Monthly Archives: July 2011

Jenna Fischer reveals it is a boy on Leno Tonight Show

I feel like I know Jenna. Actually I have known her uncle Jim for years. He used to live in Memphis and we actually knew it other because we attended the same hardware conventions every year. My booth  has been near his booth for about a dozen shows in a row. Many times we have been talking and I have heard lots of stories through the years that his sister tells him about Jenna.

It was no surprise to me that she waited to reveal the sex of her child on the Leno Tonight Show. She has always liked Leno a lot.

Jenna Fischer, the American actress best known for her role as Pam Halpert on NBC’s hit comedy series “The Office,” has revealed she is pregnant with a baby boy.

Fischer, 37, let the news slip during her appearance last night (July 19) on ‘The Tonight Show’ with Jay Leno.

When TV host Leno asked the star if her parents were excited about their first grandchild, she corrected Jay by saying, “This is the second grandchild, but first grandson.”

When Leno jumped at the unexpected news, Fischer quickly added:

“This is the exclusive, Jay. When I went to my movie premiere the other day a reporter asked me if I knew what I was having, and I said I do, but I’m not sharing that yet because I’m [going to] have Jay be the first to know.”

Fischer, who first announced the pregnancy in May, also revealed the baby is due in the fall, saying, “September we’re in what they call the home stretch”

In addition to preparing for the new budnle of joy, Jenna is currently promoting her new movie ‘A Little Help’ which hits theaters July 22

Wilson Hatcher at LA Galaxy v. Real Madrid game

Wilson thought that Christiano Ronaldo was unbelievable. Sherwood commented, “I hope Ronaldo will continue to excel at the high level to honor his name sake Ronald Reagan.”

I loved watching Christiano Ronaldo play in the game (I was at home watching it on tv) and he appeared to be a man among boys.

Wilson went to the LA Galaxy v. Real Madrid game with our friend Sherwood Haisty Jr. (Sherwood is in the middle and Wilson is the 14 yr old)

Tax for confederate veterans still being collected

A Confederate flag graces a soldiers grave stone in Cemetary One at the Confederate Memorial Park in Mountain Creek, Ala., Tuesday, July 19, 2011. More than 60,000 Confederate veterans came home to Alabama after the Civil War, and residents are still paying a tax that supported them 150 years after the fighting began. The tax now pays for the park, which is located on the same 102-acre tract where elderly veterans used to stroll. The tax once brought in millions for Confederate pensions, but lawmakers sliced up the levy and sent money elsewhere as the men and their wives died. No one has seriously challenged the continued use of the money for a memorial to the “Lost Cause,” although a long-serving black legislator wants to eliminate state funding for the park. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)next

Like many other southerners, my two grandfathers told me about their grandfathers who fought in the Civil war. My great, great grandfather from Mississippi actually was released after the war in Union City, Kentucky near the Tennessee state line. There he had to walk back to his home in Oxford, MS.

My other great, great grandfather lied about his age in order to get into the army and when they found out that he was 16 they released him and he went back to Thompson Station Tennessee. I actually have a letter about him from the Army concerning this.

Lastly my wife’s great, great grandfather was near the Chattanooga, Tennessee area and we have  a letter concerning when he was released from duty from the state of North Carolina.

MOUNTAIN CREEK, Ala. (AP) — The last of the more than 60,000 Confederate veterans who came home to Alabama after the Civil War died generations ago, yet residents are still paying a tax that supported the neediest among them.

Despite fire-and-brimstone opposition to taxes among many in a state that still has “Heart of Dixie” on its license plates, officials never stopped collecting a property tax that once funded the Alabama Confederate Soldiers’ Home, which closed 72 years ago. The tax now pays for Confederate Memorial Park, which sits on the same 102-acre tract where elderly veterans used to stroll.

The tax once brought in millions for Confederate pensions, but lawmakers sliced up the levy and sent money elsewhere as the men and their wives died. No one has seriously challenged the continued use of the money for a memorial to the “Lost Cause,” in part because few realize it exists; one long-serving black legislator who thought the tax had been done away with said he wants to eliminate state funding for the park.

