HEARTLAND MURMURS                        
                                                    
Heartland Murmurs

Not Shorty

Every Christmas for the past few years I have been writing memoir style stories about my family as a gift to my siblings.  This years was about my Grandpa Shorty, who by coincidence left this world 45 years ago this week.  He really was quite a character.

I am posting it hear for all those relatives whose email addresses I lack, and of course for friends, to enjoy.  Maybe it's an attempt to explain my own cussedness, but that's for you to decide.

This will be the last posting on Heartland Murmurs in its present form. Keep on the lookout for a new and improved version.  A special thank you and sincere wishes for a new year full of peace and prosperity to my subscribers.

Not Shorty 


Grandpa’s nickname was not the sort based on irony, like the six foot six, three hundred pound guy who goes by Tiny.  He came by it naturally, and literally, because Cyril “Shorty” Byrne, on his best day, stood all of five foot four inches, and that might be generous.  But anything he lacked in physical stature he more than made up for in presence, especially in voice.  He passed away when I was only ten but I knew him long enough to believe the old saying about a bark being worse than his bite may well have originated with him. Shorty just seemed more naturally inclined to growl than talk, but from what I knew of him it was just as often with a twinkle in his eye as not, and myself and other grandchildren have even been known to catch a wink along the way.  Cousin Ray and I still laugh at how used to tease us by calling us Raymond and Frankie Stew, which from best as I can surmise was a reference to the Hansel and Gretel story of kids getting eaten.  

Grandma Gus was known to have claimed that her husband, were it not for starting a family so early, could have easily been a successful entertainer.  It wasn’t just because of his rich baritone singing voice, though that was his strong suit, but also in the way he could command a room. From stories overheard at card tables at family gatherings the sing-alongs at Whitey’s Tavern on Main Street, many including his good friend and parish priest Father Barney, were legendary.  

As a pre-school youngster I remember going to Sunday mass with the rest of the family.  They used to call the service with more singing a high mass, or at least that’s what I thought it meant.  We would get to our pews and I was way too short to see anything.  One of my earliest church-going memories is of Mom lifting me up so I could see Grandpa Shorty up on the right side of the altar leading the congregation in song.  This would have been around 1961 or 62, before cool became a popular expression, but it was all that and then some, and certainly among my first experiences at swelling with pride.  

Maybe it’s a Grandson’s bias but I swear he could rattle those rafters as ably alone as the whole choir could collectively, and I’d wager many who remember him would agree.  At that age I had no clue on the meaning of the liturgy, let alone the sermon, and would squirm and fidget like all the others my age, but so long as I could hear Grandpa Shorty singing up front all seemed right with the world.

(Interior of St Rose circa 1895, photo courtesy cousin Abby H. *) 

When we moved to the farm near Lamont, Gus and Shorty were still living at the house next to the gas station just north of town. As the crow flies this is less than a mile from the original Byrne homestead near St Rose cemetery.  In our first year at the farm there was a chicken pox outbreak to which sister Gloria and I fell victim.   The folks thought it best to quarantine us so they took us back to Cuba City to stay with Grandpa and Grandma Byrne.

It was during this week-long stay where I got to see the gentler side of Shorty who, with the utmost of tenderness, combed our hair while managing, with considerable patient effort, not to aggravate the sores on our scalp. It was also when I developed a fascination by his damaged hand, it was missing half a thumb at the big knuckle, the index finger at the second knuckle and the tip of middle finger.  I was told it was due to an industrial incident.  Grandpa was too young for World War I, and too old for World War II, so it couldn’t have been, as many mistakenly assumed, a war wound. 

The most amazing thing to me, or at least my four-year-old eyes, was the astounding resemblance his butchered thumb had to that of a hot dog.  I have to believe whatever Doctor did the stitching twisted it closed like a sausage first because it was so perfectly symmetrical, just like an Oscar Mayer wiener.  Even more amazing, I suppose, was his dexterity.  If you didn’t stop to look, you would never notice he was physically compromised by the way he went about his daily business.  There is no truer testament to that than the fact that I can’t recall whether it was his right or left hand.  Nothing seemed more natural to me, for example, than to see Shorty laying foundation block for the addition to our house on Lafayette Street one day after school. At first I thought it was Dad, seeing how he was so proficient, and the technique looked familiar too.  Sure enough, this is when I learned it was Shorty who first tutored Dad in the masonry arts.    

