• JOIN US!
• Search for:

• Blogroll

  • BUY STEVE’S BOOK
  • KING 5 TV INTERVIEW

• Categories

  • Just Stuff
  • Libertarian
  • police
  • The Writing Life
  • Uncategorized

• Pages

  • Ask
  • Bio
  • Books
  • E-BOOK
  • Freebies!
  • Goal
  • Interview
  • Shorts
  • Wayne Kelly

• Recent Posts

  • No Bail Out Here
  • Obama, Sotomayor, and Ordinary
  • D.C. Chique
  • Letting our Founding Fathers down
  • Busier than Thou

• Recent Comments

  • Cheryl Pass on No Mystery Here
  • Caleb Powell on Ayn Rand: Has the time she warned us about arrived?
  • Steve on Just Stuff
  • education lesson on No Tolerance for No-Tolerance
  • elcofr ddl on Just Stuff

• Archives

  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • December 2007

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org
  • SimpleScripts

America is a strange place these days, suffering a critical identity crisis—to adhere to the plan set forth by its Founders for a nation conceived in individual liberty, or to alter their dream and remake, or change, our country into one unrecognizable to them where individual liberty is spurned.

The other day an official looking correspondence arrived in the mail. My wife and I tore into it, as it looked like it might include a check, something for which an infrequently paid writer is ever alert. But this little piece of mail, although appearing innocuous, proved nefarious. It was an offer to reduce our debt through a, “mini-bail out,” if you will.

The offer proclaimed that if we owed more than $15,000, in unsecured debt, the U.S. Government had made provisions for this company to eliminate a certain amount of our debt, possibly all of it up to $24,000. Wow! Now, I am totally opposed to the bailouts, but I had to admit that a chance to reclaim some of my hard-earned tax money, even by these means, was enticing.

But wait a minute; there was a problem. We didn’t qualify for this debt reduction offer. Why? Was it because we hadn’t made our payments on time or failed to pay our debts—been deadbeats? No, in fact quite the opposite; we didn’t qualify specifically because we had been responsible with our debts. Seems that all this time we’ve been making the egregious error of actually paying our debts, and apparently unforgivably, on time.

Seems that had we been deadbeats—late payments, or not paying at all—our tax money could have been used (reclaimed) to reduce our debt. So, instead, we are still accountable for our debt (as it should be), but seems we’re also now responsible for our less- or un-productive neighbor’s debt too. Apparently, the government is rewarding my irresponsible neighbor for having the “good” sense to fail to pay their debt on time, or at all. Seems all this time we’ve had it backward. The concept of wealth transfer had just become real to me in the form as powerful as a kick in the teeth.

Does this sound like the America our Founders intended? When Americans play fair, work hard, pay their bills, including their taxes, only to see their hard-earned tax money used to bail out millionaires and the poor alike, while failing to qualify for any “reward” for that hard work and loyalty to our Founders vision for this country, discontent must follow. This circumstance can’t help but make productive and responsible folks see the government as a corrupt entity, which exists to transfer wealth from the undesirables (hard working Americans like you and me) to the desirables (those societal “victims,” or those “too big to fail,” deemed so by subjective, political reasons by government).

I think the actions taken so far, tea parties and such, have been relatively limited because Americans, who tend to favor a constructionist view of the Constitution, aren’t really the protest rally types—they’re busy earning a living and being productive. Another reason is the sheer onslaught of America-altering legislation and policy engineered by the new administration and their “scorched earth,” socialistic, wealth-transferring battle plan. They’ve hit us with a fast and furious barrage of changes so we’ve had little to no time to recover from one bombardment before we’re assaulted by another.

We simply can’t let the anti American-ideal forces win. With a savage force they’re rending the very fabric of this nation conceived in individual liberty, and to which our Founders placed in us, their posterity, its care and survival. We mustn’t let them down.

Although it’s tough out here for the liberty-minded, of Americans alive today, I take considerable pride that I’ve chosen to live my life as one of the “posterity” to whom our Founding Fathers referred when conferring the responsibility for maintaining our Lives, our Liberty, our Pursuit of Happiness, and our very Republic.

When strolling home following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin and asked, “Well, doctor, what have we got?” Franklin replied, “A Republic, you can keep it.” He was speaking—to us.

President Obama’s Sonya Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination did not surprise me in the least. A liberal president chooses a liberal nominee—knock me over with a feather. I can only hope that, as with past Supreme Court Justices, they’re not always what their presidential benefactors expect them to be.

