Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Re: “Cut, Cap & Balance” Goes to House Vote Today

Here we go again, The house will vote on "Cut,Cap& Balance". which the
people want, but the powers to be know that it is just a formality.
They know that they control the senate and executive branch of our
government. Unless we appeal the seventeenth amendment, we the people
will never have complete power over our electorate.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:34 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
>
> "Cut, Cap & Balance" Goes to House Vote Today
> "House Republicans are prepared for a Tuesday vote on their signature
> debt-reduction plan that calls for a balanced-budget constitutional
> amendment, despite Democratic opposition and a White House veto threat…. The
> House Republicans' 'cut, cap and balance' plan would raise the debt ceiling
> $2.4 trillion, but only after significant and immediate spending cuts and
> the adoption by Congress of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced
> federal budget." ( Washington Times)
>
> Can they write an amendment without loopholes?
>
> A Balanced Budget Amendment
> Hans F. Sennholz
> August 1987 • Volume: 37 • Issue: 8 •
>
> The federal government has but two ways to balance its budget: raise taxes
> or reduce expenditures. The former is easy; anyone can contrive new levies.
> But new taxes may bring forth the wrath of those who are to bear them, which
> may spell political defeat to the legislators who impose them. A reduction
> in expenditures may be equally dangerous. To slash popular entitlements and
> transfer benefits may amount to political suicide.
>
> There is a better way than raising taxes or lowering benefits, many
> politicians inform us. A Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced
> budget, they maintain, would restore fiscal discipline and mark a new
> chapter in American history.
>
> The movement calling for a balanced budget amendment came to life in the
> early 1970s when it became apparent that the federal government was facing
> seemingly endless deficits. The movement gave rise to a number of bills
> which received Congressional attention in 1982 and 1986. On August 4, 1982,
> a bill that would require a balanced budget unless three-fifths of the
> members of both houses approve a deficit was passed by the Senate by a vote
> of 69-31, two votes more than the required two-thirds. A few weeks later the
> House approved it by simple majority, but fell 46 votes short of the
> two-thirds majority needed to approve a Constitutional amendment. When the
> Senate voted again on March 25, 1986, the bill fell one vote short of
> passage.
>
> Congress was pressed into action by a call of 32 statesjust two short of
> the required two-thirdsfor a Constitutional convention to pass such a
> balanced budget amendment. Because no such convention has ever been convened
> since the Founding Fathers met to draft the Constitution, the thought of a
> convention strikes fear in the hearts of most Washington politicians. They
> are convinced that the convention would become a "runaway convention" that
> would set its own political, social, and economic agenda. To prevent such a
> divisive course of events, most members of Congress prefer to debate and
> adopt their own Constitutional amendment.
>
> The champions of a Constitutional amendment point out that the Constitution
> permits special interest groups to lobby aggressively for government
> programs enriching themselves at the expense of all others, but diffuses
> program costs over millions of taxpayers. They perceive this as a
> Constitutional defect that needs to be corrected.
>
> The opponents of the balanced budget amendment usually point at the economic
> problems of our time, such as poverty and hunger, unemployment, business and
> farm failures. According to AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland, the proposed
> amendment is designed to take public attention from these problems. It is a
> "hypocritical and cynical hoax."
>
> The advocates of the Constitutional amendment like to cite Thomas Jefferson
> who, just two years after the Constitution had been in effect, argued for a
> Constitutional amendment: "I wish it were possible to obtain a single
> amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone
> for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine
> principles of its Constitution; I mean an article, taking from the Federal
> government the power of borrowing." To the advocates of a Constitutional
> amendment, Jefferson's "single amendment" is the balanced budget amendment.
>
> It is difficult to argue with the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson. But he greatly
> overrated the ability of one generation to impart its wisdom to future
> generations, and for drafters of a constitution to guide and direct the
> destiny of their descendents.
>
> For well over a century the U.S. Constitution revealed no particular defect
> that granted special interest groups an organizational advantage. Federal
> budgets were made to balance over a number of years, although wars and
> preparations for war brought heavy debt. But after peace was restored, the
> debt was quickly retired.
>
>
> A Pyramid of Debt
>
> The cornerstone to the present pyramid of Federal debt was laid during the
> 1930s; it grew rapidly during World War II, increased by leaps and bounds
> during the 1940s and 1950s, accelerated during the 1960s and 1970s, and
> reached trillion dollar proportions in the 1980s. At the present rate of
> growth it can be expected to double every few years.
>
> To point out a Constitutional defect and suggest an amendment is to divert
> our attention from the true cause of the deficits: the great popularity of
> political spending. Politicians love to spend and the people love the
> spending programs. The diffusion of program costs does not explain the lack
> of opposition, nor does it reduce the costs and alleviate the heavy burden
> on producers. Most transfer schemes meet little opposition because the
> electorate approves of the arrangement and partakes of the transfers. The
> result is chronic deficit spending at ever higher levels.
>
> It is difficult to hold future generations to the strictures and limitations
> set by an earlier generation. Even if Thomas Jefferson's "single amendment"
> had been added to the Bill of Rights, it would be difficult to imagine
> Abraham Lincoln submitting to its discipline during the heat of the Civil
> War, or for the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations to abide by its
> limitation during two World Wars.
>
> Similarly, it is hard to imagine that the present generation could be barred
> from acting as it wants to. A Constitutional amendment standing in the way
> of greater spending would simply be ignored, repealed, or reinterpreted by a
> clever judge. Or, government expenditures would be hidden from the eyes of
> outside observers. No Constitutional amendment, no matter how comprehensive,
> could prevent the granting of benefits by government officials eager to
> bestow them on beneficiaries anxious to receive them.
>
> In purpose and design, a balanced budget amendment would resemble the
> eighteenth amendment, which established Prohibition. It did not change human
> nature; instead it led to abuses and evils far greater than the amendment
> was supposed to correct. It was abolished by the twenty-first amendment,
> thirteen years later.
>
> A Constitutional mandate to balance the budget could be interpreted to
> mandate higher taxes and more government intervention. Most politicians,
> including the amendment advocates, are likely to opt for boosting revenue
> rather than reducing expenditures. After all, they themselves launched the
> expenditures and created the entitlements; they would be rather reluctant to
> rescind them as long as they can raise revenues through new taxation.
>
