Obama is a self-declared Marxist - addended (23jul12 update)

George Rebane

Since Obama opened his mouth during his 2008 candidacy, RR has maintained that the man is a Marxist.  There is little surprise in that conclusion when we consider his grandparents, parents, school years, Chicago brethren, his own words, and deeds as President.  But last Friday in Roanoke, VA he dispelled all residual doubt in a speech that laid it all out.

There Obama channeled one of his own fellow travelers and former administration officials, Elizabeth Warren, who is now running for the Senate in Massachusetts.  Communism’s Marxist basis admits no individual merit from individual enterprise.  All success in pre-collective social orders is suspect, and attributed to the successful having become so on the backs of the oppressed people.  The Marxists' constant theme is that government, as the organizer of the collective, makes every success possible, as opposed to the vision, tolerance for risk, hard work, and entrepreneurial spirit of those who start and build businesses.

To the communist, businesses are rogue enterprises in society that must be absorbed into the collective as quickly as possible, and those that started and operated such businesses must be exposed for the pariahs they are and punished.  We can see it all coming together in what Obama is now getting ready to loosen on the nation during his second term.  From Obama’s speech last Friday –

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. … If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.  (emphasis added, full text here, and a related comment below)

This is Lenin in the months before the Bolshevik revolution in 1918.  Both leaders maintain it is classes of people, marshaled by a correct government, that are the engines of wealth creation.  The enterprising individuals are the thieves and blood-suckers who claim the lion’s share of what they didn’t create and what never belonged to them.

WSJ’s Daniel Henninger recently wrote about Obama's newly revealing economics –

There is no theory anywhere in non-Marxist economics that says growth's primary engine is a social class. A middle class is the result of growth, not its cause. Barack Obama not only believes in class-based growth but has built his whole growth strategy around it. … One word appears nowhere in the 53-minute Obama speech on economic growth: "capital." Human, financial, whatever. Capital dare not speak its name. … Most revealing is that the phrases "my plan" and "I have a plan" appear 13 times. A central role for planning often appears in emerging, underdeveloped economies, not in an advanced economy like ours in which the discovery and diffusion of productive new ideas is spontaneous, rapid and unpredictable.

In The Road to Serfdom nobelist F.A. Hayek wrote of where such central planning has taken us in the past, and where it will take us in the future.  (You can order an abridged version of this classic from the Heritage Foundation.)

But you may say that Obama is just one machine politician with no understanding of or experience in the private sector.  However, what gives this Marxist his power is the 'dumbth' that pervades the land.  Half of the electorate have no resources with which to critique his ideology, and see such statements as benign and possessing of a certain logic - the bitter fruits of a progressive public education.

[Re The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.  Bullcrap!

The Internet was developed primarily through the work of multiple universities, private contractors, and government agencies here and overseas.  What we call the Internet first came together as the ARPANET that was developed with DARPA funding to set up a rapid communication network among scientists and engineers working in academe, government, and private industry.  The first ARPANET link was established between UCLA and Stanford Research Institute on 29 October 1969.  Government had neither clue nor intent to commercialize any of this technology.

The Internet was effectively commercialized with advent of the Worldwide Web (WWW) in the mid-1990s, again through the mostly happenstance multi-national development efforts of academe, government agencies, and private enterprises.  The WWW that we daily use resides on the Internet as a service based on such software innovations as hypertext protocols and the ubiquotous browser first developed at the University of Illinois.  The successful commercialization of the Internet has been brought about by private enterprise, and has happened because of governments' absence, a 'shortcoming' which the Left has been trying to rectify ever since with various degrees of 'success'.]

[Addendum] H/T to RR reader.

[23jul12 update]  Gordon Crovitz writing in 23jul12 WSJ has a more detailed report on the development of the Internet - 'Who Really Invented the Internet?'.

Comments

[Steven Frisch]

Just when I think you are starting to sound somewhat sane, say, for example, like recommending David Brinn, you come out with some nonsense like this. I would pull it apart piece by piece, but what is the point? When you start echoing the worst examples of McCarthyism those who wish to think you are some kind of intellectual light of the county will cheer, those who see the comments in context and really think about it will realize you are a propagandist.

[Russ Steele]

Steven @04:26. If you have the skills to "pull it apart piece by piece" lets hear it. I have serious doubts that you can compete with F.A. Hayek with and an assist from George and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. But, go for it!

[Todd Juvinall]

Many of us saw the philosophy of Obama early on and stated his actions and words were truly socialist. But, the lamestreams and people like Frisch had the microphone and the "race card" at their beck and call which muffled any criticism (now a unworkable strategy thank goodness). So the American people get a different view of the man from Hawaii and they were bamboozled. They could be bamboozled again

I did a story on Elizabeth Warren months ago after she said the same thing about our system as Obama just did. They are pandering to the people who, like Frisch, think they are smarter than everyone else as well as those the liberal education system has dumbed down to ignorant serf status over the years. I really think the lack of formal education (except in passing) of our system of government and the economic system we practice has resulted in this acceptance by the people of the left of Obama's beliefs.

I still think the "dripping on the rock" to create over time a neo-slavery of ignorant Americans to manipulate, can be defeated if we take back America from the left.

[Russ Steele]

The reason that Obama thinks that it was not hard work that produced small business success in America, rather that “someone else gave them that success”, is because someone else gave him his success. Someone else paid for his college, someone else refused to release his birth and college records, someone else gave him the Law Review Editors Chair, someone else fixed his elections, someone else wrote his books, someone else writes his speeches, in other words he is an empty suit in which some one else is filling with the crap we are hearing about success in America. Obama is the product of someones else, how can he claim any success? By his own words he is someone’s sock puppet.

[Russ Steele]

Some excellent smack downs at the American Thinker, here is an accompaning graphic:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/assets/SadO_Wright1stFlight.jpg

[Ryan Mount]

Well, Obama is partially correct, which is why we have taxes. I'm assuming RR readers drove on State and Federally funded highways sometime in the past week? Unless you built them, which I would like to thank you for that. Where do I pay the toll?

It's his (Obama's) pandering populism that's a concern for me. He's manipulating the dim-witted here into a faux class frenzy. And that never ends well. Never. For no one.

I really think it's important to separate our terms here. Central Management and Marxism are not necessarily congruent. However I will grant you that both are not in the Classical Liberal tradition. There are many varieties of Marxism both vulgar (academic) and institutional.

I mean, look at Leon Trotsky (an imperfect man before you harp on his defects) as an example who was vehemently opposed to the central bureaucracy of Stalin. In fact, apart from his Unionist rhetoric, I think RR readers would find Trotsky refreshing in some ways. His insistence that the government fear the workers (and not the other way around) should provide some common ground here.

