A Nation of Fools by Peary Perry
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
“Coming soon….tax on air!!!!”
Every day in this country brings us new joy, doesn’t it? You can never say you are bored with what our government is doing to us on a daily basis can you? Most of the things that will apply to each and every one of us are hidden somewhere in some sort of legislation that gets passed and put into effect without any input or commentary by any of us poor working stiffs.
So, we are expected to be cheerful and sing as we trudge off to the mines each day, hi-ho, hi-ho it’s off to work with go. Sometimes I begin to believe our elected officials really think all of us will get our greatest rewards when we die rather than anytime we may have here on planet Earth. Why should we have any pleasure or fun? They seem to revel in theft, corruption and just plain stupidity each and every day of the week.
Hardly a day goes by that we do not hear of some legislator in some part of the country caught again with their hand in our cookie jar. I don’t know about you, but frankly I’m sick of hearing elected officials tell us that … ‘The rules weren’t clear’ or ‘ I didn’t understand that stealing was not allowed…’ We aren’t dealing with second graders here, we are dealing with grown men and women who supposedly are astute enough to get elected and placed into positions of trust to represent our interests, not their own.
Well, enough about this issue…..
Let’s talk about taxes. Several items have been brought to my mind this past week.
One is the tax on gasoline. Most of the state governments as well as the federal government are talking about raising the tax on a gallon of gasoline. Why? Well it’s very simple, see we are driving less as well as buying vehicles that get better gas mileage than they used to do so the total amount of gasoline being consumed is actually going down due to our being more efficient. You’d think this was a good thing, wouldn’t you? But no, the government (both local and federal) see tax revenues declining due to our being more efficient and therefore they need to increase the amount of tax to equal the revenue they once were receiving. So, using this analogy I suppose when we are able to buy vehicles that get 100 miles to the gallon, we will be paying more in taxes since the government still needs the revenue. Sounds right to me, how about you?
The same explanation is going for our electricity providers who are seeing a reduction in total usage due to better insulation and more energy saving appliances. Got to keep those tax revenues up no matter how efficient we become. Reduction of governmental expense seems to be a foreign concept, doesn’t it?
If you want to look at a harbinger of what could happen in this country you should study the current economic conditions taking place in Greece. This country is in serious trouble and the future doesn’t look well for them any way they go. If they cut government spending in order to reduce their debt, then tax revenues will fall causing more spending to be required to be cut resulting in less tax revenues and on and on. Spending more government money creates more debt so this isn’t the answer as well. They are in a no-win situation due to their massive and unsustainable debt load.
Our local government borrowed a huge amount of money to build a rail system which has resulted in less than one fourth of the expected daily passengers. Since the fare revenue is so drastically reduced, the rail administrators came up with a brilliant plan. Increase the fares to cover the operational shortfall. So, instead of lowering the fares (basically think of it as a tax) to encourage more riders on a daily basis, they discourage riders by increasing the fares. I suppose if only one person rode each day, then untimely that person would be charged the entire operational fee for the entire system.
The problem ( as I see it) is that the majority of persons running our government have never operated a business or had to cover payroll, pay taxes or deal with employees, banks and the IRS. Once you have done this, you begin to understand what it takes to actually manage something in order to remain in business. Governments have no profit motivation since their source of revenue is virtually endless. Opening up credit and reducing the amount of governmental interference is the quickest and surest way to get the economy on the run once again.
Otherwise we end up like Greece, looking for new ways to tax the citizens...such as making us pay for the air we breathe.
Comments go to www.pearyperry.com
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
I want Mercy...not Justice.....
A Nation of Fools by Peary Perry
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
I want…mercy..not justice……
Long ago and far away, I was in a discussion with a friend of mine who was a judge. I was just wondering about certain aspects of the judicial system. I’ll never forget that he told me that if I were to ever find myself in court for any reason whatsoever I had better hope for mercy and not justice. He advised that no one really wanted justice….everyone really wanted mercy.
I suppose he’s really correct, since it’s doubtful anyone would want to be judged by a jury of their peers. Or is that piers? Probably doesn’t matter does it? When you look at the sorry state of our nation’s educational system, you might want to think long and hard about ever coming to trial in any kind of an American courtroom.
Several years ago I was involved in a major law suit that was very complicated and involved. The longer it took to go to trial the more concerned I became. It was difficult enough for me to explain what the case was all about much less the group of attorneys on our side. The experience left me very leery of the entire judicial system. I was not at all comfortable thinking that a group of my fellow citizens who had barely passed high school would be the ones deciding whether I was a winner or a loser. Fortunately the other side settled and I missed the experience of a court room trial.
Do not get me wrong, I’m not saying that all juries are ignorant or dumb. But let’s look at the recent trial of former governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois. This trial droned on and on for weeks and then was declared a mistrial due to the hold out of one juror. Later news reports came out with the information that the jury was unable to understand the legal jargon and thought the charges were simply too complex. One juror reported that they got hung up on the charge of ‘conspiring to commit extortion’. It seems they didn’t understand exactly what this meant.
I had no problem with this...the charge looks fairly simple……but then again I wasn’t in the trial so maybe I missed something. However I am under the impression that conspiring to do something means several people got together and discussed committing some type of action, like murder or theft or even extortion. Under the law, conspiracy means an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect. So in Rod’s case, the act of discussing on the telephone what he planned to do about filling the vacant senate seat of one Barack Obama caused some confusion on the part of the jury. His discussion of what he planned appears to me to be conspiracy, but then again what do I know?