 

However, what’s all this about Sotomayor being more representative of “ordinary” Americans, on the bench, than, presumably, past and current justices? How does being reared poor in the projects of the Bronx make one ordinary in any case? Aren’t we being told her story is extraordinary?

 

I grew up in a small middle class mill town in Massachusetts. My father abandoned our family when I was five condemning my mother, brothers, and me to years of poverty. To my mother’s credit, we never felt poor at the time, but as an adult I can’t ignore the fact that we were indeed.

 

Here’s my point: I grew up poor and that did not make me ordinary. There were a few rich families in town and a few poor ones, but the vast majority of the people in town were within the traditional middle class—if there were such a thing as ordinary in my town, wouldn’t it have been those majority middle-class folks?

 

When the left speaks of ordinary it seems leftist-speak meaning, the poor—the liberal’s perpetual “victim-class”—the Progressive’s target constituency. If the president truly wants a Supreme Court justice who represents “ordinary” Americans, perhaps he need only choose a candidate who believes in interpreting the U. S. Constitution as constructed. If a constituency perceives a flaw, there exists a mechanism with which to alter it, and that mechanism is through amendment and not through the soft tyranny of judicial activism.

 

And what’s so great about “ordinary” people sitting on the bench anyway? Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and other founding fathers, with regard to their contributions to the American cause, were anything but “ordinary,” and it seems to me that regarding founding a nation conceived in liberty, they were extraordinary indeed. 

If you ever want to know if some public effort might be a political scam, just watch how fast its proponents attempt to ram it down your throat. We’re seeing a lot of that lately with this new administration. Everything’s a “crisis,” must be rushed, and when did not reading what you’re signing become the latest D.C. Chique?

“The debate is settled,” we’re told by proponents of so-called, “Global Warming.” I have to admit I feel a bit hesitant using the term, “so-called,” but what else can I do? When the weather appears cooler than normal, they change the term to so-called, “Climate Change;” covers all bases I suppose.

While the earth may indeed be warming, due to whatever causes, how is this different than what the Earth’s done since its birth—heat up, moderate, and cool down, moderate, heat up, and so on? When even an honest question is derided as right wing ignorance or an attack on science, how can any declaration of crisis be deemed authentic science? Science demands questions—tough questions from all quarters.

This is not a new scam, just new packaging, and one attempted back during the Carter administration, which, sadly, I remember all too well. I was in high school and had just learned to drive in time to enjoy gas shortages, rationing, and the long lines when gas was available at all. We look back on those days with anger as the boneheaded Progressive’s policies were avoidable. We also look back and laugh at the pseudo-quasi-Soviet-like-cars created in deference to, “the environment.”

Are the “Eco-Friendly,” and oh so silly, teensy-weensy, and quite dangerous “Smart” cars being thrust upon us (but mostly purchased by, look-at-me, enviro-nuts), destined to be added to the slab-heap of vehicular absurdities such as the “K” cars, Pintos, and Gremlins of the 70s and 80s? My guess: Yep. But, just like the pale-green tuxes and puffy pink-purple gowns we wore to our proms back then, we all need things to look back on—and laugh at.

     In his brilliant essay, Live Free or Die!, which appeared in the April 2009 issue of Imprimis, Mark Steyn posits, Americans have a choice: “They can rediscover the animating principles of the American [our emphasis] idea…or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline.” Steyn defines the American idea as one of limited government and self-reliant citizens free to seize upon myriad opportunities available in a free nation to achieve the greatest success possible.

     Accepting Mr. Steyn’s premise is crucial to understanding at what point we are in America today. When discussing the motivations our Founders had when creating America no one argues that limited government and individual liberty were the grand “new” idea, which set the great American experiment as unique in human history. Had our Founders sought to simply create another dominant, powerful, paternalistic government, what would have been the big deal? Every other country in the world had a government of this sort—we may as well have remained under Farmer George.

     The question we have to ask ourselves is, are we letting our Founders down? Thomas Jefferson, patriarch of libertarians everywhere, admonished American progeny that, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Are enough of us willing to pay that cost—are those of us who are vigilant doing everything possible under the American sun to maintain the liberty we still enjoy and to reclaim that which has been usurped?

     Big government proponents on either side of the aisle obviously no longer hold en masse the principles of our Founders as the preeminent American ideal. The evidence of this is quite plain: Even the tiniest government growth is commensurately matched by individual liberty’s loss. Both Republicans and Democrats have been complicit in and are guilty of growing government, albeit at different rates, but still to the detriment of an ostensibly free citizenry.

     Steyn quotes Dutch writer Oscar van den Boogaard, which is one of the most poignant and intellectually honest statements I’ve ever heard from anyone anywhere regarding human liberty. Mr. van den Boogaard said, “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.” How many of us does this describe? How many of us erroneously believe liberty is an infinite state?

     Our Founding Fathers entrusted liberty to the care of their posterity—us. Let’s not incur the disgrace of being the American generation who lets them down. The end of the American experiment of limited government and individual liberty; what a sad legacy for us to pass on to our posterity.

Every once in a while I migrate back to this theme: What’s up with editors? Actually, this includes agents and publishers. I don’t know about you, but as one who still manages an alternate full-time career, family obligations, and writes as if it’s a second full-time job, my day is filled from top to bottom with stuff to do. I suspect it’s the same for you.

 

So what is up with editors, agents, and publishers who treat their time as if it’s directly doled out by God, when they treat the writer’s time as if it’s doled out by the guy lying by the trash can sucking off a bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag?

 

As busy as I am, when someone takes the time to write me, either at my website or my Examiner.com site, I take the time, even if I can only write a line or two. I think this shows simple respect.

 

On occasion, when an agent deigns to reply, they’re sure to let me know just how fortunate I am to have received a reply from his or her highness. This dichotomy is baffling, the people who need what writers produce in order to put food on their tables, can’t be bothered to show the simple etiquette they were taught in kindergarten.

 

I understand that these folks receive submissions by the tons. However, their excuses for failing to respond, leaving writers to wait and wonder, fall on deaf ears by the rare few who do extend the simple courtesies.

 

Recently an agent specifically request I send her material. Although part of this was my fault for waiting too long, she kept me hanging for eight months and only replied to my email after I’d notified her I was no longer interested in her representation.

 

However, my advice is to continue to be polite and respectful yourself and don’t lower yourself to this, apparently, much too acceptable behavior in the industry.  

If you’ve been reading my stuff for a while you know that one of the reasons I became a cop is because I detest bullies. I don’t care if it’s the physical bully who conducts a reign of terror on the playground or in the barroom, the boss or co-worker who goes out of her way to make others miserable during their daily grind, or any other petty terrorist who routinely makes life difficult for others in some feeble attempt to prop up their own ragged ego.

 

During the course of my daily life I’m sometimes struck by some of life’s immensely pleasurable scenes. Driving through a park, I see a Mom and Dad swinging a small child between them, as the tot laughs delightfully; a young woman opens a door for an elderly man; a couple slowly strolls along the sidewalk hands clasped.

 

Last week I was enjoying a spectacular weekend in Cannon Beach, Oregon with my wife. During our long walks on the beach I observed many people of all makes and brands enjoying the gorgeous surroundings, but even more—each other’s company.

 

I watched a young mother playing with her children, teasing the foamy surf in an attempt to keep from soaking their feet, in the shadow of the magnificent monolith, Haystack Rock, and a thought occurred to me. In my profession the idea that terrorists might strike anywhere at anytime is not an alien one. However, as I watch these peaceful people going about their quintessentially American pursuit of happiness, I experience a sudden, visceral awareness that people exist in the world who, because of religious and/or political ideology, wouldn’t hesitate to kill these people if given the chance, and in the most horrible ways possible.

 

How does a person, a horde of zealots, whip up such an all encompassing blood-lust toward other people they don’t even know, who’s only “crime” is going about their lives peacefully, enjoying and loving their friends and families, and working toward building civilized society rather than, like the terrorists, destroying it?

 

I don’t know the answer. I can barely conceive of such an evil, but people are foolish to doubt it exists, and do so at their own peril. If we want to make sure scenes like the ones described above continue, we must lend our wholehearted support to those leaders who make fighting such evil a priority. 

Sometimes a break is just what’s needed for a little change of perspective, and I’ve got the perfect place: Cannon Beach, Oregon. We spent last weekend in a fantastically rustic and cozy room at the Hearthstone Inn, a part of the Cannon Beach Hotel. The room was clean and conveniently located only a few blocks from downtown and the myriad shops calling to browsers, or as in my wife’s case, shoppers.