These days, 150 years after the Civil War started, officials say the old tax typically brings in more than $400,000 annually for the park, where Confederate flags flapped on a recent steamy afternoon. That’s not much compared to Alabama’s total operating budget of $1.8 billion, but it’s sufficient to give the park plenty of money to operate and even enough for investments, all at a time when other historic sites are struggling just to keep the grass cut for lack of state funding.

“It’s a beautifully maintained park. It’s one of the best because of the funding source,” said Clara Nobles of the Alabama Historical Commission, which oversees Confederate Memorial Park.

Longtime park director Bill Rambo is more succinct.

“Everyone is jealous of us,” he said.

Tax experts say they know of no other state that still collects a tax so directly connected to the Civil War, although some federal excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol first were enacted during the war to help fund the Union.

“Broadly speaking, almost all taxes have their start in a war of some sort,” said Joseph J. Thorndike, director of a tax history project at Tax Analysts, a nonprofit organization that studies taxation.

Alabama’s tax structure was enshrined in its 1901 Constitution, passed after Reconstruction at a time when historians say state legislators’ main goal was to keep power in the hands of wealthy white landowners by disenfranchising blacks and poor whites.

The Constitution allowed a state property tax of up to 6.5 mills, which now amounts to $39 annually on a home worth $100,000. Of that tax, 3 mills went to schools; 2.5 mills went to the operating budget; and 1 mill went to pensions for Confederate veterans and widows.

The state used the pension tax to fund the veterans home once it assumed control of the operation in 1903. The last Confederate veteran living at the home died in 1934, and its hospital was converted into apartments for widows. It closed in 1939, and the five women who lived there were moved to Montgomery.

Legislators whittled away at the Confederate tax through the decades, and millions of dollars that once went to the home and pensions now go to fund veteran services, the state welfare agency and other needs. But the park still gets 1 percent of one mill, and its budget for this year came to $542,469, which includes money carried over from previous years plus certificates of deposit.

All that money has created a manicured, modern park that’s the envy of other Alabama historic sites, which are funded primarily by grants, donations and friends groups. Legislators created the park in 1964 during a period that marked both the 100th anniversary of the Civil War and the height of the civil rights movement in the Deep South.

Nothing is left of the veterans home but a few foundations and two cemeteries with 313 graves, but a museum with Civil War artifacts and modern displays opened at the park in 2007. Rebel flags fly all around the historic site, which Rambo said draws more than 10,000 visitors annually despite being hidden in the country nine miles and three turns off Interstate 65 in the central part of the state.

While the park flourishes quietly, other historic attractions around the state are fighting for survival.

Workers at Helen Keller’s privately run home in northwest Alabama fear losing letters written by the famed activist because of a lack of state funding for preservation of artifacts. On the Gulf Coast at Dauphin Island, preservationists say the state-owned Fort Gaines is in danger of being undermined by waves after nearly 160 years standing guard at the entry to Mobile Bay.

The old Confederate pension tax that funds the park has never been seriously threatened, Rambo said. Backers were upset this year when Gov. Robert Bentley’s budget plan eliminated state funding for historic sites because of tight revenues, he said, but the park’s earmarked funding survived.

“Once I informed the public what was going on the support just rose up,” said Rambo, the director since 1989. Two heritage groups, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy, led the charge, but ordinary citizens complained too, he said.

“Some were people who don’t belong to those organizations who really like the park and come out here for picnics and all and were really upset,” he said.

State Rep. Alvin Holmes, a black Democrat who’s been in the Legislature since 1974, said he thought funding for the park had been slashed.

“We should not be spending one nickel for that,” said Holmes, of Montgomery. “I’m going to try to get rid of it.”

Holmes may have a hard time gaining support with Republicans in control of Legislature and the governor’s office.

In the meantime, a contractor recently measured the museum for a new paint job, and plans calls for using invested money to construct replicas of some of the 22 buildings that stood on the site when it was home to hundreds of Confederate veterans and their wives.