Folks come to me all of the time asking questions about various things. One of the most common ones I get is whether or not someone should sue someone for something. I’m not an attorney and generally tell them they should consult with a lawyer, but I’d rather get pecked to death by a duck (my friend’s favorite term) than to get involved in a law suit. Looking at the level of education in this country, who wants to spend lots of dollars for a courtroom filled with jurors who cannot read or write, much less understand business practices? If the case was a simple case of someone stealing an apple, perhaps that might not be so bad. However when if comes to complex finances and business issues, then how has our school system prepared our citizens to handle these kinds of challenges?
Simple…they haven’t.
This might sound cruel, but suppose you own a business and someone sues you for whatever…..the person suing you wants all you’ve got. You’re trying to explain that you aren’t wrong to a group of people who normally are asking questions such as … “do you want fries with that?” These people are in a position to judge your fate as well as your future. If it comes to this in your life, I suggest you throw yourself upon the court and seek mercy…you won’t get justice.
Sad isn’t it? But until we get an educational system that rewards achievement and promotes excellence from our teachers as well as our students, we’ll be stuck in the ditch with the rest of the third world countries of this planet.
Comments go to www.pearyperry.com
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
I want…mercy..not justice……
Long ago and far away, I was in a discussion with a friend of mine who was a judge. I was just wondering about certain aspects of the judicial system. I’ll never forget that he told me that if I were to ever find myself in court for any reason whatsoever I had better hope for mercy and not justice. He advised that no one really wanted justice….everyone really wanted mercy.
I suppose he’s really correct, since it’s doubtful anyone would want to be judged by a jury of their peers. Or is that piers? Probably doesn’t matter does it? When you look at the sorry state of our nation’s educational system, you might want to think long and hard about ever coming to trial in any kind of an American courtroom.
Several years ago I was involved in a major law suit that was very complicated and involved. The longer it took to go to trial the more concerned I became. It was difficult enough for me to explain what the case was all about much less the group of attorneys on our side. The experience left me very leery of the entire judicial system. I was not at all comfortable thinking that a group of my fellow citizens who had barely passed high school would be the ones deciding whether I was a winner or a loser. Fortunately the other side settled and I missed the experience of a court room trial.
Do not get me wrong, I’m not saying that all juries are ignorant or dumb. But let’s look at the recent trial of former governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois. This trial droned on and on for weeks and then was declared a mistrial due to the hold out of one juror. Later news reports came out with the information that the jury was unable to understand the legal jargon and thought the charges were simply too complex. One juror reported that they got hung up on the charge of ‘conspiring to commit extortion’. It seems they didn’t understand exactly what this meant.
I had no problem with this...the charge looks fairly simple……but then again I wasn’t in the trial so maybe I missed something. However I am under the impression that conspiring to do something means several people got together and discussed committing some type of action, like murder or theft or even extortion. Under the law, conspiracy means an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect. So in Rod’s case, the act of discussing on the telephone what he planned to do about filling the vacant senate seat of one Barack Obama caused some confusion on the part of the jury. His discussion of what he planned appears to me to be conspiracy, but then again what do I know?
Folks come to me all of the time asking questions about various things. One of the most common ones I get is whether or not someone should sue someone for something. I’m not an attorney and generally tell them they should consult with a lawyer, but I’d rather get pecked to death by a duck (my friend’s favorite term) than to get involved in a law suit. Looking at the level of education in this country, who wants to spend lots of dollars for a courtroom filled with jurors who cannot read or write, much less understand business practices? If the case was a simple case of someone stealing an apple, perhaps that might not be so bad. However when if comes to complex finances and business issues, then how has our school system prepared our citizens to handle these kinds of challenges?
Simple…they haven’t.
This might sound cruel, but suppose you own a business and someone sues you for whatever…..the person suing you wants all you’ve got. You’re trying to explain that you aren’t wrong to a group of people who normally are asking questions such as … “do you want fries with that?” These people are in a position to judge your fate as well as your future. If it comes to this in your life, I suggest you throw yourself upon the court and seek mercy…you won’t get justice.
Sad isn’t it? But until we get an educational system that rewards achievement and promotes excellence from our teachers as well as our students, we’ll be stuck in the ditch with the rest of the third world countries of this planet.
Comments go to www.pearyperry.com
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
“Politicians need summer school….”
A Nation of Fools by Peary Perry (www.pearyperry.com)
“Politicians need summer school….”
I have a friend who ran for a position as a district judge. He won.
He told me that after he was elected, one of the first defendants that had to be sentenced had a range of prison time from five years to life. My friend tells me there were not any guidelines or books to help him figure out what was proper in this case. As a result he went back and studied books, case law and prison conditions to find out for himself what was the right thing to do. He wanted to know how to be fair in his elected position. He is a good man.
In the past several months we have seen a number of elected officials who apparently missed their opportunity to learn what was appropriate as well as what was expected of them for their positions.
