We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, June 25. 2016
If you are from New Jersey, do you term this food-like product Taylor Ham or Pork Roll?
How Dunkin' Donuts changed the dictionary
Shaidle: Is This Pope Catholic?
WSJ: The Book of Job’s Big Question - Why are innocents made to suffer? One reading might see Job as a devastating text.
Walmart has a problem that's threatening profits — and it's driving police nuts
Climate and Human Civilization for the Past 4,000 Years
To please Muslims, Shall we burn our books and empty our museums?
Report: Released Criminal Aliens Committed Nearly 10 Times More Crimes Than Obama Admin. Told Congress
NY DEM Charlie Rangel – Law Abiding Citizens Don’t Need Guns – But He Does
“Absence of legitimacy is the EU’s main feature."
Britain Exits, Democracy Lives, And Everything Has Changed - A dispatch from liberated London.
HOW BREXIT WILL CHANGE AMERICA AND THE WORLD - Britain is free of global government. America can be next.
Brexit and Trump v Clinton got you down? The good news is we still know how to fix things.
Sessions on Brexit: "The interests of powerful international corporations, media, special interests, and leftist international forces are not coterminous with those of our people.
FLASHBACK: UK Prime Minister Cameron Warns Brexit From EU Could Lead to WORLD WAR
Worldwide popular revolt confirmed by Brexit vote:
Why Brit Islamist supported Remain
Hillary IT Guy Pleads The 5th 125 TIMES In A 90 Minute Deposition
A big group of major business leaders just endorsed Hillary Clinton
Tracked: Jun 26, 09:26
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Hillary IT Guy Pleads The 5th 125 TIMES In A 90 Minute Deposition"
And up date to the old adage of if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.
If you can't say anything without incriminating yourself, take the 5th.
Although, after reading of the 125 times, Hillary may be taking a 5th...of whiskey.
I have to wonder why the prosicution didn't offer immunity to the low level flunky. They offer immunity to hitmen to get them to testify against the mob bosses - how is this different?
They offer immunity to hitmen to get them to testify against the mob bosses - how is this different?
Answer , It's Hillary
It's been almost 40 years since I was a kid living up north, but I remember "Taylor Ham" and "Pork Roll" both being used interchangeably about 50% of the time.
“Absence of legitimacy is the EU’s main feature."
As Austin Goolsbee tweeted yesterday, in all the EU, when the people have been permitted to vote on a referendum between national and the EU, the EU has never won.
The very definition of illegitimate
The Brits have moved to throw off the supra-national form of the German pattern of socialism or at least the tendency toward through interventionism. They like the US, do however, continue it nationally. But history has shown, the people need the power to pushback on the socialism when it becomes a real drag on prosperity. The Brits elected Thatcher, we elected Reagan. But there was now way to reform the EU unelected bureaucrats.
Many advocates of interventionism are bewildered when one tells them that in recommending interventionism they themselves are fostering anti-democratic and dictatorial tendencies and the establishment of totalitarian socialism. They protest that they are sincere believers and opposed to tyranny and socialism. What they aim at is only the improvement of the conditions of the poor. They say that they are driven by considerations of social justice, and favour a fairer distribution of income precisely because they are intent upon preserving capitalism and its political corollary or superstructure, viz., democratic government.
What these people fail to realize is that the various measures they suggest are not capable of bringing about the beneficial results aimed at. On the contrary they produce a state of affairs which from the point of view of their advocates is worse than the previous state which they were designed to alter. If the government, faced with this failure of its first intervention, is not prepared to undo its interference with the market and to return to a free economy, it must add to its first measure more and more regulations and restrictions. Proceeding step by step on this way it finally reaches a point in which all economic freedom of individuals has disappeared. Then socialism of the German pattern, the Zwangswirtschaft of the Nazis, emerges.
von Mises, Ludwig (1947). Planned Chaos (LvMI) (Kindle Locations 132-141). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.
"An internal investigation by the Marine Corps has concluded that for more than 70 years it wrongly identified one of the men in the iconic photograph of the flag being raised over Iwo Jima during one of the bloodiest battles of World War II."
The possibility that Bradley was not in the photo was first detailed in an article published by the Omaha World Herald in 2014; a pair of World War II history buffs took a closer look at Rosenthal's epic photo and decided that the figure identified as John Bradley did not match other images taken of him that day. Those photos, culled by two amateur historians from various archives and published by the Herald, show Bradley wearing "cuffed" uniform pants, while all of the men in the flag-raising photo are wearing trousers without cuffs.
I'm not Catholic, but I've found I have to go to Catholic news sources to find out what the Pope really said in a given speech with MSM coverage. Rare is the reporter who understands Christianity in general, and phrases taken out of context for sensationalism (as well as actual twisting of words to support the narrative) are nothing new. A lot of the objections to the Pope are based on what the MSM dishonestly or confusedly CLAIM he said.
If, as I suspect, we are on the verge of another change in intellectual fashion, then Satan might be encouraging these out-of-context quotes and misquotes to set up the next era's straw depiction of Christians who question the zeitgeist.
“I'm not Catholic, but I've found I have to go to Catholic news sources to find out what the Pope really said in a given speech with MSM coverage. Rare is the reporter who understands Christianity in general…”
I am Catholic and I tend to agree with you.
The media can’t really handle the notion that if a Pope criticizes some aspect of capitalism it doesn’t automatically make him “socialist” or “left-leaning” or if he makes some observation on gays it doesn’t mean he’s a lo-fat-latte-sipping “liberal”. The idea that someone might have a theological basis for their perspective on some issue rather than a purely political one seems beyond secularist thinking.
But notice that the media is at the same time entirely incurious about Islam, its leadership, its doctrines and its internal divisions. Yet the current ideological challenge to the self-absorbed notion of a secular, liberal west comes not from Christianity (Catholic or otherwise) but from Islam.
Agree whole heartily with your take on the MSM and just about anything to do with Christianity, especially Catholicism. Mark Shea always said, subtract fifty IQ points, whenever the media is talking of such issues. However in this instance the Pope did say most marriages are invalid. He did correct himself later. A more thoughtful, and less personalized, writing on this can be found here (http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-latest-from-the-make-a-mess-philosophy). It ain't easy being a Catholic in these times. I am sure it will only get worse. Jesus said so. Take heart, we will prevail. Satan can not defeat us.
The problem with the EU was the agreement that created it. Everyone got something and everyone compromised. There were promises made that some of those things some people "got" in the agreement weren't "really" what they seemed on their face and they would "never" actually go that far. But once the ink was dry and everyone had given over their sovereignty to a handful of leaders the reality of the agreement became something different than the promises. What is so different from what our two parties do to us.
What is so different from what our two parties do to us.
I agree. A couple of days ago Bird Dog posted this link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-23/european-union-government-deception
I found it very interesting and well worth the read. Here are some excerpts:
There was nothing base or inhumane about Jean Monnet, the French intellectual now seen as the founding father of the dream, nor those who joined him: De Gasperi the Italian, Hallstein the German, Spaak the Belgian and Schumann the Frenchman. In 1945 they were all traumatised men. Each had seen the utter devastation of their native continent by war and after the second they swore to try for the rest of their lives to ensure nothing like it ever happened again. No one can fault that ambition.
First Monnet analysed what had gone wrong and became obsessed by one single fact. The German people had actually voted the Austrian demagogue into the office of chancellor. What could he, Monnet, learn from this? What he learned stayed with him for the rest of his life and stays with us today in the EU.
But the big question remained: how should this Europe-wide single state be governed? Then he came to the conclusion that still prevails today. In the 1930s democracy had failed. In Germany, Italy and elsewhere desperate people had flocked to the demagogues who promised full bellies and a job in exchange for marching, chanting columns.
So democracy must go. It could not be the governmental system of the new Utopia. It was not fit to be. (He was already president of the Action Committee for the Superstate, his official title. There is nothing new about the word superstate).
Instead there would be a new system: government by an enlightened elite of bureaucrats . The hoi polloi (you and me) were simply too dim, too emotional, too uneducated to be safely allowed to choose their governments.
Our system has been bastardized by both parties. One of the assumptions our Founding Fathers had was that man's pursuit of power would help keep the three co-equal branches of government in check. Members of one branch would jealously guard their power against encroachments from one of the other branches. This has broken down. Democrats in the House and Senate are willing to give over their power to the executive branch (when it agrees with it like now) and are actively trying to turn the judicial branch into a legislative one. At best, Republicans aren't willing to fight to maintain their power - and at worst are complicit in ceding it.
What we have ended up is a country ruled more by the President and bureaucrats than by law makers. We are different from the EU only because we actually elect our executive.
Born and spent a few formative years in NJ before moving to PA.
Called it either, 'taylor ham' or pork roll. Always thought taylor ham sounded a little more pleasing.
Great, Now I have to go get some. I haven't had that in years.
In the 1910 lawsuit, it was described as "a food article made of pork, packed in a cylindrical cotton sack or bag in such form that it could be quickly prepared for cooking by slicing without removal from the bag." Some people compare the modern article's taste and/or texture to Treet, bologna sausage, mild salami, or US-style Canadian bacon.
Glad we always have time and lawyers to work out the important things in life.
British worried about immigration.
Map of countries Britain didn't invade over history:
You're so much fun Zach! I think you are equating invade with explore. Now please find a map of the countries that Spain, Portugal, China, Rome , Greece and the Islamist's invaded. Do shrink the maps to the know world at the time of the invasion, it will look more profound.
B Hammer: You're so much fun Zach!
Yes, it's called irony.
As usual, you don't address the substance of his comment.
We addressed his comment about "fun". We ignored the other comment because it wasn't pertinent to the irony of the original statement (meaning his question was not relevant). But just for fun ...
B Hammer: Spain, Portugal, China, Rome , Greece and the Islamist's
Yes, they all carved out empires. Their positions with regards to immigration vary considerably, so the ironic comparison may not work as well; for instance, Islam encourages all Muslims of all races and nationalities to make pilgrimage to Mecca.
Islam encourages all Muslims of all races and nationalities to make pilgrimage to Mecca.
You did it again. What does that have to do with the countries Islamists have invaded?
Let me help you. Take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7y2LRcf4kc
mudbug: You did it again. What does that have to do with the countries Islamists have invaded?
Yes, they all carved out empires. However, the irony does't quite work for the reason given.
It's a common notion that people on the right have little sense of irony.
I don't know. I think the irony is pretty thick when, in the context of an Muslim immigrant invasion of Britain, one person responds with a map of places that Britain did not "invade" (so those "invading" Brits are just getting what they deserve), but doesn't see the relevance of all Muslim invasions that actually started before there was an England and continue today.
Actually, the irony would have worked a lot better if the Muslims are now invading for the first time, but then, not all ironies are equal.
mudbug: (so those "invading" Brits are just getting what they deserve)
Most immigrants to Britain are peaceful and productive. The vast majority come to work, and make their new homes there.
But you'll engage the paid political troll endlessly anyway, most of the time weakly.
Hey, we "invaded" America too, creating the framework for the evolution of your own country.
No need to thank us.
Where does the idea come from that immigration policy is about deciding whether your ancestors were right or wrong in their treatment of other countries? I'd have thought it was about a population deciding whether it wanted to defend its borders. The example of other populations who didn't do so looks to be a spur to the desire to control one's own borders, but to hear some people talk you'd think it was an invitation to guilty paralysis.
Texan99: I'd have thought it was about a population deciding whether it wanted to defend its borders.
For the irony-impaired: Just because it is ironic that the greatest invader in history is now worried about immigration, this doesn't mean that concern about immigration can't have a valid basis.
On the other hand, Brits want to travel, work, and do business freely in Europe, but many are upset by the effects of reciprocity. There's a good chance a new agreement can be worked out, but it will probably resemble the current agreement in most respects. Otherwise, Scotland may secede from the U.K.
I get it, no real point, just being kind of cute and edgy.
The Book of Job always makes me think of Alan Alda as James Woods' father in "Joshua Then and Now," telling the story to his grandchildren. Near the conclusion (when the kids' parents are about to return home to them after an excruciating crisis), he wraps up with, "But this is not just another gambling story with a happy ending . . . ."
I can't help but see the book of Job as a bar bet between two malicious entities. Who else would subjugate an allegedly loved family to suffering just to show how desperate they were for his approval. And it the end, it's NOT all ok. Job's children are dead, but he 'got new ones' (shessh, that makes it better).
I realize that most people view this correctly as allegory rather than history, but it's an ugly lesson that power justifies capricious abuse.
Britain is free of global government.
Well, no. Britain is still bound by many other treaties that make up the modern global order, including UN, NATO, and WTO, as well as treaties with the British Commonwealth and others.
Now, consider a simple regulation: As a member of the E.U., products have to be sold in metric units, such as kilograms and liters. The U.K. is no longer bound by treaty, and can, in principle, sell their products in pounds and gallons. However, if they want to, in fact, do business in the E.U., their products will have to be sold in metric units.
New treaties will have to be made with the E.U., many of which will simply re-enact the same commitments that Britain made when it joined the E.U. If they want to have free movement in Europe, assuming an agreement can be reached, they will have to offer free movement from Europe. Otherwise, they really will be cut off.
So far, the markets have reacted very negatively to Brexit. The pound is down, global markets are down, Britain's credit rating is being devalued, and all sorts of trade treaties have to be renegotiated, not just with the E.U., but treaties made by the E.U. on behalf of Britain. Brexit leaders have not proposed a viable plan of transition, which only creates more turmoil in the markets.
If you don't know the difference between "government" and "treaties," some of this argument could make perfect sense. Once again, there are people who think the possibilities are limited to anarchy and tyranny, with no possibility of any options in between, such as agreements negotiated between free agents.
Texan99: If you don't know the difference between "government" and "treaties," some of this argument could make perfect sense.
Treaties have the effect of laws. They bind a country's actions in some way. In particular, UN, NATO, & WTO, among others, devolve decision-making to independent bodies.
Texan99: Once again, there are people who think the possibilities are limited to anarchy and tyranny, with no possibility of any options in between, such as agreements negotiated between free agents.
Indeed, there are such people. Not only are there many gradations, but there are many dimensions involved.
re Coyote: Government, Arrogant Ignorance, and the Power of Incentives
One would think a Princeton man would know better than to believe a verbal commitment to spend money by the bureaucracy.
BIG BUSINESS SUPPORTS HILLARY
There's a HUGE difference between PRO BIG BUSINESS and PRO FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.
Big Business (the major corporations) - generalizing - support leftists like Clinton and Obama because their stifling government regulations are a form of protectionism that hinder competition from small, innovative companies. The major corporations have the capacity to deal with this morass of govt regulations at relatively less cost (as a proportion of their overall budget) than do small companies. This puts small companies at an economic disadvantage.
Big government liberals not only enjoy the donations from their rent seeking, big business cronies which are no more than payments (rents) made in exchange for enacting regulations that will give them an unfair competitive advantage over start ups and small businesses, the liberals also like the fact that it's easier to monitor and control a few big cartels than it is to monitor and control thousands of small businesses.
The Clintons have benefited financially from this rent seeking behavior at the highest levels. Not only have they sold favors in the form of government contracts, influencing federal legislation and regulations, etc. to big business, they have also peddled their favors to foreign governments (China, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
"The major corporations have the capacity to deal with this morass of govt regulations at relatively less cost (as a proportion of their overall budget) than do small companies."
Heck, they write them so that only THEY can meet them. It's the oldest trick in the modern world.
Born and raised in South Jersey, we called it pork roll. When I moved to central NJ is when I heard it called Taylor Ham. Always like to have pork roll sandwich when back home. New Jersey is divided by the pull of it's neighboring states. New York could assume the northern half and PA could take the southern portion - the nation would never notice it was gone or even miss it!
Hear, hear! I would bet that if we dug deep enough, these same big businesses, gave money to the Clinton Foundation, or paid six figures to hear one of the Crooked Clinton's give a speech. They expect payback.
Taylor Pork Roll.
It's one of three main food groups. Bacon, steak, and TPR.
If you're in Hawaii, Spam gets added to this list.
But it's neither pork roll alone or Taylor Ham. It's TPR.
I shouldn't write this because Zach's insanity will get the better of him, and he'll begin to respond with his usual links to nonsensical and useless information. His trolling and tangential commentary aside, my view of Brexit is overwhelmingly positive.
I had a professor, when I was working on my Master's in Economics at the New School, who was an adviser to the Labor Party in the run up to the Maastricht Agreement. He missed at least one class a week, because he kept being called over to Europe.
He spent many classes explaining the Labor POV - that Britain NEEDED to join the (then called) ECU monetary union in order to pass off some of its "duties" to Brussels and best benefit from membership in the EC (as it was just the community then).
Comments regarding nations which were planned to be integrated, yet hadn't properly met the economic guidelines (of which there were several) were waved off as "meaningless". These nations, he assured us all, would fix what ailed them once they were fully integrated. Not surprisingly, these nations did not properly fix what ailed them and as a result many of the bailouts have been for those nations, whose economies sent false indications of improvement for years based on subsidy and rigged trade. While there was strict criteria set for joining, these criteria were not as strictly enforced as one would think or hope. In fact, Greece (in particular) got special treatment, ostensibly because they joined 2 years after everyone else (but really because their economy was a mess).
As a result, as soon as 9 years after its introduction, it began to have major problems.
The UK, by contrast, was much healthier than most of the nations which joined the Euro, and realized that joining would leave them few options of leaving. It was an all-or-nothing gamble, and they stood to lose substantially in the exchange.
As it stands, they still lost, but thankfully not as much. The UK has been treated poorly by handing so much power to Brussels, and while the EU is arguably 'free trade' oriented, it's not as free as you'd think or hope. And the UK suffered most.
By remaining out of the Euro, the UK kept its options open - hoping for reform in Brussels (not forthcoming) - or eventually doing exactly what it did.
Labor's long game, to join the Euro and end all talk of leaving, proved to be a misguided event. Some will point out that the UK didn't join while Labor was in power, and that's true because thankfully the UK actually set stricter guidelines for joining in order to keep public opposition to a minimum and made Labor look fiscally responsible. One can say that worked out nicely.
When it comes to the election itself, it's true that many voted because of immigration. So what? While xenophobia is every journalists' 'reason' for Brexit, in reality the causes were much, much deeper.
Both sides flooded the airwaves with lies and deceit, but ONLY the Brexit side had a positive story to tell economically. The UK has much to gain by going it alone, and time will likely prove this out.
In the meantime, the Brexit sends a strong message to the most fouled up technocracy on the face of the earth, the EU, to clean up its act or face more referendums. One has to remember that many of the EU's biggest 'gains' were jammed through by Germany and France because, in light of their shared history, they realized working together would help "keep the peace" in Europe rather than falling back on old rivalries.
In reality, this could still be achieved without the EU (though the EU is the most effective means, if it was run properly).
Still, the gains which the UK has experienced can be maintained, while it drops off the more detrimental portions of membership. Call it 'best practices'.
It's a very hopeful and meaningful time for the UK.
As a side note, it's also a very hopeful time for the EU, assuming they take the right message from this. It's also hopeful for Northern Ireland and Scotland. Scotland, in particular, is looking at its "stay" vote a bit differently today....
Some of the stories my Brit friends tell me about the regulation explosion reminds me of (ah, ah, ah) the U.S. They're ticked off because they don't know who runs what and who to go to in order to change anything. Kinda reminds me of the frustrations facing the small business owners in the U.S. lacking a multi-million dollar lobbying firm.
I think there is a big difference in being a xenophobe and being aware that a significant number of Muslim immigrants are bent on destroying the culture of their new countries.
Or, pretty much anything. Getting it wrong seems to be their motto.
Hillary's bad moon rising: I think it highly improper to bring up Hillary's butt.
BD, there's no (NO.NO, NO) way the EU will take the right message from this. They KNOW they are right, before, now, and ever after.
I agree. Sam L writes it with irritation (which I am not immune to) or even anger, but tonight I concur with nothing but sadness. The EU, and many others who have a particular vision of the superiority of supranational government - at least, if it is led by the Right People as may be found in European capitals* - has anosognosia, an inability to even imagine an alternative POV. They are fortunate people, in that their opponents are never merely mistaken, but automatically, instantly, right out-of-the-box, either stupid or evil. It makes life very simple for them.
*Note in all referenda that the split is always urban/rural, with the suburbs as the swing vote. There are hidden variances in that split: differences in ethnicity, differences in employment, differences in marriage and childrearing, differences in age, in education and focus of education, in immigration status and in childhood environment. See Charles Murray on that.
Sam L: They KNOW they are right, before, now, and ever after.
Yeah, who are those "experts" who said the British pound, stock markets, and economy would react negatively.
stock markets, and economy would react negatively."
Let's see... oil prices predicted to tumble. By close Friday, both Brent and WTI fell to levels last seen - one week ago.
London markets "collapsed", ending higher for the week...
Dow was predicted down Friday due to "unexpected" weakness in US figures, so sure, blame Brexit...
And finally, the Euro, certainly to rise due to the inherent strength of the EU...
"Markets" decreed a WaPo blather from Thursday night to be just that.
Jess1: Let's see... oil prices predicted to tumble.
"Oil prices plunge 5% as Britain votes to leave EU"
Jess1: London markets "collapsed", ending higher for the week.
"FTSE 250 suffers worst day since Black Monday as property stocks hit hardest"
Jess1: And finally, the Euro, certainly to rise due to the inherent strength of the EU.
Most analysts predicted that the Euro would be hurt, not helped by the loss of the second largest trading partner in the EU, however, would rise in relation to the British Pound, which would be hardest hit.
"The UK’s Brexit referendum result saw the euro to pound exchange rate skyrocket after a marginal victory for ‘Leave’. The euro, however, slumped versus the US dollar as forex investors piled into the American currency."
In any case, it's not known how quickly Britain will leave the EU, or whether a new agreement that is substantially similar to the current agreement will take its place (likely), or whether Britain itself will break up (unlikely given the previous). There will be a great deal of uncertainty going forward, which means volatility in the markets as it is whipsawed by the process.
You do know that early reports tend to be a bit incorrect, no?
Do you have any sources that dispute mine?
I also note from the CNBC link "That said, markets will not remain in turmoil as they are at the moment for an extended period of time."
Jess1: I also note from the CNBC link "That said, markets will not remain in turmoil as they are at the moment for an extended period of time."
That's probably correct. Markets will be volatile, but won't be anything like the 2008 financial meltdown.
Jess1: You do know that early reports tend to be a bit incorrect, no?
The early reports are what they are. There is little doubt that markets will adjust to the new reality, and that Britain will muddle through, even if it is costly. More than likely, new agreements with the EU will be reached that resemble the old agreements. Even now, Leave politicians are starting to hedge.