Obama is not a Marxist, no more than Bush II or Clinton. He's a predictable, failed President. He's just pandering for money from a largely disenfranchised glob of the electorate.

[Todd Juvinall]

Could anyone please tell me where they find a conservatives opinion we should live in anarchy? We on the right have never said government was not important. We are students of history and we know you have to have a government to provide for a common defense and road building. Sheesh! The left has dumbed down American people so far those people actually think the right is rejecting all government?

Our American government was instituted to protect the individual. To do that we American decided to band together and live under a set of rules. To which we pledged as a society to defend. Now we see the results of the liberal education propaganda system's results. A whole bunch of really stupid people. Many in charge of us. My goodness!

[Ryan Mount]

Todd, the anarchy argument is a Straw Man. Undoubtedly there are fringes of the political spectrum that favor and even wish for an anarchy State of Nature, but those folks are rare. Very rare.

But to your rhetorical question regarding the dumbing down? I think there's some truth to that. If Obama would say, "Hey, we all gotta pay income taxes," then he would have my attention. But he doesn't. He just props up some vague boogeyman.

Obama's point is that there are collective aspects of living here in the USA. I think we can agree on that. What I don't agree with is his pandering to the dumb to whip up fear and acrimony. It's reckless and historically a bad idea.

[Account Deleted]

Todd - what you have brought up is the typical way the left argues against the conservatives. If you object to higher taxes, then you are "against taxes or anti-tax". If you object to the un-Constitutional actions of the govt, then you are "anti-govt". Of course there is no rational thought in these complaints. We have tirelessly espoused the Constitution as the basis for the proper Fed govt and the Constitution spells out a strong, but limited central govt complete with it's proscribed activities, duties and responsibilities. Yet the left continues to throw the anarchist label at us. We want a govt that protects our liberties and freedoms while the left wants a govt to provide a guarantee of goods for the people. Food, housing and health care are "rights" according to the left. This seems quite correct and natural to the masses until the obvious conclusion is reached as to how the govt will provide "free" stuff to everyone.
Obama is having a good time with that speech as he states many things that are true and then jumps to absurd conclusions. Let's break down some principal points:
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back." No argument here. In fact, most of the wealthy and/or successful Americans have been giving back for centuries. Duh! But - What does this have to do with the govt? Where is the necessary connection? Oblaber doesn't even try to make the case.
"look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own." Ah - yeah, like my parents and my relatives and my wife and my Scout leader, a neighbor or a church pastor. Where is the govt here? I know that many would include a teacher and that teacher might have been paid by the govt, but the govt didn't start running schools and they are not necessary for education. For every kid that thanks a govt paid teacher for inspiration in life, there are millions of kids that went through the same govt run education system that ended up with a very unsuccessful outcome.
"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there." First of all, I'd love to hear him list who these people are. I don't know of anyone who thinks that just being "smart" gets them anything in life, besides a star on their school paper or a 2 dollar plastic trophy. I think that risk taking, initiative and hard work figure in having a successful career or business.
"It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there" This is the same nonsense as above. Who has ever claimed that just working hard will get you anything? If you work your tail off at a non-productive task, you just wasted energy and time. On top of that, he mixes 2 different examples. Claiming that you work harder than others is not denying or negating the fact that others work hard.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life." See above - we covered that. There is still only a small maybe of govt being the necessary ingredient here. Most likely, it wasn't or in fact, the govt got in the way.
"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive." Somebody? Actually it was a collective of freedom loving, right wing nut cases who are denigrated today by Oblaber. And he'd better watch the use of the singular 'somebody' when he's trying to make the case for a huge bureaucracy being the vital factor. Furthermore, simply 'thriving' and being wealthy and/or successful are not the same thing.
"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." This is where the slimy, oily talk really kicks in. I wasn't aware that there was a groundswell of right-wing opposition to roads and bridges. In fact, conservatives have long complained of tax money that was originally agreed upon that would go to roads and bridges and their maintenance have been diverted to other enterprises at the expense of our vital transportation infrastructure. Care to see what the Golden Gate Bridge Authority spends it's money on? It was supposed to be paid for (including a maintenance fund) decades ago.
The shallow and non-thinkers lap this stuff up like free beer at the frat party. Oblaber keeps dishing it out.

[Michael Anderson]

Ryan wrote: "What I don't agree with is his pandering to the dumb to whip up fear and acrimony. It's reckless and historically a bad idea."

But isn't that what the Republicans have been doing in every presidential election since 1996? For goodness sake, that's their brand.

In '96 at least Clinton was able to divert the discussion. But Gore and Kerry were like Bambi in the headlights, no spines and no balls. They were both Swift-boated into irrelevance.

I like that Obama is being nasty and whipping up "fear and acrimony." That is exactly what this broken political system deserves. He's had Mittens on his heals for weeks, if not months. It's Chicago-style gut-punching riot ball, and I find the whole thing terribly amusing.

Obama is a mediocre president but he's a masterful campaigner; if I was Mittens I'd go to the nearest baseball gear store and buy myself a Kevlar cup, post-haste.

[Ryan Mount]

> isn't that what the Republicans have been doing in every presidential election since 1996

Well then, that makes it OK for Obama to do it. Solved. Another example in a line of examples of our quick race to the bottom. The only thing worse than a Republican, then, is a Democrat because they should know better. At least the Republicans come with tears on demand and won't tax my indoor tan.

> like that Obama is being nasty and whipping up "fear and acrimony."

You left off the object: with the dim-witted.

> Obama is a mediocre president but he's a masterful campaigner

Yes, couldn't have said it better myself. He's all marketing fluff, which is perfect for the feeble-minded American Idol fan. Obama is our second most novelized President in the modern era. The first was Reagan.

[George Rebane]

MichaelA 1039am - I have been one of pandered to dumb in "every presidential election since 1996". Could you please reveal to me some of the more egregious panders for which I fell and therefore voted for the wrong candidates? Thanks.

[Gregory]

"Ryan wrote: "What I don't agree with is his pandering to the dumb to whip up fear and acrimony. It's reckless and historically a bad idea."

But isn't that what the Republicans have been doing in every presidential election since 1996? For goodness sake, that's their brand."

To quote "K", "What a gullible breed".

The worst fear mongering in my lifetime has been from Dem politicians. Starting at the beginning of my political memory, the "Daisy" commercial used against Goldwater in '64 clearly takes the cake. After that, it was Ronald Reagan's finger being on 'the button'. Even the Willie Horton/Prison Furlough issue that was used against Dukakis was discovered by Lee Atwater's people by reviewing Al Gore's comments in a preceding primary debate.

In short, *everyone* with a political brand sells fear. Sometimes, they even think it's justified.