 

Related posts: 

May 16-18, 1911 Confederate Veterans Reunion in Little Rock Pictures and story (Part 7)

Confederate soldier Julius Howell Interview What The south Fought For Confederate soldier Julius Howell talking about his capture and imprisonment at the Union prison camp at Point Lookout, Md. Howell was born in 1846 near the Holy Neck section of Suffolk, in the Holland area. He was the youngest of 16 children, the son of […]

May 16-18, 1911 Confederate Veterans Reunion in Little Rock Pictures and story (Part 6)

The American Civil War Part 1 The Union I really enjoyed the article “REBEL GRAY’S GOLDEN DAYS: In 1911, LR filled to the brim with Confederate veterans,” by Jake Sandlin that ran in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 15, 2011. It took 81 years before more people to gather in Little Rock for another event (Bill […]

May 16-18, 1911 Confederate Veterans Reunion in Little Rock Pictures and story (Part 5)

Ken Burns discusses his Emmy winning series The Civil War – EMMYTVLEGENDS.ORG I really enjoyed the article “REBEL GRAY’S GOLDEN DAYS: In 1911, LR filled to the brim with Confederate veterans,” by Jake Sandlin that ran in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 15, 2011. It took 81 years before more people to gather in Little Rock […]

May 16-18, 1911 Confederate Veterans Reunion in Little Rock Pictures and story (Part 4)

Best of Shelby Foote I really enjoyed the article “REBEL GRAY’S GOLDEN DAYS: In 1911, LR filled to the brim with Confederate veterans,” by Jake Sandlin that ran in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 15, 2011. It took 81 years before more people to gather in Little Rock for another event (Bill Clinton’s election to president)  I […]

May 16-18, 1911 Confederate Veterans Reunion in Little Rock Pictures and story (Part 3)

Civil war veteran soldier footage, captured between 1913 and 1938 Civil war veteran soldier footage, captured between 1913 and 1938. Our other greatest generation. God bless both sides of this war who both tested and saved our union. _____________________________________________ I really enjoyed the article “REBEL GRAY’S GOLDEN DAYS: In 1911, LR filled to the brim […]

May 16-18, 1911 Confederate Veterans Reunion in Little Rock Pictures and story (Part 2)

This is colour video of Albert Woolson, the last Union veteran of the US Civil War; he is also the last absolutely confirmed veteran of that conflict from either side. This footage, as far as I know, is the very last footage taken of a US Civil War veteran at all. I believe at least […]

May 16-18, 1911 Confederate Veterans Reunion in Little Rock Pictures and story (Part 1)

A montage of archival footage from the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. I really enjoyed the article “REBEL GRAY’S GOLDEN DAYS: In 1911, LR filled to the brim with Confederate veterans,” by Jake Sandlin that ran in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 15, 2011. It took 81 years before more people to gather in […]

Does Gene Simmons need advice? (Part 2)

Last night I watched Gene Simmons Family Jewels and I was struck by the good advice that his son Nick gave him. He told him that he grew up thinking that his father was the best. However, now that the marital infidility has come out, it has made Nick think long and hard about what other things in his father’s life are not like he thought they were. “Maintaining Marital Fidelity:Nobody wakes up one day and suddenly decides to begin an extramarital affair. Likewise, marital fidelity begins long before marriage” is an excellent article by  David Sanford that I have posted below:

Nobody wakes up one day and suddenly decides to begin an extramarital affair. Infidelity begins in the heart and mind. By the time a person physically commits adultery, he or she has been indulging for quite some time in progressively more intense mental and emotional affairs.

Likewise, marital fidelity begins long before marriage. It begins as a promise we make to ourselves — to be a person of faithful character — before marriage ever enters the picture. It is a promise we make to our future spouse when we get engaged, and it is a vow we make to our spouse when we get married. Marital fidelity is a daily commitment to seek the best for your spouse and family.

Strengthening Marital Fidelity

Marital fidelity is strengthened when you affirm your spouse, listen to your spouse, and seek to meet his or her needs. It’s also strengthened when you set healthy boundaries for your media consumption and for your relationships outside of the home.