I recall having breakfast in the kitchen.  He would grab and pour from a half-gallon milk carton with as much ease and confidence as anyone. (Actually, it was Half & Half, as that was all he and Grandma Gus used, and to have it on Frosted Flakes, sugared cereal being an extremely rare luxury at home, was a treat almost worth being sick for)  In spite of the proven capability, I positioned myself to be ready to catch it in case he lost his grip.  He smirked and chuckled at my naive helpfulness.     

I say “incident” because according to stories I heard, the cause for that injury wasn't necessarily accidental.  In the 1920’s Grandpa and Grandma moved to Flint Michigan where Shorty took a job at an automobile plant, most likely the Fisher Body Plant, a division of Ford Motor Company.

At this time labor was not organized, and, not coincidentally, there were many fraternal organizations.  Many of these groups were formed out of a need to provide for widows and families in case their members were injured or killed in work accidents.  Not all organizations were open to all people.  As a mater of fact the Catholic Church forbade its flock from joining any but their own, The Knights of Columbus.  The Knights of Columbus was named partly as a jab at Anglo-Saxon protestants.  Catholic hierarchy took umbrage at how Protestants were so quick to heap praise on Columbus, an Italian Catholic, sailing under the auspices of Catholic Spain, as an American hero, yet persisted in discriminating against new Catholic immigrants.

During that period the Ku Klux Klan, newly popularized by the Cecil B DeMille blockbuster movie Birth of a Nation, was reorganizing with recruiting drives north of the Mason Dixon.  Northern industrial cities, Detroit for example, home to 40,000 Klansmen nearly half of all Michigan’s membership, were ripe for recruiting due to the massive influx of Catholic and Jewish immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.  The heightened tensions from job and social competition made the existing protestant population nervous, and fertile for recruiting.

Recruiters were called Kleagles, who worked on commission, keeping half of new member fees and sending the rest to the state or national headquarters. An aggressive recruiter could make a good living and this incentive system accounted for much of the rapid reemergence of the Klan. One day at the factory, Shorty was approached by a Kleagle and informed that he should join. To show his support and indicate he would be at the next meeting he was told to mark his fender press machine in chalk with a KKK. 

It may have been that Shorty had a markedly sharp difference of philosophy with Klan’s avid, and sometimes violent, support of prohibition.  It could have been that Shorty heard that as far as the Klan was concerned “the only thing worse than a nigger is a papist”, a common rallying cry for that hopelessly unenlightened group.  Here again there was more than likely some historical ill will, because yet another strain of tension could trace its origins back to the centuries-old Protestant/Catholic conflict in Ireland. 

I am not sure how much of this might have informed Grandpa Shorty’s motivation, but for whatever the reason he decided to mark his machine with a K of C for Knights of Columbus instead of KKK for the Ku Klux Klan. It may well have been intended as a joke, or play on words, by a rural rube, but judging by the ensuing events someone was not amused.

Whatever the case, he wasn't going to have any of it, not Shorty.  

At the end of the shift the power to the assembly line was shut down so workers could give the idle machines a good cleaning. Because of his smaller size, Shorty could get right inside the fender press and scrub it down.  As he was cleaning he heard the power for the line start up again. Before he knew it the press was coming down right on top of him.  He shot out of there fast enough to save his life, but not quite fast enough to save his thumb and fingers. That’s why if you had the chance to look closely you might have noticed how the direction of the severance from his thumb to the middle finger was a perfectly straight line - - corresponding with the edge of the fender press.

I never heard whatever happened after that, whether they caught the guy who pulled the switch, anything about the recovery period, or whether this was the reason they decided to relocate back to the more familiar, and much friendlier, environs of Cuba City.  He took various jobs, among them construction, at the Vinegar Hill Roasting Plant, and in area lead and zinc mines.  He would regale the family with tales of his underground workday at the supper table.  Aunt Jean, an early grade-schooler at the time, remembers praying fervently for his safety those days.  There were dozens of operating mines in the area back then and fatal accidents, while not exactly daily occurrences, were still an ever-present danger in that line of work.  His Emphysema, if not originated underground, was certainly exacerbated during this period.  Of course the pack a day of non-filtered Camels and cigars didn't help matters.   