[Ryan Mount]

Hey Greg.

Please don't combine my comments with Michael's. The first comment is from me, followed by Micheal's apology for the Democrats. It's the, "Well, everyone's doing it" fallacy.

I am on the record a few inches up from here as castigating the Democrats for their bonehead behavior. In my limited experience, the Democrats seems to be more overt and aggressive with their attacks and fear mongering. But that's not to excuse Republicans either.

[George Rebane]

Administrivia - the use of contracted names and a compact timetag for the referenced comment will cut out most of the ongoing confusion as to who is talking to whom about what in these comment streams. It also makes it easy for other readers to follow a particular thread - an objective of RR - since it is then made unambiguous. But then again, letting confusion reign has other advantages.

[Gregory]

Hey Ryan (12:09), No can do.

I accurately quoted Michael, who quoted you. Both needed to be there to make the point.

Just got a far out flashback, Jimmy Carter, looking like a poor shmuck wearing a sandwich sign looking for work, flashing an LP album cover of an speech given by Reagan years before, detailing how Reagan was against Social Security, a day or two before getting shellacked in '80.

Continuing, let's see, then there was Newt Gingrich, who wanted to steal Christmas by starving old people if they didn't die first from not getting enough of a Medicare subsidy.

More recently, "Bush Lied, People Died".

[Ryan Mount]

That's fine Greg. I felt the need to speak up.

[Todd Juvinall]

Maybe I am missing something in this discussion about Obama claiming I did not start my business, the government did.

Taxes! Fees! Exaction's! Hmmm. Now, if I did not pay all those things the government demands, you know, 40-60% of every dollar I earned, then I would say Mr. Obama might be on to something. But alas, I paid my individual share for those roads, buildings and the military. On the flip side, using Obama's thinking, the 50% who pay no federal income tax fit the bill to a TEE! They are the beneficiary of government for their housing, food and abortions. So, yes, Obama has it right except the target he shoots at is incorrect.

[Account Deleted]

Oh no, Todd - you can take credit for starting your business, but if you ever make any money out of it, then you have to credit the govt. All those forms and regulations and taxes were the only reason for your success. Don't talk about your initiative and hard work, that doesn't count. Remember, they are only asking you to contribute a small part of what they let you have in the first place.
Although I would like to know how Oblabber explains why and how the govt decides to make some people rich while they force others to live in poverty. Hmmm... maybe it really is that hard work and initiative thing.

[Gregory]

Todd, I think the basic idea is that since you'd just be banging the rocks together were it not for civilisation as a whole, he, as the leader of your civilisation, has a claim on anything you make if he needs it.

[THEMIKEYMCD]

http://www.reboilroom.com/2012/07/hayeks-message-for-future-generations.html

Hint: Private Property

"F.A. Hayek was asked out of everything he's learned, what would be the message he would leave for future generations that would sum up everything that was meaningful & significant to Hayek."

[Todd Juvinall]

Scott at 144 today said

"Although I would like to know how Oblabber explains why and how the govt decides to make some people rich while they force others to live in poverty. Hmmm... maybe it really is that hard work and initiative thing. "

Excellent point Scott! If he says government should receive the credit for success, then the converse must also be true. They have to take credit for failure (the plight of the poor). Failure in those that are unable to succeed. Now maybe the nation should heap its praise on Obama for the failures so as to "balance" the argument?

[Brad Croul]

Re: Obama is a Marxist,
Well, at least he is not a Muslim then!
What a hoot!

[George Rebane]

BradC 223pm - Actually he could be as likely a nominal Muslim as he is a nominal Christian. There have been plenty of nominal Muslims who have smoked but not inhaled the 'opium of the people'.

[billy T]

When it comes to figures thrown around by politicians, I look at the figures through an account's eye. http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/07/study-says-obama-tax-proposals-could-cost-700000-jobs Dr. Rebane was quite correct to point out "But you may say that Obama is just one machine politician with no understanding of or experience in the private sector. However, what gives this Marxist his power is the 'dumbth' that pervades the land." Perhaps a gross understatement. Romney gives 10% plus to charitable causes. Obama last year donated 1%, Bidden less.

[billy T]

I choose the above link because the writer is hostile to tax cuts. He omitted the 15% dividend rate jumping to 40% and the essence of the CPAs' report. Can only mask so much when it comes to S Corps and small businesses.

[George Rebane]

billyT 757pm - WSJ published a study of charitable giving some years ago that has been corroborated since by attitude surveys. Bottom line - liberals are stingy when it comes to charitable giving. They feel that a persons needs are filled by government programs, therefore why should they give more than they are already taxed.

[Account Deleted]

Todd - I think that Oblabber wants to take credit for all of the successful folks and blame Bush for all of the po' folk.
So remember - the rich are rich because of the roads and bridges and teachers and the poor are poor because they have (apparently) no access to any roads and bridges and teachers.

[Michael Anderson]

OK, lets try this. I'd like to address George's interesting interpretation of how the Internet evolved.

He wrote: "The successful commercialization of the Internet has been brought about by private enterprise, and has happened because of governments' absence, a 'shortcoming' which the Left has been trying to rectify ever since with various degrees of 'success'."

Herein George correctly describes what happened after 1996, without really characterizing the "space shot" that happened with ARPANET over 2 decades prior. Without DARPA funding, the Internet as we know it might never have existed, and those private companies from 1996 onward would have had no platform from which to sell their wares. Apple. Google. Microsoft. Amazon. Intel & AMD. And all the rest of the technologies that have kept America still at the top of the technological heap.

Now we are entering a new phase, where the media conglomerates are being challenged by continued diversity in the distribution marketplace. Pretty funny stuff.

I am reminded of Jon Postel's circa mid-1970s comment on the subject: "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." I'm not sure if he is talking about classical Liberalism there, but it sounds like that could be the case.

Postel was the guy who in 1979 predicted that spam and viruses would be a big problem for a network where the packets are assumed to be friendly. A problem still unsolved.

[Russ Steele]

Michael @11:01 wrote “Without DARPA funding, the Internet as we know it might never have existed, and those private companies from 1996 onward would have had no platform from which to sell their wares.”

I disagree, there were other competing networks in the market place, it just turns our that TCP/IP protocol turned out to be more efficient. Apple had there own version Appletalk, and USENET was invented as a means for providing mail and file transfers using a communications standard known as UUCP.

According to Wikipedia, the Merit Network was formed in 1966 as the Michigan Educational Research Information Triad to explore computer networking between three of Michigan's public universities as a means to help the state's educational and economic development. This was a packet switching network.

There was also CompuServe MicroNET and The Source. I was a user on both of those networks. TRW developed a network protocol, that was installed in business and military installation around the world. I supervised the team installing the network at McClellan AFB. The TRW protocol was based on cable technology. This was before the wide use of TCP/IP.