Weakening Marital Fidelity

Marital fidelity is weakened when you devalue your spouse, minimize the time you have with your spouse, and focus on meeting your own needs. It’s also weakened when you fantasize about someone other than your spouse (and God) meeting your deepest needs and desires.

  • Pornography is one of the worst affairs of the mind. It can destroy years of marital fidelity within hours.
  • Left unchecked, workplace friendships between men and women can easily evolve into emotional affairs.

The Rewards of Marital Fidelity

Marital fidelity produces lifelong rewards. In contrast, infidelity can cause years of untold anguish.

“Silently and imperceptibly, as we work or sleep, we grow strong or we grow weak; and at last some crisis shows us what we have become” (B. F. Westcott). This is true in every area of life, including marital fidelity. 

Copyright © 2004, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

Mark Pryor and the liberal gang of six plan

Today I read in the article, “Pryor backing bipartisan debt reduction plan,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 20,2011 the following words:

Sen. Mark Pryor said today he supports a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan unveiled Tuesday by six Republican and Democrats as a “carefully crafted balanced” way to avert a looming financial crisis.

The Arkansas Democrat was one of about 46 senators who were briefed by the so-called “Gang of Six” on the proposal that has been negotiated on and off for nearly 10 months. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., also attended.

“Really, the Gang of Six is over and I am hoping that this will become a Gang of 60,” said Pryor, referring to the number of senators likely needed for the proposal to become law.

The plan would require Congress to make tough choices on spending priorities that would call on everyone to sacrifice, he said. About three-quarters of the reductions would come from spending, and the rest would be made up by closing “loopholes” and “giveaways” in the tax code, Pryor said.

Sara Lasure, a spokeswoman for Boozman, said the senator is still reviewing the plan. For now, he considers it a “good step” that could put Congress on the path to fiscal responsibility.

Pryor plans to sign a letter to congressional leaders urging them to adopt the “Gang of Six” proposal, he said.

I am not too happy about the gang of six getting so much power. It appears they will be determined to tax us to death. It is all smoke and mirrors. The taxes go up now and the budget cuts ARE ALL FICTION!!!! BIG SPENDERS LIKE MARK PRYOR NEVER LEARN!!!

Concerning the “cut, cap and balance plan” Senator Pryor noted, “We need to come together and work on this together and stop pushing things that sound good on bumper stickers but are basically never going to go anywhere.”  SINCE THE REPUBLICANS WHO NOW ARE IN THE MAJORITY IN THE ARKANSAS DELEGATION VOTED FOR IT, THAT DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR PRYOR’S RE-ELECTION PROSPECTS!!!

Below is an article that exposes what this plan from the gang of six is really all about.

The Gang of Six Is Back from the Dead: Contemplating the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in Their Budget Plan Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

The on-again, off-again “Gang of Six” has come back on the scene and is offering a “Bipartisan Plan to Reduce Our Nation’s Deficits.”

The proposal is quite similar to the one put forth by the President’s Simpson-Bowles Commission, which isn’t too surprising since some of the same people are involved.

At this stage, all I’ve seen is this summary (A BIPARTISAN PLAN TO REDUCE OUR NATIONS DEFICITS v7), so I reserve the right to modify my analysis as more details emerge (and since I fully expect the plan to look worse when additional information is available, the following is an optimistic assessment.

The Good

  • Unlike President Obama, the Gang of Six is not consumed by class-warfare resentment. The plan envisions that the top personal income tax rate will fall to no higher than 29 percent.
  • The corporate income tax rate will fall to no higher than 29 percent as well, something that is long overdue since the average corporate tax rate in Europe is now down to 23 percent.
  • The alternative minimum tax (which should be called the mandatory maximum tax) will be repealed.
  • The plan would repeal the CLASS Act, a provision of Obamacare for long-term-care insurance that will significantly expand the burden of federal spending once implemented.
  • The plan targets some inefficient and distorting tax preference such as the health care exclusion.

