Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There are really two issues here. First, there is a pendulum that swings with the change in administration. A little consistency would make the regulatory environment a lot more predictable. Second, there is an Us v. Them attitude that permeates the entire process on both sides. The regulators are adversarial, but the regulated are too. That also needs to be fixed. The problem is, the department that should be acting as an agent for business, is only interested in large businesses. Let Exxon-Mobile fend for itself, and shift the support focus down scale. There should be a single point of contact that represents the interests of businesses interacting with government and assists the agencies in their interactions in the other direction.

The best kind of regulator is the one who comes in with the attitude of a consultant. Spend a day, communicate where and why there are places to do better. Come back to verify a month or so later that all the changes agreed upon were made. No fines, no intimidation, no gotchas, but an earnest attempt to educate and get everyone to follow the rules.

That would be wonderful.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

The best kind of regulator is the one who comes in with the attitude of a consultant. Spend a day, communicate where and why there are places to do better. Come back to verify a month or so later that all the changes agreed upon were made. No fines, no intimidation, no gotchas, but an earnest attempt to educate and get everyone to follow the rules.

That would be wonderful.

James50

I can't disagree with you, there.

Originally Posted by James50

The best kind of regulator is the one who comes in with the attitude of a consultant. Spend a day, communicate where and why there are places to do better. Come back to verify a month or so later that all the changes agreed upon were made. No fines, no intimidation, no gotchas, but an earnest attempt to educate and get everyone to follow the rules.

That would be wonderful.

James50

That would require an enormous amount of trust - not so much between regulator and regulated, but the third-parties that the regulation was intended to protect. That trust was pretty hard to obtain even during the 1st Turning, 1950s, high-conformity times; now, during this near civil war, 4T???

The distrust spewing out of what has happened not only during the financial meltdown and all that lead up to it but the lobbyist continued being in bed with the govt to an unprecedented level should have small business seething mad - you're paying for it; we all are.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That would require an enormous amount of trust - not so much between regulator and regulated, but the third-parties that the regulation was intended to protect. That trust was pretty hard to obtain even during the 1st Turning, 1950s, high-conformity times; now, during this near civil war, 4T???

The distrust spewing out of what has happened not only during the financial meltdown and all that lead up to it but the lobbyist continued being in bed with the govt to an unprecedented level should have small business seething mad - you're paying for it; we all are.

Yep.

James50

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Funny, I am excusing Fannie Mae(as she was orginally designed). Note: I would have to examine Freddie Mac in more depth to make an assessment. Why were they allowed to hold Mortgages as Investments?(this is rhetorical).

The banks (at the time, S&Ls - remember them?) were bitching big time that they couldn't compete and Fannie had to be more like them so that they could.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Ah yes, "a profitable segment of the Government". How appropriate. Maybe we can use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a vehicle to trade Crude Oil, as well. How about Individual Carbon Credits? Note: My assumption is that the quotation marks around "profitable" has to do with your views on MMT. If so, understood and duly-noted.

Yes, those 'profits' go to the same place as all other money the fed. govt collects - if it's paper, to the shredder; if it's electrons, back to the ether from which it came.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

It is expected that Interventionistas such as yourself are interested in an increase in Dependency on the Federal Govt.

Your quotes are both artistic and funny, though.

"dependency" is like "free market" but in reverse - you can't find an economy that is purely free market but you can't find an economy that is not dependent on the government - not even in Somalia as I like to tweak my Libertarian and anarchist friends.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Oh, so tempting... like a WWI Zeppelin...floating... so enticingly...in an azure sky...Another day, perhaps.

Prince

Yes, it is enticing particularly when put forth by Professor Randall Wray where a "transitional jobs program," funded by the feds would not only greatly replace demand-side only support programs (e.g. unemployment benefits, food stamps) but would serve as the "reserve" (like a gold standard) to stabilize prices.

Nice find on Prince. At first, I thought I was going to get a Purple Rain MTV video.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Not to worry, James. PW is a firm believer in the primacy of Official Statistics over mere empirical fact.

You know if the beams are getting through again, you just need to add a little more tin -

Originally Posted by playwrite

You know if the beams are getting through again, you just need to add a little more tin -

My favorite uncle, b. 1911, was a labor lawyer--and almost a libertarian! He would have preferred that the government never get into labor relations at all--he would have argued that workplace safety should be handled by the union (of course, now there probably isn't one) and the employer. I wonder if James would prefer that. Maybe so.

Originally Posted by James50

The best kind of regulator is the one who comes in with the attitude of a consultant. Spend a day, communicate where and why there are places to do better. Come back to verify a month or so later that all the changes agreed upon were made. No fines, no intimidation, no gotchas, but an earnest attempt to educate and get everyone to follow the rules.

That would be wonderful.

James50

You'd need to have enough regulators that they could spend time with their clients and not have to rush through a huge backlog of inspections. And of course, having enough regulators means funding the government agencies.

It seems like a common theme seems to be to underfund government agencies so there aren't enough staff members to do the agency's mission. Then, complain about how rotten government is and how they can't do anything right. It's a catch 22.

I started the day with a 45-minute bike ride and in the midst of it I had an "aha" moment about regulation.

As I have said, I am sure James's complaints are not without foundation. Perhaps Democrats like myself have a knee-jerk reaction that regulation is good while Republicans have a knee-jerk reaction that it's bad. Fine. But my question then is--why didn't the Republicans take care of it? From 2002 to 2006 they controlled everything. They cut back enforcement of all sorts of federal regulations--the IRS practically went out of the compliance business. So why didn't they rein in OSHA?

And then it occurred to me, that to Karl Rove, excessive regulations are a huge advantage. They make people hate government, which makes them vote Republican. James is an interesting example (I know you don't always vote Republican, James.) He has suffered through this under both administrations but he blames Democrats for it.

Neither party cares much about anything but winning, although the Republicans are much more ruthless about it. That works against good government, which in turn helps the Republicans, the anti-government party. Talk about a vicious circle!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

What is "empirical fact?"

In the context of this conversation, it sounds like you may be giving priority to anecdotal evidence over survey information. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, why do you see statistical information as less valuable?

Basically what Copp said, about the difference between data and information. Empirical fact is the kind of stuff that James described -- things that actually happen.

Survey "information" is not information at all. At absolute best, it hopes to be conclusions legitimately drawn from a genuinely random and sufficient sampling of the mass of information. As such, it is necessarily several degrees removed from reality... at best (and even that assumes that the surveying was done in a perfectly valid way, that the data sampled was perfectly validly gained, that the data sampled itself completely covers all the interrelated dependent variables. And so on and so forth.

Then to that hypothetical and theoretic ideal, you get to add consideration for the fact of self-interest among those gathering the data, those analyzing the data, and those reporting the data.

Contrast all of that with information (be it however small a scale), and the relative value of each is pretty darn clear.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Basically what Copp said, about the difference between data and information. Empirical fact is the kind of stuff that James described -- things that actually happen.

Survey "information" is not information at all. At absolute best, it hopes to be conclusions legitimately drawn from a genuinely random and sufficient sampling of the mass of information. As such, it is necessarily several degrees removed from reality... at best (and even that assumes that the surveying was done in a perfectly valid way, that the data sampled was perfectly validly gained, that the data sampled itself completely covers all the interrelated dependent variables. And so on and so forth.

Then to that hypothetical and theoretic ideal, you get to add consideration for the fact of self-interest among those gathering the data, those analyzing the data, and those reporting the data.

Contrast all of that with information (be it however small a scale), and the relative value of each is pretty darn clear.

Anecdotes are still subject to bias and misinterpretation.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The banks (at the time, S&Ls - remember them?) were bitching big time that they couldn't compete and Fannie had to be more like them so that they could.

I'm quite aware of that as being a reason. I am also quite aware of your understanding of the History and Operations i/r/t the Financial Sector(hence my use of the word rhetorical).

Originally Posted by PW

Yes, those 'profits' go to the same place as all other money the fed. govt collects - if it's paper, to the shredder; if it's electrons, back to the ether from which it came.

No comments concerning a Govt that is operating as if it were a business? I completely understand how foreign a crticism like that might seem from "my side". Otherwise, see above.

Originally Posted by PW

"dependency" is like "free market" but in reverse - you can't find an economy that is purely free market but you can't find an economy that is not dependent on the government - not even in Somalia as I like to tweak my Libertarian and anarchist friends.

Humor me for a second, PW. As a "rule of thumb", would you be a proponent of erring on the side of more Central Planning or less Central Planning?

Originally Posted by PW

Yes, it is enticing particularly when put forth by Professor Randall Wray where a "transitional jobs program," funded by the feds would not only greatly replace demand-side only support programs (e.g. unemployment benefits, food stamps) but would serve as the "reserve" (like a gold standard) to stabilize prices.

Interventionistas do tend to be rather Demand-ing. I, on the other hand, don't much appreciate having my choices made for me by a "Higher Power" that believes they know what's best for "Us".

Originally Posted by PW

Nice find on Prince. At first, I thought I was going to get a Purple Rain MTV video.

I happened across Norman Prince one day while studying the Lafeyette Escadrille. On a serious note: His voluntary sacrifice(as well as others) is remembered.

Just so you're not dis-appointed: Prince-I Would Die For You/Baby I'm A Star!

Note: There's not alot of fans these days of The Great War. When I was a very young boy, I found a book that was written/published before the end of WWI. In the back, there was a hope(and prayer!) that the arrival of the US Military would lead to a quick ending of the bloodshed. Not many photographs; Battles were depicted by drawings/paintings. A rare perspective. I have another pretty cool book along those lines that is comprised of letters written i/r/t Sympathies of a Border State during The US Civil War.

It's a much different POV looking-backwards(20/20?-vision) than attempting to consider the decisions made during the heat of battle.

Prince

PS: Anyone on the Message Board know why Paulsen's TARP-program was enacted? FWIW, It's more than an attempt to re-capitalize the Big Banks. Please include a reference to the intention of Paulsen's "Squirt-Gun/Bazooka" in any response.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Anecdotes are still subject to bias and misinterpretation.

As are all things not observed with one's own eyes. I think it pretty clear that neither data nor information is perfect. But I've never tried to claim that for either -- just that data suffers not only from the imperfection that information does, but also from its own very significant fundamental weaknesses.

Seeking truth, I find it best to at least give more credence to those modes of observation relatively less inherently weak.

People trust data because it is expressed in numbers, and numbers are clear and strong; people distrust stories because they are relatively squishy. But numbers are not reality, while stories are.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

As are all things not observed with one's own eyes. I think it pretty clear that neither data nor information is perfect. But I've never tried to claim that for either -- just that data suffers not only from the imperfection that information does, but also from its own very significant fundamental weaknesses.

Seeking truth, I find it best to at least give more credence to those modes of observation relatively less inherently weak.

People trust data because it is expressed in numbers, and numbers are clear and strong; people distrust stories because they are relatively squishy. But numbers are not reality, while stories are.

They are different aspects of reality. I don't think either should be totally discounted.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

They are different aspects of reality. I don't think either should be totally discounted.

Kiff, did you ignore the difference as I described it above? Data is not "an aspect of" reality. It is an attempt to quantify reality via sampling -- to reduce the relationships and facts of reality to something that can be contained and expressed by numbers. And as such, subject to several significant orders of remove from reality itself.

There's no one advocating totally discounting it, in any event. It is a valid and useful tool within its limitations. As are many other tools.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Kiff, did you ignore the difference as I described it above? Data is not "an aspect of" reality. It is an attempt to quantify reality via sampling -- to reduce the relationships and facts of reality to something that can be contained and expressed by numbers. And as such, subject to several significant orders of remove from reality itself.

There's no one advocating totally discounting it, in any event. It is a valid and useful tool within its limitations. As are many other tools.

Surveys collect data from multiple sources. The data still come from people. Data can certainly be manipulated by asking people questions using various wordings. A good surveyor tries to avoid these kinds of biases as much as possible.

James offered some survey data, coupled with an anecdote, to support his position that overregulation is the biggest concern among small businesses. Brian re-interpreted the same survey to show that this might not really be the case. PW countered with a different survey altogether that yielded some new data. Odin gave us an anecdote about an OSHA inspection that wasn't nearly as harsh as the one that occurred at James's plant.

So we have "my OSHA experience sucked" and "my OSHA experience wasn't all that bad." Hmmm....well, I guess we might need to gather more anecdotes. Eventually we'll have a....survey.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I started the day with a 45-minute bike ride and in the midst of it I had an "aha" moment about regulation.

As I have said, I am sure James's complaints are not without foundation. Perhaps Democrats like myself have a knee-jerk reaction that regulation is good while Republicans have a knee-jerk reaction that it's bad. Fine. But my question then is--why didn't the Republicans take care of it? From 2002 to 2006 they controlled everything. They cut back enforcement of all sorts of federal regulations--the IRS practically went out of the compliance business. So why didn't they rein in OSHA?

And then it occurred to me, that to Karl Rove, excessive regulations are a huge advantage. They make people hate government, which makes them vote Republican. James is an interesting example (I know you don't always vote Republican, James.) He has suffered through this under both administrations but he blames Democrats for it.

Neither party cares much about anything but winning, although the Republicans are much more ruthless about it. That works against good government, which in turn helps the Republicans, the anti-government party. Talk about a vicious circle!

And you've also hit on the reason why the Republicans will never, ever totally ban abortion.
They will lose most of their culture war base if they do.
And if anyone thinks that I'm drawing too large a genrrealization consider the fact that whenever th GOP is in a policy making position where they hhave total or nearly total control of the policy making apparatus they always serve the economic conservatives first. Two periods of time demonstrate this. First, after the 1980 election Reagan pushed supply side hard and paid lip service to cultural conservatism. When the anti abortion crowd had their big rally he literally phoned it in. He didn't appear in public for them, but he called them on the phone.
And the same thing happened when little Bush had total polciy control. There was another big anti abortion in the Bush years and he too phoned it in.
And my point in bringing this up is to note that if the GOP will put off the economic conservatives on regulations and other major ticket items, what chance do the populist culture warriors really have when the chips get counted?

And yes the Democrats have learned the same thing, at least to a certain extent. Back in the early 80's Tip O'Niell once quipped that Reagan was not only elected president, but was a popular president because the new deal had worked too well. By the early 80's ost Americans could believe the myth that America was one vast mass elite and that with a little hard work anyone could reach the top in whatever field that they were in.

On another thread someone noted that we had been had for years. But then again 3T's, with their ethos of individual empowerment are when most people get had. Those wo think tha they are slick often fall for the biggest cons.

Posted by me in an election-history forum

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It may be hard to believe that the President can win a state despite a plurality of people in the state believing that he does not deserve a second term and despite having an approval rating of 43% or so nationwide. Ohio, not surprisingly, is very close to the national average. The President can win without Ohio, but he can hardly lose with it. No current GOP candidate can win without Ohio.

President Barack Obama's job approval rating and re-elect numbers remain underwater among Ohio voters, who disapprove 51 - 43 percent and say 49 - 44 percent the president does not deserve a second term, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

Despite his negative scores, the president leads potential Republican challengers:

47 - 39 percent over Cain;
45 - 41 percent over Romney;
47 - 36 percent over Perry.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?...ea=;&strTime=0

No American likes his own economic distress... but no GOP candidate seems to offer a viable alternative.

Because that forum has, in general, users more attuned to the approval of Senators, Governors, and the President on a state-by-state basis, I needed go no further. But in general, it takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency outright (the only reliable way in which to win). Beginning in 1992, every Democratic nominee for President has won eighteen states and the District of Columbia, and the President is in a very good position to win every one of those. That is 242 electoral votes (CA CT DE DC HI IL MA ME MI MN NJ NY OR PA VT WA WI), slightly more than 90% of the electoral votes that the President needs to win. The Republican nominee won't have much leeway for the rest.

Democrats have won three states four of five times (IA NH NM). Mitt Romney somehow (he lives there) can win New Hampshire and has ties to lots of people who left "Taxachusetts" where he was governor. New Hampshire is more like Massachusetts was when Romney could win the state than Massachusetts is today. If Romney is the GOP nominee, then President Obama stands to lose the four electoral votes that New Hampshire offers. But he has been in consistently good shape in Iowa and New Mexico, so those two states bring the level of nearly-certain electoral votes to 253. If Romney isn't the nominee, then the near-sure total for the President goes to 257. No prospective Republican nominee for President is in a good position in which to contest either Iowa or New Mexico -- bare Gore wins but bare Kerry losses.

Any Republican nominee other than Romney has no room for losing either

Colorado and Nevada together (15)
Florida (29)
North Carolina (15)
Ohio (18)
Virginia (13)

Colorado and Nevada (15) are likely to vote together, and in view of how they voted in 2010 in a great year for Republicans, those two sink anyone other than Romney. But against Mitt Romney they bring the total electoral votes for the President to 'only' 268, so the President would have to win something else. The others are best considered 'independent events' -- that the states are different enough from each other that the President can win any one of them without winning any other. I have seen scenarios in which the President wins Florida or Ohio but not both, Virginia or North Carolina and not both, and only one of those four.

"Independent event" is statistical jargon, so I need to explain it. Coin tosses and rolls of a die are independent events. Prior tosses and rolls do not have influence upon what happens on any subsequent toss or roll. A "dependent event" in this context implies that something else must happen for an event to happen. The President has no chance of winning Indiana without also winning Ohio, Arizona or Montana without also winning Colorado and Nevada, Missouri without also winning Ohio and Virginia, or Georgia without also winning Florida and North Carolina. That is why I am not discussing Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, or Montana except in this paragraph.

So far, the President will have to win every state that Al Gore won in 2000 (some still hold that he lost Florida to chicanery, but in view of the corrupt Governor that Florida has I wouldn't rule a repetition of such chicanery in 2012) and either Florida, Ohio, or some combination of states.

(against anyone but Romney because NH becomes secure)

CO+NV
FL
NC
OH
VA

...and against Romney,

FL
OH
one of CO or NV but also NC
one of CO or NV but also VA
one of CO or NV but also AZ


Here, Arizona is independent from Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia ... but not from Colorado and Nevada. It is not a preposterous possibility so long as the President wins both Colorado and Nevada. John McCain won the state by less than 10%, which is the usual level of gain that a nominee gets by being the Favorite Son. Against anyone other than Romney, Arizona would be icing on the cake because the President would win with Colorado and Nevada together.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Posted by me in an election-history forum



Because that forum has, in general, users more attuned to the approval of Senators, Governors, and the President on a state-by-state basis, I needed go no further. But in general, it takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency outright (the only reliable way in which to win). Beginning in 1992, every Democratic nominee for President has won eighteen states and the District of Columbia, and the President is in a very good position to win every one of those. That is 242 electoral votes (CA CT DE DC HI IL MA ME MI MN NJ NY OR PA VT WA WI), slightly more than 90% of the electoral votes that the President needs to win. The Republican nominee won't have much leeway for the rest.

Democrats have won three states four of five times (IA NH NM). Mitt Romney somehow (he lives there) can win New Hampshire and has ties to lots of people who left "Taxachusetts" where he was governor. New Hampshire is more like Massachusetts was when Romney could win the state than Massachusetts is today. If Romney is the GOP nominee, then President Obama stands to lose the four electoral votes that New Hampshire offers. But he has been in consistently good shape in Iowa and New Mexico, so those two states bring the level of nearly-certain electoral votes to 253. If Romney isn't the nominee, then the near-sure total for the President goes to 257. No prospective Republican nominee for President is in a good position in which to contest either Iowa or New Mexico -- bare Gore wins but bare Kerry losses.

Any Republican nominee other than Romney has no room for losing either

Colorado and Nevada together (15)
Florida (29)
North Carolina (15)
Ohio (18)
Virginia (13)

Colorado and Nevada (15) are likely to vote together, and in view of how they voted in 2010 in a great year for Republicans, those two sink anyone other than Romney. But against Mitt Romney they bring the total electoral votes for the President to 'only' 268, so the President would have to win something else. The others are best considered 'independent events' -- that the states are different enough from each other that the President can win any one of them without winning any other. I have seen scenarios in which the President wins Florida or Ohio but not both, Virginia or North Carolina and not both, and only one of those four.

"Independent event" is statistical jargon, so I need to explain it. Coin tosses and rolls of a die are independent events. Prior tosses and rolls do not have influence upon what happens on any subsequent toss or roll. A "dependent event" in this context implies that something else must happen for an event to happen. The President has no chance of winning Indiana without also winning Ohio, Arizona or Montana without also winning Colorado and Nevada, Missouri without also winning Ohio and Virginia, or Georgia without also winning Florida and North Carolina. That is why I am not discussing Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, or Montana except in this paragraph.

So far, the President will have to win every state that Al Gore won in 2000 (some still hold that he lost Florida to chicanery, but in view of the corrupt Governor that Florida has I wouldn't rule a repetition of such chicanery in 2012) and either Florida, Ohio, or some combination of states.

(against anyone but Romney because NH becomes secure)

CO+NV
FL
NC
OH
VA

...and against Romney,

FL
OH
one of CO or NV but also NC
one of CO or NV but also VA
one of CO or NV but also AZ


Here, Arizona is independent from Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia ... but not from Colorado and Nevada. It is not a preposterous possibility so long as the President wins both Colorado and Nevada. John McCain won the state by less than 10%, which is the usual level of gain that a nominee gets by being the Favorite Son. Against anyone other than Romney, Arizona would be icing on the cake because the President would win with Colorado and Nevada together.

I really wish I could be as optimistic as you. I see PA, WI, and MI as being very definitely in play. The election will be decided there and in Ohio and the three big New South states, none of which looks to me like a lock for Obama. So I think the Republicans--especially Romney--have a good chance.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

And you've also hit on the reason why the Republicans will never, ever totally ban abortion.
They will lose most of their culture war base if they do.
And if anyone thinks that I'm drawing too large a genrrealization consider the fact that whenever th GOP is in a policy making position where they hhave total or nearly total control of the policy making apparatus they always serve the economic conservatives first.

This is a really good point. In present-day politics, the GOP needs the votes of social conservatives to obtain office. It was the reason McCain's campaign chose Palin as a VP running mate. But while social conservatives are offered just enough lip service to keep their voting support, (doesn't mean that there is an absence of authentic social conservatives within the GOP), the energies went first toward economic conservatives.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Well that depends on your perspective. Some folks (like investors) prefer data. Some folks on the other hand (like scientists), prefer information. Surveys and graphs are data but not information. It is important to recognize the difference and the relation between the two.

...and the difference in yours and Justin's world is, of course, that a magic pony that only you can see whispers in your ear as to what it all means....


.... and you, of course, turn to your magic pony and say, "I already knew that!"

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

...

Humor me for a second, PW. As a "rule of thumb", would you be a proponent of erring on the side of more Central Planning or less Central Planning?



Interventionistas due tend to be rather Demand-ing. I, on the other hand, don't much appreciate having my choices made for me by a "Higher Power" that believes they [I]know what's best for "Us".

The MMT world has a number of former Austrians within that have learned to let go of the fantasy of the gold reserve, but they have brought with them the notion of efficiencies and the need for avoidance of fraudulent behavior that too-often arise in centralization of govt. You can see that in discussions of how Wray’s "transition jobs" could actually work -

By greatly diminishing the need for a number of "demand-side only" programs (i.e., unemployment insurance, food stamps, school lunch), you could take full advantage of those programs' channels that are some of the most decentralized means for getting federal funds to the local level. They could, in turn, be further decentralized by having those channels work less with individuals and more with block grants to local entities (e.g. school boards for teaching assistants; city/county boards for firefighters or infrastructure maintenance) to provide the actual hiring.

That would resolve your concern for "big brother" at the community level. At the individual level, it is your choice to take a transition job or not - you got a better offer, and that would be the hope (as with unemployment programs, the transition jobs program would be countercyclical), take it and God speed. Hopefully you will wind up with a better wage than what you would get if 15-20 million other unemployed people were desperate for your job.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

...
I happened across Norman Prince one day while studying the Lafeyette Escadrille. On a serious note: His voluntary sacrifice(as well as others) is remembered.

Just so you're not dis-appointed: Prince-I Would Die For You/Baby I'm A Star!

Note: There's not alot of fans these days of The Great War. When I was a very young boy, I found a book that was written/published before the end of WWI. In the back, there was a hope(and prayer!) that the arrival of the US Military would lead to a quick ending of the bloodshed. Not many photographs; Battles were depicted by drawings/paintings. A rare perspective. I have another pretty cool book along those lines that is comprised of letters written i/r/t Sympathies of a Border State during The US Civil War.

It's a much different POV looking-backwards(20/20?-vision) than attempting to consider the decisions made during the heat of battle.

Very interesting. Of late, I've come across similar forgotten heros from the Civil Rights movement particularly the Freedom Riders.

This 20/20 hindsight is an issue in writing period pieces. Are you truly capturing the sense at the time? Is there something universal that transcends time and informs us today? Usually very hard to do both, but sometimes the material just can't help take you there without you even trying. It can be tough, but it can be fun observing yourself and your motivations that are sometimes not so obvious even to oneself. .... just need to avoid that whole bending the "data" to get the "information" that a magic pony whispered in your ear but that you knew all along (stupid pony!) thingee.... I understand more tin helps.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

...
PS: Anyone on the Message Board know why Paulsen's TARP-program was enacted? FWIW, It's more than an attempt to re-capitalize the Big Banks. Please include a reference to the intention of Paulsen's "Squirt-Gun/Bazooka" in any response.

To save our collective asses and people were scared s-less?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I really wish I could be as optimistic as you. I see PA, WI, and MI as being very definitely in play. The election will be decided there and in Ohio and the three big New South states, none of which looks to me like a lock for Obama. So I think the Republicans--especially Romney--have a good chance.

As in 2008 and arguably 2004, Ohio is the key for President Obama against Mitt Romney. No Democrat has won Ohio without also winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin since 1976... when Gerald Ford (from Michigan) was the Republican nominee. Ohio is arguably the state closest to deciding who gets or does not get the 270th electoral vote.

The Governor of Ohio, who has opened a nest of hornets through his anti-union measures, has ensured that the unions will not let up on the political scene in Ohio in 2012. Like Walker in Wisconsin, Governor Kasich gambled on an attempt to eviscerate the power of organized labor in an attempt to move his state into the Hard Right camp and has failed. He is now wildly unpopular in Ohio. Ohio is much more Republican than Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, and if President Obama can win Ohio, he wins every state in the northeastern quadrant of the US except perhaps Indiana and New Hampshire. That is against Mitt Romney, the only Republican who has a good chance of winning any state that either Gore or Kerry carried. Against Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, or Palin it becomes a less equable contest with New Hampshire out of contention, in which case Colorado and Nevada together make Ohio a non-decider in the election.

Florida has a wildly-unpopular Republican governor who might have the temptation to use enough chicanery to deny the state to President Obama.

Corporate America wants to degrade working people of all kinds as completely as possible. Americans, not all of them in union families, are catching on. Unions are the only groups capable of challenging the political power of the Hard Right. It is no surprise that the Hard Right wants them destroyed.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

As in 2008 and arguably 2004, Ohio is the key for President Obama against Mitt Romney. No Democrat has won Ohio without also winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin since 1976... when Gerald Ford (from Michigan) was the Republican nominee. Ohio is arguably the state closest to deciding who gets or does not get the 270th electoral vote.

The Governor of Ohio, who has opened a nest of hornets through his anti-union measures, has ensured that the unions will not let up on the political scene in Ohio in 2012. Like Walker in Wisconsin, Governor Kasich gambled on an attempt to eviscerate the power of organized labor in an attempt to move his state into the Hard Right camp and has failed. He is now wildly unpopular in Ohio. Ohio is much more Republican than Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, and if President Obama can win Ohio, he wins every state in the northeastern quadrant of the US except perhaps Indiana and New Hampshire. That is against Mitt Romney, the only Republican who has a good chance of winning any state that either Gore or Kerry carried. Against Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, or Palin it becomes a less equable contest with New Hampshire out of contention, in which case Colorado and Nevada together make Ohio a non-decider in the election.

Florida has a wildly-unpopular Republican governor who might have the temptation to use enough chicanery to deny the state to President Obama.

Corporate America wants to degrade working people of all kinds as completely as possible. Americans, not all of them in union families, are catching on. Unions are the only groups capable of challenging the political power of the Hard Right. It is no surprise that the Hard Right wants them destroyed.

Your last paragraph is really telling, and deserves a few Amens. But doesn't this current crop of Repubs make Reagan seem very benign by comparison, even though it was on his watch that this all started after his busting of the Air Traffic Controllers?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Your last paragraph is really telling, and deserves a few Amens. But doesn't this current crop of Repubs make Reagan seem very benign by comparison, even though it was on his watch that this all started after his busting of the Air Traffic Controllers?

Yes. As it turns out, PATCO held an illegal strike, so President Reagan had legal justification. That may have been but a small part of the decline of unions. Since then, more of the cause has been the disappearance of manufacturing jobs in favor of jobs whose best chance of advancement is best described as something to hold onto until something better pops up -- the low-paying jobs in malls and fast-food restaurants. Add to that the cultural shift in which Americans have accepted the ethos of "every man for himself" which ends up a race to the bottom. It is no coincidence that that ethos appeared with the disappearance of GI influence in politics and the workplace; GIs were the ones who found unions as the solution for dealing with distant and despotic management.

The recently-ended 3T began with a civic generation in its late 50s at the youngest and ended with a newer civic generation in its early 20s at the oldest. Big Business may have held the delusion that so long as people had enough electronic entertainments that people would not care what was happening to them. If they were unhappy with their work lives, then they could play "Empire Builder" on a computer and take the role of a Pharaoh. Occupy Wall Street shows otherwise as the Millennial Generation knows that it will be $crewed of it does nothing to resist trends that began in the 3T with respect to management-labor relations likely to end in abject poverty for most and incredible indulgence for a few.

Americans are beginning to recognize that group solidarity is the only means in which to confront and contest entrenched power. "Every man for himself" is beginning to show itself as the Highway to Hell.