There was going to be a network, it turns out that TCP/IP was the best choice, which was a market based decision not one made by the government. Even the phone companies dropped their private networks and adopted TCP/IP.

[George Rebane]

MichaelA 1101pm - Russ' 733am is spot on. I was also heavily involved with Philips and Burst.com on the development of three separate interactive TV networks in the 1986-1994. These were to have all the functionality of the WWW, and talks were already beginning for integrating the protocols into one common one. I sat on the IEEE standards committee representing Philips during this effort. Of course, the world changed when the WWW was allowed and accepted as a commercial service on top of the existing and then well established Internet in 1995.

It was the commercial sector that goaded the government to release Internet for broad civilian use, else the damn bureaucrats would still be sitting on it as an email and ftp communication network for defense related work.

[Gregory]

In the ARPAnet days circa '82, I don't recall anyone trying to make a buck off commercial sites, because there weren't any. Commercial use was verboten. The military-industrial-academic complex was making networks that solved their own problems, and the Santa Barbara company I worked for, (Advanced Computer Communications nee Associated Computer Consultants nee A Computer Consultant) was mostly in the IMP camp that mostly got wiped out by the TCP/IP v4 wave.

One of the firm rules at ACC was that the NSA was to be referred to as "the customer" (something less than half the company's revenue), not the NSA. That made the customer unhappy. I assure you, the NSA was not spending money on networking equipment to enable pets.com in the future.

I believe Cisco was in sad shape for a time in the early 90's when it looked like ATM networking might take off, and I know that the US Robotics hub architected in Grass Valley that dominated the market for modem dialup equipment used by ISPs was designed not for internetworking but for credit card verification systems, and the volume of orders for the Total Control WAN Hub (the director of the production group we handed off too was a real control freak) by fledgeling ISPs took most by surprise.

The government didn't invent the internet for commercial gain, they funded the development of stuff they needed. Give Al Gore a little credit, he did help split the net off of government control to allow it to become what it is now, but it doesn't take much smarts to let something go when it has outgrown its cage.

[Paul Emery]

Whatever you think of Obama you'd better get used to him since he'll be around for the next four years. Romney may have the worst campaign since Dukakis and his tax returns will surely be his tank ride to a dismal finish. The chorus for him to release his tax returns from his own supposed supporters is growing and it's not a pretty song.. This is lots of fun.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1142am - "Whatever you think of Obama you'd better get used to him since he'll be around for the next four years." This is sorta like the news the Jews got about their camp commandant as they pulled into Buchenwald in 1941 ;-)

[Russ Steele]

From Power Line:

On Twitter, a liberal named Jon Lovitz reminds us that we shouldn’t overstate the case against Barack Obama. He isn’t wrong all the time. To be fair, there are instances–a few, not many–when someone achieves success without working for it. Without sacrificing for it. Without taking risks, without innovating. Success that really is due to others, not himself. Mr. Lovitz offers an instance HERE.

[Gregory]

"I am reminded of Jon Postel's circa mid-1970s comment on the subject: "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." I'm not sure if he is talking about classical Liberalism there, but it sounds like that could be the case." MA 11:01PM

Absolutely not, Mike. It has nothing to do with political thought at all. It's the Robustness Principle of RFC 1122, and first published in Postel's RFC 793 in '81 but he may well have uttered it a little earlier. If you've not been in the protocol development and implementation world you might not ever really need to know it.

Another way to put it is, for implementations of datacommunications protocols, make sure the stuff you send impeccably conforms to the standard, and do your best to make sense of what the other guy is sending you even if you think it doesn't conform.

A problem is that the other guy may very well be trying hard to conform to the standard and the both of you made interpretations of the standard that were subtly different and incompatible, and so if two different systems try to communicate via an open protocol standard implemented by two different anal retentive vendors, there's a great chance nothing will work.

H.320, an early multimedia terminal standard meant for ISDN, had a hard time ramping up for just that reason.

[THEMIKEYMCD]

Here's another one Russ:

http://twitpic.com/a93twh/full

[THEMIKEYMCD]

"If hiring cops, fire fighters & teachers helps the economy, then theft, arson & stupidity are economic stimulus." David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

Broken Window Fallacy anyone?

[David King]

So, now he’s copying speeches from Elizabeth Warren (aka Fauxcahontas)?

That's worse than Dukakis dressed in a tank Paul.

[billy T]

The economy of The United States of America is complex and multi-pronged. Mr. President is so naive he thinks the economy is bridges, roads, and the internet. Isn't that the cutest thing you ever heard? Little ones say the darnest things. He also thinks it is government's role to get as much money as he possibly can from the private sector. What a sweet darling he is. Simply aborable.

[Paul Emery]

Billy T

And you actually think Romney knows the economy? His job creation in Mass was pathetic and from what I can tell he is the Jello man who will fit into any mold that is necessary to achieve his ambition. It's not worth talking about because he's going to lose for sure. Nobody really likes him, he's just a shill for the old time Republicano's who are already regretting their choice. He may not even last till the convention.
D King. Do you actually support Romney? You guys must really fear Obama to get behind that bandwagon.

[billy T]

Paul. While speculation on a horse race tickles the mind, it is not wise to remove the amour before the battle heats up. The problem with most Marxists is that they do not think they are Marxists. They think they are for social justice and utter this "fairness" doctrine to disguise the same thing. Kinda like when the liberals went underground for a couple of hours and reemerged as Progressives. Fairness is always to impede the successful and give to the poor via the State. They love their raiding parties. The private sector must be brought under control and taken over....controlled by the few in power who have the tanks and armies. Obama and Marxists have a genuine disdain for rugged individualists and the enterprising. When Obama goes off the prompter like a few days ago, he says the same thing he told Joe the Plumber. Imagine if a fellow built an abode on 50 acres. Not fair. That is the same as 200 homes on a quarter acre each Private property is bad. Divide it up and lets be fair. Fair only to those power mad with insatiable envy and want.

[Russ Steele]

Paul @11:25

Romney was not my second, third or forth choice, but he is my anybody but Obama choice. There are several million small business owners that are now on the "anybody by Obama" bandwagon. Every time Obama goes of the teleprompter Romney wins!

[THEMIKEYMCD]

Romney has considerably more knowledge on the economy than Obama (then again, so does my dog). The more I get to know Romney the more I like him as a solution/cure to the Keynesian disease plaguing our nation (world).

All that matters is campaigning ability and Obama's campaigning ability is too great a force (such campaigning abilities have not been seen since Germany in the 1930's); he will be re-elected.