> Most mainstream economists are reluctant to raise taxes as long as economic
> output is low and unemployment is high. In the footsteps of John Maynard
> Keynes, they prefer contra-cyclical government spending together with easy
> money and credit to stimulate economic activity. They are the original
> deficit spenders; they do not favor a Constitutional amendment to balance
> the budget.
>
> A few naive friends of the market order may support the amendment in the
> hope that it will block further growth of entitlement spending. But they
> would be sadly disappointed if the amendment merely opened the gates to
> substantially higher taxation, followed by painful stagnation or even
> depression. Yet, they continue to cling to the promises of politics when
> public attitudes and opinions disappoint them.
>
> Other influential economists calling themselves "supply-siders" are
> convinced that deficits do not matter. They keep their eyes on the rates of
> taxation, convinced that taxes stifle production, lower labor productivity,
> and cause unemployment. They would lower income taxes in order to stimulate
> and invigorate economic output. It is most unlikely that they would cast
> their votes for higher taxes when faced with the mandate to balance the
> budget.
>
> And yet, in politics we must brace for the unexpected. After all, Congress
> has done the unexpected in similar situations. In 1932, in the depth of the
> deepest depression in U.S. history, Congress doubled the income tax and
> substantially boosted other taxes; it virtually guaranteed continuation of
> the depression for years to come. Under the strictures of a balanced budget
> amendment Congress would find an excuse to boost taxes significantly no
> matter how they would depress the economy. And just as in the 1930s, the
> American economy would sink into a deep depression from which it would take
> many years to recover.
>
> The prospects for a Constitutional amendment in the foreseeable future are
> rather slim. The political opposition, which is both vocal and unrelenting,
> is blocking the way. It draws its strength from the armory of the welfare
> and transfer state, the very ideology that brings forth the deficits. In its
> judgment, the boon of benefits and entitlements exceeds by far the potential
> harm of debt and deficit spending. The amendment movement, which obviously
> does not share this appraisal, stands condemned for either greedily and
> covetously begrudging the benefits, or grossly overstating the effects of
> debts and deficits.
>
> When they do not question the judgments and motives of pro-amendment
> individuals, the spenders are quick to point at poverty and hunger,
> depression and unemployment, and countless other undesirable conditions.
> Farmers lament low commodity prices and low farm income, the elderly moan
> about sickness and age, labor leaders wail about depression and
> unemployment. They all are convinced that government spending may provide a
> solution to their particular problems. Unfortunately, economic reality
> differs as much from their visions and convictions as it does from the hopes
> and beliefs of the advocates of a Constitutional amendment.
>
> The economic well-being of all Americans, including that of farmers,
> workers, and the elderly, depends on American capacity to produce and
> compete in foreign markets. Economic productivity in turn is a function of
> productive capital and the investment of capital. When government deficits
> consume the lion's share of the capital coming to market, economic progress
> grinds to a halt. Depleted and exhausted capital markets cause labor
> productivity to decline and unemployment to riseespecially in
> capital-intensive industries that are losing their ability to compete in
> world markets.
>
> Most beneficiaries of government largess, unfortunately, do not reflect upon
> the adverse consequences of capital consumption. They do not ponder over
> what they owe to others. They are always looking at the present; the future
> does not interest them. The golden age is now.
>
> A Constitutional amendment cannot impose temperance, prudence, and
> self-reliance on people who prefer self-indulgence, folly, and dependence.
> It cannot bring forth balanced budgets if the people prefer political
> largess. If an amendment were to be imposed against their wishes, the people
> bent on deficit spending would find new ways of spending.
>
> No Constitutional amendment calling for balanced budgets could close all
> potential channels of deficit spending. It is unlikely that it would block
> the present backdoors that permit Congress to engage in generous spending,
> not to mention future backdoors that can be constructed. At this very moment
> Congress is shielding massive entitlement programs, expensive contract and
> credit activity, and popular off-budget operations.
>
> Federal entitlements are rights, privileges, and benefits to which the
> beneficiariesindividuals or government agenciesare legally entitled. They
> range from such massive programs as Social Security and Medicare to
> relatively minor programs, such as compensation for pollution victims. An
> entitlement binds the federal government to grant it and authorizes the
> judiciary to enforce it. It is unlikely that a Constitutional amendment
> would be allowed to prevail over it.
>
> It is doubtful that a Constitutional amendment could be drafted to cover the
> numerous agencies that are Federally owned and controlled, but deleted from
> the budget. The Export-Import Bank, the Postal Service Fund, the Rural
> Telephone Bank, the Rural Electrification and Telephone Revolving Fund, the
> Housing for the Elderly and Handicapped Fund, and several other government
> agencies are removed from the budget, but continue to carry out government
> programs.
>
> Although it is a part of the Treasury Department, the Federal Financing Bank
> operates outside the budget. Its lending is not counted as budget outlays;
> its total loans to Federal agencies and private borrowers presently exceed
> $120 billion, which are off-budget. How would a Constitutional amendment be
> made to cover FFB activity?
>
> The federal government controls a great number of privately owned
> enterprises that conduct government programs. There is the Federal Home Loan
> Bank System that promotes home ownership according to Federal plan; the
> Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association that manipulates mortgage credit and
> mortgage markets; the Student Loan Marketing Association, the Farm Credit
> System, and several other such organizations. They presently hold some $438
> billion in loan assets.
>
> In modern terminology, all this spending is "social progress." Most
> Americans favor it, legislators enact it, and government agents administer
> it. A Constitutional amendment calling for balanced budgets, enacted under
> such conditions, may restore balance through significant tax boosts. But it
> may also lead to massive reorganization of government activity and spending.
> In particular, it may prompt a Federal rush to the backdoors of government
> spending, and give rise to countless new off-budget agencies and private
> enterprises under government control. The possibilities of concealment and
> just plain trickery are endless. It is naive to believe that a balanced
> budget amendment, enacted by the masters of subterfuge, could dampen the
> enthusiasm for Federal largess.
>
> No political regulation, law, or amendment can impose integrity on people
> who prefer profuseness, dependence, and debt. They may have to learn from
> their own experience that debts and deficits are designed to serve the
> wishes of today and deny the needs of tomorrow. The American people may have
> to learn anew that a society cannot long continue to live beyond its means.
>
> http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/a-balanced-budget-amendment/
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