The Bad

  • The much-heralded spending caps do not apply to entitlement programs. This is like going to the doctor because you have cancer and getting treated for a sprained wrist.
  • A net tax increase of more than $1 trillion (I expect that number to be much higher when further details are divulged).
  • The plan targets some provisions of the tax code – such as IRAs and 401(k)s) – that are not preferences, but instead exist to mitigate against the double taxation of saving and investment.
  • There is no Medicare reform, just tinkering and adjustments to the current system.
  • There in no Medicaid reform, just tinkering and adjustments to the current system.

The Ugly

  • The entire package is based on dishonest Washington budget math. Spending increases under the plan, but the politicians claim to be cutting spending because the budget didn’t grow even faster.
  • Speaking of spending, why is there no information, anywhere in the summary document, showing how big government will be five years from now? Ten years from now? The perhaps-all-too-convenient absence of this critical information should set off alarm bells.
  • There’s a back-door scheme to change the consumer price index in such a way as to reduce expenditures (i.e., smaller cost-of-living-adjustments) and increase tax revenue (i.e., smaller adjustments in tax brackets and personal exemptions). The current CPI may be flawed, but it would be far better to give the Bureau of Labor Statistics further authority, if necessary, to make changes. A politically imposed change seems like nothing more than a ruse to impose a hidden tax hike.
  • A requirement that the internal revenue code maintain the existing bias against investors, entrepreneurs, small business owners, and other upper-income taxpayers. This “progressivity” mandate implies very bad things for the double taxation of dividends and capital gains.

This quick analysis leaves many questions unanswered. I particularly look forward to getting information on the following:

  1. How fast will discretionary spending rise or fall under the caps? Will this be like the caps following the 1990 tax-hike deal, which were akin to 60-mph speed limits in a school zone? Or will the caps actually reduce spending, erasing the massive increase in discretionary spending of the Bush-Obama years?
  2. What does it mean to promise Social Security reform “if and only if the comprehensive deficit reduction bill has already received 60 votes.” Who defines reform? And why does the reform have to focus on “75-year” solvency, apparently to the exclusion of giving younger workers access to a better and more stable system?
  3. Will federal spending under the plan shrink back down to the historical average of 20 percent of GDP? And why aren’t those numbers in the summary? The document contains information of deficits and debt, but those figures are just the symptoms of excessive spending. Why aren’t we being shown the data that really matters?

Over the next few days, we’ll find out what’s really in this package, but my advice is to keep a tight hold on your wallet.

_______________________

The gang of six is engaged is providing real budget cuts? NO WAY!!! HOWEVER, PRYOR AND MANY OTHERS ARE OUT TRYING TO PULL THE WOOL OVER PEOPLE’S EYES CONCERNING THESE PHONEY CUTS.

Take a look at the conclusion of John Brummett:

So what’s in this great new plan from the Gang of Six? Only about $4 trillion in real deficit reduction achieved by deep defense cuts, commission-delegated reductions in spending for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, plugging of assorted tax code loopholes and — get this — an elimination of the alternative minimum tax and an over-all actual reduction in personal income taxes attainable, presumably, by the credibility and depth of the spending cuts.

Take a look at this video clip below and see if Brummett has it right or not.

Review of Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”

“I’m 12 years old. I run into a Synagogue. I ask the Rabbi the meaning of life. He tells me the meaning of life… But, he tells it to me in Hebrew. I don’t understand Hebrew. Then he wants to charge me six hundred dollars for Hebrew lessons.”

Midnight in Paris is Bill & Ted for Liberal Arts Majors

WHY DIDN’T ANYONE TELL ME DRUNK HEMINGWAY WAS IN THIS MOVIE?!