The construction trade led him to go into partnership with Dad manufacturing Brickcrete brand bricks, operating from the building that eventually became, and is still, the VFW in Cuba City.  After that came the Shell Oil franchise north of town.  There were also some rumors that Grandpa was either a lookout or runner for mob bootleggers.  I am not sure whether that was before or after the Michigan experience, but in conversations with Dad I got the distinct impression this was pre marital activity.  News archives from the period do not include his name in any crime reports, which leaves open a range of possibilities; either he was not heavily involved, or very adept.  It is also of record that for a while during prohibition his Grandpa was the Mayor, and uncle was Sheriff of Cuba City concurrently.  One could easily see how that could certainly be a hindrance to a bootlegger, or on the other hand, extremely convenient. If massive family fortunes are the measure I guess we can figure out which was the case. 

This accounting is as best as I can pull together from memories of family conversation among the elders, the age old tradition of passing down family lore by word of mouth.  I welcome feedback from any cousins, aunts, or uncles who heard differently or could add details.  The historical activities and geography of the Klan are well documented.  Grandpa was by all accounts a very bright guy, very devout Catholic, just as devoutly Irish, and on a related note, didn't take crap from anybody.

Almost all the comments I hear about Grandpa Shorty are about his gruff nature.  We can only speculate about whether the incident in Flint caused or just reinforced that legendary cussedness, but we shouldn't overlook the possibility that he may have come by it honestly. Playing the hand you were dealt has a much deeper meaning where Grandpa Shorty was concerned, but I like to believe he played it as best he could.

Frank Byrne

Christmas 2012

*Historical Jottings from Cuba City


 



  


 

 

 

 

 




 

  

Romney For a Change

We've all had the experience of seeing a movie trailer that convinced us to go see the film, only to be disappointed because all the best lines were used up in the preview.  Even worse, they fell flat in context, because you already heard it and the novelty was gone. This is the Obama Presidency in a nutshell.  It is sad to think the novelty is all he ever had but that's how it looks. 

I along with virtually everyone took a certain pride in Americas social progress at the specter of Obama's ascendancy.  The idea that someone who, by virtue of his skin tone, could have been a piece of property at our country's founding was elected President will serve as an enduring source of pride.  That's not just exceptional, it's exceptionally American, and still is. But if there is one painful lesson to be learned in the last four years it is that a historic point of pride does not a successful Presidency make. 

I believe Obama's failures were the result of his assumption that the magnitude of the historic event gave him license to force the "fundamental transformation" he campaigned on.  The fact is without the race factor this whole chapter of American history is not so different than many others; a dominant party getting brushed back after an aggressive overreach. I truly hope that the disaster of the Obama Presidency doesn't ruin the chances for future aspirants of enhanced pigmentation. 

Leading up to the 2008 election I wrote:
We are on the precipice of ignoring Santiago's warning about failing to learn from history.
The last 3 times Democrats enjoyed a power monopoly:

FDR and the New Deal
LBJ and the Great Society
Jimmy Carter, malaise ...double digit unemployment, interest rates, inflation, and foreign policy featuring the Iranian hostage crisis.  

So with Obama leading a Democrat monopoly we are in for The NEW GREAT MALAISE DEAL. 

Not to brag, but with chronically anemic economic growth, persistently high and longest term unemployment,  record numbers on food stamps, credit downgrades, home foreclosures, four-dollar gas, to name only a few, I really nailed that one.   

Yeah well, the gratification of a prediction coming true is severely diminished when you predicted a train wreck. 

I hope I am not being overly optimistic to believe the endless loop of spend, tax, spend, borrow, spend, print, spend, spend spend spend spend may finally be snapped.  This may be the point in history where a critical mass finally realizes that if that problem-solving method worked the problems would have been solved long ago. You have to appreciate the irony of how it took the most liberal President in history to prove Ronald Reagan's axiom that government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem.  