JP Obama threatens veto of House GOP spending cuts

WASHINGTON (AP) — Courting confrontation and compromise alike, House Republicans shrugged off President Barack Obama's threat to veto legislation to cut federal spending by trillions of dollars on Monday while simultaneously negotiating with him over more modest steps to avert a potential government default.

The Republican bill demands deep spending reductions and congressional approval of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in exchange for raising the nation's debt limit. But Obama will veto it if it reaches his desk, the White House said, asserting the legislation would "lead to severe cuts in Medicare and Social Security" and impose unrealistic limits on education spending.

In response, GOP lawmakers said they would go ahead with plans to pass the bill on Tuesday. "It's disappointing the White House would reject this commonsense plan to rein in the debt and deficits that are hurting job creation in America," Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio said.

By contrast, neither the administration nor congressional officials provided substantive details on an unannounced meeting that Obama held Sunday with the two top House Republican leaders, Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia.

Obama said late Monday the two sides were "making progress."

Several Republicans said privately the decision to vote on veto-threatened legislation is paradoxically designed to clear the way for a compromise. They said conservatives would have a chance to push their deep spending cuts through the House, and then see the measure quickly die either in the Democratic-controlled Senate or by veto.

Barring action by Congress to raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit, the Treasury will be unable to pay all the government's bills that come due beginning on Aug. 3, two weeks from Wednesday. Administration officials, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and others say the result could be a default that inflicts serious harm on the economy, which is still struggling to recover from the worst recession in decades.

In a gesture underscoring the significance of the issue, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced the Senate will meet each day until it is resolved, including on weekends.

The two-pronged approach pursued by the House GOP follows the collapse of a weeks-long effort to negotiate a sweeping bipartisan plan to cut into future deficits. The endeavor foundered when Obama demanded that tax increases on the wealthy and selected corporations be included alongside cuts in benefit programs, and Republicans refused.

The failure of that effort also reflects the outsized influence exerted by 87 first-term Republicans, many of them elected last fall with tea party backing.

As late as last Thursday, Republican leaders held a news conference to tout plans to vote this week on a proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

But the same senior Republicans emerged from a closed-door meeting of the rank and file on Friday to say the House would instead vote on an alternative — dubbed by its advocates as "Cut, Cap and Balance." No date has been set for a vote on the constitutional amendment itself.

Officials said the change in course had been requested by members of the Republican Study Committee, whose members are among the most conservative in Congress.

Supporters of the measure say it would cut $111 billion from government spending in the budget year that begins on Oct 1, and $6 trillion more over the coming decade through a requirement that the budget shrink relative to the overall size of the economy.

Additionally, it would require both houses of Congress to approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as a condition for an increase in the debt limit.

Both Boehner and Cantor reacted relatively mildly to the White House veto threat.

"As President Obama has not put forth a plan that can garner 218 votes in the House, I'd caution him against so hastily dismissing 'Cut, Cap and Balance,'" said Cantor.

Other Republicans, by contrast, took a harder line.

"I find it incredibly ironic that President Obama is one of the few Americans who think we don't need a constitutional amendment 'to do our jobs.'" Said Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a member of the leadership.

"The point of cutting up the credit cards in order to raise the debt ceiling isn't to meet his tax-and-spend demands; it's to force him to stop spending money we don't have."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky made a strong statement of support for the measure.

"Not only is this legislation just the kind of thing Washington needs right now, it may be the only option we have if you want to see the debt limit raised at all," he said.

"I strongly urge my Democratic friends to join us in supporting it."

Despite his warning, McConnell and Reid have been deeply involved in writing a fallback measure that is viewed in both houses as promising.

It would allow the president to raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion in three installments over the next year without a prior vote by lawmakers. Instead, a panel of House and Senate members would be created to recommend cuts in benefit programs, with their work guaranteed a yes-or-no vote in the House or Senate.

Recreating the divide that plagued the earlier negotiations, Democrats want the panel to have the power to recommend higher taxes.

Neither Reid nor McConnell has publicly disclosed the details of the measure, and neither is expected to do so as long as the legislation in the House is pending.

One conservative deficit hawk, Sen. Tom Coburn, unveiled his own proposal to bring federal deficits under control. The Oklahoma Republican recommended $9 trillion in cuts over a decade, including $1 trillion in higher taxes.

____

JP Education

"If you want ten years of prosperity, plant trees.

If you want a hundred years of prosperity, educate people".

JP Daily Quran and Hadith

IN THE NAME OF "ALLAH"
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,

Thanks & Best regards,

Imran Ilyas
Dubai
Cell: 00971509483403

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Thank You for Your Service?

Thank You for Your Service?
by Laurence M. Vance

It is without question that Americans are in love with the military. Even worse, though, is that their love is unqualified, unconditional, unrelenting, and unending.

I have seen signs praising the troops in front of all manner of businesses, including self-storage units, bike shops, and dog grooming.

Many businesses offer discounts to military personnel not available to doctors, nurses, and others who save lives instead of destroy them.

Special preference is usually given to veterans seeking employment, and not just for government jobs.

Many churches not only recognize veterans and active-duty military on the Sunday before holidays, they have special military appreciation days as well.

Even many of those who oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy and do not support foreign wars hold the military in high esteem.

All of these things are true no matter which country the military bombs, invades, or occupies. They are true no matter why the military does these things. They are true no matter what happens while the military does these things. They are true no matter which political party is in power.

The love affair that Americans have with the military – the reverence, the idolatry, the adoration, yea, the worship – was never on display like it was at the post office the other day.

While at the counter shipping some packages, a U.S. soldier, clearly of Vietnamese origin in name and appearance, dressed in his fatigues, was shipping something at the counter next to me. The postal clerk was beaming when he told the soldier how his daughter had been an MP in Iraq. Three times in as many minutes I heard the clerk tell the soldier – with a gleam in his eye and a solemn look on his face – "Thank you for your service." The clerk even shook the soldier's hand before he left.

I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing, and I am no stranger to accounts of military fetishes in action.

Aside from me not thanking that soldier for his service – verbally or otherwise – I immediately thought of four things.

One, what service did this soldier actually render to the United States? If merely drawing a paycheck from the government is rendering service, then we ought to thank every government bureaucrat for his service, including TSA goons. Did this soldier actually do anything to defend the United States, secure its borders, guard its shores, patrol its coasts, or enforce a no-fly zone over U.S. skies? How can someone blindly say "thank you for your service" when he doesn't know what service was rendered?