A Night at the Jewseum: Woody Allen Molests His History Book

I walked out of Midnight in Paris with a smile on my face, and frankly, I’m shocked.  The last time I walked out of a Woody Allen film, it was on an airplane.  Not really, but that’s exactly the kind of joke you expect to hear in a Woody Allen movie, a hacky, Borscht belt knee-slapper interspersed amongst the polysyllabic bloviating and romanticized notions of intellectual cocktail chatter. The “turgid discussions about categorical imperativeses,” and whatnot.  More so than just about everything, comedy has a way of passing you by if you don’t evolve. A style tends to die as soon as people recognize its structure, and I thought the Woody Allen rom-com was dead. D-E-A-D, dead like the Farrelly Brothers.  I figured the critics writing glowing reviews were just nostalgia junkies. At best, I expected inoffensive chuckle fare, conversation fodder for my mom and men with ponytails, something to help them relive the glory days while boogeying to moderately-volumed Steely Dan. Instead, I actually laughed. Hell, I thoroughly  enjoyed myself.

It’s not that it’s not Woody, it’s very Woody. At it’s most basic, Midnight in Paris is about a man searching for a woman who can appreciate the beauty of rainfall in Paris. If that was all it was about, I would’ve never stopped vomiting.  Thankfully, there’s a middle section. Owen Wilson plays Gil, one of the Woodiest of Woody Allen surrogates, a chatty screenwriter who wears earth-tone suits and shirts with no tie, and talks philosophically while gesturing with his hands. Visiting Paris with his bitchy fiancee played by Rachel McAdams  Gil has dreams of one day ditching screenwriting and moving to Paris to write novels like his golden age idols. The story begins the way you’d expect a Woody Allen movie to begin.  With stagey, contrived dialog about psychology (“you’re living in the past!”) and politics (“Palin is a lunatic!”) that you could never imagine two people having in the real world unless they were pretending to be in a Woody Allen movie.  But quickly it leaps from Woody Allen-land into the realm of fantasy, becoming, like… this whole other thing.  This magnificent tall tale, this light-hearted Charlie Kaufman.

Through the magic of some thankfully-unexplained wormhole, Gil quickly goes from pining for the Paris of Hemingway’s time to actually being in the Paris of Hemingway’s time, every night, hanging out with Hemingway himself, and assorted flappers, bullfighters, and hellraisers.  Corey Stoll plays the Papa as a young man, before his famous buckshot taste test, in a role any actor would kill for, furiously spraying quotable line after quotable line, gems like, “Do you fear death? Only a coward fears death. The artist’s job is not to fear death, but create an antidote to it. You can never escape death, only momentarily forget it by loving a truly great woman.”  Something like that.  He also talks about killing lions and rhinos a lot, and it’s funny every time, because manly men used to do that.

Once Gil is immersed in the Parisien nightlife of the 1920s, partying with Dali (Adrian Brody) and Cole Porter, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Allen’s staginess suddenly seems charming again.  Gil gets notes on his writing from Gertrude Stein and falls in love with a mistress of Picasso (Marion Cotillard), he gives Buñuel ideas for films and talks paint with Matisse.  It’s cutesy as hell, yet it works, like Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure for liberal arts majors, A Night at the Jewseum, if you will. (NOTE: A film which might not play as well to a 5 Fast 5 Furious crowd).  And the best part is, there’s no explanation of the fantastic. No gypsy curse or magic telephone booth, you’re just there, in the realm of fantasy, because you want to be.   Talk about art as a cure for death.

Midnight in Paris is a lot like the best of Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine, Being John Malkovich) in that it subverts your expectations by constantly exploding into ever-more ridiculous flights of fancy.  There’s even an Inception-like, fantasy-within-a-fantasy sequence that had me leaning over to my girlfriend to whisper “braaaaahmmm…” in her ear.  Only, instead of meticulously resolving every wacky plot device like a Kaufman or Christopher Nolan, Woody Allen ties them up in a much Woody Allenier way, with nothing but a glib joke or a wry smile. Why does Gil go back in time?  Why does the chicken cross the road? Why does the fiyahman weah suspendahs? Ha ch-cha cha cha.

Actually, it’s probably unfair to compare Midnight in Paris to Charlie Kaufman, because it most reminds me of another, pre-Kaufman Woody Allen film, “Oedipus Wrecks,” a vignette from New York Stories. Woody Allen’s character constantly wishes his mother would just disappear, and one night, he takes her to a magic show where she actually disappears, to his great relief.  Only he soon finds out that she hasn’t disappeared at all, and instead has reappeared in the sky over the city, where she can harass him constantly and share his most embarrassing personal details with strangers.    Midnight in Paris is the kind of overtly fantastical high concept that’s actually a clever method of treating universal problems, and not just a hackneyed excuse to put Sandler in a funny costume.  Best of all, it’s really fun.  I miss movies like this.