A few weeks ago some fellow conservative friends got together to discuss politics and make predictions.  One predicts an Obama win, one a win for Romney, both by a nose, one advised to stock up on ammo and bottled water.  My prediction, citing an abiding faith in the American electorate to both recognize and correct a mistake, was Romney by 7.  That was before the debates, Benghazi, and Sandy, but in view of those events I am more confident than ever.  

Mitt Romney, my first choice in 2008 by the way, promises to be a stark contrast.  Romney's style/substance ratio of 20%/80%  to Obama's 80/20 is just the beginning. (That the Washington press corp will have to suffer by covering a square instead of a hipster is an added bonus) Romney the MBA capitalist versus Obama the community organizing social worker is an even bigger difference than their skin color. 

There's another refreshing prospect in considering a Romney administration: this will be the first time since 1980, 32 years, that there will no Bush or Clinton affiliated with the White House.  This time "new beginning" may actually be more than an old cliche.  

All that said it is prudent to keep our expectations in check, because while Romney may be our next President that doesn't make him our savior.  All the challenges inherited by Obama are laying in wait and yes some of them have improved, but more of them have persisted or worsened. Many of us fear that while Obama has had the gas pedal to the floor as we hurtle toward the fiscal cliff Romney will merely downshift and not hurtle as fast.  
Truth be told where Romney is concerned I am not entirely sure I can trust a guy who has never had a drink, but I am open-minded and willing to give him a chance, just like I did the black guy. He's just a man and as such every bit as fallible as Obama, albeit with a resume that portends a much better chance of success. 

At this point it looks like the "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" strategy orchestrated by the Democrats is failing, but only for two reasons; we don't like the devil we know and the devil we don't know isn't the devil they made him out be. 

Personalities, histrionics, campaign hyperbole all aside the final choice is between a guy who has failed at the job he has, and a guy who has succeeded at every job he has had. 

That's one of many reasons why I'm voting for Mitt Romney and think you should too. 

 

Mirror Images, Sort Of

The Wisconsin recall election is a reverse mirror image of the Presidential election, especially where the incumbents are concerned.  In Governor Walker we have a GOP candidate proudly running on his record, in President Obama a Democrat candidate shamelessly running away from his.

In both races the Democrat electoral apparatus is employing their shopworn division tactics to keep attention off the record of the incumbent, and in both the weapon of choice is the alleged “war” on women.  Everything except actual war is a war with these people. Such language abuse, maybe if the old fable were called “The Girl Who Cried Wolf” the lesson on the dangers of gratuitous hype would not have gotten so lost.  Sadly the adage if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true has become the modus operandi for Democrats.

In Washington consider this astoundingly hypocritical scenario; the same White House foisting this fictitious gender war is playing host to an Egyptian political contingent that is dedicated to the imposition of Sharia Law, one that places women beneath cattle in the social order, and that’s putting it charitably.

I had my share of misgivings about George W. Bush but to me his proudest moment was when he declared that “the United States judges other countries by how they treat their women”.  

In the real world if the White House rhetoric on women had the faintest hint of sincerity their guests would be in for the severest of admonishments. If recent history is any guide they are more likely to receive a state dinner and an apology.

In Wisconsin a Democrat spokesmen openly admits the reason there is recall election,  disgruntled public unions, is not a winning campaign theme , wonder of wonders.  

from Mother Jones... And in the party's new strategy memo for defeating Walker, there's little mention of collective bargaining or organized labor in the Democrats' messaging plans.

With a process that started over a year ago, an early May primary, and an early June election, the idea that it has taken up until now to reach this conclusion takes isolated bubble-thinking to new heights.  That it took outside consultancy to finally convince them has the bubble bumping up against the ionosphere. 

They go onto explain that the war on women and other issues (specifically a politically motivated and almost comically biased  witch hunt against then Milwaukee County Executive Walker) poll better in terms of motivating voters.  So again, in both the Presidential and recall elections Democrat thinkers have determined their best bet is to divert attention, make stuff up, and smear the opponents because running on their records is a sure loser. (A quick recap of Wisconsin Democrat greatest hit records; bankruptcy, higher debt, higher taxes, anything goes pubic unions, dirty elections, anti-jobs/business for starters)  

In Wisconsin these distractical maneuvers have some history, with mixed results.  In the 6 recall elections last summer not a single Democrat candidate had the words union, Act 10, or collective bargaining anywhere on their campaign website homepage.  They lost 4 of 6, and the winners were against particularly vulnerable Republicans in swing districts.  Employing the same strategy without the benefit of a weak opponent is to blur the line between pragmatism and desperation. 