A Texas legislator was in the news a couple of weeks ago, after it was discovered that he was billing both the State as well as his campaign funds for the same travel expenses. His defense was that ‘he didn’t know it wasn’t the right thing to do’. He’ll probably blame on some poor second grade teacher who failed to stress honesty and integrity to him when he was seven years old. Poor baby.
Another Texas congressional representative has been accused of using funds given to her for scholarships and then awarding them to family members and close friends. Under the anti-nepotism rules of the scholarship program, Representative Bernice Johnson of Dallas was prohibited from giving out scholarship monies to her relatives or children of her staff. Ms. Johnson stated that she had indeed violated the rules, but had done so … ‘unknowingly’. She also stated that she just wasn’t ‘fully aware’ of the program rules. Of course….knowing the ‘rules’ doesn’t seem to be of much interest to many law makers such as Ms. Johnson. According to the news report, these scholarships were to be given to needy students in her district. None of the recipients lived or attended school in her district. Ms. Johnson just wasn’t aware of this small requirement.
The left leaning media is quick to point out that representative Charlie Rangel of New York merely missed several items when it came to ethics. One pundit says that Rangel’s ‘overlooking’ of the taxable income from property in the Dominican Republic couldn’t have been much since the property only cost $82,750. In the writers mind, this meant that the house was not a ‘villa’ and couldn’t have been very ‘palatial.’ I don’t know for sure, but it seems to me that the IRS doesn’t cut anyone any slack just because the property isn’t worth millions of dollars. Rangel also seems to have allegedly abused his office by using his elected position to raise funds for some ‘learning center’. Oh, wait there’s more. Add his lack of candor in filling out some financial disclosure forms as well as perhaps using a rent controlled apartment in New York for a campaign office. Several of Rangel’s defenders took the position that Rangel was hardly the first person in New York to do this, so what’s the big deal? If we all took that line of thinking, then I suppose since Cain killed Able that gives me the right to gun down my neighbor with the barking dog since ‘everyone’ has been doing it for a long period of time.
Last but not least is Representative Maxine Waters. Mrs. Waters is being investigated by the House ethics committee who alleges that Waters's office improperly worked in September 2008 to press for aid to prevent the failure of Boston-based OneUnited Bank. This bank eventually stayed afloat with the help of money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Waters's husband, Sidney Williams, had served on the bank's board. He owned stock in OneUnited that had declined in value from $350,000 in June 2008 to $175,000 two months later and would have been "worthless" without the bailout funds, according to the ethics committee. Mrs. Waters has defended her position by stating that she was pressing for aid for all minority banks. Apparently the only bank discussed in her meeting was OneUnited, but this seems to not be of any concern to Rep. Waters.
Well, this is all I have time for this week. I’m certain there are others which I could discuss, but four is quite enough for the time being. I guess my point here is that adult people who manage to get themselves elected to a public office should have some level of intelligence, honesty and integrity. They should not use or abuse their elected positions and then blame it off on stupidity or a lack of information about the rules.
If you and I are expected to live and abide by the rules, shouldn’t those who are in our government required to do the same? Perhaps we need some sort of school to train these poorly educated folks who have chosen to represent us in the nation’s governments, after all it doesn’t seem to be their fault if they can’t figure out the difference between right and wrong.
Comments go to pperry@austin.rr.com
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
“Politicians need summer school….”
I have a friend who ran for a position as a district judge. He won.
He told me that after he was elected, one of the first defendants that had to be sentenced had a range of prison time from five years to life. My friend tells me there were not any guidelines or books to help him figure out what was proper in this case. As a result he went back and studied books, case law and prison conditions to find out for himself what was the right thing to do. He wanted to know how to be fair in his elected position. He is a good man.
In the past several months we have seen a number of elected officials who apparently missed their opportunity to learn what was appropriate as well as what was expected of them for their positions.
A Texas legislator was in the news a couple of weeks ago, after it was discovered that he was billing both the State as well as his campaign funds for the same travel expenses. His defense was that ‘he didn’t know it wasn’t the right thing to do’. He’ll probably blame on some poor second grade teacher who failed to stress honesty and integrity to him when he was seven years old. Poor baby.
Another Texas congressional representative has been accused of using funds given to her for scholarships and then awarding them to family members and close friends. Under the anti-nepotism rules of the scholarship program, Representative Bernice Johnson of Dallas was prohibited from giving out scholarship monies to her relatives or children of her staff. Ms. Johnson stated that she had indeed violated the rules, but had done so … ‘unknowingly’. She also stated that she just wasn’t ‘fully aware’ of the program rules. Of course….knowing the ‘rules’ doesn’t seem to be of much interest to many law makers such as Ms. Johnson. According to the news report, these scholarships were to be given to needy students in her district. None of the recipients lived or attended school in her district. Ms. Johnson just wasn’t aware of this small requirement.
The left leaning media is quick to point out that representative Charlie Rangel of New York merely missed several items when it came to ethics. One pundit says that Rangel’s ‘overlooking’ of the taxable income from property in the Dominican Republic couldn’t have been much since the property only cost $82,750. In the writers mind, this meant that the house was not a ‘villa’ and couldn’t have been very ‘palatial.’ I don’t know for sure, but it seems to me that the IRS doesn’t cut anyone any slack just because the property isn’t worth millions of dollars. Rangel also seems to have allegedly abused his office by using his elected position to raise funds for some ‘learning center’. Oh, wait there’s more. Add his lack of candor in filling out some financial disclosure forms as well as perhaps using a rent controlled apartment in New York for a campaign office. Several of Rangel’s defenders took the position that Rangel was hardly the first person in New York to do this, so what’s the big deal? If we all took that line of thinking, then I suppose since Cain killed Able that gives me the right to gun down my neighbor with the barking dog since ‘everyone’ has been doing it for a long period of time.