    

The staff was friendly and responsive anything we needed, which wasn’t much. We were a block from the beach and about a half mile beach walk south to Haystack, an incredible monolith and Puffin paradise jutting out of the Pacific Ocean teasingly close to the beach bathing in the foamy surf.

 

If you’re into the shopping thing, as I said, the downtown is only a few blocks from the Hearthstone Inn, and is only a few blocks long, an easy stroll for most people. It’s jammed with a theater, bookstore, all kinds of restaurants and retail shops, of which our favorites were, The Wine Shack and Bill’s Tavern along with the respective vacation-enhancing beverages to be found within each.

 

If you’re into the beach thing, from the north end of town, at Ecola Creek, the beach runs pretty much uninterrupted for a good three miles south, but if you push it past a particularly tight rocky passing point, dependent on the tide, if you don’t mind getting your feet wet, you can push the walk, run, or mountain bike ride another mile or two down the beach.

 

If you’re into both things like we are, then you’ve truly found your weekend get-away. Oh, and what a great writer’s retreat as well.

I hadn’t planned on writing about the Tea Party phenomenon, but after having attended one yesterday how can I not? I can’t remember ever having participated in a political protest (having worked the WTO protests not withstanding), over the course of my life despite being rather politically interested and active.

 

The fact that I’ve never attended a political protest isn’t all that unusual, many folks have not. However, the fact that my, until recently politically inactive to the point of rolling her eyes at my frequent invective hurling sessions at liberals on the TV news channels, wife also attended—in fact, I believe it was her idea.

 

We arrived at a sunny, but bordering on chilly, Westlake Center in Downtown Seattle at about 5 PM for the 5:45 PM Seattle Tea Party, one of a large number of Tea Parties held around the nation on April 15^th, “Tax Day,” and named to honor—obviously—the one held in Boston in 1773. It should be noted that this national grassroots conflagration got its start right here in Seattle with a protest rally held in February, organized by the contagiously exuberant Keli Carender.  

 

The first person we met was a very nice woman of some years, but not too many, who sat out of place on a bench in the center of the mall. She told us this was the first protest she’d ever been to in her life. Appropriately for the theme of the rally, she sat adjacent a throng of dingy, non-producing, non-tax paying, young lay-abouts whose only enterprise was providing themselves with a reason to be embarrassed when they finally grow up and realize what losers they are…that is, if they ever do grow up.

 

The second observation was the number of signs we saw with the message: This is My First Protest. And I can add that there were even a greater number of people who, if I were to guess by demeanor and dress, fell into the “rookie” category.

 

Seattle’s was an animated rally considering the number of neophyte “rightwing radicals” (Isn’t that what NBC, CNN, and the other objective news media are calling us?), attending who hadn’t the first clue about how to behave at a protest. I certainly count myself among them, remaining rather subdued; when what I really wanted to do was to scream at the top of my lungs for our President and Congress to just, “STOP!”

 

 Mr. Obama and his congressional comrades shouldn’t dismiss this movement so easily. I don’t remember anything of the sort this early in last two Democratic President’s administrations. The president and the Democratic congress are totally annihilating any support and goodwill traditionally given a new president at the beginning of his term by his political opponents.

 

While his liberal/socialist base has held strong, after all his success is theirs, his support from moderate Democrats and Independents is waning, and any support from Republicans, Libertarians, as well as conservatives and libertarians has been decimated. If I recall correctly, there was another political leader who once dismissed a group of tax protesters as “radicals,” his name was King George III.

 

While I disagree that there is no difference between the two major parties, I admit that the difference is sadly minimal. The Obama administration and the Pelosi/Reid congress have wreaked their economic havoc without much, if any, Republican support. However, intellectually honest people have to ask, where was the mass Republican support for fiscal responsibility when they held the majority? Seems many Republicans are suddenly fiscally responsible because it’s suddenly a Democrat in the White House. It’s a damn shame that the Republicans wasted the chance Americans gave them to recapture Ronald Reagan’s vision of limited government, and instead grew government nearly as adeptly as any progressive Democrat could.

 

America’s greatest national hero, George Washington, the father of our nation, warned us against political parties—yet another reason to revere the man. You must look past the party to the man or woman, their message and their actions. (Incidentally, one of the strongest messages during the rally was a letter of support for the Tea Party from Washington state Auditor, Brian Sonntag.) If you ever wonder who’s political view is more valid consider this: This was a nation conceived in individual liberty; anyone who argues this fact is deluded. Just ask yourself which politician’s political track leaves you with the most freedom.

