
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
No one in American media comes close to the Wall Street Journal in delivering powerful editorials, but you beat even this high standard with your Tuesday, April 15, 2008 800 word "Loophole Factory"
After 700 words describing the absolute mayhem being committed by our federal legislature on their number one responsibility, taxes and spending, there is one loose end: "The losers are taxpayers who aren't powerful or rich enough to afford a tax lobbyist."
The problem here is that ever since the enactment of the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, the number of taxpayers, people who write actual checks on their personal accounts to the federal government, has dwindled to considerably less than a critical mass.
Ninety percent of voters are wage earners, and ninety percent of US wage earners do not pay income taxes. They get a statement with every pay check saying they have paid federal income taxes, but the actual dollars in that transaction came from employers'
bank accounts, not wage earners'.
Employers are certainly not happy with this situation, but don't have the votes to change it, and are able to easily pass on the expense to customers. Also, as is so well described in your editorial, many employers are the same perps demanding, and getting, all those outlandish loopholes.
So 'income taxes' become a near-painless extraction of the fed's largest source of income from the soft underbelly of a continuously growing US economy. In 230 years we have moved from violently rebelling against "taxation without representation" to acceptance of "representation without taxation", without a whimper.
The solution to this problem is not the 'Fair tax', nor repealing the 16th amendment, just a majority vote in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the Senate, to change 11, and add 24, words deep in the federal tax code, specifically:
Change paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages (a) Requirement of withholding (1) In general...' from:
"Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or
computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary[of the Treasury]."
To: "Regardless of what is provided in this section or anywhere else in US law, every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee, and calculate upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational
procedures prescribed by the Secretary[of the Treasury] and report the amount of that tax directly to the US Treasury and the employee."
Here would be a good place to add that the employee is expected to remit a personal check to the federal government for the amount of the tax before getting his next pay check.
Would this be inefficient? Sure, for an insatiable federal government, but educational for wage earner/voters, especially once they start writing checks on their own bank accounts to the feds for 20% of their last paycheck. This would result in direct responsibility for 80% of federal income being given back to those who are supposed to have it in the first place: US voters.
This could not be done over nite (as could not be done with the Fair tax either, but don't tell them.) So pick a random letter every month, and change all employees with last names beginning with that letter, to the new, real, pay-as-you-go system.
After the 26-month conversion period, every wage earner in the country would be writing a check to the feds for 20% of his pay every pay period. They would not be happy. That same period would include a re-election of all 435 members of the House and 1/3 of the Senate, that would reflect some of that voter unhappiness.
Employers could include an additional note with the pay check, suggesting the wage earner encourage their congressional candidates to bone up on Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution that lists all 18 things the congress is allowed to do, with a minor mention that the founders had no idea what future congresses would do with the 'general welfare' clause.
Unfortunately, a lot of citizens would be as outraged as the feds over this change. Rather than see it as their responsibility as citizens to have first hand experience with how much money the feds are playing with, they would want the present system to continue, where deep down, they like to feel they are getting something for nothing. Convincing them otherwise would be a major PR task, but better now then telling future generations why their nation is collapsing underneath them. 788 words
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
ChiTrib letter ChinatownCTA accident truck driver
Saturday, April 26, 2007 5PM
Voice of the PeopleChicago Tribune
Gentle people:
An article in the Wednesday, July 4, 2007 Chicago Tribune "No charges in fatal crash... " describes the resolution of a case where a semi-truck driver was not prosecuted for driving "...his semitrailer into a line of vehicles on the Indiana Toll Road in April [2007], killing eight people...."
The Elkhart [IN] County Prosecuting Attorney Curtis Hill was quoted in the Tribune article: "Leonardo Cooksey, 32, was trying to charge his cell phone while driving and didn't see the traffic stopped in front of him until it was too late..." and further: "Mr. Cooksey's conduct was inattentive driving, not speeding, not driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs... inadvertence alone, while an indication of negligent conduct, does not rise to the level of criminal liability, notwithstanding a catastrophic result."
Later the Tribune article says: "Lawyers in Illinois said the case's outcome likely would have been the same in Illinois, because Cooksey's actions, while unfortunate, did not constitute recklessness...."
So since only two people (so far) were killed in Friday's unfortunate incident in Chinatown, that semi driver probably will not need to use even the "fiddling with the charger" excuse the 2007 Tribune article said the Indiana driver had given to the police, to avoid any official reprimand at all. Maybe just 'picking his nose' will get him off.
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
PS If 'no picking' is off limits for VOTP, you have my permission to use 'scratching himself', 'clipping his nails', whatever makes the point a little more delicately.
Voice of the PeopleChicago Tribune
Gentle people:
An article in the Wednesday, July 4, 2007 Chicago Tribune "No charges in fatal crash... " describes the resolution of a case where a semi-truck driver was not prosecuted for driving "...his semitrailer into a line of vehicles on the Indiana Toll Road in April [2007], killing eight people...."
The Elkhart [IN] County Prosecuting Attorney Curtis Hill was quoted in the Tribune article: "Leonardo Cooksey, 32, was trying to charge his cell phone while driving and didn't see the traffic stopped in front of him until it was too late..." and further: "Mr. Cooksey's conduct was inattentive driving, not speeding, not driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs... inadvertence alone, while an indication of negligent conduct, does not rise to the level of criminal liability, notwithstanding a catastrophic result."
Later the Tribune article says: "Lawyers in Illinois said the case's outcome likely would have been the same in Illinois, because Cooksey's actions, while unfortunate, did not constitute recklessness...."
So since only two people (so far) were killed in Friday's unfortunate incident in Chinatown, that semi driver probably will not need to use even the "fiddling with the charger" excuse the 2007 Tribune article said the Indiana driver had given to the police, to avoid any official reprimand at all. Maybe just 'picking his nose' will get him off.
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
PS If 'no picking' is off limits for VOTP, you have my permission to use 'scratching himself', 'clipping his nails', whatever makes the point a little more delicately.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Response to WSJ: "World has Plenty of Oil...
Wednesday, March 5, 2008 3:34 AM
From: "Arnold Nelson" ah_nelson@yahoo.com
To: "WSJ Letters" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Chicago IL Wednesday, March 5, 2008 Gentlepeople: A Tuesday, March 4 article 'The World Has Plenty of Oil' was refreshing, so no surprise that it appears in WSJ.
When I first heard of bio fuels, I thot: Here's the way to convert energy from the sun into fuel for our cars. Who cares if we run out of oil. After a while, I thot further: virtually all biofuel sources, and corn especially, come from a two-dimensional space. the surface of the earth. But 70% of that space is under several thousand feet of water, unavailable for any crops in the traditional sense. Of the remaining 30%, there's not a whole lot af space to grow anything convertible to biofuels. Rule out the deserts - Sahara, Arabian, Gobi, etc. Not much corn grows there. Same for the mountains - Himalayas, Rockies, Andes - not much market for combines.
Another potential plus for bios, their replenishable. But how often? Corn especially I understand takes so much out of the soil that it cannot be grown in the same fields, year after year.
Now take oil - it comes from a 3-dimensional space. Except for some minor nibbling on the continental shelf, 70% of this has never been tested for oil availability, and if found, it will be a while before we develop the tools needed to extract it. But we will, when cost effective.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL
From: "Arnold Nelson" ah_nelson@yahoo.com
To: "WSJ Letters" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Chicago IL Wednesday, March 5, 2008 Gentlepeople: A Tuesday, March 4 article 'The World Has Plenty of Oil' was refreshing, so no surprise that it appears in WSJ.
When I first heard of bio fuels, I thot: Here's the way to convert energy from the sun into fuel for our cars. Who cares if we run out of oil. After a while, I thot further: virtually all biofuel sources, and corn especially, come from a two-dimensional space. the surface of the earth. But 70% of that space is under several thousand feet of water, unavailable for any crops in the traditional sense. Of the remaining 30%, there's not a whole lot af space to grow anything convertible to biofuels. Rule out the deserts - Sahara, Arabian, Gobi, etc. Not much corn grows there. Same for the mountains - Himalayas, Rockies, Andes - not much market for combines.
Another potential plus for bios, their replenishable. But how often? Corn especially I understand takes so much out of the soil that it cannot be grown in the same fields, year after year.
Now take oil - it comes from a 3-dimensional space. Except for some minor nibbling on the continental shelf, 70% of this has never been tested for oil availability, and if found, it will be a while before we develop the tools needed to extract it. But we will, when cost effective.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL
Monday, March 3, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
For all you other withholding tax freaks out there...