Last but not least is Representative Maxine Waters. Mrs. Waters is being investigated by the House ethics committee who alleges that Waters's office improperly worked in September 2008 to press for aid to prevent the failure of Boston-based OneUnited Bank. This bank eventually stayed afloat with the help of money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Waters's husband, Sidney Williams, had served on the bank's board. He owned stock in OneUnited that had declined in value from $350,000 in June 2008 to $175,000 two months later and would have been "worthless" without the bailout funds, according to the ethics committee. Mrs. Waters has defended her position by stating that she was pressing for aid for all minority banks. Apparently the only bank discussed in her meeting was OneUnited, but this seems to not be of any concern to Rep. Waters.
Well, this is all I have time for this week. I’m certain there are others which I could discuss, but four is quite enough for the time being. I guess my point here is that adult people who manage to get themselves elected to a public office should have some level of intelligence, honesty and integrity. They should not use or abuse their elected positions and then blame it off on stupidity or a lack of information about the rules.
If you and I are expected to live and abide by the rules, shouldn’t those who are in our government required to do the same? Perhaps we need some sort of school to train these poorly educated folks who have chosen to represent us in the nation’s governments, after all it doesn’t seem to be their fault if they can’t figure out the difference between right and wrong.
Comments go to pperry@austin.rr.com
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
"From now on....that's Colonel Perry...to you...suh..."
A Nation of Fools by Peary Perry
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
“From now on …that’s Colonel Perry….to you …suh!!!!!”
So what the devil does this mean?
Well, it’s simple…last week the fabulous 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals (in California, where else?) decided that the stolen valor act was unconstitutional. For those of you unfamiliar with this act, it had made the fraudulent wearing of military decorations a crime. You could not, for example, wear a Purple Heart of a Medal of Honor unless it had actually been awarded to you. The court was comprised of a three member panel with two members voting to strike the law and one dissention.
The reason the court voted to overturn the law was… in their opinion, that the existing law violated the rights of the first amendment. Punishing you for alleging that you had earned the Medal of Honor when you really hadn’t… violated your rights of free speech.
The opinion went on to state that ‘as long as no one was harmed….then lying about something cannot be considered a crime...merely an expression of free speech.’ They also stated that perhaps someone really wanted to be a mountain climber or a race car driver, they saw no harm in allowing someone to make statements such as these. Their rationale was that anyone who wants to ‘fudge’ on their weight or height is free to do so and the government has no business charging someone with a crime who makes false statements. The unfulfilled ambitions of anyone who wants to change their personal history is an expression of the first amendment.
So, that leads me to my story…..when I was in the service, I only rose to the rank of an e-5 sergeant during my 3 years. But I ALWAYS really wanted to be an officer. Now a general would be a little presumptuous, and a lieutenant or captain a little too far down the chain of command ladder. So, a colonel seems to be about right. Therefore I’d appreciate it if you all would kindly address me as such from this point forward. No harm in that is there?
I suppose this ruling means that any false statement I care to make about myself and my background is ok and perfectly legal. I guess those who apply for jobs and think they graduated and have a PHD degree or wanted to have a PHD degree should not be afraid to post these claims on their resumes. I mean I thought I had a degree…..although I could be mistaken…but gosh, I was just wishing I had a degree from Harvard, Vassar or wherever. What’s wrong with that? I have a right to express myself…..this is America.
Good God Gertie……have we lost our ever-loving minds? Have we no sense of respect? Sure if some five foot tall Bozo wants to tell everyone he was a forward for the Chicago Bulls, that’s ok with me, I can probably figure that one out for myself. Those kinds of things are kind of obvious.
But passing yourself off as a Medal of Honor winner or the recipient of some medal for valor is a different issue in my mind. It comes down to a sense of value. Do we have value as a nation or not? Do we not see a problem with someone who tells us lies and is a fraud? If we allow falsehoods to be accepted, then what is the value of truth? How can we prosecute a Madoff when all he did was make false statements about the value of investors’ money? Weren't his lies an expression of his first amendment rights as well?
Of course, that statement is silly….of course Madoff hurt people though his fraud and his rightfully being punished for his fraud.
But I ask you; don’t the mother and father of an injured or killed military son or daughter deserve the protection of our countries laws to keep their sons and daughters sacrifices pure and sacrosanct?
Or are those medals of valor so meaningless that we freely allow their value to be claimed by any and all for whatever reason under the guise of ‘free speech’?
I think not.
Comments go to www.pearyperry.com
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
“From now on …that’s Colonel Perry….to you …suh!!!!!”
So what the devil does this mean?
Well, it’s simple…last week the fabulous 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals (in California, where else?) decided that the stolen valor act was unconstitutional. For those of you unfamiliar with this act, it had made the fraudulent wearing of military decorations a crime. You could not, for example, wear a Purple Heart of a Medal of Honor unless it had actually been awarded to you. The court was comprised of a three member panel with two members voting to strike the law and one dissention.