Two, is there anything that U.S. soldiers could do to bring the military into disfavor? I can't think of anything. Atrocities are dismissed as collateral damage in a moment of passion in the heat of battle by just a few bad apples. Unjust wars, we are told, are solely the fault of politicians not the soldiers that do the actual fighting. Paul Tibbets and his crew are seen as heroes for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Before he died, Tibbets even said that he had no second thoughts and would do it again. I suspect that if the United States dropped an atomic bomb tomorrow on Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing everyone and everything, and declaring the war on terror over and won, a majority of Americans would applaud the Air Force crew that dropped the bomb and give them a ticker-tape parade.

Three, why is it that Americans only thank American military personnel for their service? Shouldn't foreign military personnel be thanked for service to their country? What American military worshippers really believe is that foreign military personnel should only be thanked for service to their government when their government acts in the interests of the United States. Foreign soldiers are looked upon as heroic if they refuse to obey a military order to shoot or kill at the behest of their government as long as such an order is seen as not in the interests of the United States. U.S. soldiers, however, are always expected to obey orders, even if it means going to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or Libya under false pretenses.

And four, what is a Vietnamese man – who most certainly has relatives, or friends or neighbors of relatives, that were killed or injured by U.S. bombs and bullets during the Vietnam War – doing joining the U.S. military where he can be sent to shoot and bomb foreigners like the U.S. military did to his people?

And aside from these four things, I'm afraid I must also say: Sorry, soldiers, I don't thank you for your service.

I don't thank you for your service in fighting foreign wars.
I don't thank you for your service in fighting without a congressional declaration of war.
I don't thank you for your service in bombing and destroying Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't thank you for your service in killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.
I don't thank you for your service in expanding the war on terror to Pakistan and Yemen.
I don't thank you for your service in occupying over 150 countries around the world.
I don't thank you for your service in garrisoning the planet with over 1,000 military bases.
I don't thank you for your service in defending our freedoms when you do nothing of the kind.
I don't thank you for your service as part of the president's personal attack force to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary.

Thank you for your service? I don't think so.

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance250.html

Fwd: Republican's Budget Cuts Itemized

Thoughts?

From: "john robertson" <lawjkr@me.com>
To: "kevin robertson" <hakawenterprises@mac.com>, "Tracey home" <droblaw@comcast.net>, "phil o'halloran" <editrel@comcast.net>, "Kevin Schonsheck" <kevin@schonsheck.com>, "william bias" <wdbias@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 9:48:37 AM
Subject: Fwd: Republican's Budget Cuts Itemized

This would be a nice start to restore a more vibrant federalism and shrink the fed ...

Begin forwarded message:

From: anne m simoneau <annemsimoneau@gmail.com>

Date: July 19, 2011 9:35:09 AM EDT

To: "Weber, Patricia" <patricia1016@yahoo.com>

Subject: Republican's Budget Cuts Itemized

Republican's Budget Cuts Itemized

These are all the programs (55) that the Republican House has proposed cutting. Read to the end. Now lets wait and see the cooperation they get from the Democrats:

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Save America 'S Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

Hope VI Program.. $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H. R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska , Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts . $9 million annual savings

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt . $250 million annually.

U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia . $210 million annual savings.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings

Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings..

HUD Ph.D. Program.

Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion

The question is: What THE HECK is all this crap doing in the budget in the first place ?

I think sippican has it about right here

http://sippicancottage.blogspot.com/2011/07/welcome-to-new-captain-tammany-h.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Boy does this make sense - not!!

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ex-cons-in-san-francisco-may-soon-enjoy-protected-class-status/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

What a bunch of krep

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/fashion/creators-of-cbss-good-wife-on-forgiveness.html?_r=1&WT.mc_id=GN-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M210-ROS-0711-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Country music to brain wash stupid white guys!

Are the meds kicking in or wearing off?

On Jul 17, 3:43 pm, Stephen Stink <not4ud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yep...The Koch brothers listen to classical music while the WASP
> flunkies listen to C&W that tell's how to live. Yeah..sure. Toby Keith
> will tell you who to hate.Yesssss! That is just great! Really great.
> I'll stick to the devils music! Yes please! May I have more sir!
> Wheeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: What Gilligan’s Island Was Really About

Maryann

On Jul 19, 7:56 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> What Gilligan's Island Was Really AboutJuly 18, 2011 byJeffrey Tucker
> The creator of Gillgan's Island, Sherwood Schwartz, died last week, and the Washington Post asked Paul Cantor for his own interpretation of the television series, since Professor Cantor had written an entire book on the subject. Theresultis hilarious and interesting. Substitute the word Democracy for Freedom and we are getting somewhere.
> xxxWhat 'Gilligan's Island' creator Sherwood Schwartz was saying about democracyBy Paul A. Cantor, Published: July 15Sherwood Schwartz,who died Tuesday at the age of 94, will not be remembered as one of television's innovative geniuses. But he did create two of the most popular shows in TV history,"Gilligan's Island"and"The Brady Bunch."And he did something rare: He made people laugh, even in reruns.
> But what did the sitcom king have in common with the French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville? Answer: They both were interested in democracy in America.
> In 2001, I published a book called"Gilligan Unbound: Pop Culture in the Age of Globalization."I wrote that "Gilligan's Island" reflected the political confidence of 1960s America in the midst of the Cold War. A representative group of Americans could be dropped anywhere on the planet and they would rule, creating a small-scale model of U.S. democracy and fending off a sampling of its enemies, from Soviet cosmonauts to a Japanese soldierstill fighting World War II to a Latin American dictator.
> Gilligan is the perfect democratic hero because he has no claims to superiority. The Professor has wisdom; the Millionaire has money and social status; the Skipper has a kind of military authority as captain. Gilligan is the pure common man. And, of course, the only time the castaways hold an election, he is chosen as president. Throughout the series, Gilligan represents the triumph of the ordinary over the extraordinary.
> Schwartz learned about my book and wrote to me to get a copy. He explained that he had always thought of "Gilligan's Island" as a show about democracy. His favorite episode, he said, was the one about the exiled dictator "because it's the most meaningful" and demonstrates how democracy can go wrong. He was particularly proud of the "dream sequence in which Gilligan realizes he's simply a puppet dictator of the real dictator."
> Much to my gratification, Schwartz said all this before reading my book. Academics like me are always accused of just making up our interpretations. But mine was being confirmed by the highest authority the writer himself.
> Once Schwartz had read the book, he wrote me another long letter explaining that it had always bothered him that people criticized "Gilligan's Island" for being silly; they didn't understand it, he said. "Not a single critic got it, with the basic concept of democracy staring them right in the face." He viewed my book as a vindication of his work: "I never thought I'd see the day when an English Professor of some note would use 'Gilligan's Island' as one of four pillars on which rest the liberal democratic view of the recent past in America."
> I wrote back, thanking him for taking time out of his busy Hollywood schedule to correspond with me. I added: "I've written three whole books on Shakespeare and Mr. Big Shot Elizabethan Playwright won't even give me a call." It's not a great idea to trade jokes with a comedy writer, but I hope I gave Schwartz a chuckle.
> In my correspondence with him, I was struck by his intelligence, his learning and his seriousness of purpose. Above all, he clearly knew what he was doing in "Gilligan's Island" and could articulate the thinking behind it.
> Most people would never guess it, but maybe, of all the characters on the desert isle, Sherwood Schwartz was closest to the Professor. At least this professor thinks so.http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-gilligans-island-creator-sherwood-schwartz-was-saying-about-democracy/2011/07/14/gIQAVVrXGI_story.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Cut, Cap and Balance: A Chicken Tale

"The crux of the Cantor-Goodlatte position is that, in March 1995, if only the Congress had sent a federal balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, all of their congressional overspending, their lack of personal and institutional principle, their paucity of restraint, their blatant inability to comprehend basic economics, their obsession for power over the less worthy, their obscene vote selling and incessant influence whoring -- all of these sins would have been washed away, instantly and permanently.
"The whole debate is moot, because it has been demonstrated from the beginning that Congress has never met a law that it couldn't ignore, modify, or break, starting with the original Constitution."

Cut, Cap and Balance: A Chicken Tale
by Karen Kwiatkowski

It is hilarious to observe the most recent preening and fluffing behavior of the national bird in Washington. No, it's not the bald eagle, or the alleged choice of Ben Franklin, the survival-oriented wild turkey.

The national bird of the federal government, wholly dependent upon a system that feeds it, conveyor-belt style, all the precious fruit of the shrinking American working class it can eat, is the chicken.

And not just any chicken, mind you. The federal government, the elected class in particular, is like the chicken grown in the poultry houses all over the Shenandoah Valley and beyond. These guys and gals look all grown up, but are amazingly immature, inexperienced and ill-informed about the real world. They spend their entire lives closely shielded from the outside world, exposed to little more than others like themselves, with a water drip they take for granted, and a never-empty all-you-can-eat free lunch dispenser. These helpless yet blissfully unaware chickens are a testament to the predictable tendencies of applied central planning, and they are the perfect icon for the government of the United States of America today.

They start out running and chirping, but before a few months pass, these guys are crippled by their own weight. By design, these chickens must be harvested early, before they die of heart failure, or fall down and never get up, trampled and pecked to death by their compadres.

Welcome to the Congress of the United States, analogy courtesy of Purdue, Tyson, and Pilgrim's Pride.

The latest spectacle of the chickens who run our country comes from the so-called conservatives in the House – who are currently pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to "balance the federal budget," as part of a " Cut, Cap and Balance" package that doesn't cut, raises the borrowing cap, and continues the ongoing and unsustainable imbalance in government spending. Little of what these Congressmen are doing today, or have been doing for the past twenty years has been even remotely constitutional, so it isn't clear why amending the Constitution is ever necessary. Most Congressmen haven't completely read it, don't understand what they did read, and believe it is a prop best used during election campaigns. Most don't believe it is the law or binding in any way on their votes and actions.

One side of the Janus-state – the so-called left side, is angry that the Cut, Cap and Balance may interfere with their political base and agendas, while failing to raise tax collections on that part of the country that they do not claim. The so-called right side of the Janus-state believes that as long as defense spending for the corporate empire is nurtured, preserved and expanded, their proposal will appear "conservative" and be welcomed as titillating foreplay for the November elections.

It seems like they take us all for fools, but as usual it is the genuflecting Congress and the emperor who are fooling themselves. While the United States as a functional value has been calmly downgraded (again!) to a C-minus and Americans rapidly seek alternative home bases, passports, ways of making a living off payroll and out of sight, conservatives recall the "glory days" of 1994 and 1995, and as the strutting feather-headed duo of Eric Cantor and Bob Goodlatte proclaim, it might have been so different, if only.

The crux of the Cantor-Goodlatte position is that, in March 1995, if only the Congress had sent a federal balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, all of their congressional overspending, their lack of personal and institutional principle, their paucity of restraint, their blatant inability to comprehend basic economics, their obsession for power over the less worthy, their obscene vote selling and incessant influence whoring -- all of these sins would have been washed away, instantly and permanently.

The whole debate is moot, because it has been demonstrated from the beginning that Congress has never met a law that it couldn't ignore, modify, or break, starting with the original Constitution.

It is also moot because these congressmen assume that ¾ of the several states would approve such a balanced budget amendment, then, now, or in the future. The states well understand their fundamental relationship to the federal government, that unwritten law of federalism. States exist to bring home the goodies, ideally paid for by other states or by a collective accumulation of shared debt owed by future voters and future taxpayers, again mostly residing in other states. The very idea of a demand to pay the federal bill in a given fiscal year (even 18 months later, as the proposed language has it, allowing time to "measure" the GDP) would be simultaneously laughable and repulsive to state governors and to the people, because they intuitively understand that it would mean both fewer goodies and higher taxation, for the wealthier states first and eventually for even the poorest and smallest of states.

The states would overwhelmingly reject this amendment, even if it had teeth and claws, which it does not. This proposal is the rohypnol in the Constitutional martini, following the tradition of federal government boorishness of the 16th Amendment and the 1973 War Powers Act. Cap, Cut and Balance should be nicknamed the Roofie Amendment.

Given that most prudent states would immediately just say no, I can envision a contrarian movement among some states to consider the risk and actively support the Balanced Budget Amendment. Counting on staying competitive for business and productivity as people flee ever more federally "owned" states, certain governors might support the Roofie Amendment in order to eventually weaken the DC loyalists and set the stage for real secession. North Dakota, with its questionable legal statehood status may want to go slow in correcting their constitution. A balanced budget amendment, if passed, would bring economic slavery to the more federally integrated states of the union, and place North Dakota in a super-cool position of pre-existing independence from Washington. Republic of Texas flag wavers, Hawaiian revolutionaries, and Vermont secessionists, take note!

American states, of course, cannot print their own money. A smaller group of states, with interests in allowing alternative hard currencies, or even those with a tradition of creative community currencies, might join with the hopeful independents in supporting a Balanced Budget Amendment as a means to ultimate monetary freedom from D.C. Utah's sound money movement and upstate New York community business vouchers, gold and silver holders everywhere, upon ratification of a Balanced Budget Amendment, would become even more valuable, reasonable, popular, and useful.

There are many ways to critique and chuckle at the proposals by Cantor and Goodlatte to somehow rein in federal spending by making a law, but there is one staring God-awful gap in the proposed amendment. No version of the law, past or present, deals with or even mentions the existence and processes of bank of the federal government, the Federal Reserve. For the liars in Washington, D.C., both on the left and right, this failure to address the Federal Reserve is a very good thing. Running out of money? We'll "do you a favor" and print more!

In 1994, the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was the bank's Bifrons. Feared and powerful, moving corpses here and there, scaring all the chickens. It is unthinkable that a balanced budget amendment in 1994 would have addressed the Fed. Only Ron Paul, writing of gold and liberty and transparency, boldly spoke of the Bifrons, then and now. Today, a less impressive Bifrons exists, and Dr. Paul chairs the financial services subcommittee. He routinely takes on the corpse carrier – but still, Cantor and Goodlatte and the rest of the chicken-hearted, bird-brained "conservatives" in Congress cannot bring themselves to address the Fed in the language of the Cut, Cap and Balance Amendment.

Our feathered friends in Congress do enjoy their water drip and their never-ending free lunch. There is a solution, and it starts by not listening to dim-witted chickens trying to buy you one more drink before the bar closes. End the Fed and its interest rate fixing, repeal the 16th Amendment, repeal the 17th Amendment, bring the troops home, end the empire. Start with just these things, and watch the country's economy and its attitude soar, the young delighted that they actually have a hopeful and peaceful future, the old embraced and cared for, the middle generations employed and empowered. In parts and pieces, we can take back our country, and most of us will survive when the empire ends. I find myself oddly reminded of Hoover's purported campaign promise, and FDR's four freedoms. I, too, see chicken on the menu.

http://lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski271.html

It's All the Republicans' Fault

"But this will not happen, because the Republicans have absolutely no interest in cutting government. These are the clowns who nearly doubled it when they had the presidency in the 1980s and increased it by over half during the Bush years. They love big government about as much as the Democrats."

It's All the Republicans' Fault
by Anthony Gregory

If the debt limit is once again raised, guaranteeing more crazed deficit spending regardless of any promises accompanying the deal, blame should fall squarely on the Republicans.

The GOP controls the House of Representatives. They command the federal purse strings. Nothing can force them to raise the debt ceiling. There is no justification for raising it under any circumstances. Default is a perfectly valid option, discouraging lenders from continuing to enable Washington's gluttonous and destructive spending. Or the government can simply cut $1.6 trillion for the next fiscal year and operate according to its revenues.

The House Republicans can easily tell Obama: "We refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Period. Now let's sit down and talk about what to cut." And no matter what the president does, the House leadership can refuse to pay for his expensive programs. It is that simple.

Of course, the Republicans would need to propose real spending cuts -- not tens of billions or even hundreds of billions but over a trillion. The U.S. could go back to its penny-pinching budget of 2002. You know, back in the horse-and-buggy days of nine years ago, when the federal government remarkably managed to survive on a mere two trillion annually.

This could be done. Or the Republicans could say: "Let's slash all military-related spending by half, means-test Social Security and Medicare, cut the bureaucracy of every single department by 50%. It's either that or nothing. We refuse to vote to raise the debt limit."

But this will not happen, because the Republicans have absolutely no interest in cutting government. These are the clowns who nearly doubled it when they had the presidency in the 1980s and increased it by over half during the Bush years. They love big government about as much as the Democrats.

How else can we explain their failure simply to refuse to increase the debt limit? They won the 2010 midterm elections on an anti-government mandate. At least, that's what they claim. Indeed, a new Gallup poll indicates significant public support against raising the debt limit: "Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure."

The Republicans could marshal this public opposition to business as usual for a major political payoff, but instead they agree with the Democrats that the limit must be raised or else hell will break loose. In the end their major interest is in advancing the power and size of the state. As with the TARP bailout, they will ultimately demonstrate neither the will nor desire to stand with the public against fiscal insanity. Instead, we get the same old nonsense: Promises to balance the budget years from now, which has no relevance because Congress can only determine one year's spending at a time.

In particular, the Republican trick this time around is "Cut, Cap, and Balance." As Lew Rockwell notes, when Ron Paul, libertarians, or regular people talk about "cuts," they mean actual reductions in the budget compared to last year. Is this what most Republicans mean when they sign onto this? It's impossible to trust them.

Consider the substance of this scheme. We are to believe that some petty cuts and "enforceable" caps on future spending, combined with a Balanced Budget Amendment, are going to stop a catastrophe that has been in the making for decades, one that doesn't even touch on the many trillions in unfunded liabilities that will come to the forefront in future generations. Meanwhile, the bloated and growing military budget won't be touched at all.

A Balanced Budget Amendment is actually a bad idea. It is a potential excuse to raise taxes, despite any requirement of supermajorities needed to do it, and something that can't be passed without support from three-fourths of the state legislatures anyway. How can something contingent upon such a major process be a bargaining demand for a debt ceiling that has to be raised in the next couple weeks? This is all a smokescreen.

Twenty years ago, Congress thoroughly debated this stuff. It was clear the trainwreck would come. The Democrats did nothing. The Republicans did nothing. The GOP had Congress in the 1990s and did nothing. They had the presidency and Congress for a few years and again did nothing.

Actually, that's not accurate. When the Republicans ran the whole show they did plenty – way too much. After years of pleading for a chance to run the White House and Congress, they proved themselves spendthrifts across the board. Even before the excuse of 9/11, the Bush administration was readying its multi-trillion-dollar expansion of Medicare and vast expansion of the Department of Education. Under Bush, the Republicans voted to raise the debt limit over a dozen times. To say Republicans spend money like drunken sailors insults sailors and greatly exaggerates the effect of alcohol on financial judgment.

At least we are seeing the myth of gridlock, one of the last fallacies of democratic politics that libertarians tend to believe, come unglued. Eventually the two sides will come to a deal that will be bad for every normal American, concocted with one purpose alone: to give politicians on both sides of the aisle a way to win votes from their constituents. This economic crisis that should turn everyone away from electoral politics altogether and encourage a mass exodus from both parties will instead be spun to excite the base of both parties. From the deep state's point of view, higher voter turnout and strengthened partisan loyalties, along with more celebration for the prospect of partisan cooperation to move the country forward, are the best possible outcomes of a financial calamity that should instead turn all of society against the state.

Even if the Republicans were to draw a line in the sand and refuse to raise the limit while demanding a trillion and a half in cuts, it would be too little, too late, and they would not deserve the support of anyone seriously interested in limited government. But they won't even do that.

Don't be distracted by Republican schemes and sleights of hand. They are not victims of an unstoppable Democratic establishment or a public opposed to cutting spending. Their talk about a debt ceiling compromise attached to some meaningless vows to cut spending in the future should be dismissed outright. They need only to refuse to raise the debt limit and go from there. No matter what happens, they run the House of Representatives and could stop the spending any time they want. Any continuation of the unspeakable profligacy that has defined the Obama era must be blamed on the Republicans.

http://www.republicansforimpeachment.com/politics/4207/

JP Pakistan's Sovereignty For Sale , Dollars, Drones and Development

By Jalees Hazir |

July 17, 2011 "The Nation" -- -Last week, the United States of America threatened to hold back some $800 million it owes Pakistan in military aid. The move was aimed at pressurising Pakistan, or more specifically the defence and intelligence apparatus of the country, to unquestioningly execute plans and strategies prepared at the Pentagon and CIA and to start blindly obeying orders from Washington DC. To add to the pressure and give more teeth to this openly belligerent no-holds-barred US policy, the IMF also decided to further delay the release of its billion-dollar no-good loan instalments. From Afghanistan, the US-led NATO allies continued to send regular gifts of drones that attack our tribal belt with missiles and kill innocent Pakistanis. Lately, they have made it convenient for militant hordes to attack our security check posts and villages in FATA. Surely, these are no ordinary problems between two allies but signs of open hostility. The question is: Is it possible to reconcile the differences between the two countries? And more importantly, are we ready to defend ourselves?

Against the backdrop of this heightened bullying by the doomed superpower, the never-ending rounds of meetings between the defence and intelligence top brass of the two so-called allies intensified, and according to latest reports, the two sides have decided to mend fences. Nothing official has been forthcoming about the agreements reached in the meetings if any. Even the information attributed to unnamed officials only talks about the points of disagreement. Yet, the impression created by these reports is that the two sides have managed to iron out some differences. As a proof of progress, the US would start releasing the funds that it had earlier threatened to withhold. In the absence of any authentic information regarding the rules of cooperation agreed upon in these meetings, it is difficult to say how long the precarious and superficial peace between the two sides would last. And given the essential divergence in the way the two sides would like to sort out the Afghanistan mess, it is not bound to last very long.

Those arguing for a continuation of this roller-coaster relationship like to talk about the tensions between the two countries as if they were issues between a married couple. They say that the spouses will continue to bicker, but divorce is not a possibility. They say the two countries are indispensable to each other and, therefore, it is imperative that they find a way to reconcile their conflicting positions. The US needs Pakistan's cooperation to ensure a favourable end to the deathly game it has been playing in Afghanistan for a decade and Pakistan cannot be on the wrong side of the sole superpower that sponsors its civilian government and military operations with its dollars, they say. Actually, this is not a fair assessment of the relationship that was obviously not made in heaven. While the US is clearly dependent on Pakistan to fulfil its hegemonic designs in the region, notions about Pakistan's dependence on the global bully are exaggerated. When it becomes obvious that the continuation of a marriage would result in murder, a divorce is the only option.

What Gilligan’s Island Was Really About

What Gilligan's Island Was Really About
July 18, 2011 by Jeffrey Tucker

The creator of Gillgan's Island, Sherwood Schwartz, died last week, and the Washington Post asked Paul Cantor for his own interpretation of the television series, since Professor Cantor had written an entire book on the subject. The result is hilarious and interesting. Substitute the word Democracy for Freedom and we are getting somewhere.

xxx

What 'Gilligan's Island' creator Sherwood Schwartz was saying about democracy
By Paul A. Cantor, Published: July 15

Sherwood Schwartz, who died Tuesday at the age of 94 , will not be remembered as one of television's innovative geniuses. But he did create two of the most popular shows in TV history, "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch." And he did something rare: He made people laugh, even in reruns.

But what did the sitcom king have in common with the French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville? Answer: They both were interested in democracy in America.

In 2001, I published a book called "Gilligan Unbound: Pop Culture in the Age of Globalization." I wrote that "Gilligan's Island" reflected the political confidence of 1960s America in the midst of the Cold War. A representative group of Americans could be dropped anywhere on the planet and they would rule, creating a small-scale model of U.S. democracy and fending off a sampling of its enemies, from Soviet cosmonauts to a Japanese soldierstill fighting World War II to a Latin American dictator.

Gilligan is the perfect democratic hero because he has no claims to superiority. The Professor has wisdom; the Millionaire has money and social status; the Skipper has a kind of military authority as captain. Gilligan is the pure common man. And, of course, the only time the castaways hold an election, he is chosen as president. Throughout the series, Gilligan represents the triumph of the ordinary over the extraordinary.

Schwartz learned about my book and wrote to me to get a copy. He explained that he had always thought of "Gilligan's Island" as a show about democracy. His favorite episode, he said, was the one about the exiled dictator "because it's the most meaningful" and demonstrates how democracy can go wrong. He was particularly proud of the "dream sequence in which Gilligan realizes he's simply a puppet dictator of the real dictator."

Much to my gratification, Schwartz said all this before reading my book. Academics like me are always accused of just making up our interpretations. But mine was being confirmed by the highest authority the writer himself.