[David King]

Paul Emery | 18 July 2012 at 11:25 PM

“D King. Do you actually support Romney? You guys must really fear Obama to get behind that bandwagon.”

I do Paul. Not my first choice, but he’ll do in a pinch. I don’t fear Obama; I fear what he stands for. Progressives can no longer hide their agenda and it’s on display for all to see. We’ll see what happens!
My question to you is: Why do you believe these people have your best interests at heart and why are you so willing to trade all our freedoms to them for imagined security? My big question is: Why do these people feel a need to try and control other people’s lives? I would really like to know your thoughts.

[Ben Emery]

George,
Do you care to comment on the Libor?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18898112

excerpt

Structurally flawed

"Investigators suspect that banks manipulated inter-bank lending rates to profit on trading activity or to flatter their borrowing costs during the global financial crisis.

Libor is calculated daily in London for the US dollar and other currencies when banks post estimates of how much it costs them to borrow from each other.

Critics argue that Libor is essentially based on a subjective assessment, and want a system calculated on actual transactions in the market.

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada, said: "There are different alternatives if Libor cannot be fixed. If it's structurally flawed and can't be fixed, which is a possibility, there may need to be different types of approaches, and we need to think that through."

[George Rebane]

BenE 259pm - Agreed that it is 'structurally flawed'. Libor needs to computed algorithmically (i.e. objectively) from lending/borrowing data from banks that is the same data they submit to their regulating agencies. Lying there will kick in provisions of existing criminal laws.

[Ben Emery]

George,
I think the banking industry might be one of the most nefarious industries on the planet. Throughout history those who control the supply of money seem to be at the epicenter of much of the problems we face as a society whether it be at the local, regional, national, or global levels.

I believe this is probably another common ground issue we could work together.

[Russ Steele]

Paul,

I admire your support for Obama and your certainty he will be re-elected. However, here is some food for thought from latest CBS/NYT Poll.

Obama seems to have lost his last favorability ratings: Forty-eight percent of registered voters view the president unfavorably, while thirty-six percent view him favorably.

However the real shocker was buried in the poll. Registered voters were asked this question: Effects of Barack Obama’s Policies on the Economy

Improving now: 17%
Will in Improve if given more time 34%
Will Never Improve it 46%

So 46 percent of people believe Obama’s policies are making the economy worse, while only 17 percent believe it’s making it better!

How will he turn these numbers around by November?

[Gregory]

Ben, the baby pooped in the bathwater. Only the bathwater needs to be thrown out. Keep the baby.

When getting a mortgage a couple decades ago, we passed by LIBOR indexed loans, and fixed loans. The 11th District Cost of Funds Index is slowly moving and is the actual wholesale cost of money in the 11th district, which just happens to include us. I've been very happy, and when Citibank offered me a conversion to 5% fixed a couple years ago, I figured it meant they knew the index would be continuing downward.

So some crooks were found out to be gaming LIBOR. They got caught. That often happens when the perps are not in government. You might note that while LIBOR was being gamed on the margins, it still followed other indexes admirably:
http://mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/cofi.asp

[George Rebane]

I believe it was Baron Rothschild who said, 'Give me control of a country's money, and I care not who makes its laws.' Distributed control is best.

[Ben Emery]

Greg,
I don't know much about LIBOR but am starting to get up to speed on it. That is why I solicited George's opinion. Despite what you might think, I appreciate the banter that goes around on RR because it gives me a different angle to see the world through. That is one of the reasons why I like to ask questions. My instinct is to distrust banks and I think they have earned that distrust. Here are a couple links and excerpts

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/18/156961358/the-new-republic-wheres-the-outrage-over-libor

"A number of commentators have wondered why the rigging of LIBOR — the most widely used interest-rate in the world — hasn't caused the uproar in this country that it's provoked in Britain. The easy answer is that no U.S. bank has fessed up or been outed over its role in manipulating LIBOR, unlike in Britain, where Barclays has agreed to pay nearly half a billion dollars in fines and fired its top three executives."

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/18/156960934/the-nation-can-libor-force-u-s-banking-reform

"The banks did this by "fixing" the LIBOR — the average interest rate at which banks say they lend to one another. The LIBOR forms the basis for lending rates charged in countries around the world, It effectively defines the cost of money. When the LIBOR is "fixed" via false submissions by crooked banks and the crooked bankers who run them, the global economy is suddenly operating not on facts and figures but on fantasies.

Obviously, this is not just a British problem."

[George Rebane]

BenE 329pm - Yes, this may well be an area of congruence if you also view central banks with suspicion. The functions of money are to store value, serve as a medium of exchange, and a unit of account. In your noodling on the matter, who or what agency(ies) should control the amount and forms of money in a sovereign nation-state?

In my own puzzling on this question, I am most flummoxed by the notion of 'store of value'. I keep asking 'how long and at what level should a temporally limited event retain its value?' In other words if I get paid for a lecture or playing the piano in a bar, the fiat money received will putatively retain its value 'forever' (or until the nation debases its currency or gets conquered).

It's the 'forever' part I have trouble with and invite other thoughts, since the value of my lecture or saloon playing quickly fades with time for both performances - particularly the latter ;-) - but their compensation does not. This is different from my building a house, or making a new gizmo, and selling it. The value of these too would fade, but over a much longer period.

Somehow I'm sanguine about all this if I get paid in something that has intrinsic, albeit variable, worth - like gold. Thoughts?

Re your 855am - Libor is a British index that, even when manipulated, has tracked market interest rates very closely. Money was made primarily in the correct anticipation of arbitrage opportunities when the telegraphed miniscule manipulations occurred. We should, of course, examine any equivalent hanky-panky going on here. There is no evidence of whether or how US banks have been involved in setting Libor. I stand by my 315pm above.

[Gregory]

I'm shocked that there's someone out there fudging the numbers to illegally make a buck. Not.

Ben, when you catch the butcher putting his thumb on the scales, is your impulse to reform food distribution to get rid of all the butchers?

[Ben Emery]

George,
I think what you are raising is a profound question, especially if we move into banking/ real estate markets. To comment on the value of being paid for you lecture. First we must set the idea of what money/ currency really is and represents.

Money only has value because we collectively agree it does, nothing more. Arbitrarily gold became the coveted commodity many centuries ago. Gold only has value because we say it has value. Why not coconut shells?

I tried to answer the questions you posed about being paid with fiat money that sustains it value while the service/ product has diminished in value. I cannot do it without writing a very long comment, which I don't have time to do.