The reason the court voted to overturn the law was… in their opinion, that the existing law violated the rights of the first amendment. Punishing you for alleging that you had earned the Medal of Honor when you really hadn’t… violated your rights of free speech.
The opinion went on to state that ‘as long as no one was harmed….then lying about something cannot be considered a crime...merely an expression of free speech.’ They also stated that perhaps someone really wanted to be a mountain climber or a race car driver, they saw no harm in allowing someone to make statements such as these. Their rationale was that anyone who wants to ‘fudge’ on their weight or height is free to do so and the government has no business charging someone with a crime who makes false statements. The unfulfilled ambitions of anyone who wants to change their personal history is an expression of the first amendment.
So, that leads me to my story…..when I was in the service, I only rose to the rank of an e-5 sergeant during my 3 years. But I ALWAYS really wanted to be an officer. Now a general would be a little presumptuous, and a lieutenant or captain a little too far down the chain of command ladder. So, a colonel seems to be about right. Therefore I’d appreciate it if you all would kindly address me as such from this point forward. No harm in that is there?
I suppose this ruling means that any false statement I care to make about myself and my background is ok and perfectly legal. I guess those who apply for jobs and think they graduated and have a PHD degree or wanted to have a PHD degree should not be afraid to post these claims on their resumes. I mean I thought I had a degree…..although I could be mistaken…but gosh, I was just wishing I had a degree from Harvard, Vassar or wherever. What’s wrong with that? I have a right to express myself…..this is America.
Good God Gertie……have we lost our ever-loving minds? Have we no sense of respect? Sure if some five foot tall Bozo wants to tell everyone he was a forward for the Chicago Bulls, that’s ok with me, I can probably figure that one out for myself. Those kinds of things are kind of obvious.
But passing yourself off as a Medal of Honor winner or the recipient of some medal for valor is a different issue in my mind. It comes down to a sense of value. Do we have value as a nation or not? Do we not see a problem with someone who tells us lies and is a fraud? If we allow falsehoods to be accepted, then what is the value of truth? How can we prosecute a Madoff when all he did was make false statements about the value of investors’ money? Weren't his lies an expression of his first amendment rights as well?
Of course, that statement is silly….of course Madoff hurt people though his fraud and his rightfully being punished for his fraud.
But I ask you; don’t the mother and father of an injured or killed military son or daughter deserve the protection of our countries laws to keep their sons and daughters sacrifices pure and sacrosanct?
Or are those medals of valor so meaningless that we freely allow their value to be claimed by any and all for whatever reason under the guise of ‘free speech’?
I think not.
Comments go to www.pearyperry.com
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
"I love my wife...but oh, you kid.."
A Nation of Fools by Peary Perry
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
“I love my wife…but oh, you kid !!!”
California, that great state perched on the precipice of the continental divide and in danger of falling off into the sea (not a bad thing?) has once again produced landmark legislation for the rest of us.
We’ve always heard that the old saw that ‘as California goes…so goes the nation.’
If that’s true, then heaven help us…as we are all doomed.
As you may recall the voters (November 2008) in that state voted 52.5% to 47.5% to toss out same-sex marriages on it’s head and keep the institute of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, if you will. Opponents of the ban argue that they (Adam and Steve) need to have the same equal protection under the law as straight (Man/woman) relationships.
Of course, this is California and even though 7,000,000 citizens voted in support of the bill, we now have a federal judge who has decided that ‘father knows best.’ Basically in his 136 page opinion he told supporting voters to go to hell. He knows what’s best for the state; you measly voters don’t have a clue, back to the mines.
The beatings will continue until morale picks up.
Thankfully, his ruling was place on hold by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco on August 16. This court reinstated a stay on the ruling while the appeals case is heard. Another three-member appeals panel will hear the case during the week of December 6 after deadlines were moved up to November 1 for both sides to file their written arguments.
In looking ahead and thinking about the ramifications of what can happen if indeed the ban is thrown out and Adam can indeed legally marry Steve, what kind of a country will this produce for us? First off over 30 states have marriage defined as between a man and a woman in their constitutions. So, if that provision goes out the window then I would predict that we shall soon see the following;
Child pornography becomes legal and socially acceptable. If we change the existing marriage laws, how can a court rationally decide that someone hung up on watching kiddie porn is harming anyone? Isn’t that also unconstitutional? Doesn’t a five or six year old child have any rights? Why place any age limits on any of this? As long as no one get hurt or complains, what harm is there? Live and let live as the liberals would say.
Do you see where I’m going?
You talk about a slippery slope; this has to be one of the greatest.
But hold on, suppose I’m not inclined to want to share my life with another human being. Suppose I want to marry ….say a chicken or leave my fortune to my pet goldfish. I know that sounds weird, but what if I wanted to do so? Don’t animals and fish have feelings?
PETA thinks so…..so I’m curious… where would they weigh in on the argument that a dog might be man’s best friend? Would animal rights groups come to the aid of victims (kitties and mice) of spousal abuse? Should the state provide legal representation to those unfortunate animals and creatures who cannot afford to speak (quack, meow or bark) for themselves in court? Once married how would anyone know if Lassie wanted a divorce? Trigger might be able to paw certain things but was he smart enough to understand fidelity?
