Money. Add that to the list of things I don't understand. Give me a $20 bill and I know I can go buy dinner (if I don't leave a tip), take a date to a movie (no popcorn or sodas) or buy enough gas to get me to and from work for 3 days. That part isn't the problem. The confusion comes about when money enters the corporate equation.
From my viewpoint, if I have something I don't need and know someone that needs it, I'll either give or sell it to them for a fair price, with the price being inversely proportional to the need. This is apparently the wrong way to do things. It's certainly not the way to get rich. Price in the real world goes up with need. Watch gas prices before any holiday where people will be traveling to be with family and friends and you'll see what I mean. To make matters worse, advertising is thrown in to create or increase a perceived need. There is something to this madness, spending money creates jobs. If every adult in America bought a new car every year, unemployment would disappear. Unfortunately, the price of cars would increase significantly.
None of the above is relevant to what I want to write about today. If you're confused, don't worry, it will probably get worse.
The Leveraged Buyout (LBO) is today's topic. This type of financial transaction became popular about 30 years ago and had made many millionaires and billionaires. In simplest terms an LBO is a way for a group of investors to buy another company. Nothing ominous there. If someone owns a bar and you want to buy the bar, you find out the price, talk a bank into loaning you what you need and everything is settled. An LBO get's a little more complicated. With an LBO, the original bar owner might find out he still owns the bar, even though all the booze has been sold, all the customers have been driven away, and the bar now has a huge mortgage attached to it. Besides LBO, I'll be using another acronym for the Group of Buyers Seeking Leveraged buyouts, GBSL's (just think greedy, bloodsucking leeches).
The target of an LBO is usually a strong company that might have a weak spot. Perhaps they have some new competition, or have had some recent problems. After finding a target the GBSL's will put down about 5% of the money needed and get a bank to loan the other 95%. If the LBO is a friendly takeover, then the GBSL's will approach the board of directors, sell them on the plan (usually by buying them out with promises of bonuses). An offer is made, stock changes hands and the GBSL's now own the company. Seems a reasonable transaction so far. Now to get to the shady stuff.
If the company's stock is trading at $100/share and there are 1 million shares outstanding, it's going to cost about $50 million to get control. It is possible, through rumor and stock manipulation, to lower that share price, perhaps by as much as 30%. Which would mean the GBSL's can get a $100 milllion ($100m) company for $35m, of which only $1.75m is their own money. After the purchase, optimism (rumor and more stock manipulation) will probably result in an increase in share price. Already they are making money and the fun is just beginning. Since the GBSL's now own the company, the first thing to do is get money from the company to pay off the loan (plus interest) they used to buy the company, thus transferring their debt to the company. The next step is to "improve" the company. Improvements usually involve getting rid of things the GBSL's consider useless, like employees.
Less employees means lower costs, which makes the company look more profitable to investors, causing stock prices to increase again. I almost forgot, the GBSL's should get some compensation for the way they've "improved" the company, so they agree to pay themselves a consulting fee for thinking of using the company's money to buy the company. Brilliant. Let's see where the company and GBSL's are now financially. Company share price is now $120/share and the company is now carrying $35m of extra debt, but the savings from job cuts more than pays for the new debt. The company has paid a $1.75m consulting fee to the GBSL's who now own $60m worth of the company stock. Not a bad return on investment. If it stopped right there the company might very well go on to make more money, add more employees through expansion and everyone is happy. Wouldn't that be nice?
But, the GBSL's usually aren't satisfied with a 3500% return on their investment, and why should they be. With a more profitable company, and for all the shareholders hard work, everyone deserves a dividend. Now where will they find the money for that? I know, let's borrow $100m so that every share gets a $100 dividend this quarter. After all, the company has new owners (that just paid themselves $50m) and they are obviously destined for greatness. Good news, now the stock price is at $140/share, double what the GBSL's paid for it. Time to sell, get another $70m and take a well-deserved GBSL vacation.
In the end you have the GBSL's who have walked off with $120m, a company that suddenly finds itself buried in debt and will quite likely end up closing its doors. The banks involved may not get 100% of their money (plus interest) back, but its not their money, so everything is good. Unless you happened to be one of those employees. This is what happened to Federated Department Stores, Revco, Kaybee Toys and AmPad, among many others.
Somehow this just doesn't seem right to me. If I work for a company for 30 years and then find out that my job no longer exists and my pension has now been taken to pay off the bank, I probably am not going to be cheering for the GBSL's that just scored an incredible profit. I once worked for a company that did something similar to an LBO, but it was all internal. Within a few months they went from 600 employees to 12 employees. Meanwhile the owners (8 of the 12 employees left) were raking in millions.
Since this is an election year, maybe we should take a look at the business model of the man who probably best deserves the title "Father of Our Country", Benjamin Franklin. As a teenager, he ran away from his apprenticeship with his much older brother, left Boston and went to Philadelphia, where through hard work and a lot of smooth talking he became a very successful printer. As he became more successful, he helped skilled apprentices set up their own printing shops and newspapers, by loaning them the capitol needed. Many early American families owe their wealth at least in part, to Benjamin Franklin. He donated his time, money and influence to help improve the city of Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania colony. In his spare time, he wrote and distributed pamphlets with the intent of improving the lives of everyone. He worked tirelessly to get the King of England to require the English nobility landowners to pay taxes on their huge estates in the new world. Even then, the wealthiest did not feel like they should pay their fair share.
If you have a few million lying around and don't know what to do with it, getting in the LBO game is a great way to turn a few million into a few hundred million. If, instead you're hoping that nothing goes wrong this month, so you can put a few dollars away, or can catch up on the bills you've had to let slide since the last setback, you might want to question whether you want a GBSL bringing an LBO to every American. If that happens, well, we're all probably SOL.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Just the Facts Ma'am
Every time someone talks politics at me (rather than discuss with me) they feel the need to state that whatever they are saying is "a fact", "a known fact" or "a proven fact". At that point my mind shuts down, and rather than try to discuss the issues I instead see how high I can get their blood pressure. After all, if my time is going to be wasted, I might as well get something out of it. If they collapse, I can go through their pockets after calling 911 and before starting CPR.