_________________________________

Woody Allen deals with big issues in lots of his films like death, the meaning of life and why is there suffering.

Related posts:

 
 

(Part 32, Jean-Paul Sartre)July 10, 2011 – 5:53 am

 

 (Part 29, Pablo Picasso) July 7, 2011 – 4:33 am

(Part 28,Van Gogh) July 6, 2011 – 4:03 am

(Part 27, Man Ray) July 5, 2011 – 4:49 am

(Part 26,James Joyce) July 4, 2011 – 5:55 am

(Part 25, T.S.Elliot) July 3, 2011 – 4:46 am

(Part 24, Djuna Barnes) July 2, 2011 – 7:28 am

(Part 23,Adriana, fictional mistress of Picasso) July 1, 2011 – 12:28 am

(Part 22, Silvia Beach and the Shakespeare and Company Bookstore) June 30, 2011 – 12:58 am

(Part 21,Versailles and the French Revolution) June 29, 2011 – 5:34 am

(Part 16, Josephine Baker) June 24, 2011 – 5:18 am

(Part 15, Luis Bunuel) June 23, 2011 – 5:37 am

Ronald Wilson Reagan Part 99

https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c31901-3.jpg

President and Nancy Reagan with Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the Yellow Oval room. 11/9/85.

Ronald Reagan – The Presidential Years Part 1 of 4

Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation wrote an excellent article on Ronald Reagan and the events that transpired during the Reagan administration,  and I wanted to share it with you. Here is the 12th portion:

Reagan’s most dramatic defeat came in 1987 when he nominated Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.[xli] Bork’s confirmation became an ugly battle against liberal organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, and People for the American Way. One analyst put the cost of the anti-Bork media campaign at $15 million.[xlii]

Although the American Bar Association rated Bork “well qualified,” the ACLU called him “unfit.” Senator Edward Kennedy, who led the Senate fight against the conservative jurist, charged that Bork’s nomination would lead to an America where women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police would break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, school children would not be taught about evolution, writers and authors could be censored at the whim of government and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.[xliii]

Not since 1964 and LBJ’s Anti-Campaign against Barry Goldwater had a conservative been subjected to so fierce and unfair an attack. The Boston Globe’s Supreme Court correspondent wrote that Kennedy “shamelessly twisted Bork’s world view.”[xliv]

Bork’s nomination dominated the political agenda in the late summer and early fall of 1987. His five days of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee were nationally televised. Former President Gerald Ford personally introduced the nominee to the committee. Former President Jimmy Carter then sent a letter stating his opposition. One hundred and ten witnesses appeared for and against Bork during two weeks of hearings. Finally, the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee refused by a vote of 9-5 to recommend Bork’s nomination. The Senate then voted 58-42 against confirmation: six moderate Republicans broke party ranks and voted with fifty-two Democrats against Bork while two Democrats voted for Bork. Liberals loudly celebrated their victory, but soon after, Reagan nominated and won confirmation of a lower-keyed conservative, Anthony M. Kennedy.

Several factors combined to deny Robert Bork a seat on the Supreme Court: a strongly partisan Democratic Senate, a president weakened by the Iran-contra affair, a White House that did not launch its nomination campaign early enough, a liberal opposition that was better organized and financed than the conservative support, and a nominee who was often contentious and contradictory in his testimony. But ultimately Bork was rejected because of his view that the Constitution was “the Founders’ Constitution” bound by original intent and not a “living document” susceptible to the interpretation of current justices.[xlv] Today, however, Bork’s traditional view of the Constitution is increasingly articulated by a majority of the Supreme Court.