Dr. Doolittle where are you now that we need you?
The sad thing in this scenario is that laws can be made and broken from a judicial bench. In spite of what the will of the people may decide, one man can take it upon himself to set those opinions aside and overturn the wishes of the population. He thinks he knows better and is wiser than those in his state.
The voice of the people in this instance mean nothing, just words on the wind.
Shame.
Comments go to www.pearyperry.com
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
“I love my wife…but oh, you kid !!!”
California, that great state perched on the precipice of the continental divide and in danger of falling off into the sea (not a bad thing?) has once again produced landmark legislation for the rest of us.
We’ve always heard that the old saw that ‘as California goes…so goes the nation.’
If that’s true, then heaven help us…as we are all doomed.
As you may recall the voters (November 2008) in that state voted 52.5% to 47.5% to toss out same-sex marriages on it’s head and keep the institute of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, if you will. Opponents of the ban argue that they (Adam and Steve) need to have the same equal protection under the law as straight (Man/woman) relationships.
Of course, this is California and even though 7,000,000 citizens voted in support of the bill, we now have a federal judge who has decided that ‘father knows best.’ Basically in his 136 page opinion he told supporting voters to go to hell. He knows what’s best for the state; you measly voters don’t have a clue, back to the mines.
The beatings will continue until morale picks up.
Thankfully, his ruling was place on hold by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco on August 16. This court reinstated a stay on the ruling while the appeals case is heard. Another three-member appeals panel will hear the case during the week of December 6 after deadlines were moved up to November 1 for both sides to file their written arguments.
In looking ahead and thinking about the ramifications of what can happen if indeed the ban is thrown out and Adam can indeed legally marry Steve, what kind of a country will this produce for us? First off over 30 states have marriage defined as between a man and a woman in their constitutions. So, if that provision goes out the window then I would predict that we shall soon see the following;
Child pornography becomes legal and socially acceptable. If we change the existing marriage laws, how can a court rationally decide that someone hung up on watching kiddie porn is harming anyone? Isn’t that also unconstitutional? Doesn’t a five or six year old child have any rights? Why place any age limits on any of this? As long as no one get hurt or complains, what harm is there? Live and let live as the liberals would say.
Do you see where I’m going?
You talk about a slippery slope; this has to be one of the greatest.
But hold on, suppose I’m not inclined to want to share my life with another human being. Suppose I want to marry ….say a chicken or leave my fortune to my pet goldfish. I know that sounds weird, but what if I wanted to do so? Don’t animals and fish have feelings?
PETA thinks so…..so I’m curious… where would they weigh in on the argument that a dog might be man’s best friend? Would animal rights groups come to the aid of victims (kitties and mice) of spousal abuse? Should the state provide legal representation to those unfortunate animals and creatures who cannot afford to speak (quack, meow or bark) for themselves in court? Once married how would anyone know if Lassie wanted a divorce? Trigger might be able to paw certain things but was he smart enough to understand fidelity?
Dr. Doolittle where are you now that we need you?
The sad thing in this scenario is that laws can be made and broken from a judicial bench. In spite of what the will of the people may decide, one man can take it upon himself to set those opinions aside and overturn the wishes of the population. He thinks he knows better and is wiser than those in his state.
The voice of the people in this instance mean nothing, just words on the wind.
Shame.
Comments go to www.pearyperry.com
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
Friday, August 13, 2010
Robbing Peter to Pay paul
A Nation of Fools by Peary Perry (www.pearyperry.com)
(sign up for new articles at www.pearyperry.com)
Robbing Peter To Pay Paul- Who is Peter and Who Is Paul?
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer and perhaps someone can explain a few things to me, or at least I hope so.
As I understand it, t-bills or treasury bills are monetary obligations issued by our government which any of us can buy if we have the money. They are basically a function of debt, we give the government our money and we get a t-bill that will give us some sort of return at the end of some period of time. Am I ok on this so far?
So, the government earlier this week announced it was buying up some of the t-bills in order to ‘stimulate’ the economy. Their theory is that if the government buys up some of the debt obligations, then the persons holding the debt obligations will have more cash to invest in other items which then helps the economy and the government as well.
What is a puzzle to me is that if the government is broke, and in debt, the only way for it to pay off debt is to borrow more money (i.e. –printing more) to pay off some debt. Kind of a robbing Peter to pay Paul concept. So borrowing money to pay off debt doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Of course, since we are dealing with the government, I might be asking for too much.
This is sort of like General Motors making the announcement that they were paying off their government owed debt…five years ahead of schedule. What is confusing about this little deal is they used funds from another government line of credit to do this: Translated – they are using bailout funds from the feds to pay off their loans.
This looks to me like a giant shell game. If I go to the bank and secure one loan to pay off another loan, did I really accomplish anything to be proud of? I don’t think so. However I must make it clear to all reading this that I am not an educated economics scholar, so my logic may be somewhat confused. You would hope those at the highest levels of government could explain my concerns, but maybe not.
My last point of this effort concerns the announcement this week that the 29 billion dollar ‘jobs stimulus’ plan was going to be paid for by a reduction in the food stamp budget in the year 2014. Now if anyone out there thinks that the food stamp budget coming in the future is going to be reduced, I have some ocean lots for sale in Arizona that you might be interested in hearing about.