...(both of you) rooting around I found what to me must be be the first and last words (with a bonus 13,169 in between) on the depressing subject of the US federal withholding tax:
EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING: THE
MACHINERY OF INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
by Charlotte Twight Cato Journal Vol. 14 No. 3
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n3-1.html
First 'graf:
"Taxes are the backbone of any politico-economic regime. Constraints on a government's power to tax are constraints on its power to act. Focusing on the legalization of mandatory federal income tax withholding through the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, this article examines forces that have eroded constraints on the U.S. government's power to tax."
But plowing thru to the end I was "rewarded" w/ these discouraging, but no less delicious, quotes:
"Though in 1943 the withholding mechanism was sold politically as a benefit to taxpayers, government officeholders even then widely regarded it as a means of extracting greater tax revenue...."
"...across a broad span of income tax history changes in tax law have tended to proceed incrementally and therefore to generate complexity...." [No!?!]
"Congress and the president learned, to their pleasure, ... that installment buyers could be induced to pay more because they looked not at the total debt but only at the monthly payments. And in this case [income tax collection] there was, for government, the added psychological advantage that people were paying their taxes with not much resistance because they were paying with money they had never even seen...."
"...widespread and systematic use of propaganda by U.S. government officials during World War II to quell resistance to the transformation of the income tax from a `class tax' to a `mass tax'...."
"Wherever an income tax has been in practice for any time the small incomes as well as the large are taxed; and it is the small incomes which yield the largest revenue to the state."
"[in 1872 the commissioner of Internal Revenue wrote] ... that he regarded the income tax as 'the one of all others most obnoxious to the genius of our people, being inquisitorial in its nature, and dragging into public view an exposition of the most private pecuniary affairs of the citizen'."
"Congress labeled the 1894 [income tax] law 'An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.'"
"Detailed studies of the history and politics of the period [of passage of the 16th amendment] indicate intense desire on the part of various regional and economic groups to rearrange taxes to make others pay a disproportionately high share of governmental costs...." [Amazing!]
"The 1913 statute authorized withholding of income taxes 'at the source'--that is, extraction of income taxes from taxpayers' pay envelopes before salaries were paid. Precedent existed in the income tax withholding for government employees during the Civil War...."
"We know that World War II prompted transformation of a tax long endorsed by the public as a tax on the rich into a tax on the masses...."
"[In 1942] Treasury Secretary Morgenthau ...recommended income tax withholding, presenting it as a "more convenient method for the payment of income taxes." Government concern for the well-being of the taxpayer was the dominant theme... the Treasury Department consistently portrayed the withholding proposal as providing taxpayers 'a way of meeting their tax obligations with a maximum of convenience and a minimum of hardship'"
"Although taxpayer convenience and patriotic sacrifice were the avowed purposes of income tax withholding, the actual objectives--though not trumpeted to the public--were candidly acknowledged [to be] increasing
government revenue, enforcing payment of taxes, and muting taxpayer resistance."
"First, the Social Security Act was adopted in 1935. ... most important here is that the social security law was funded by means of a payroll tax withheld at the source. This funding mechanism emerged in the context of a law widely but falsely promoted as giving each 'contributor' an 'account' in Washington, D.C., that would provide income security in his old age."
"Contrary to the reality of ... extraction of income from wage earners, officials continued to portray the U.S. tax system as grounded in 'voluntary' compliance.... 'Our system is said to be one of voluntary compliance, but for some time we have known that compliance is the highest where voluntarism is the least relied upon.'"
"Indeed, the common practice of overwithholding associates the payment of taxes with an apparent financial benefit rather than cost, distorting
taxpayers' assessments of the actual costs and benefits of government activity... the expected return of such overpayments makes people feel 'happier' about [paying taxes]."
For all of this interesting stuff, this was heavy reading for me. Get used to the word 'transaction' (used 89 times), including transaction costs (political and otherwise), transaction-cost (framework, burden, increasing and otherwise), Transaction-cost-manipulation (theory and model),Transaction-cost-augmentation, (AKA augmentation of political transaction costs) etc. (this was fun at first, but quickly tiring, long before exhausting the game.)
Arn Nelson in Chicago
EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING: THE
MACHINERY OF INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
by Charlotte Twight Cato Journal Vol. 14 No. 3
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n3-1.html
First 'graf:
"Taxes are the backbone of any politico-economic regime. Constraints on a government's power to tax are constraints on its power to act. Focusing on the legalization of mandatory federal income tax withholding through the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, this article examines forces that have eroded constraints on the U.S. government's power to tax."