Although Bork’s defeat was a major setback for the Reagan administration, it could not negate Reagan’s significant legal legacy of a conservative federal judiciary from top to bottom. “Reagan’s success lies not simply in quantity but quality,” concluded conservative author Terry Eastland, who worked in the administration’s Justice department. Indeed, Reagan’s judges, according to biographer Lou Cannon, “ranked above [those of] Carter, Ford, Nixon and Johnson.”[xlvi]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 95)

 

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Here are a few more I just emailed to Senator Pryor myself:

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

 

  • The State Department will spend $450,000on art shows in Venice, Italy.
  • During a recent three-day conference, NASA spent $62,611on “light refreshments” for its 317 attendees—$66 per day per person. NASA officials said such expensive snacks were needed to keep its officials from wandering away from the conference.
  • NASA spent $500 millionconstructing a 355-foot steel tower to launch a rocket that is now unlikely to ever be built.
  • The Congressional Research Service has confirmed that the new health care law may subsidize Viagraand other sexual performance drugs for convicted rapists and sex offenders.
  • Federal agencies are delinquent on nearly 20 percent of employee travel charge cards, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollarsannually.
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 millionrearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.

Brummett: Congress abdicates political responsibility to make wise cuts, but we don’t need balanced budget amendment (Part 2)

John Brummett in his article “It may get personal in debt-limit end game,” Arkansas News Bureau, July 19, 2011 noted:

The White House is quietly encouraging the Reid-McConnell talks.

Meantime, there is talk of pandering to the tea party radicals in the unwieldy House by letting them pursue referral of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

Ratification would take years. If enacted, such an amendment would amount to the same abdication of political responsibility to make wise and responsible cuts in spending as has been evident in the debt-ceiling debate.

It is obvious to me that the Balanced Budget Amendment is needed because of the “abdication of political responsibility to make wise and responsible cuts in spending” that Brummett is talking about and we have all seen for decades.

The real debate in my view should be which variety of amendment should we pass. This is a series of posts I am doing on that subject. They come from Brian Darling’s excellent article, ” The House and Senate Balanced Budget Amendments: Not All Balanced Budget Amendments Are Created Equal,” Heritage Foundation, July 14, 2011. 

Abstract: Republicans in the House and Senate have announced that they will force votes on balanced budget constitutional amendments. While the Senate and House versions of the current BBA are similar, there are some important differences that Members of Congress and the American people need to understand. For example, the Senate version makes it more difficult to enact revenue-neutral tax reform, while the House version would waive its tax limitation in times of military conflict. How Congress resolves these differences could determine whether future Congresses and Presidents balance the budget without increasing taxes.

 

The House BBA

In the House of Representatives, conservatives are considering two competing versions of the BBA. On June 15, 2001, Representative Bob Goodlatte (R–VA) introduced House Joint Resolution 1 (H.J. Res. 1),[7] which the House Judiciary Committee subsequently approved. Representative Joe Walsh (R–IL) introduced House Joint Resolution 56 (H.J. Res. 56)[8] as a companion measure identical to the Hatch version (S.J. Res. 10) on April 6, 2011. The House is expected to move forward on H.J. Res. 1.

H.J. Res. 1, which the House Judiciary Committee approved by a 20–12 vote, reads as follows:

  • Section 1.Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
  • Section 2.Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of economic output of the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount.
  • Section 3.The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
  • Section 4.Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
  • Section 5.A bill to increase revenue shall not become law unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
  • Section 6.The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
  • Section 7.The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
  • Section 8.Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
  • Section 9. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.

The House is expected to debate H.J. Res. 1 during the week of July 18, 2011.

Brian Darling is Senior Fellow for Government Studies in the Department of Government Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Downsizing government being proposed?

We are told that the problem in Washington is too much government spending. However, is anyone suggesting cutting spending? The answer is no. The only thing being talked about is cutting the amounts of projected increase in spending. Take a look at video above.

Uploaded by  on Jul 6, 2011

$2 trillion appears to be the “sweet spot” for spending cuts in order to negotiate a debt limit increase. Rather than cut wasteful and unconstitutional spending, Congress and the President are prepared to trim around the edges to strike a deal.

Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg.