Chicago, Sunday AM, April 26, 2009
Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune
A letter in the Tuesday, April 22, Chicago Tribune "Tea party shame" speaks of "the trillions it's costing us for George W. Bush's war."
If the writer goes to congress.gov (if he has no computer, I'm sure his local public library staff would be delighted to do it for him) and reads House-Senate Joint Resolution of October 10, 2002 for "Use of Military Force Against Iraq" he would learn a lot of what he apparently doesn't know about "Geirge W Bush's war."
Its 1300 words contain 22 statements justifying invading Iraq, and includes the words 'weapons of mass destruction' (6 times,) 'September 11, 2001' (5 times,) 'al Quaida' once, and 'nuclear' 4 times. (Curiously, it does not contain the word 'oil'.)
This resolution was passed by 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress (2/3 of Senate Democrats, too.) Every penny of those trillions the war is costing was approved by the Congress. This was not George Bush's war - it was the US Congress' war.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60650
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Free help for the Republicans from the British press
Chicago PM Saturday, April 25, 2009
Editors, Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
The Financial Times is a fine newspaper, and I am lucky to have it available to me early every AM. But about the only good thing about your Wednesday April 22 editorial "Republicans slide into disarray" is that it will be ignored.
You begin "The founders of the US were right: checks and balances make for better government." If you would acquaint yourselves with the Federalist papers you would see that 'checks and balances" has nothing to do with political opposition, but specifically with the three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, so arranged and empowered that they continuously check and balance each other.
Next you say "If the Republicans are to strengthen their position in Congress... and... mount a credible challenge for the White House... they must win back the independent voters.... Didn't we run the most independent of independent Republicans last fall? Look what it got us.
Then you say "Sarah Palin... compounds the party’s problems."
Yes, poor Sarah, with a pathetic 21 months of actual executive experience, as it turns out not only infinitely more than her running mate, but both opposing candidates too. Then you complain that "the [Republican] party keeps striding to the right." Yes, some of us are trying to stride back to 1980-1984, when we won two consecutive landslides with a no-nonsense right-winger, who also had eight years as governor of the largest state. We managed to follow that with a bureaucrat with zero executive experience, to lose to the first Democrat governor who popped up. Then we tried the "who's turn is it" strategy, nominating another legislator with no more executive experience that it takes to run a senate office staff Christmas party, and that foxy hillbilly governor did it to us again.
Then we got things more-or-less together again with someone who at least had 5 years experience meeting a $60 million annual private sector payroll, and 6 years governing the second largest state. He had weaknesses, but not enough for the Democrats to take over with another pair of legislative dunces with no executive experience. And for all that George W Bush was considered descended from 'political royalty' it was Al Gore who would never have got beyond cuttin' 'backy had his father not been a gifted politician.
Britain is a fine place to visit, but from all I read, not too good a place to need health care. And maybe approaching not too good a place to be non-Muslim, considering the rising imminence of Sharia law. So maybe the well earned influence of the Financial Times editorial page would be better applied to fixing your own considerable problems.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640 IL
Editors, Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
The Financial Times is a fine newspaper, and I am lucky to have it available to me early every AM. But about the only good thing about your Wednesday April 22 editorial "Republicans slide into disarray" is that it will be ignored.
You begin "The founders of the US were right: checks and balances make for better government." If you would acquaint yourselves with the Federalist papers you would see that 'checks and balances" has nothing to do with political opposition, but specifically with the three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, so arranged and empowered that they continuously check and balance each other.
Next you say "If the Republicans are to strengthen their position in Congress... and... mount a credible challenge for the White House... they must win back the independent voters.... Didn't we run the most independent of independent Republicans last fall? Look what it got us.
Then you say "Sarah Palin... compounds the party’s problems."
Yes, poor Sarah, with a pathetic 21 months of actual executive experience, as it turns out not only infinitely more than her running mate, but both opposing candidates too. Then you complain that "the [Republican] party keeps striding to the right." Yes, some of us are trying to stride back to 1980-1984, when we won two consecutive landslides with a no-nonsense right-winger, who also had eight years as governor of the largest state. We managed to follow that with a bureaucrat with zero executive experience, to lose to the first Democrat governor who popped up. Then we tried the "who's turn is it" strategy, nominating another legislator with no more executive experience that it takes to run a senate office staff Christmas party, and that foxy hillbilly governor did it to us again.
Then we got things more-or-less together again with someone who at least had 5 years experience meeting a $60 million annual private sector payroll, and 6 years governing the second largest state. He had weaknesses, but not enough for the Democrats to take over with another pair of legislative dunces with no executive experience. And for all that George W Bush was considered descended from 'political royalty' it was Al Gore who would never have got beyond cuttin' 'backy had his father not been a gifted politician.
Britain is a fine place to visit, but from all I read, not too good a place to need health care. And maybe approaching not too good a place to be non-Muslim, considering the rising imminence of Sharia law. So maybe the well earned influence of the Financial Times editorial page would be better applied to fixing your own considerable problems.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640 IL
Response to NYTimes' Noble Laureate columnist Paul Krugman on "America's Soul"
Chicago Saturday PM 25 April 2009
Editors, The New York Times
Gentlepeople:
In a Friday, April 24 New York Times column Paul Krugman writes: "...[T]he Bush administration ... misled the nation into a war they wanted to fight, and, probably, tortured people in the attempt to extract 'confessions' that would justify that war."
For a man who won a Nobel Prize (thot by most to be well deserved,) it's hard to believe Krugman wrote that without reading House-Senate Joint Resolution of October 10, 2002 for "Use of Military Force Against Iraq." At 1300 words, this resolution is not long, but contains 22 statements justifying invading Iraq, and includes the words 'weapons of mass destruction' (6 times,) 'September 11, 2001' (5 times,) 'al Quaida' once, 'nuclear' 4 times. (Curiously, it did not contain the word 'oil'.) And the resolution was passed by 2/3 majorities of each house (2/3 of Senate Democrats, too.)
Krugman concludes by writing "We need to do this [prosecute leaders of the Bush Administration for misleading "the nation into a war"] ... "because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul."
America's soul was defined first and best by Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men... are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Unfortunately, the world being what it is, at times there are forces who would try to destroy that soul. To attack previous leaders who in good conscience tried their best to prevent this, has nothing to do with 'reclaiming' anything, but everything to do with cheap, juvenile, vindictiveness.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Chicago Saturday PM 25 April 2009
Editors, The New York Times
Gentlepeople:
In a Friday, April 24 New York Times column Paul Krugman writes: "...[T]he Bush administration ... misled the nation into a war they wanted to fight, and, probably, tortured people in the attempt to extract 'confessions' that would justify that war."
For a man who won a Nobel Prize (thot by most to be well deserved,) it's hard to believe Krugman wrote that without reading House-Senate Joint Resolution of October 10, 2002 for "Use of Military Force Against Iraq." At 1300 words, this resolution is not long, but contains 22 statements justifying invading Iraq, and includes the words 'weapons of mass destruction' (6 times,) 'September 11, 2001' (5 times,) 'al Quaida' once, 'nuclear' 4 times. (Curiously, it did not contain the word 'oil'.) And the resolution was passed by 2/3 majorities of each house (2/3 of Senate Democrats, too.)
Krugman concludes by writing "We need to do this [prosecute leaders of the Bush Administration for misleading "the nation into a war"] ... "because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul."
America's soul was defined first and best by Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men... are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Unfortunately, the world being what it is, at times there are forces who would try to destroy that soul. To attack previous leaders who in good conscience tried their best to prevent this, has nothing to do with 'reclaiming' anything, but everything to do with cheap, juvenile, vindictiveness.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
National Review Mag's Rick Brookhiser on Obama and W
Chicago PM Saturday 25 April 2009
Editors, National Review Magazine
Gentlepeople:
You would have a hard job finding a bigger admirer of Rick Brookhiser than me. When he was in Chicago in 2005 to pitch his book, I apologized for not having a copy for him to sign, but did have an original copy of the second NR issue NR he ever had an article in - at age 16!
So it was a big surprise to see in his article "A Rhapsode and a Question Mark" in the February 9 edition: "[Obama] is also one of the least experienced [Presidents] ... but coming after George W. Bush... a little ignorance feels like bliss."
Before becoming president George W Bush was the managing partner of a business with a $60 million annual payroll. Sure, it was a baseball team, but $60 million is $60 million, whether you pay it to baseball players or baby sitters, which from all I've read is the biggest payroll Obama ever met, except for maybe the caterer for a senate office staff Christmas party.
Five years after leaving the Texas Rangers (with an $80 million payroll) W was elected Governor of the nation's second largest state, and re-elected 4 years later by a two-to-one margin. Texas only has a 1500 mile international border, but even that is considerably more international experience than 5 crucial pre-teen years slogging thru the mud of Indonesia.
And a governor makes buck-stops-here decisions every day. A state senator, Obama's most extensive government experience, makes no more executive decisions than a 3rd string Chicago Bears jock strap attendant, but at that, without the responsibility. I take on any Bush hater when it comes to naming W's shortcomings, but having more ignorance than Obama? Say it ain't so, Rick.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
[I blind copy all sorts of folks with this stuff. To this note, an influential local Chicago blogger sent me this response:
"It is incredible that supposedly well-educated and informed people make such stupid remarks about Bush. I make a mental note not to easily trust people who have made such comments. Such people are a little too anxious to join the MSMherd, wherever their by-lines appear."]
Editors, National Review Magazine
Gentlepeople:
You would have a hard job finding a bigger admirer of Rick Brookhiser than me. When he was in Chicago in 2005 to pitch his book, I apologized for not having a copy for him to sign, but did have an original copy of the second NR issue NR he ever had an article in - at age 16!
So it was a big surprise to see in his article "A Rhapsode and a Question Mark" in the February 9 edition: "[Obama] is also one of the least experienced [Presidents] ... but coming after George W. Bush... a little ignorance feels like bliss."
Before becoming president George W Bush was the managing partner of a business with a $60 million annual payroll. Sure, it was a baseball team, but $60 million is $60 million, whether you pay it to baseball players or baby sitters, which from all I've read is the biggest payroll Obama ever met, except for maybe the caterer for a senate office staff Christmas party.
Five years after leaving the Texas Rangers (with an $80 million payroll) W was elected Governor of the nation's second largest state, and re-elected 4 years later by a two-to-one margin. Texas only has a 1500 mile international border, but even that is considerably more international experience than 5 crucial pre-teen years slogging thru the mud of Indonesia.
And a governor makes buck-stops-here decisions every day. A state senator, Obama's most extensive government experience, makes no more executive decisions than a 3rd string Chicago Bears jock strap attendant, but at that, without the responsibility. I take on any Bush hater when it comes to naming W's shortcomings, but having more ignorance than Obama? Say it ain't so, Rick.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
[I blind copy all sorts of folks with this stuff. To this note, an influential local Chicago blogger sent me this response:
"It is incredible that supposedly well-educated and informed people make such stupid remarks about Bush. I make a mental note not to easily trust people who have made such comments. Such people are a little too anxious to join the MSMherd, wherever their by-lines appear."]
Free help for the Republicans...
...from the British press:
Chicago PM Saturday, April 25, 2009
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
The Financial Times is a fine newspaper, and I am lucky to have it available to me early every AM. But about the only good thing about your Wednesday April 22 editorial "Republicans slide into disarray" is that it will be ignored.
You begin "The founders of the US were right: checks and balances make for better government." If you would acquaint yourselves with the Federalist papers you would see that 'checks and balances" has nothing to do with political opposition, but specifically with the three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, so arranged and empowered that they continuously check and balance each other.
Next you say "If the Republicans are to strengthen their position in Congress... and... mount a credible challenge for the White House... they must win back the independent voters....
Didn't we run the most independent of independent Republicans last fall? Look what it got us.
Then you say "Sarah Palin... compounds the party’s problems."
Yes, poor Sarah, with a pathetic 21 months of actual executive experience, as it turns out not only infinitely more than her running mate, but both opposing candidates too.
Then you complain that "the [Republican] party keeps striding to the right." Yes, some of us are trying to stride back to 1980-1984, when we won two consecutive landslides with a no-nonsense right-winger, who also had eight years as governor of the largest state.
We managed to follow that with a bureaucrat with zero executive experience, to lose to the first Democrat governor who popped up. Then we tried the "who's turn is it" strategy, nominating another legislator with no more executive experience that it takes to run a senate office staff Christmas party, and that foxy hillbilly governor did it to us again.
Then we got things more-or-less together again with someone who at least had 5 years experience meeting a $60 million annual private sector payroll, and 6 years governing the second largest state. He had weaknesses, but not enough for the Democrats to take over with another pair of legislative dunces with no executive experience. And for all that George W Bush was considered descended from 'political royalty' it was Al Gore who would never have got beyond cuttin' 'backy had his father not been a gifted politician.
Britain is a fine place to visit, but from all I read, not too good a place to need health care. And maybe approaching not too good a place to be non-Muslim, considering the rising imminence of Sharia law. So maybe the well earned influence of the Financial Times editorial page would be better applied to fixing your own considerable problems.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640 IL
Chicago PM Saturday, April 25, 2009
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
The Financial Times is a fine newspaper, and I am lucky to have it available to me early every AM. But about the only good thing about your Wednesday April 22 editorial "Republicans slide into disarray" is that it will be ignored.
You begin "The founders of the US were right: checks and balances make for better government." If you would acquaint yourselves with the Federalist papers you would see that 'checks and balances" has nothing to do with political opposition, but specifically with the three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, so arranged and empowered that they continuously check and balance each other.
Next you say "If the Republicans are to strengthen their position in Congress... and... mount a credible challenge for the White House... they must win back the independent voters....
Didn't we run the most independent of independent Republicans last fall? Look what it got us.
Then you say "Sarah Palin... compounds the party’s problems."
Yes, poor Sarah, with a pathetic 21 months of actual executive experience, as it turns out not only infinitely more than her running mate, but both opposing candidates too.
Then you complain that "the [Republican] party keeps striding to the right." Yes, some of us are trying to stride back to 1980-1984, when we won two consecutive landslides with a no-nonsense right-winger, who also had eight years as governor of the largest state.
We managed to follow that with a bureaucrat with zero executive experience, to lose to the first Democrat governor who popped up. Then we tried the "who's turn is it" strategy, nominating another legislator with no more executive experience that it takes to run a senate office staff Christmas party, and that foxy hillbilly governor did it to us again.
Then we got things more-or-less together again with someone who at least had 5 years experience meeting a $60 million annual private sector payroll, and 6 years governing the second largest state. He had weaknesses, but not enough for the Democrats to take over with another pair of legislative dunces with no executive experience. And for all that George W Bush was considered descended from 'political royalty' it was Al Gore who would never have got beyond cuttin' 'backy had his father not been a gifted politician.
Britain is a fine place to visit, but from all I read, not too good a place to need health care. And maybe approaching not too good a place to be non-Muslim, considering the rising imminence of Sharia law. So maybe the well earned influence of the Financial Times editorial page would be better applied to fixing your own considerable problems.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640 IL
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Is the New York Times familiar with the Federalist Papers?
Chicago AM, Saturday, April 18, 2009
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Your Saturday, April 18, editorial "A Danger to Public Health and Welfare" says "... the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday confirmed what... had never been declared as a matter of federal law: carbon dioxide... constitute[s] a danger to public health...." Could the fact that federal law comes (so far) only from the US Constitution, which says nothing about an Environmental Protection agency, have anything to do with this?
Ah, but you say: "General welfare clause" to which James Madison (remember him?), in his Federalist #41 wrote: "Some [Constitution critics say...] that the power to 'provide for the... general welfare of the United States' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the... general welfare.... "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"
And sure enough, following that semicolon are 17 specific clauses defining what Congress can do, with nary a mention of 'environment' or 'protection', no 'carbon dioxide' or 'climate change', either. Of course, Madison knew things would change, so he and his friends added a way for future generations to accommodate this: get 2/3 of each house of congress to agree, have this confirmed by 3/4 of the state legislatures, and you can add an amendment giving as much environmental protection as you want, let alone need. No need to even bother the President's pretty little head about it.
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine Drive Chicago
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Your Saturday, April 18, editorial "A Danger to Public Health and Welfare" says "... the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday confirmed what... had never been declared as a matter of federal law: carbon dioxide... constitute[s] a danger to public health...." Could the fact that federal law comes (so far) only from the US Constitution, which says nothing about an Environmental Protection agency, have anything to do with this?
Ah, but you say: "General welfare clause" to which James Madison (remember him?), in his Federalist #41 wrote: "Some [Constitution critics say...] that the power to 'provide for the... general welfare of the United States' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the... general welfare.... "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"
And sure enough, following that semicolon are 17 specific clauses defining what Congress can do, with nary a mention of 'environment' or 'protection', no 'carbon dioxide' or 'climate change', either. Of course, Madison knew things would change, so he and his friends added a way for future generations to accommodate this: get 2/3 of each house of congress to agree, have this confirmed by 3/4 of the state legislatures, and you can add an amendment giving as much environmental protection as you want, let alone need. No need to even bother the President's pretty little head about it.
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine Drive Chicago
Monday, April 13, 2009
Ari Fleischer on income taxes
Chicago Monday PM April 13, 2009 Editors
Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Seeing Ari Fleischer's name as the author of an article on taxes ("Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes" WSJ Monday, April 13) was not real encouraging, but my inner publicist said: "C'mon, look at the headline."
That was a good start. But Fleischer goes on to say three things I haven't read in years of three-a-day major newspaper reading.First, "... nearly every other social cause is given a loophole... in the tax code" demonstrated by listing 9 examples of such commonly accepted preferences, from buying a hybrid vehicle to paying alimony, rightly concluding that "everyone now has a sacred cow in the tax code."
Next he suggests abolishing "all Social Security, Medicare and estate taxes" and that "Social Security and Medicare will be funded from income taxes, ending the myth that these programs are supported through government trust funds and payroll taxes.
"What a breath of fresh air! Even more fresh air: tax rates should "go up or down for everyone -- no more... lowering taxes for some or raising them only for others.... If Congress wants to raise or cut taxes, it should do so for everyone."
Fleischer concludes that following his suggestions "will create an environment in which spending programs receive the scrutiny they deserve. It's funny what happens when everyone pays the bills...."
An even faster way to get tax payers to give "spending programs ... the scrutiny they deserve" is to get 218 members of the House of Representatives and 60 Senators, and an agreeable president to change paragraph 3402 of USC Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages... from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...." leaving the tax calculation with the employer but insisting that a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days accompany the paycheck.
Mr. Fleischer was a fine presidential press secretary, but with ideas and imagination like this, he would be an even better Speaker of the house of Representatives.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
[For some reason I blind copied Larry Kudlow on this, and within an hour got this message:
From: Susan Varga @kudlow.com
Subject: RE: Ari Fleischer on income taxes
To: "'Arnold Nelson'"
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 11:09 AM
Dear Arnold :
Larry Kudlow is trying to reach Mr. Fleischer. Can you give me contact information?
Many thanks,
Susan
Susan C. Varga Chief Operating Officer Kudlow & Co., LLC 1375 Kings Highway East, Suite. 260 Fairfield, CT 06824
I sent her a short note saying I had no more contact than what was in the original article.
Then I thot a litt;le more, did some googling, found that Ari Fleischer has a PR firm, offices in Manhattan, called them up, taljed w/ a very sweet sounding Vicki Mcquade, and forwarded Varga's original message to her. Never heard anymore from either one of them.]
Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
Seeing Ari Fleischer's name as the author of an article on taxes ("Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes" WSJ Monday, April 13) was not real encouraging, but my inner publicist said: "C'mon, look at the headline."
That was a good start. But Fleischer goes on to say three things I haven't read in years of three-a-day major newspaper reading.First, "... nearly every other social cause is given a loophole... in the tax code" demonstrated by listing 9 examples of such commonly accepted preferences, from buying a hybrid vehicle to paying alimony, rightly concluding that "everyone now has a sacred cow in the tax code."
Next he suggests abolishing "all Social Security, Medicare and estate taxes" and that "Social Security and Medicare will be funded from income taxes, ending the myth that these programs are supported through government trust funds and payroll taxes.
"What a breath of fresh air! Even more fresh air: tax rates should "go up or down for everyone -- no more... lowering taxes for some or raising them only for others.... If Congress wants to raise or cut taxes, it should do so for everyone."
Fleischer concludes that following his suggestions "will create an environment in which spending programs receive the scrutiny they deserve. It's funny what happens when everyone pays the bills...."
An even faster way to get tax payers to give "spending programs ... the scrutiny they deserve" is to get 218 members of the House of Representatives and 60 Senators, and an agreeable president to change paragraph 3402 of USC Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages... from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...." leaving the tax calculation with the employer but insisting that a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days accompany the paycheck.
Mr. Fleischer was a fine presidential press secretary, but with ideas and imagination like this, he would be an even better Speaker of the house of Representatives.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
[For some reason I blind copied Larry Kudlow on this, and within an hour got this message:
From: Susan Varga @kudlow.com
Subject: RE: Ari Fleischer on income taxes
To: "'Arnold Nelson'"
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 11:09 AM
Dear Arnold :
Larry Kudlow is trying to reach Mr. Fleischer. Can you give me contact information?
Many thanks,
Susan
Susan C. Varga Chief Operating Officer Kudlow & Co., LLC 1375 Kings Highway East, Suite. 260 Fairfield, CT 06824
I sent her a short note saying I had no more contact than what was in the original article.
Then I thot a litt;le more, did some googling, found that Ari Fleischer has a PR firm, offices in Manhattan, called them up, taljed w/ a very sweet sounding Vicki Mcquade, and forwarded Varga's original message to her. Never heard anymore from either one of them.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