Facts are. They are self-evident, and do not require anyone to point them out. Saying or writing something does not make it a fact, neither does hearing something, no matter the source. If the voice of God tells me the drinking water in Tijuana is safe to drink, I'm going to have doubts. Seven days of not being able to get more than 20 feet away from a toilet turned me into a skeptic. In short, a fact is something that every sane person will readily accept. Although it may not be a fact, I consider myself sane, so anytime you feel the need to call something a fact, please be prepared to state your sources, provide all validation data you have collected and explain step-by-step your methodology. Or just tell me who you heard it from. If you have a heart condition, please be carrying a reasonable amount of cash, I want to show a profit.
To date, nothing that I have been told is a "fact" has turned out to be one. The word is very useful in making a sales pitch, especially if the deal is a bit on the shady side. "It's a fact that this vehicle will go 4 times the distance of a Toyota Prius on a single tank of fuel." Read the fine print, the vehicle is a truck with 350 gallon fuel capacity and only gets 7.5 mpg. Whenever someone tells you something is "a fact" keep your hand on your wallet. They are selling something and are not interested in ethics.
Facts are often misleading. Fact: President Reagan declared war on the Soviet Union. True, but he was joking around before giving a speech. Fact: President Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. True, but his definition of what is not sex will get you in trouble every time. The best advice I can give is to avoid "facts" as you would avoid an extended, face-to-face conversation with someone who has very bad breath.
Over the past four years, "facts" have been used extensively against President Obama. No actual proof has ever been presented, but a significant portion of the country has accepted these "facts" and are now using them as part of their election day decision-making. Throw out all the "facts", forget them and move on to reality. Look at the individual records of what each candidate has done. How did they vote on the issues at their previous elected position? What were the end results of the approved bills which they backed? Have their proposals been attempted in the past, either here or abroad, and what were the results? What types of business dealings have they engaged in in the past? Would you consider these to be good for America? And, lastly; What do you define as "good for America"?
Avoid other people's "facts" and find your own. Then vote according to your own answers and not those that have been forced down your throat by self-righteous commentators.
Facts are. They are self-evident, and do not require anyone to point them out. Saying or writing something does not make it a fact, neither does hearing something, no matter the source. If the voice of God tells me the drinking water in Tijuana is safe to drink, I'm going to have doubts. Seven days of not being able to get more than 20 feet away from a toilet turned me into a skeptic. In short, a fact is something that every sane person will readily accept. Although it may not be a fact, I consider myself sane, so anytime you feel the need to call something a fact, please be prepared to state your sources, provide all validation data you have collected and explain step-by-step your methodology. Or just tell me who you heard it from. If you have a heart condition, please be carrying a reasonable amount of cash, I want to show a profit.
To date, nothing that I have been told is a "fact" has turned out to be one. The word is very useful in making a sales pitch, especially if the deal is a bit on the shady side. "It's a fact that this vehicle will go 4 times the distance of a Toyota Prius on a single tank of fuel." Read the fine print, the vehicle is a truck with 350 gallon fuel capacity and only gets 7.5 mpg. Whenever someone tells you something is "a fact" keep your hand on your wallet. They are selling something and are not interested in ethics.
Facts are often misleading. Fact: President Reagan declared war on the Soviet Union. True, but he was joking around before giving a speech. Fact: President Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. True, but his definition of what is not sex will get you in trouble every time. The best advice I can give is to avoid "facts" as you would avoid an extended, face-to-face conversation with someone who has very bad breath.
Over the past four years, "facts" have been used extensively against President Obama. No actual proof has ever been presented, but a significant portion of the country has accepted these "facts" and are now using them as part of their election day decision-making. Throw out all the "facts", forget them and move on to reality. Look at the individual records of what each candidate has done. How did they vote on the issues at their previous elected position? What were the end results of the approved bills which they backed? Have their proposals been attempted in the past, either here or abroad, and what were the results? What types of business dealings have they engaged in in the past? Would you consider these to be good for America? And, lastly; What do you define as "good for America"?
Avoid other people's "facts" and find your own. Then vote according to your own answers and not those that have been forced down your throat by self-righteous commentators.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Time for a History Lesson
I enjoy dabbling in history, not as a serious student, just for my own enjoyment. The philosopher, novelist, essayist and poet, George Santayana wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". History contains every mistake that has ever been made, so the more you know, the more prepared you are for life.
History isn't limited to the tedious memorization of dates, our education system seems obsessed with, in fact, the date is the least important part. History is my great Grandfather telling me that if I wanted to catch a rabbit, all I had to do was pour salt on its tail. Only took me about 3 hours running around the fields with a salt shaker to learn that lesson. History is my sister telling me about falling asleep and driving into the median in her truck, and what she did about it. Came in very handy when I was forced off the road, doing 75 mph, in New Mexico. The trick is to head to the middle of the median and stop. Don't try to pull back on the road, or you'll roll over. History is everywhere, all you have to do is recognize and learn from it when given the opportunity.
The upcoming election and last weeks Republican National Convention have convinced me that Mitt Romney and the GOP are not students of history. This could possibly pose some problems for the Romney-Ryan campaign. However, since most American voters seem to be clueless when it comes to history (and the economy, and foreign policy, and the constitution and how to use a turn signal), there is a good chance no one will notice.
In 2004, President George W. Bush was running for re-election and was somewhat vulnerable. The Democratic Party nominated Senator John Kerry for President. Sen. Kerry had been characterized as a Vietnam War veteran and hero, had significant advantages when it came to funding a campaign and should have had no trouble winning the election. Except, there were questions about his military service, doubts about the validity of some of his service awards and about his war hero stories existed. A simple solution was available, sign one piece of paper and authorize the release of his service records. He refused to do this and lost the election. After reading both the authorized and unauthorized biographies of Sen. Kerry, I'm convinced that a release of his service records would have destroyed his campaign. It probably would have saved many millions of dollars that were donated to his campaign, but it would have forever ended his political career.
In 2008, Senator John McCain won the GOP nomination to replace President Bush. After eight years of the Bush-Cheney regime, the Democrats should have been highly favored to win the election. All they needed was a decent candidate with no major skeletons in their closet. Instead, they selected a freshman Senator, that not only had an unusual name, but he was an African-American as well. Combining a lack of political experience with bigotry, took the Democrats from a sure thing to the underdog. Now all Sen. McCain needed was the right running-mate and he could move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Instead, he chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
I know that Mrs. Palin has her fans, but there was no benefit to selecting her. Alaska's population is too small to have an impact and her far right-wing beliefs only appeal to the voters which are already solidly behind any non-Democratic candidate. This drove a significant number of moderate Republicans to vote for Sen. Obama and kept moderate Democrats from voting for Sen. McCain. The rest is history.
Another Sen. McCain blunder was when a reporter asked how many houses he owned and the Senator did not know the answer. Anyone else ever have that problem? This created a distance between Sen. McCain and the average voter. Now along comes Mitt Romney. Can you visualize him sitting in Hooters cheering for his team and sharing a few pitchers with the guys? How about changing a tire, or unclogging a toilet? Do you see him worrying about how he's going to pay the bills if something goes wrong? There is nothing wrong about being born into wealth, or with making millions. I'm all in favor of both. I just don't see Mitt Romney as someone that can understand the problems the average American faces.
There have been repeated calls for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns and in response he has released his return for 2010 and his estimated return for 2011. Most of us had to have our 2011 taxes completed by April 16, 2012, but then his returns are quite a bit more complicated than mine. I would be willing to bet that he spends more money having his taxes prepared each year than I've made over the last 10 years. Until he releases all of his returns for a significant number of years, The Democrats have a distinct advantage any time taxation is mentioned. Perhaps before the nomination, someone should have thought about how those records, unless they are squeaky clean, can cause problems.
Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan has been chosen to complete the GOP ticket. At 42, Rep. Ryan is, young, fit and attractive, an ideal poster child for the GOP. In a few more years he could be considered as a possible Presidential candidate. Remember your history lesson? Rep. Ryan's ideology doesn't appeal to moderate voters of either party. With the recent Todd Akin blunder still leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth, the last thing the Republicans need is another "No Abortion For Any Reason" mouthpiece on the national stage. Once again, the Republican Presidential candidate has felt the need to placate the minority in the party that will never vote outside the party.
During the Republican National Convention, Rep. Ryan's speech contained several misleading statements, misrepresentations and some outright lies. Check the news and you'll see what I mean. Personally, I try to limit my lies to ones that I can't be caught in or ones that don't make me look bad when I am caught. So, telling a girl, I was trying to pick up in a bar 30 years ago, that my sprained knee had happened trying out for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, was okay with me. Not that it worked, but at least I didn't have to worry about being called out for it.
History, if you pay attention to it, there are a great number of lessons to be learned. If you ignore it, don't be surprised when you keep repeating past mistakes.
Here's a summation of my history lesson for the GOP:
1. Choose a candidate with a broad appeal, especially with moderate voters.
2. Choose a candidate that can bring personal transparency to the campaign.
Their life needs to be an open book for all to see.
3. Choose a candidate that the average American can relate to, someone who
has struggled to pay the rent, someone who understands our problems and concerns.
4. Choose a Vice-President candidate who broadens your Presidential candidates
appeal rather than limiting it.
5. When talking about the issues use facts. Save the stories for tucking your kids
in at night.
History isn't limited to the tedious memorization of dates, our education system seems obsessed with, in fact, the date is the least important part. History is my great Grandfather telling me that if I wanted to catch a rabbit, all I had to do was pour salt on its tail. Only took me about 3 hours running around the fields with a salt shaker to learn that lesson. History is my sister telling me about falling asleep and driving into the median in her truck, and what she did about it. Came in very handy when I was forced off the road, doing 75 mph, in New Mexico. The trick is to head to the middle of the median and stop. Don't try to pull back on the road, or you'll roll over. History is everywhere, all you have to do is recognize and learn from it when given the opportunity.
The upcoming election and last weeks Republican National Convention have convinced me that Mitt Romney and the GOP are not students of history. This could possibly pose some problems for the Romney-Ryan campaign. However, since most American voters seem to be clueless when it comes to history (and the economy, and foreign policy, and the constitution and how to use a turn signal), there is a good chance no one will notice.
In 2004, President George W. Bush was running for re-election and was somewhat vulnerable. The Democratic Party nominated Senator John Kerry for President. Sen. Kerry had been characterized as a Vietnam War veteran and hero, had significant advantages when it came to funding a campaign and should have had no trouble winning the election. Except, there were questions about his military service, doubts about the validity of some of his service awards and about his war hero stories existed. A simple solution was available, sign one piece of paper and authorize the release of his service records. He refused to do this and lost the election. After reading both the authorized and unauthorized biographies of Sen. Kerry, I'm convinced that a release of his service records would have destroyed his campaign. It probably would have saved many millions of dollars that were donated to his campaign, but it would have forever ended his political career.
In 2008, Senator John McCain won the GOP nomination to replace President Bush. After eight years of the Bush-Cheney regime, the Democrats should have been highly favored to win the election. All they needed was a decent candidate with no major skeletons in their closet. Instead, they selected a freshman Senator, that not only had an unusual name, but he was an African-American as well. Combining a lack of political experience with bigotry, took the Democrats from a sure thing to the underdog. Now all Sen. McCain needed was the right running-mate and he could move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Instead, he chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
I know that Mrs. Palin has her fans, but there was no benefit to selecting her. Alaska's population is too small to have an impact and her far right-wing beliefs only appeal to the voters which are already solidly behind any non-Democratic candidate. This drove a significant number of moderate Republicans to vote for Sen. Obama and kept moderate Democrats from voting for Sen. McCain. The rest is history.
Another Sen. McCain blunder was when a reporter asked how many houses he owned and the Senator did not know the answer. Anyone else ever have that problem? This created a distance between Sen. McCain and the average voter. Now along comes Mitt Romney. Can you visualize him sitting in Hooters cheering for his team and sharing a few pitchers with the guys? How about changing a tire, or unclogging a toilet? Do you see him worrying about how he's going to pay the bills if something goes wrong? There is nothing wrong about being born into wealth, or with making millions. I'm all in favor of both. I just don't see Mitt Romney as someone that can understand the problems the average American faces.
There have been repeated calls for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns and in response he has released his return for 2010 and his estimated return for 2011. Most of us had to have our 2011 taxes completed by April 16, 2012, but then his returns are quite a bit more complicated than mine. I would be willing to bet that he spends more money having his taxes prepared each year than I've made over the last 10 years. Until he releases all of his returns for a significant number of years, The Democrats have a distinct advantage any time taxation is mentioned. Perhaps before the nomination, someone should have thought about how those records, unless they are squeaky clean, can cause problems.
Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan has been chosen to complete the GOP ticket. At 42, Rep. Ryan is, young, fit and attractive, an ideal poster child for the GOP. In a few more years he could be considered as a possible Presidential candidate. Remember your history lesson? Rep. Ryan's ideology doesn't appeal to moderate voters of either party. With the recent Todd Akin blunder still leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth, the last thing the Republicans need is another "No Abortion For Any Reason" mouthpiece on the national stage. Once again, the Republican Presidential candidate has felt the need to placate the minority in the party that will never vote outside the party.
During the Republican National Convention, Rep. Ryan's speech contained several misleading statements, misrepresentations and some outright lies. Check the news and you'll see what I mean. Personally, I try to limit my lies to ones that I can't be caught in or ones that don't make me look bad when I am caught. So, telling a girl, I was trying to pick up in a bar 30 years ago, that my sprained knee had happened trying out for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, was okay with me. Not that it worked, but at least I didn't have to worry about being called out for it.
History, if you pay attention to it, there are a great number of lessons to be learned. If you ignore it, don't be surprised when you keep repeating past mistakes.
Here's a summation of my history lesson for the GOP:
1. Choose a candidate with a broad appeal, especially with moderate voters.
2. Choose a candidate that can bring personal transparency to the campaign.
Their life needs to be an open book for all to see.
3. Choose a candidate that the average American can relate to, someone who
has struggled to pay the rent, someone who understands our problems and concerns.
4. Choose a Vice-President candidate who broadens your Presidential candidates
appeal rather than limiting it.
5. When talking about the issues use facts. Save the stories for tucking your kids
in at night.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
How Can Anyone Defend Obama?
I try to minimize my political discussions for a few reasons. Generally they result in people becoming angry, they never accomplish anything and most people who want to argue politics don't understand basic science. It has been said, that politics has nothing to do with science, but perhaps it should. Especially since, in recent years, politics has been more and more about religion. I'm not putting down any religion, I just believe making decisions based on faith, rather than reason is a recipe for disaster. A quick example: Reason says stepping in front of a speeding vehicle will probably kill you and perhaps others. Faith says that God will protect you, unless your death serves a higher purpose. Grab 10 friends and put it to the test. We'll add up the score later.
For the current election cycle, most of the talk has been about the economy. President Obama has not fixed the economy, the deficit keeps growing and millions are still out of work. All true statements that mean almost nothing. Millions are out of work, and there are also millions of jobs available. While many require a college education, many require no prior experience or training. They might require drug testing, they might pay less than what a person is used to making, they might even be strenuous and distasteful. Yet, they are jobs.
The deficit and its rampant growth are more difficult problems, as is the economy. Let us look at the economy first. The economy is not a car, you can't just point it in a direction and choose your speed. The economy is everything from the farmers in their fields to the CEO's in their corporate jets. What percentage goes to defense? How much to infrastructure (roads, bridges, electrical power grid, sanitation, etc.)? How much to social services? How much to self-support (government paychecks, perks, building maintenance)? How much to advertising (also known as foreign policy)? These are just some of the factors in areas the government has direct control over, and this is only a very small part of the economic picture. In comparison, the deficit is rather simple, good budgeting decisions, plus a strong economy will shrink the deficit. Good budgeting decisions with a weak economy is a different story. Without a sound economy, the deficit problem can only get worse.
On October 29, 1929 a long period of speculative investing ended in disaster. It took over 10 years and World War II to complete the recovery. During the recovery the U.S. Government spent extravagantly on social programs and became the largest single employer, a position they hold today. The social programs enacted at that time probably hurt the recovery more than they helped it. What it seems they did provide was hope. Food was available, work was available, Social Security was created. People could begin to believe that better days were ahead, somewhere.
Fast forward 75 years and find yourself in the middle of another period of highly speculative investing and find many of the safeguards instituted after Black Tuesday, removed. The crash should not have come as a surprise to anyone. This time, instead of spending money on the people who had almost nothing to do with the problem, but suffered the worst, the money was spent to help the banks recover. Probably not the best move. "You killed your own children? Why don't we help you open up a daycare?"
Today, most seem to believe in magic. All it takes is for the President of the United States to wave his magic wand (there is a Clinton joke in there somewhere) and everything gets better. There is no magic wand (put it away Bill), There is no quick fix for the economy. It will, as it has every time in the past, recover slowly. Please stop blaming President Obama (I use the title, because I believe anyone who holds the office deserves to be treated with respect) for not providing a quick fix for something that can not be fixed quickly. Pick another subject.
Obamacare? I despise the term. It's meant to be derogatory and it blinds people to the facts. You don't hear me calling the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Bushoween (it was enacted in October, think about it). President Obama attempted to reform our healthcare system, something that needs to be done. His initial proposal bears little resemblance to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The act bears much more resemblance to the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law than to anything else. Does the President really deserve all the blame for this?
The whole birth certificate issue is just plain silly. Bringing it into the debate casts a very big shadow on any other complaint about Obama's presidency. At this point it has become irrelevant. Find something substantial to complain about. Maybe his stance on gays and lesbians, or on abortion. Or, as I've heard recently, his religious beliefs.
I'm not normally a screamer (zipper related accidents are an exception), but the subject of the President's religious beliefs brings me close to that point. I don't care if he goes to church, where he goes to church, how he prays. If he's sacrificing live chickens in the rose garden I'm fine with that as long as they are his chickens. Once he starts attempting to legislate his religion and force it on me, then I have a problem, even if his beliefs are exactly the same as my own. Have your beliefs, enjoy them, let them bring you comfort, but if they figure into your voting decision, you're not qualified to vote and should refrain.
A significant issue in the Republican platform for the past 32 years, at least, has been abortion. The current stance is that we need a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting all abortions, no exceptions. No Exceptions! Apply that to any law and see how it feels to you. If you kill another person, you receive the death penalty, no exceptions. If you commit adultery, you are stoned to death, no exceptions. Exceptions are not much of an improvement. Abortion is illegal except in cases of forcible rape. Define forcible. How much force is required to make it forcible rape? What type of force? Until the rapist is convicted, how can you prove forcible rape? And how long will it take a government to decide whether or not an abortion should be allowed because it meets the exception? Two months? Two years? While I disapprove of using abortion as retro-active birth control, I would rather allow that than place a government approved moral filter on medical decisions.
The government is too big and it continues to grow. No matter who is President or which party controls Congress, the government will continue to grow. Try putting your dog in charge of how much and how often food is available and you'll soon have a very fat dog. Let your children plan the family meals and you'll see a lot of desserts and not many vegetables. As long as the government is in charge of how much money they spend, the hole we are all asked to dig will get deeper. Neither candidate can or will change that, so make your decision based on something other than pipe dreams.
For the current election cycle, most of the talk has been about the economy. President Obama has not fixed the economy, the deficit keeps growing and millions are still out of work. All true statements that mean almost nothing. Millions are out of work, and there are also millions of jobs available. While many require a college education, many require no prior experience or training. They might require drug testing, they might pay less than what a person is used to making, they might even be strenuous and distasteful. Yet, they are jobs.
The deficit and its rampant growth are more difficult problems, as is the economy. Let us look at the economy first. The economy is not a car, you can't just point it in a direction and choose your speed. The economy is everything from the farmers in their fields to the CEO's in their corporate jets. What percentage goes to defense? How much to infrastructure (roads, bridges, electrical power grid, sanitation, etc.)? How much to social services? How much to self-support (government paychecks, perks, building maintenance)? How much to advertising (also known as foreign policy)? These are just some of the factors in areas the government has direct control over, and this is only a very small part of the economic picture. In comparison, the deficit is rather simple, good budgeting decisions, plus a strong economy will shrink the deficit. Good budgeting decisions with a weak economy is a different story. Without a sound economy, the deficit problem can only get worse.
On October 29, 1929 a long period of speculative investing ended in disaster. It took over 10 years and World War II to complete the recovery. During the recovery the U.S. Government spent extravagantly on social programs and became the largest single employer, a position they hold today. The social programs enacted at that time probably hurt the recovery more than they helped it. What it seems they did provide was hope. Food was available, work was available, Social Security was created. People could begin to believe that better days were ahead, somewhere.
Fast forward 75 years and find yourself in the middle of another period of highly speculative investing and find many of the safeguards instituted after Black Tuesday, removed. The crash should not have come as a surprise to anyone. This time, instead of spending money on the people who had almost nothing to do with the problem, but suffered the worst, the money was spent to help the banks recover. Probably not the best move. "You killed your own children? Why don't we help you open up a daycare?"
Today, most seem to believe in magic. All it takes is for the President of the United States to wave his magic wand (there is a Clinton joke in there somewhere) and everything gets better. There is no magic wand (put it away Bill), There is no quick fix for the economy. It will, as it has every time in the past, recover slowly. Please stop blaming President Obama (I use the title, because I believe anyone who holds the office deserves to be treated with respect) for not providing a quick fix for something that can not be fixed quickly. Pick another subject.
Obamacare? I despise the term. It's meant to be derogatory and it blinds people to the facts. You don't hear me calling the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Bushoween (it was enacted in October, think about it). President Obama attempted to reform our healthcare system, something that needs to be done. His initial proposal bears little resemblance to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The act bears much more resemblance to the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law than to anything else. Does the President really deserve all the blame for this?
The whole birth certificate issue is just plain silly. Bringing it into the debate casts a very big shadow on any other complaint about Obama's presidency. At this point it has become irrelevant. Find something substantial to complain about. Maybe his stance on gays and lesbians, or on abortion. Or, as I've heard recently, his religious beliefs.
I'm not normally a screamer (zipper related accidents are an exception), but the subject of the President's religious beliefs brings me close to that point. I don't care if he goes to church, where he goes to church, how he prays. If he's sacrificing live chickens in the rose garden I'm fine with that as long as they are his chickens. Once he starts attempting to legislate his religion and force it on me, then I have a problem, even if his beliefs are exactly the same as my own. Have your beliefs, enjoy them, let them bring you comfort, but if they figure into your voting decision, you're not qualified to vote and should refrain.
A significant issue in the Republican platform for the past 32 years, at least, has been abortion. The current stance is that we need a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting all abortions, no exceptions. No Exceptions! Apply that to any law and see how it feels to you. If you kill another person, you receive the death penalty, no exceptions. If you commit adultery, you are stoned to death, no exceptions. Exceptions are not much of an improvement. Abortion is illegal except in cases of forcible rape. Define forcible. How much force is required to make it forcible rape? What type of force? Until the rapist is convicted, how can you prove forcible rape? And how long will it take a government to decide whether or not an abortion should be allowed because it meets the exception? Two months? Two years? While I disapprove of using abortion as retro-active birth control, I would rather allow that than place a government approved moral filter on medical decisions.
The government is too big and it continues to grow. No matter who is President or which party controls Congress, the government will continue to grow. Try putting your dog in charge of how much and how often food is available and you'll soon have a very fat dog. Let your children plan the family meals and you'll see a lot of desserts and not many vegetables. As long as the government is in charge of how much money they spend, the hole we are all asked to dig will get deeper. Neither candidate can or will change that, so make your decision based on something other than pipe dreams.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Rape? Legitimate or Illegitimate?
Sunday, Aug. 19, 2012 is a day that I hope people will remember. On this day a recorded interview with Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) was broadcast by KTVI-TV in St. Louis. Within a few hours, Rep. Akin released a statement that he had "misspoke" without much clarification. Today he released a statement, that included more information, and shows that he truly doesn't understand. In case you haven't heard about the issue, I'll give the basic rundown.
During the interview, Rep. Akin was asked if abortion should be legal in the case of rape. His response: "From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Mr. Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something…I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
Any question about why some people are upset over this gem? After these remarks every person capable of rational thought should be outraged. You know it is bad when the GOP pulls all campaign funding, which it appears they have done. Perhaps there are a few politicos with some sense.
Using the word "legitimate" with "rape" is just the beginning of Rep. Akin's misconception. Rape, like the pregnancy it apparently won't cause, doesn't require any qualifiers. Let's leave the abortion out of this for a moment and just examine Rep. Akin's reasoning. If a woman claims rape, and becomes pregnant from the alleged rape, then it seems unlikely she was actually raped, since "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." So instead of punishing the rapist, who couldn't have committed rape (see above), you create a situation where he has parental rights. This puts us one step away from requiring a rape victim to marry the rapist. I guess that takes the trouble out of trying to find the right woman to marry. All you need is good, active sperm (eat lots of walnuts).
To illustrate that rape does not require any qualifiers, here are a few incidents from my past that make me appear to be a much better person than I am. I have had some good moments.
Twenty years ago, at a friend's house for dinner and drinks (mostly drinks), in attendance were the friend (G), his wife (T), one of his co-workers (J), and co-workers girlfriend (V). Also there was the friend's 5 year old son (C), who does not figure in the story other than he was in the house. During dinner V mentioned drinking us under the table. Let the games begin! J was first out, so I fixed up a bed for him in the motorhome. Soon after, T called it quits (C was already asleep). G was the next to bow out leaving me and V still standing (staggering). Shortly thereafter V let me know she was attracted to me by taking off all her clothes and climbing on top of me. I finally persuaded her to postpone sex indefinitely and managed to get enough clothes back on her to keep me out of trouble. In my mind, if I had taken her up on the offer, it would have been rape. And yes, I actually thought that at the time. Five years earlier, my clothes would have been off as quick as hers.
Five years later found me with 5 days to kill in Daytona Beach, during spring break, waiting on a load. One beachfront hotel with truck parking and I was ready to relax and enjoy. Night 3 brought a very drunk young woman into the hotel bar where I was shooting pool and enjoying a few beers. I'd seen her around, usually drunk and rather flirtatious with the college boys. This night she had on a very short dress and nothing else (which became obvious every time she staggered and fell to the floor). One of the other hotel guests/bar patrons, decided that she needed a place to stay and he needed a drunk 21 year old in his bed. At this point I stepped in, took her to the front desk and asked the clerk for another room, took her there, left her a note to call me when she woke up, and told her to lock the door and not to open it for anyone. I then stood watch until the opportunist decided I was not letting him have his way and went off to my own bed. In my mind a rape was prevented.
In both cases, in my opinion, the girl involved was not in a position to make a decision involving sex. Therefore any sex becomes rape. Does a man have to hold a knife to a woman's throat, or beat her senseless in order for rape to occur? What about cases where the threat is only implied? Rep. Akin's comments, especially from someone hoping to become a Senator, show considerable empathy for rapists. When you start talking about "forcible rape" or "legitimate rape" you open the door to a rapist going free because the victim had been kissing him earlier, or because she was dressed provocatively and flirting or because the gun he held to her head, wasn't loaded.
Now to the abortion issue. In my mind, and apparently, I'm in the majority here, there are situations where abortion, may be appropriate. No need to qualify them. Put yourself, or your daughter, into the situation and see if there is some combination of circumstances where you would choose abortion. If you can honestly think of no circumstance where abortion would be the lesser evil, you've wasted considerable time reading this far, because your mind is closed and therefore of very little use to anyone. If, on the other hand, you can think rationally, you've now determined your boundary regarding abortion. Are you willing, or qualified, to sit in judgement over every single woman, every single pregnancy? Definitely not. Probably shouldn't try to require others to accept your judgement then.
If this has offended anyone (other than grammatically) you'll either get over it, or die pissed off. I'm tired, this is long and tedious. Enjoy it if you can.
During the interview, Rep. Akin was asked if abortion should be legal in the case of rape. His response: "From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Mr. Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something…I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
Any question about why some people are upset over this gem? After these remarks every person capable of rational thought should be outraged. You know it is bad when the GOP pulls all campaign funding, which it appears they have done. Perhaps there are a few politicos with some sense.
Using the word "legitimate" with "rape" is just the beginning of Rep. Akin's misconception. Rape, like the pregnancy it apparently won't cause, doesn't require any qualifiers. Let's leave the abortion out of this for a moment and just examine Rep. Akin's reasoning. If a woman claims rape, and becomes pregnant from the alleged rape, then it seems unlikely she was actually raped, since "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." So instead of punishing the rapist, who couldn't have committed rape (see above), you create a situation where he has parental rights. This puts us one step away from requiring a rape victim to marry the rapist. I guess that takes the trouble out of trying to find the right woman to marry. All you need is good, active sperm (eat lots of walnuts).
To illustrate that rape does not require any qualifiers, here are a few incidents from my past that make me appear to be a much better person than I am. I have had some good moments.
Twenty years ago, at a friend's house for dinner and drinks (mostly drinks), in attendance were the friend (G), his wife (T), one of his co-workers (J), and co-workers girlfriend (V). Also there was the friend's 5 year old son (C), who does not figure in the story other than he was in the house. During dinner V mentioned drinking us under the table. Let the games begin! J was first out, so I fixed up a bed for him in the motorhome. Soon after, T called it quits (C was already asleep). G was the next to bow out leaving me and V still standing (staggering). Shortly thereafter V let me know she was attracted to me by taking off all her clothes and climbing on top of me. I finally persuaded her to postpone sex indefinitely and managed to get enough clothes back on her to keep me out of trouble. In my mind, if I had taken her up on the offer, it would have been rape. And yes, I actually thought that at the time. Five years earlier, my clothes would have been off as quick as hers.
Five years later found me with 5 days to kill in Daytona Beach, during spring break, waiting on a load. One beachfront hotel with truck parking and I was ready to relax and enjoy. Night 3 brought a very drunk young woman into the hotel bar where I was shooting pool and enjoying a few beers. I'd seen her around, usually drunk and rather flirtatious with the college boys. This night she had on a very short dress and nothing else (which became obvious every time she staggered and fell to the floor). One of the other hotel guests/bar patrons, decided that she needed a place to stay and he needed a drunk 21 year old in his bed. At this point I stepped in, took her to the front desk and asked the clerk for another room, took her there, left her a note to call me when she woke up, and told her to lock the door and not to open it for anyone. I then stood watch until the opportunist decided I was not letting him have his way and went off to my own bed. In my mind a rape was prevented.
In both cases, in my opinion, the girl involved was not in a position to make a decision involving sex. Therefore any sex becomes rape. Does a man have to hold a knife to a woman's throat, or beat her senseless in order for rape to occur? What about cases where the threat is only implied? Rep. Akin's comments, especially from someone hoping to become a Senator, show considerable empathy for rapists. When you start talking about "forcible rape" or "legitimate rape" you open the door to a rapist going free because the victim had been kissing him earlier, or because she was dressed provocatively and flirting or because the gun he held to her head, wasn't loaded.
Now to the abortion issue. In my mind, and apparently, I'm in the majority here, there are situations where abortion, may be appropriate. No need to qualify them. Put yourself, or your daughter, into the situation and see if there is some combination of circumstances where you would choose abortion. If you can honestly think of no circumstance where abortion would be the lesser evil, you've wasted considerable time reading this far, because your mind is closed and therefore of very little use to anyone. If, on the other hand, you can think rationally, you've now determined your boundary regarding abortion. Are you willing, or qualified, to sit in judgement over every single woman, every single pregnancy? Definitely not. Probably shouldn't try to require others to accept your judgement then.
If this has offended anyone (other than grammatically) you'll either get over it, or die pissed off. I'm tired, this is long and tedious. Enjoy it if you can.
Friday, July 27, 2012
What are ya? Chicken?
Anyone more aware than a chicken has probably heard of the recent flap regarding Chick-fil-a. By my estimates this means that over 42% of Americans have some knowledge of this issue. Just a quick look at the uproar: Chick-fil-a President, Dan Cathy publicly stated the chain supports the traditional family unit and it has been reported that they have donated as much as $3 million to groups which oppose gay marriage. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LBGT) groups have complained and suggest boycotting the restaurant chain. Politicos from Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago have spoken out, condemning Chick-fil-a for their stand. Others, including former Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee have praised them for the same reason. These are the facts as I understand them. Now on to my viewpoint.
Every individual has the right (that I fully support) to their own beliefs, up to the point where those beliefs cause harm to, or limit the rights of, others. If you believe in your right to perform yoga, in your yard, in the nude, go for it. If the neighbors complain, put up a fence high enough to keep from inflicting your beliefs on them. Find others with the same belief, form a group and be proud of the grass stains on your ass. Just don't show them to me, while I'm trying to eat. Have t-shirts made up for the Outdoor Naked Yoga eXperience (ONYX, I just trademarked it and am willing to sell). Until you try to force others to practice, or watch, your beliefs, you are within your rights, more power to you.
Group rights are trickier. The actions of any group member reflect upon all members of the group. If one Denny's manager actively discriminates against African-American's, the perception is that everyone employed by Denny's is guilty of discrimination. If you are an employee of Walt Disney World and you ride Splash Mountain, while a commercial is being filmed, wearing a top which shows a bit of cleavage, Walt Disney World loses some of the innocence and purity associated with them. So Disney takes the cleavage out and Denny's fires some managers and the public perception eventually returns to normal. Disney and Denny's employees, along with most other employees, sign an agreement regarding their conduct, because of how it reflects on the company. All clear so far?
When the CEO of a corporation makes a public statement regarding the company position on any controversial issue, they have, by association, pushed every employee, every franchise owner, every vendor and every customer into the fray on the side they have chosen. Many will applaud, many will complain, and many won't give a damn. Standing up and being proud of your beliefs is admirable, forcing those beliefs on others is detestable.
If marriage exists only within what is allowed and accepted by any or all religions it has no legal basis within the United States. That means no more married, filing jointly, no more deductions for all those little, wonderful dependents, no more divorce lawyers and no more alimony or child support. If marriage is a legal institution granting rights and responsibilities to the parties involved, then it has to be available to everyone. Anything less is government sponsored discrimination. If you're opposed to gay marriage, the solution is self-evident; Don't marry a person of the same sex. Carry it to extremes and refuse to attend a gay wedding. Just don't try to tell others what they can or can't do, because you have passed judgement, and found them to be less than human.
To Dan Cathy, you owe an apology. The apology isn't for your own personal beliefs, the apology is to all the customers whose money was good enough for you, even though you feel they are not entitled to the same rights as you. The apology is for all the people who gave you $5000, plus 1/2 of their net earnings not knowing some of the money would be spent to restrict their rights. To all the people flocking to the anti-gay marriage cause, be proud in your belief that your hatred of those different from you is more important than their love for each other.
Every individual has the right (that I fully support) to their own beliefs, up to the point where those beliefs cause harm to, or limit the rights of, others. If you believe in your right to perform yoga, in your yard, in the nude, go for it. If the neighbors complain, put up a fence high enough to keep from inflicting your beliefs on them. Find others with the same belief, form a group and be proud of the grass stains on your ass. Just don't show them to me, while I'm trying to eat. Have t-shirts made up for the Outdoor Naked Yoga eXperience (ONYX, I just trademarked it and am willing to sell). Until you try to force others to practice, or watch, your beliefs, you are within your rights, more power to you.
Group rights are trickier. The actions of any group member reflect upon all members of the group. If one Denny's manager actively discriminates against African-American's, the perception is that everyone employed by Denny's is guilty of discrimination. If you are an employee of Walt Disney World and you ride Splash Mountain, while a commercial is being filmed, wearing a top which shows a bit of cleavage, Walt Disney World loses some of the innocence and purity associated with them. So Disney takes the cleavage out and Denny's fires some managers and the public perception eventually returns to normal. Disney and Denny's employees, along with most other employees, sign an agreement regarding their conduct, because of how it reflects on the company. All clear so far?
When the CEO of a corporation makes a public statement regarding the company position on any controversial issue, they have, by association, pushed every employee, every franchise owner, every vendor and every customer into the fray on the side they have chosen. Many will applaud, many will complain, and many won't give a damn. Standing up and being proud of your beliefs is admirable, forcing those beliefs on others is detestable.