My issue with the banks/ real estate is they produced a false market knowing it would come crashing down at some point. A monetary fine will not and can not replace the devastated lives that resulted from their game. I truly believe it is the behavior of a sociopath, a person or entity that doesn't and cannot identify themselves as part of society thus unable to sympathize with those who will be negatively affected by their behavior. Gaining on shorts or bad deals, he would be set for hundreds of lifetimes if he were just take the money and run but he won't since he and many like him are addicted to making money at any cost. Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/28/news/companies/paulson_hedge_fund/index.htm

[Ben Emery]

Greg,
The butchers thumb doesn't result in our family losing our house and turning our lives upside down. I am not so much worried about a guy that has direct interaction with his customers but do have a problem with institutions who virtually have no direct interaction or accountability with the people they are negatively affecting. Big difference.

[George Rebane]

BenE 1129am - I'm not sure what, if anything, you have against Paulson's behavior.

Re putting solo blame on the banks; that charge won't hold water since it was the federal government that promoted, fostered, and guaranteed the making of subprime loans as a matter of progressive social engineering that clearly backfired.

Repeating Gregory's 1048am, given government's involvement, what would you reform to prevent this in the future?

[THEMIKEYMCD]

We desperately need a free market. Set the rules (minimal and equal) and let self interest do the rest.

Government planners have only succeeded in increasing the frequency and magnitude of market crashes/uncertainty/instances of corporatism run amok. @keithmccullough

[Gregory]

"The butchers thumb doesn't result in our family losing our house and turning our lives upside down."

Neither did the LIBOR fiddling.

The crash happened because of Loans Gone Wild!, and the mass insanity of the subprime lending frenzy was initially pushed by the Clinton administration, with the usual suspects in congress like Barney Frank (D-Fannie) and Chris Dodd (D-Countrywide) moving the ball forward.

It's big government that drives central banks, big labor and big business. Focus on where the problem starts.

[Ben Emery]

Paulson was shorting the very investments he was selling. Those investments were bundled with subprime loans he knew were going to go south. Subprime mortgages/ derivative market are products of deregulation in CFMA 2000. The two are separate but become linked after 2000, which then becomes a derivative market well over $500 trillion. We need to reinstate Glass Steagall and repeal both CFMA 2000 and Gramm Leach Bliley 1999. The governments role in all this is the fact they are owned by a small few companies in a the major industries and they legislation passed/ signed into law benefit big business while putting the risk on the people. It's called privatizing the profits and socializing the loses. Here is a good quote

"Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out"
Ralph Nader

[Gregory]

Sorry, Ben, but Ralph Nader is unsafe at any creed.

Free markets are self correcting, to really screw them up takes people who think they are smarter than everyone else, with power. Like Congress.

[Ben Emery]

Greg,
Wrong again. I will save my time and energy because we have very different views on this subject. I am glad someone is happy with the banks.

[Gregory]

Ben, I'm not "happy with the banks", just cognisant that your diagnoses miss the point and your prescriptions remain ill advised.

[Michael Anderson]

Wow, the Ben and Greg show. Pretty fun.

Trying to catch up, I've been away in a vortex of capitalistic self-opportunism. Please pardon my profit-taking.

[Michael Anderson]

Greg wrote: "Todd, I think the basic idea is that since you'd just be banging the rocks together were it not for civilisation as a whole, he, as the leader of your civilisation, has a claim on anything you make if he needs it."

Weird that you would think this was wrong. But your "banging the rocks together" phraseology is telling.

[Michael Anderson]

Greg wrote: "Ben, when you catch the butcher putting his thumb on the scales, is your impulse to reform food distribution to get rid of all the butchers?"

Straw man...

[Michael Anderson]

Russ wrote: "I disagree, there were other competing networks in the market place, it just turns our that TCP/IP protocol turned out to be more efficient. Apple had there own version Appletalk, and USENET was invented as a means for providing mail and file transfers using a communications standard known as UUCP."

Yes, I am aware of all that. But you are talking about Layers 2 - 5 and I am only talking about Layer 1 in the OSI model.

[Michael Anderson]

George wrote: "It was the commercial sector that goaded the government to release Internet for broad civilian use, else the damn bureaucrats would still be sitting on it as an email and ftp communication network for defense related work."

Exactly. But wasn't at least Layer 1 almost completely subsidized? And weren't many of the other layers also infiltrated by gov't subsidy to a lesser degree?

[Michael Anderson]

Greg wrote: "Absolutely not, Mike. It has nothing to do with political thought at all. It's the Robustness Principle of RFC 1122, and first published in Postel's RFC 793 in '81 but he may well have uttered it a little earlier. If you've not been in the protocol development and implementation world you might not ever really need to know it."

Yup, you are absolutely correct Greg. My bad. When I wrote that I was so immersed in the liberal vs. Classical Liberal arguments on this blog that my fingers did the thinking instead of my brain. My apology.

I do love the RFCs. Therein lies the truth, at least as far as the Internet is concerned.

[Ben Emery]

RR regulars,
It is obvious you have spent the last three years trying to find a way to blame the financial crisis/ depression on Obama and not what the actual crisis is about. Please learn about 20 plus year creation of the savings/ loans crisis late 80's, derivatives, housing bubble, low interest rates, Gramm Leach Bliley 1999 and CFMA 2000, credit default swaps, collateral debt obligations, and FDIC are connected in the financial petri dish called deregulated markets that caused the financial crisis of 2007/ 2008.

[Todd Juvinall]

BenE, I realize none of us here have anywhere near your intelligence so please forgive us.

[George Rebane]

BenE 626pm - you continue to mistake every latest post or comment for the five year history of RR commentaries and comments. Here the 2007 real estate meltdown has been traced in meticulous detail from the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to the present.

We talk now of Obama's role because he, through ignorance or plan, has done everything using public and economic policy to make the recession into a full blown depression. We all know that he came with a bucket of gasoline to a fire already burning, and promised to pour it on. And then he did pour it on with all the predictable effects of creating a conflagration that has no signs of ending. Next year, when he has "more flexibility", he promises to redouble his efforts with a 55 gal drum of gasoline.

That is the only reason why in fearful tones we talk a lot about Obama on RR. He's the man who has promised to take us down, and has demonstrated his ability to do it - capice?