If this is the latest version of the government shell game, then I’ll go you one better. Why not hold a press conference and announce that the budget deficit for the coming year will be eliminated. That should stir up the money markets and produce some positive news to Wall Street. Of course, you’d have to explain how you were going to do this and how would it be paid for.
Then you just announce that you are eliminating the entire military budget for the fiscal years 2020 and 2021.
See how simple this is? I should run for office. I can solve these problems and just think I did it without being a Rhodes Scholar.
What a crock…..
Comments go to pperry@austin.rr.com
(sign up for new articles at www.pearyperry.com)
(sign up for new articles at www.pearyperry.com)
Robbing Peter To Pay Paul- Who is Peter and Who Is Paul?
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer and perhaps someone can explain a few things to me, or at least I hope so.
As I understand it, t-bills or treasury bills are monetary obligations issued by our government which any of us can buy if we have the money. They are basically a function of debt, we give the government our money and we get a t-bill that will give us some sort of return at the end of some period of time. Am I ok on this so far?
So, the government earlier this week announced it was buying up some of the t-bills in order to ‘stimulate’ the economy. Their theory is that if the government buys up some of the debt obligations, then the persons holding the debt obligations will have more cash to invest in other items which then helps the economy and the government as well.
What is a puzzle to me is that if the government is broke, and in debt, the only way for it to pay off debt is to borrow more money (i.e. –printing more) to pay off some debt. Kind of a robbing Peter to pay Paul concept. So borrowing money to pay off debt doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Of course, since we are dealing with the government, I might be asking for too much.
This is sort of like General Motors making the announcement that they were paying off their government owed debt…five years ahead of schedule. What is confusing about this little deal is they used funds from another government line of credit to do this: Translated – they are using bailout funds from the feds to pay off their loans.
This looks to me like a giant shell game. If I go to the bank and secure one loan to pay off another loan, did I really accomplish anything to be proud of? I don’t think so. However I must make it clear to all reading this that I am not an educated economics scholar, so my logic may be somewhat confused. You would hope those at the highest levels of government could explain my concerns, but maybe not.
My last point of this effort concerns the announcement this week that the 29 billion dollar ‘jobs stimulus’ plan was going to be paid for by a reduction in the food stamp budget in the year 2014. Now if anyone out there thinks that the food stamp budget coming in the future is going to be reduced, I have some ocean lots for sale in Arizona that you might be interested in hearing about.
If this is the latest version of the government shell game, then I’ll go you one better. Why not hold a press conference and announce that the budget deficit for the coming year will be eliminated. That should stir up the money markets and produce some positive news to Wall Street. Of course, you’d have to explain how you were going to do this and how would it be paid for.
Then you just announce that you are eliminating the entire military budget for the fiscal years 2020 and 2021.
See how simple this is? I should run for office. I can solve these problems and just think I did it without being a Rhodes Scholar.
What a crock…..
Comments go to pperry@austin.rr.com
(sign up for new articles at www.pearyperry.com)
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Can They Really Be This dumb?
A Nation of Fools by Peary Perry
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
Can They Really Be This dumb?
Yesterday, I had to drive 400 miles to get back home. I started off listening to Glenn Beck, then went to Rush at 11am. Before I got home, I had to turn the radio off, roll down the windows, stop at a service station and get one of those ‘energy’ drinks. Then when I got home, I went straight to the shower, soaked my tired old body and if I could, I would have opened up the top of my brain and washed it out as well.
Both Beck and Rush were talking about the proposed 29 billion dollar ‘stimulus’ bill which was being hawked and was designed to ‘create more jobs’ as per our President. These were jobs which could potentially be lost by firemen, policemen and teachers throughout the country. In the words of our President, this amount of money must be approved in order to stimulate these jobs. No matter that the money was being printed by the 24/7/365 Treasury Dept. I’d bet those guys have been racking up the overtime these past 19 months, don’t you?
No, these jobs were vital to the economy and we needed to spend the money to save them.
Obviously Beck and Rush jumped on this concept with both feet. Like I said by the time I had listened to over 5 hours of ignorant people calling in to defend the Presidents spending policies, I was ready to set my hair on fire.
Now, you know when you are listening to people if they are uneducated or just plain stupid, but the callers for both of these shows sounded intelligent, even if they weren’t. They sounded like normal rational people when they started off, but it didn’t take too long to find out that they were a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal.
I had to stop along the highway and jot down a few notes so I could expound on this at a later time, once I had cooled off and got my blood pressure under control.
The first guy I want to discuss was in the military. Rush thanked him for his service, as do we all, and the guy went on to say that he took exception to what Rush was saying about government workers not being productive. In his opinion he was productive. Rush asked him … “What do you make?” and the guy said… “About $45,000 a year.”
Rush explained that his salary was not the question. He wanted to know what kind of a product did he make, sell, or whatever that generated a profit…..They guy stopped and told Rush again, that he was in the military and they didn’t make or manufacture anything. Rush tried his best to explain that this was his point. They guy comes back and say… “but I pay taxes…..” Dear God, I thought my head was going to blow off. The guy sounded intelligent, but he could not get it into his head that government employees, whether they be military, firemen, police, EMT or public school teachers do not contribute to the GDP of this country.