 

Most liberals espouse a desire for an America whose people languish in a regulatory quagmire and economic bondage. On the other hand, most conservatives and libertarians describe a country in which Americans have the liberty to peacefully pursue their happiness free from government interference. You may choose bondage, but I’ll choose liberty every time.

 

In America we only need one political party: American.

 

 

 

I was a guest on a radio show the other day where, rather than discussing police issues, the hosts wanted to banter about political topics. Only slightly out of my element having never before discussed/debated non-law enforcement political issues on a broadcast medium, one of the first statements a co-host made was targeted right between my eyes. The hosts had been to my website and were aware of my political leanings.

 

The co-host, let’s call him Matt (mostly because his name is Matt), actually said something to the effect, “It’s time to scrap the Constitution, or at least change it; after all it is a living document, and the Founders couldn’t have anticipated what’s happened after all these years.”

 

Well, saying that to me, he may as well have clubbed a baby seal in front of a PETA member; I remained composed, but was taken completely off guard. And he was so cavalier when he’d said it, with absolutely no appreciation for the genius the document was and remains.

 

The genius in the Constitution is not in some individual technical element, but in the universal principles it espouses and while some technical elements may change (and a method exists for making amendments), principles don’t. Of course the Constitution’s unequivocal and primary principle is individual liberty. Self-government was the experiment our Founders initiated in the world—not a collectivist state servitude.

 

Those who want to “scrap” the Constitution, or feel it is a living document to be frivolously changed due to temporary whim, are likely those who would have opposed creating the document in the first place. I would argue they need to reassess what America means to them. If not for the Constitution, there would be no America.

Here’s something that might not on the face of it seem like something within my normal topic range. Global Warming. However, since a certain political end of the spectrum seems to have an affinity for controlling people’s behavior by any means necessary, and Global Warming hysteria being high on the list of these crisis entrepreneurs, I’m going to address it today.

 

Before I begin I do have to make one observation: When I was in school in the ‘70s, I remember an attempt being made to sell us Global Cooling, with the, “next ice age,” advancing on us at a perilous pace. Good thing for Global Warming; apparently it’s done a great job of halting the advancing glaciers. At any rate, it appears that the term, “Global Warming,” having just had one of the coldest, snowiest winters on record, has morphed into the catchall, “Climate Change;” which in my opinion leaves them a bit hot and cold on the entire issue.

My impetus for briefly tackling this subject was a show I watched last night called, How the Earth was made. It’s an excellently produced show that I’d recommend any natural sciences teacher consider for his or her class.

 

This particular episode focused on how the Great Lakes were formed. Two things stood out. One: When it became apparent the water level in some of the lakes was lowering, some folks immediately began lamenting the reason without exploring the issue beyond their eyes: Global Warming—Aahhhhgggggghhhh!!!

 

And two: Objective and intellectually honest scientists quickly dismissed this—conclusion. Apparently, the water level isn’t lowering at all; the land is rising. No; really. Seems after an eon or so under the pressure of millions of tons of ice, the land is actually springing back upward like a sponge.

    

This also brought up an interesting observation about so many nature documentaries. A group of scientists will go to great lengths in these programs to explain how climate change is a matter of course throughout Earth’s existence. I even heard a scientist the other day explain and odd anomaly, which occurred some millennia ago, where the Earth experienced a fifteen degree rise in temperature over a mere fifty years.   

    

We know about El Nino (warming), and La Nina (cooling), (but not so much these days where the old GW reigns supreme), and other factors that temporarily influence the weather. However, after explaining all of these circumstances, many of these shows will finish with a veiled political message about how we’re all going to die when Global Warming consumes the Earth if earthlings don’t tow the Greenie political line (insert ominous music here).

    

Does anyone else see these scientists and politicians, the true believers, as similar to primitive man’s fear of fire or lightening—seeing it as magic? Or like the church leaders who persecuted Galileo as a heretic for offering a reasonable—and true—opposing theory about the Earth. Hmmmm, ever see how those Global Warming true believers treat scientists who express a educated, sober, but opposing view? They say they’re past their prime, crackpots, lunatics, or bought off—remarkably, even if the scientist teaches at some little school in Boston called, MIT.

keep looking »