[billy T]

Borrowed this piece: What I said," our Prez now claims, is that "together we build roads and we build bridges." Of course, if that were true, none of this would have made news in the first place. NEWS FLASH: Roads and bridges are built by government, not entrepreneurs. Government cannot create wealth. Government revenue comes from Americans’ toil and sweat, and recently, big IOUs to foreign countries with awful human rights violations and global ambitions. Taxpayers pay Obama’s $400,000 annual salary. Roads, the Internet, and everything that Obama says “somebody else made” were financed by American taxpayers, including businesses from sole proprietors mowing lawns to employees of medium-sized businesses to those on the Fortune 500 list. Sure, government adds value. Maintaining law and order, providing a military and securing “the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity,” to name a few. The Prez said a lot more in his Roanoke infamous speech. "Maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in a while” Obama proposes, “nothing fancy, but just time to spend with those you love.” If you vote for him, he will be sure you can take a vacation once in a while. Not jet-setting to exotic locales at taxpayer expense, but “maybe see the country a little bit, maybe come down to Roanoke.”
Obama has the idea of government completely wrong. “The basic bargain” that Obama claims as having “built this country” was no bargain.
Obama is right in one respect though, “What's at stake is a decision between two fundamentally different views about where we take the country right now.” No longer the post-racial healer, the unifier, the advocate of the underdog. Obama’s Roanoke remarks reveal that he is a card-carrying member of the jet-setting liberal class that wants to bargain with the American people to win their votes.

Gayle Trotter is General Counsel of the Independent Women's Forum.

[Russ Steele]

Greg @ 11:37

According to the TCP/IP guide the physical layers really does not apply specifically to the TCP/IP, but has the functions listed below.

Note: The physical layer is also “special” in that it is the only layer that really does not apply specifically to TCP/IP. Even in studying TCP/IP, however, it is still important to understand its significance and role in relation to the other layers where TCP/IP protocols reside.

Physical Layer Functions

The following are the main responsibilities of the physical layer in the OSI Reference Model:

• Definition of Hardware Specifications: The details of operation of cables, connectors, wireless radio transceivers, network interface cards and other hardware devices are generally a function of the physical layer (although also partially the data link layer; see below). 


• Encoding and Signaling: The physical layer is responsible for various encoding and signaling functions that transform the data from bits that reside within a computer or other device into signals that can be sent over the network.


• Data Transmission and Reception: After encoding the data appropriately, the physical layer actually transmits the data, and of course, receives it. Note that this applies equally to wired and wireless networks, even if there is no tangible cable in a wireless network! 


• Topology and Physical Network Design: The physical layer is also considered the domain of many hardware-related network design issues, such as LAN and WAN topology.

I am not an network engineer, so could you explain which of these function would not have come into being with out government subsides? We all agree, that DARPA Net was a great achievement, but that does not mean it was the only organizations, including Bell Labs, IBM others were not working on developing these layers as part of their R&D independent of DARPA? It was the IEEE that defined these standards through committee groups.

Not a member of a committee, it was my understanding that companies funded committee participants, not government agencies. If my impression are wrong, please set me on the correct path to understanding.

[Gregory]

"Greg wrote: "Ben, when you catch the butcher putting his thumb on the scales, is your impulse to reform food distribution to get rid of all the butchers?"

Straw man." MA 11:20

Hardly. Ben, in response to the LIBOR fiddling, wrote "I think the banking industry might be one of the most nefarious industries on the planet."

What does MA think a rational person would want done to one of the "most nefarious industries on the planet"?

[George Rebane]

RussS 747pm - and as I have recounted on these pages, it was the IEEE that was also in the process of defining the standards for broadband interactive TV in the early 1990s. There were several technology companies and cable services involved already in the late 1980s in creating the dominant standard which would have been either the one promoted by Sony and Microsoft, or by Philips and Sun Microsystems. One way or another, the web would have arrived without government involvement.

[Gregory]

Russ, "Greg" made no post at 11:37, that was Michael Anderson. No, he doesn't seem to have it straight but I can't write every wrong ;)

Personally, I first wore a button declaring "OSI- Ask Me Why!" that my employer thought would help sell our stuff, circa 1984. My arpanet address was good@acc (long gone, no stinking .com, .gov, .mil or .org), and I'm also old enough to remember bang paths.

[Russ Steele]

My apology Gregory. The post was in response to Michael.

[TomKenworth]

Well bake me a seven layer cake, but you all must have missed out on the joys of trying to make IBM's Cluster Networking system for the PC Juniors go*. We had two different vendors, one for the IBM software, and one for the IBM hardware, thanks to our purchasing agent's shrewd bargaining skills. Net result was basically no net, and no support. Each vendor blamed the inoperability on the others product, and refused to help. I finally figured out that if we crammed 256K into a machine it would just barely talk to another 256K equipped machine. The joys of being a computer science teacher in a public school in 1985. At least this was better than the mini computer for drill and practice, in use at the next school. Never less than 10 seconds between responses, often up to two minutes. Now Novell 3.11 and 4.11, those worked, and provided excellent control over student access and storage.

* In my opinion, the likely source for the now common clusterfu*k term. Anybody else fluent with a Mag II IBM, or the 026 key punch machines.

[THEMIKEYMCD]

Facts for the 99%ers out there (if there are any left):

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611

"the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent...the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession."

[TomKenworth]

"The incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than middle class, at the start of the recession." Well I'll take a rough guess that money went out of the country pronto when the storm flags were hoisted, so of course the apparent incomes dropped. Where does Romney have his cash?

[Todd Juvinall]

In response to the "rich" the left has created "carbon credits" as the new worldwide currency. If it becomes the standard of exchange the "rich" will be unaffected and the "middle class" and the poor will be hosed. I bet the eco nuts living in the caves think they are immune from the gubmint coming into their cave and making them buy insulation. LOL!

[George Rebane]

TomKenworth 1003pm - Investments of Americans do go out of the country when the government makes investments here iffy (e.g. the bond holders of GM got stiffed by Obama to buy union votes), but their income is still reported by those Americans and they have to pay (sometimes double) taxes on them.

[Michael Anderson]

GG wrote 7/21/12 @ 7:53 pm: "What does MA think a rational person would want done to one of the 'most nefarious industries on the planet?'"

Ummm...regulate it?

Your claim was that Ben wants to get rid of banks. That was the straw man you created.

[Gregory]

"Ummm...regulate it?" 24 July 2012 at 10:07 AM

Maybe we have different dictionaries...

Nefarious- (of an action or activity) Wicked or criminal: "the nefarious activities of the organized-crime syndicates".

Synonyms:
wicked - villainous - vile - infamous - mean - evil

Origin of NEFARIOUS
Latin nefarius, from nefas crime, from ne- not + fas right, divine law; perhaps akin to Greek themis law, tithenai to place

So, Michael Anderson, do we regulate criminal acts, or do we try to stop them and put them in jail?

[TomKenworth]

" Investments of Americans do go out of the country when the government makes investments here iffy (e.g. the bond holders of GM got stiffed by Obama to buy union votes), but their income is still reported by those Americans and they have to pay (sometimes double) taxes on them."

If that were really the case, on all types of income, then why would anyone have concerns about Romney and the Swiss and Cayman accounts? Wouldn't that make them laughingstocks? Hardly anything for a sitting President to use in his ads, yet there are many running as I type.