If marriage exists only within what is allowed and accepted by any or all religions it has no legal basis within the United States. That means no more married, filing jointly, no more deductions for all those little, wonderful dependents, no more divorce lawyers and no more alimony or child support. If marriage is a legal institution granting rights and responsibilities to the parties involved, then it has to be available to everyone. Anything less is government sponsored discrimination. If you're opposed to gay marriage, the solution is self-evident; Don't marry a person of the same sex. Carry it to extremes and refuse to attend a gay wedding. Just don't try to tell others what they can or can't do, because you have passed judgement, and found them to be less than human.
To Dan Cathy, you owe an apology. The apology isn't for your own personal beliefs, the apology is to all the customers whose money was good enough for you, even though you feel they are not entitled to the same rights as you. The apology is for all the people who gave you $5000, plus 1/2 of their net earnings not knowing some of the money would be spent to restrict their rights. To all the people flocking to the anti-gay marriage cause, be proud in your belief that your hatred of those different from you is more important than their love for each other.
Monday, July 2, 2012
"When in the course of human events"
These seven simple words should hold a very special place in the heart of every American. In case you don't recognize them, these seven words are the start of "The Declaration of Independence", the document that served as the official start of the American war for independence, the document we'll be celebrating in two days with processed pork products, sunburns and lots of explosions. I won't bore everyone by quoting the entire document, instead I'll paraphrase it for you: "Dear King of England, you're an asshole. We're tired of your crap and are done with you. Mess with us, and we'll have to open a can of whup-ass on you. Sincerely, a bunch of rich guys"
Don't get upset, I'm not mocking the founding fathers of this country, or the Declaration of Independence. I have nothing but respect for the document and for the 56 men brave enough to sign their names to it. With their signature, each man was committing everything he had, including his life, to throwing off the tyrannical rule of England. Think about that for a moment. You're living large, have just about everything you could want and you're willing to throw it all away, just to make the world a better place. The best you can hope for, if you lose, is that you'll lose all your money and property, spend several years in some prison and then get to live out the rest of your life with nothing. If you win, your life will be a little better, but the lives of all the poor people working for you, will probably get much better (then, as now costs flood down, profits, trickle down).
If you check out the biographies of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence you'll find that many started out with very little and worked their way into positions of wealth and influence. Others were born into or adopted by wealthy families and benefited from higher education. The one thing they all had in common was an unrelenting drive to break away from Great Britain and create a country where people could leave free from oppression and tyranny (except for that whole slavery thing). These men freely gave their time, labor and money, risked their lives, wealth and families all in the name of freedom. Do you think they would have any respect for their social equals today? Would they even recognize any aspect of our government?
Sadly, the financial and political leaders in our country today understand nothing of sacrifice. With few exceptions, they've never had to worry where the next meal was coming from, never had to wonder how much longer they could afford to keep a roof over their head, or how much longer they could work a job that was slowly killing them. Ask them to help their fellow man, and they'll form a non-profit organization which collects money from the people who need it, gives them a tax shelter and pays them a healthy salary for doing nothing. In the meantime, people are losing their jobs and homes, trying to survive in an economy that has been decimated by the greedy.
If I sound somewhat bitter, it might be because I am. Every month I pay my bills and hope that no catastrophes pop up. So far, so good. Meanwhile, any proposal to remove the loopholes in the tax code, or law that might reduce the outrageous profits in their pet industry is might with outrage. If we make the wealthy pay more, then how can they afford to spend money to help the poor? Gee, I don't know. If my net worth was growing by $30 million each year, I have no idea how I would survive if that got cut back to $25 million. I'd probably have to stop tipping waitpersons $5 for a $400 dinner party.
For all those people out there who can't remember how many homes you own, I'd like to leave you with the closing of the Declaration of Independence. Something to think about on your next vacation: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Don't get upset, I'm not mocking the founding fathers of this country, or the Declaration of Independence. I have nothing but respect for the document and for the 56 men brave enough to sign their names to it. With their signature, each man was committing everything he had, including his life, to throwing off the tyrannical rule of England. Think about that for a moment. You're living large, have just about everything you could want and you're willing to throw it all away, just to make the world a better place. The best you can hope for, if you lose, is that you'll lose all your money and property, spend several years in some prison and then get to live out the rest of your life with nothing. If you win, your life will be a little better, but the lives of all the poor people working for you, will probably get much better (then, as now costs flood down, profits, trickle down).
If you check out the biographies of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence you'll find that many started out with very little and worked their way into positions of wealth and influence. Others were born into or adopted by wealthy families and benefited from higher education. The one thing they all had in common was an unrelenting drive to break away from Great Britain and create a country where people could leave free from oppression and tyranny (except for that whole slavery thing). These men freely gave their time, labor and money, risked their lives, wealth and families all in the name of freedom. Do you think they would have any respect for their social equals today? Would they even recognize any aspect of our government?
Sadly, the financial and political leaders in our country today understand nothing of sacrifice. With few exceptions, they've never had to worry where the next meal was coming from, never had to wonder how much longer they could afford to keep a roof over their head, or how much longer they could work a job that was slowly killing them. Ask them to help their fellow man, and they'll form a non-profit organization which collects money from the people who need it, gives them a tax shelter and pays them a healthy salary for doing nothing. In the meantime, people are losing their jobs and homes, trying to survive in an economy that has been decimated by the greedy.
If I sound somewhat bitter, it might be because I am. Every month I pay my bills and hope that no catastrophes pop up. So far, so good. Meanwhile, any proposal to remove the loopholes in the tax code, or law that might reduce the outrageous profits in their pet industry is might with outrage. If we make the wealthy pay more, then how can they afford to spend money to help the poor? Gee, I don't know. If my net worth was growing by $30 million each year, I have no idea how I would survive if that got cut back to $25 million. I'd probably have to stop tipping waitpersons $5 for a $400 dinner party.
For all those people out there who can't remember how many homes you own, I'd like to leave you with the closing of the Declaration of Independence. Something to think about on your next vacation: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)