Once Schwartz had read the book, he wrote me another long letter explaining that it had always bothered him that people criticized "Gilligan's Island" for being silly; they didn't understand it, he said. "Not a single critic got it, with the basic concept of democracy staring them right in the face." He viewed my book as a vindication of his work: "I never thought I'd see the day when an English Professor of some note would use 'Gilligan's Island' as one of four pillars on which rest the liberal democratic view of the recent past in America."

I wrote back, thanking him for taking time out of his busy Hollywood schedule to correspond with me. I added: "I've written three whole books on Shakespeare and Mr. Big Shot Elizabethan Playwright won't even give me a call." It's not a great idea to trade jokes with a comedy writer, but I hope I gave Schwartz a chuckle.

In my correspondence with him, I was struck by his intelligence, his learning and his seriousness of purpose. Above all, he clearly knew what he was doing in "Gilligan's Island" and could articulate the thinking behind it.

Most people would never guess it, but maybe, of all the characters on the desert isle, Sherwood Schwartz was closest to the Professor. At least this professor thinks so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-gilligans-island-creator-sherwood-schwartz-was-saying-about-democracy/2011/07/14/gIQAVVrXGI_story.html

JP Follow the Islamic way to save the world,

From: hope4m@

'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Prince Charles urges environmentalists

By Rebecca English

Last updated at 1:46 AM on 10th June 2010

Prince Charles yesterday urged the world to follow Islamic 'spiritual principles' in order to protect the environment.
In an hour-long speech, the heir to the throne argued that man's destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions - but particularly those of Islam.
He said the current 'division' between man and nature had been caused not just by industrialisation, but also by our attitude to the environment - which goes against the grain of 'sacred traditions'.

Outspoken: Prince Charles speaks to Islamic studies scholars at Oxford University

Outspoken: Prince Charles speaks to Islamic studies scholars at Oxford. He argued that man's destruction of the world was particularly contrary to Islam

Charles, who is a practising Christian and will become the head of the Church of England when he succeeds to the throne, spoke in depth about his own study of the Koran which, he said, tells its followers that there is 'no separation between man and nature' and says we must always live within our environment's limits.
The prince was speaking to an audience of scholars at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies - which attempts to encourage a better understanding of the culture and civilisation of the religion.
His speech, merging religion with his other favourite subject, the environment, marked the 25th anniversary of the organisation, of which he is patron.
He added: 'The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason - and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us.
'Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.'

Bored: Not everyone in the audience was as interested as Prince Charles though

Impressive setting: Charles spoke at Oxford University's Sheldonian Theatre

ولي عهد بريطانيا يطالب دول العالم بالاقتداء بتعاليم الإسلام للحفاظ على البيئة

أثار امتداح الأمير تشارلز، ولي عهد بريطانيا، لتعاليم الدين الإسلامي والقرآن الكريم، حفيظة بعض الكتّاب البريطانيين، حتى وصفه البعض بأنه مسلم ولكنه يُخفي إسلامه.

وتأتي هذه الانتقادات في عدد من وسائل الإعلام البريطانية بعد أن طالب ولي عهد بريطانيا العالم بأسره بالاقتداء بالتعاليم الإسلامية في إطار الجهود الرامية إلى المحافظة على البيئة؛ لأن تدمير البيئة من قِبل الإنسان يتنافى مع التعاليم الدينية، خاصة في الإسلام. مشيراً إلى أن القرآن الكريم يؤكد الرابط الوثيق بين الإنسان والطبيعة.

  وقال الأمير تشارلز، في خطابه الذي اختار إلقاءه من مركز أكسفورد للدراسات الإسلامية، وتمحور حول موضوع "الإسلام والبيئة": "إن الممارسات التي أدت إلى تدهور البيئة تتجاهل التعاليم الروحية، مثل تلك التي جاءت في الإسلام".

  وما زاد الانتقاد لولي العهد البريطاني ارتكابه خطأ مزدوجاً؛ فلم يشر إلى المسيح أو حواريه، بل تكلم باستفاضة عن القرآن وعن تعاليم الإسلام بشأن البيئة، موضحاً أن القرآن يقدّم رؤية متكاملة للكون، ومستشهداً ببعض الآيات القرآنية؛ فاتهموا الأمير على الفور بأنهمسلم في الخفاء أو أنه ببساطة مختل؛ فليس لشخص أوروبي غير مسلم أن يمتدح تعاليم الإسلام ويتحدث عنه إيجابياً ما لم يكن هناك شيء خفي خطأ في أعماقه.

  وقد سبق للأمير تشارلز عند الحديث عن اندماج المسلمين في المجتمع البريطاني أن تكلم بطلاقة في تجمع رسمي عن المساهمات التي لا بد أن يستفيد منها المجتمع البريطاني بأسره في حالة اندماج المسلمين فيه، قائلاً: "إننا يجب ألا نرفض ثقافتهم كليةً، بل علينا انتقاء الأفضل منها، والاستفادة ستعم على الجميع".

  وكان الأمير قد امتدح أيضاً نمط العيش التقليدي في الإسلام ، حين ذكر أن الإسلام يسعى إلى الوسطية، بوصفها نموذجاً يتيح الحفاظ على التوازن في العلاقات، وأن الإسلام حذر من أن هناك حدودا لعطاء الطبيعة، مؤكدا أن العصر الذهبي للحضارة الإسلامية "القرنين التاسع والعاشر" تميز بتقدم علمي مذهل، من خلال فهم فلسفي متجذر في روحانية عميقة لاحترام الطبيعة.

  وواصل ولي العهد البريطاني حديثه في جامعة أكسفورد قائلاً: إن الأمر يتعلق برؤية مندمجة للعالم تعكس الحقيقة الأبدية، التي تعني أن الحياة متجذرة في وحدانية الخالق. مشددا على أهمية مفهوم التوحيد، الذي يعني وحدانية الله، متوقفا عند حقيقة أن علماء المسلمين يفسرون هذه الرؤية بشكل واضح، ومستشهداً بابن خلدون، الذي قال إن جميع المخلوقات تخضع لنظام واحد ومنضبط.

  وأشار الأمير تشارلز إلى أن العالم الإسلامي يملك أحد الكنوز الغنية بالحكمة والمعرفة الروحية التي وُضعت رهن إشارة البشرية، موضحاً أن ذلك يمثل الآن إرثا نبيلا للإسلام، وهدية ثمينة لباقي العالم، مقرا بأن

هذه الحكمة يحجبها الاتجاه المهيمن للمادية الغربية