[George Rebane]

TomKenworth 343pm - they would be laughing stocks if they were not the lies of the President of the United States. Is it not curious that you consider politically motivated "concerns" (supported by not one shred of evidence) to be proof of wrong doing? Perhaps it's not curious at all, but only what we may expect from people with your beliefs.

In any case, since you are convinced by Obama's ads of Romney's wrongdoing, tell us what MINIMUM outrage will come out of revelations of Romney's overseas accounts.

[TomKenworth]

George, it is not outrage, it is simply identifying very clearly that between a minor millionaire, Obama, and nearly a 1/4 billionaire, Romney, that the latter is just totally out of touch with the common man in America. Remember Bush the First and the price of a gallon of milk? 99% of America will remember Romney and the price of health care. Good luck, not to mention the gun issue. One more attack like that before the election, and Romney's sidestepping of the question about he feels about assault rifles now on NBC this evening, and he is burnt toast. Even simple and straightforward solutions like turning in the spent shell casings from your first two boxes of ammo to buy a third, and and so on, to prevent rapid stockpiling, are being naysayed as usual, and some of us are beginning to feel that it is high time the NRA start paying for the medical expenses of the victims. Would you like to help a new father who lies in a coma? Sent your spare Cayman change to:

Caleb Medley Benefit Fund
Canon National Bank
401 E. Main Street Unit A
Florence, CO 81226
(719) 784-5393

[Michael Anderson]

Greg asked: "So, Michael Anderson, do we regulate criminal acts, or do we try to stop them and put them in jail?"

That's a subjective question, and of course the answer is that we allow the rule of law to decide which venue each act indicates.

Are you asking your rhetorical question so we can engage in a reasonable dialogue, or are you just cloaking the brier patch so we can have another tar baby experience?

[Ben Emery]

Greg,

Law-
* The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the...

* An individual rule as part of such a system.

Regulate-
* Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

[TomKenworth]

BTW, another cool thing to do is to send money to this address,

Caleb Medley Benefit Fund
Canon National Bank
401 E. Main Street Unit A
Florence, CO 81226
(719) 784-5393

and send a copy of the check, account numbers blocked out, to BOTH Presidential candidates, explaining that since they had not taken a strong stance for a national review of the lack of adequate gun control legislation, money which you had earmarked for them is going directly to the victims.

[Gregory]

"One more attack like that before the election, and Romney's sidestepping of the question about he feels about assault rifles now on NBC this evening, and he is burnt toast." Keachie's sock, 10:18PM

Yes, let no tragedy go to waste. Dip your hands in the blood for political gain.

First, "assault rifle" is a real term; it's a light, magazine fed machine gun. The Colorado shooter didn't have one of those, which have been heavily regulated by Congress since the 1930's, and not a single "assault rifle" (think AK47 or M16) has ever been sold to a civilian in California. If you have enough cash to buy one of the existing permits, and live in a state like Nevada that allows civilian ownership of machine guns, you too can apply for the federal permit, endure the clearance process (an FBI investigation similar to what a Secret security clearance requires), and then buy a used automatic weapon. Or you can just go into a tourist firing range in Reno or Vegas and rent one for 30 minutes.

"Assault weapon" is a fiction created to confuse the issue. Feinstein complained that the Federal ban allowed manufacturers to make cosmetic changes to the guns and keep selling them, missing the point that the ban was based on cosmetic features to begin with: it still comes down to one pull of the trigger causing one cartridge to fire. Release trigger. It doesn't fire six bullets any faster than a revolver does.

In California, the ban continues with no discernible impact on crime rates.

Exit question: name the state university which, in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, was debating whether an incoming freshmen or transfers should be allowed to demand their room mate not have a concealed carry permit and keep a gun in their shared room, and how many shootings have taken place on campus to date?

[Gregory]

I see Ben and Mike are flogging dead horses again.

Sorry, Ben, but if you are not talking about criminal behavior, "nefarious" is not the word you're looking for. Criminal behavior is not something that is "regulated".

[Ben Emery]

Greg,
Is a crime only criminal if someone is caught and prosecuted? Or is the actual behavior the crime? Example: If someone steals a car but doesn't get caught, did they commit a crime? For the person whose car was stolen a crime was most definitely committed. I used the word that was desired and use it correctly. Thanks for the lesson teach.

[Gregory]

"Is a crime only criminal if someone is caught and prosecuted? "

Only in Chicago.

[Douglas Keachie]

Twitter is down. Make purchase of firearms or ammo cash or check only transactions, avoids stockpiling by those who don't plan on being around to pay for it all,

Require turning in of spent shell casings to get a like amount, plus 50% more. Initial purchase may be only up to two boxes otherwise.

BTW, another cool thing to do is to send money to this address,

Caleb Medley Benefit Fund
Canon National Bank
401 E. Main Street Unit A
Florence, CO 81226
(719) 784-5393

and send a copy of the check, account numbers blocked out, to BOTH Presidential candidates, explaining that since they had not taken a strong stance for a national review of the lack of adequate and effective gun control legislation and mental health, money which you had earmarked for them is going directly to the victims of the Aurora Massacre.

If it kills 12 people and wounds 70 plus even after it has jammed, and a shotgun has to be used as backup, then BOTH can be considered "assault rifles (even with the non rifled bore). Technical term quibbles have no place in the hospitals of Denver and around the emergency rooms of the USA today.

[Gregory]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

-from Alice in Wonderland

Assault rifle is a real thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Assault weapon is a legal fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

By the Humpty-Dumpty language standard, there are perhaps 250,000,000 assault rifles in the US already, and a 2nd Amendment that has been held to confer an individual right... How about we just make mass murder illegal?

A follow up hint to the extra credit question: the state that allows students to carry concealed weapons on campus has had a shooting massacre, in a shopping mall that was a "gun free zone" similar to the Colorado theater, so law abiding CCW permitees had dutifully left their weapons behind.

Does that mean CCW holders deter crime? Not really, but it does demonstrate laws that infringe on the rights of the law abiding to own and carry guns do not make us safer.

[Douglas Keachie]

How about we figure out ways to solve the problem of stockpiling, and sneaking in through emergency exits and stop squabling about what to call what might good forbid kill your son or my daughters! Nothing I've suggested even calls for a ban on the dumb things. Are you so obsessed with your silly oneupsmanship games that you can't see the forest for the trees?

Other item, instant on, full house lighting (mixed blessing, might be a Godsend in an earthquake), possibly armored spots to blind the baddy.

[Paul Emery]

It is apparent that psycho terrorists pose a greater threat to our safety than Islamic Jihads. Since every gun is sacred with this crowd what other means should be pursued to ease the threat of nut cases with automatic rifles?