We need them to be sure…no denying that but they do not work for any company or entity that produces a profit and which contributes to the tax base needed to run the government. Your local pizza parlor contributes more to the national GDP than an a division of Marines.
The next person was a lady who said … ‘my husband works hard….he hires military contractors…’ Here again Rush tried to explain that this did not generate any revenue for the economy. This lady got all hot and bothered and said that those companies were private companies and that they certainly did pay taxes and made profits. I could tell Rush was about at the end of his rope as well as I was. He tried to tell her that these companies may well be private companies but the payments for their services come from the government who gets its money from taxpayers….She finally hung up.
The last one I’d like to discuss was another woman who called in and said she knew of a government company that actually made a product. Rush asked her what it was and she said in all sincerity….. ‘General Motors makes the Chevy Volt.’
I nearly gagged…she is talking about a company that has accepted how much in bail out funds and is still losing money and these cars are going to be sold with a $7000 or $8000 discount or rebate…..so in essence we, the taxpayers, are subsiding a corporation in order for them to sell their product. Rush pointed out that the makers of the IPOD or IPAD or whatever didn’t need any government subsidies to sell their products…folks were lined up in front of the stores to buy them when they first came out.
These folks did not sound like they had just fallen off the turnip truck, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how come they are this dense. If your job depends on the taxpayers to fund all of the revenue necessary for your operation to continue…you are not contributing to the economy of this country. If we continue to expand government and decrease private enterprise, we will surely destroy this country.
Which may very well be the objective in the first place.
Comments go to www.pearyperry.com
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
Can They Really Be This dumb?
Yesterday, I had to drive 400 miles to get back home. I started off listening to Glenn Beck, then went to Rush at 11am. Before I got home, I had to turn the radio off, roll down the windows, stop at a service station and get one of those ‘energy’ drinks. Then when I got home, I went straight to the shower, soaked my tired old body and if I could, I would have opened up the top of my brain and washed it out as well.
Both Beck and Rush were talking about the proposed 29 billion dollar ‘stimulus’ bill which was being hawked and was designed to ‘create more jobs’ as per our President. These were jobs which could potentially be lost by firemen, policemen and teachers throughout the country. In the words of our President, this amount of money must be approved in order to stimulate these jobs. No matter that the money was being printed by the 24/7/365 Treasury Dept. I’d bet those guys have been racking up the overtime these past 19 months, don’t you?
No, these jobs were vital to the economy and we needed to spend the money to save them.
Obviously Beck and Rush jumped on this concept with both feet. Like I said by the time I had listened to over 5 hours of ignorant people calling in to defend the Presidents spending policies, I was ready to set my hair on fire.
Now, you know when you are listening to people if they are uneducated or just plain stupid, but the callers for both of these shows sounded intelligent, even if they weren’t. They sounded like normal rational people when they started off, but it didn’t take too long to find out that they were a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal.
I had to stop along the highway and jot down a few notes so I could expound on this at a later time, once I had cooled off and got my blood pressure under control.
The first guy I want to discuss was in the military. Rush thanked him for his service, as do we all, and the guy went on to say that he took exception to what Rush was saying about government workers not being productive. In his opinion he was productive. Rush asked him … “What do you make?” and the guy said… “About $45,000 a year.”
Rush explained that his salary was not the question. He wanted to know what kind of a product did he make, sell, or whatever that generated a profit…..They guy stopped and told Rush again, that he was in the military and they didn’t make or manufacture anything. Rush tried his best to explain that this was his point. They guy comes back and say… “but I pay taxes…..” Dear God, I thought my head was going to blow off. The guy sounded intelligent, but he could not get it into his head that government employees, whether they be military, firemen, police, EMT or public school teachers do not contribute to the GDP of this country.
We need them to be sure…no denying that but they do not work for any company or entity that produces a profit and which contributes to the tax base needed to run the government. Your local pizza parlor contributes more to the national GDP than an a division of Marines.
The next person was a lady who said … ‘my husband works hard….he hires military contractors…’ Here again Rush tried to explain that this did not generate any revenue for the economy. This lady got all hot and bothered and said that those companies were private companies and that they certainly did pay taxes and made profits. I could tell Rush was about at the end of his rope as well as I was. He tried to tell her that these companies may well be private companies but the payments for their services come from the government who gets its money from taxpayers….She finally hung up.
The last one I’d like to discuss was another woman who called in and said she knew of a government company that actually made a product. Rush asked her what it was and she said in all sincerity….. ‘General Motors makes the Chevy Volt.’
I nearly gagged…she is talking about a company that has accepted how much in bail out funds and is still losing money and these cars are going to be sold with a $7000 or $8000 discount or rebate…..so in essence we, the taxpayers, are subsiding a corporation in order for them to sell their product. Rush pointed out that the makers of the IPOD or IPAD or whatever didn’t need any government subsidies to sell their products…folks were lined up in front of the stores to buy them when they first came out.
These folks did not sound like they had just fallen off the turnip truck, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how come they are this dense. If your job depends on the taxpayers to fund all of the revenue necessary for your operation to continue…you are not contributing to the economy of this country. If we continue to expand government and decrease private enterprise, we will surely destroy this country.
Which may very well be the objective in the first place.
Comments go to www.pearyperry.com
(sign up for new columns at www.pearyperry.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.gif)
.JPG)