But plowing thru to the end I was "rewarded" w/ these discouraging, but no less delicious, quotes:
"Though in 1943 the withholding mechanism was sold politically as a benefit to taxpayers, government officeholders even then widely regarded it as a means of extracting greater tax revenue...."
"...across a broad span of income tax history changes in tax law have tended to proceed incrementally and therefore to generate complexity...." [No!?!]
"Congress and the president learned, to their pleasure, ... that installment buyers could be induced to pay more because they looked not at the total debt but only at the monthly payments. And in this case [income tax collection] there was, for government, the added psychological advantage that people were paying their taxes with not much resistance because they were paying with money they had never even seen...."
"...widespread and systematic use of propaganda by U.S. government officials during World War II to quell resistance to the transformation of the income tax from a `class tax' to a `mass tax'...."
"Wherever an income tax has been in practice for any time the small incomes as well as the large are taxed; and it is the small incomes which yield the largest revenue to the state."
"[in 1872 the commissioner of Internal Revenue wrote] ... that he regarded the income tax as 'the one of all others most obnoxious to the genius of our people, being inquisitorial in its nature, and dragging into public view an exposition of the most private pecuniary affairs of the citizen'."
"Congress labeled the 1894 [income tax] law 'An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.'"
"Detailed studies of the history and politics of the period [of passage of the 16th amendment] indicate intense desire on the part of various regional and economic groups to rearrange taxes to make others pay a disproportionately high share of governmental costs...." [Amazing!]
"The 1913 statute authorized withholding of income taxes 'at the source'--that is, extraction of income taxes from taxpayers' pay envelopes before salaries were paid. Precedent existed in the income tax withholding for government employees during the Civil War...."
"We know that World War II prompted transformation of a tax long endorsed by the public as a tax on the rich into a tax on the masses...."
"[In 1942] Treasury Secretary Morgenthau ...recommended income tax withholding, presenting it as a "more convenient method for the payment of income taxes." Government concern for the well-being of the taxpayer was the dominant theme... the Treasury Department consistently portrayed the withholding proposal as providing taxpayers 'a way of meeting their tax obligations with a maximum of convenience and a minimum of hardship'"
"Although taxpayer convenience and patriotic sacrifice were the avowed purposes of income tax withholding, the actual objectives--though not trumpeted to the public--were candidly acknowledged [to be] increasing
government revenue, enforcing payment of taxes, and muting taxpayer resistance."
"First, the Social Security Act was adopted in 1935. ... most important here is that the social security law was funded by means of a payroll tax withheld at the source. This funding mechanism emerged in the context of a law widely but falsely promoted as giving each 'contributor' an 'account' in Washington, D.C., that would provide income security in his old age."
"Contrary to the reality of ... extraction of income from wage earners, officials continued to portray the U.S. tax system as grounded in 'voluntary' compliance.... 'Our system is said to be one of voluntary compliance, but for some time we have known that compliance is the highest where voluntarism is the least relied upon.'"
"Indeed, the common practice of overwithholding associates the payment of taxes with an apparent financial benefit rather than cost, distorting
taxpayers' assessments of the actual costs and benefits of government activity... the expected return of such overpayments makes people feel 'happier' about [paying taxes]."
For all of this interesting stuff, this was heavy reading for me. Get used to the word 'transaction' (used 89 times), including transaction costs (political and otherwise), transaction-cost (framework, burden, increasing and otherwise), Transaction-cost-manipulation (theory and model),Transaction-cost-augmentation, (AKA augmentation of political transaction costs) etc. (this was fun at first, but quickly tiring, long before exhausting the game.)
Arn Nelson in Chicago
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Bio fuels letter to Iain Murray of CEI
Saturday, January 5, 2008 8:42 PM
From: "Arnold Nelson" <ah_nelson@yahoo.com>
To: "Iain Murray" <info@cei.org>
Mr. Murray, I've also been an admirer of Cliff May ever since he joined NR (I'm a 40+ year NRODT subscriber,) but was not happy w/ his Wednesday, January 2, 2008 "Worth A Listen" corner post. Trying to put together some sort of comment message, I accidental ran over your 12/21 11:08 AM "Oil Is Not the Enemy" post and just saved a lot of time - If I spent a year on my Cliff May project, I would come no where near competing w/ your post.
I was especially impressed w/ your "methanol... which would also require massive amounts of land" comment, since yours is the first place I've seen it, and it was the heart of comments I've made in the last few months to Rich Lowery, Jonah Goldberg, and Victor Davis Hanson (no answers, but I'm used to that.)
When I first heard the alcohol/methanol plans, my first thot was wow! Here's a freebie - a cheap, easy of way using sunlite to power cars. But after thinking about it for a few months, it occurred to me that all that bio stuff comes from a 2-dimensional 'space' - the 30% of the planet that is not under water. And in the case of corn, a realistically quite small part of that (can't grow too much corn in the Sahara, Gobi, Rockies etc.) And usually only annually, and again in the case of corn, not even that, since it's pretty hard on the ground, and usually must be rotated.
Oil, OTOH, comes from a 3-dimensional space, and for all the talk of 'using it all up' we've only barely started. For one thing, we have no idea how much is under the 70% of the planet covered by water (the scratches we've made in the continental shelves are relatively so minuscule they hardly deserve mention.) I was just talking with my nephew of Enid OK about this the other nite (he's not directly in the oil business - he's an interior designer - but he does things like corporate jet interiors, so he knows a lot of people who are in the oil business.) I told him of my thot that of any 'pumped out' oil well, no oil man would ever make the claim that if you drilled that same hole to the center of the earth, you wouldn't find oil again. He said people he does work for who have made, lost, and remade oil fortunes say the same thing.
I also liked "If you really want to reduce our imports ... campaign for an end to the silly restrictions that keep us from utilizing our vast reserves of oil and gas that are locked away in ANWR, the Rockies and the Outer Continental Shelf." And no one could find a better closing than your last seven words ("The American consumer is not our enemy.")
So thanks so much again. I thot I read all of your posts, so don't know how I missed this one. But it's great to get an idea of mine confirmed so specifically by someone as well known and successful as you.
Arn Nelson in Chicago
PS Wasn't Dan Quayle the head of CEI at one time? I always liked him, and so always had a soft spot for CEI.
From: "Arnold Nelson" <ah_nelson@yahoo.com>
To: "Iain Murray" <info@cei.org>
Mr. Murray, I've also been an admirer of Cliff May ever since he joined NR (I'm a 40+ year NRODT subscriber,) but was not happy w/ his Wednesday, January 2, 2008 "Worth A Listen" corner post. Trying to put together some sort of comment message, I accidental ran over your 12/21 11:08 AM "Oil Is Not the Enemy" post and just saved a lot of time - If I spent a year on my Cliff May project, I would come no where near competing w/ your post.
I was especially impressed w/ your "methanol... which would also require massive amounts of land" comment, since yours is the first place I've seen it, and it was the heart of comments I've made in the last few months to Rich Lowery, Jonah Goldberg, and Victor Davis Hanson (no answers, but I'm used to that.)
When I first heard the alcohol/methanol plans, my first thot was wow! Here's a freebie - a cheap, easy of way using sunlite to power cars. But after thinking about it for a few months, it occurred to me that all that bio stuff comes from a 2-dimensional 'space' - the 30% of the planet that is not under water. And in the case of corn, a realistically quite small part of that (can't grow too much corn in the Sahara, Gobi, Rockies etc.) And usually only annually, and again in the case of corn, not even that, since it's pretty hard on the ground, and usually must be rotated.
Oil, OTOH, comes from a 3-dimensional space, and for all the talk of 'using it all up' we've only barely started. For one thing, we have no idea how much is under the 70% of the planet covered by water (the scratches we've made in the continental shelves are relatively so minuscule they hardly deserve mention.) I was just talking with my nephew of Enid OK about this the other nite (he's not directly in the oil business - he's an interior designer - but he does things like corporate jet interiors, so he knows a lot of people who are in the oil business.) I told him of my thot that of any 'pumped out' oil well, no oil man would ever make the claim that if you drilled that same hole to the center of the earth, you wouldn't find oil again. He said people he does work for who have made, lost, and remade oil fortunes say the same thing.
I also liked "If you really want to reduce our imports ... campaign for an end to the silly restrictions that keep us from utilizing our vast reserves of oil and gas that are locked away in ANWR, the Rockies and the Outer Continental Shelf." And no one could find a better closing than your last seven words ("The American consumer is not our enemy.")
So thanks so much again. I thot I read all of your posts, so don't know how I missed this one. But it's great to get an idea of mine confirmed so specifically by someone as well known and successful as you.
Arn Nelson in Chicago
PS Wasn't Dan Quayle the head of CEI at one time? I always liked him, and so always had a soft spot for CEI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