One Democratic candidate, Kathleen Falk, was accidentally honest, defied the diversion strategy, and courageously promised public union brass that her first and top priority was to repeal the collective bargaining reforms.  Interesting though, how when a Democrat candidate speaks forthrightly and deals with an issue honestly, the rest of the party commences to distance itself.  Interesting too however, how this so plainly reveals once and for all that the only thing that really matters, or ever really mattered - - was winning.  

The Democrats most honest candidate about the real reasons for the recall is considered less likely to win the nomination, because of her candor.  That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the state of the Democrat Party in Wisconsin.  I have said from the beginning this whole Walker dustup is largely due to the Democrats complete inability to deal with an honest politician, having had virtually no experience in that regard.  This Falk flummox is exhibit B.

The noblest of claims on the impetus behind this frivolous recall was that it is gives the people a voice on Act 10.  (Notwithstanding how their paid help, er Democrat Senate caucus, but I repeat myself, scampered across the state line like a bunch of startled cock roaches to avoid the subject when it came up for actual debate)

Now, in a respectful nod to their original and true intent, we should hold them to it. As a native son and devotee of Wisconsin and her proud history I’m going to make it a point to take advantage of the open primary and vote for Falk - - just to keep them honest.  This is the fight they asked for so we should make sure it's the fight they get.  I would hope conservatives statewide join me to take advantage of this perfect opportunity to show Democrats what democracy looks like.   

There was a time not long ago when I sincerely hoped for a resurgence of the once respectable Democrat party as an honest counter balance to the right.  Sadly I have come instead to hope for its complete demise.  They have so miserably failed as a reasonable alternative and morphed into the very antithesis of Jeffersonian philosophy they once guarded jealously as their own, which is long buried beneath heaps of Marxist, Socialist, Keynesian, Progressive and other manure, a compost of fascism.  

As an independent libertarian leaning Republican my sincerest hope is that this particular Wisconsin Democrat leadership team stays in place.  If your ultimate goal was to escort the state Democrat party from its sick bed to the morgue you couldn’t hand pick a better pair of ushers than Graeme Cracker and Tater Tot.  Heck of a job fellas.

   

God & Country, Right & Left; pt 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- First Amendment United State Constitution

Granted, I’m no constitutional scholar, but the brilliance of that document is the plain language that facilitates an easier understanding of the citizenry it guides. As a writer I also have deep appreciation for the 6001 words (original text and declaration) that, inarguably, has had the most consequential impact on humanity than any in history.  Sorry Bible lovers, that’s just how I see it.  Brevity wins.

It confounds many as to how, of all issues addressed in the writing of that masterpiece, religion was given top billing, the very first item in the very first amendment. I have often wondered about that myself. 

I have also noticed that questions of religion in politics always get moved to the front burner in election years.  This exposes an enigmatic quality about religion in America; while it was a prime motivator in establishing our independence it is also a time-tested weapon in the arsenal of division, a key tactic in manipulating electoral advantage. 

The tired old lefty canard that extremist right-wingers want to replace the constitution with the New Testament will be resurrected and replayed ad-nauseam in various versions. 

Of all the left’s conservo-phobias I have always found that one the most comical.  The idea that a strict constitutionalist would prioritize replacing the constitution is patently absurd because a true conservative’s most fervent desire is to restore, not replace, the constitution. 

I can’t speak for the religious but in my view better adherence to the limits of the constitution would provide sufficient overlap to satisfy most Christians. Leaving religion out of it, as the constitution demands, is inherently more consistent with the tenets of the fiscal conservative and libertarian factions. 

It is not my intention to malign my social conservative friends but only to offer a more neutrally religious viewpoint.  That said, let’s get another thing straight; there is no refuting we are a nation populated by a majority of Christians, but conflating that to say we are a Christian nation is also divisive.  It’s not the same thing. There is one Christian Nation and it’s called the Vatican.

“Christian Nation” connotes a government-religion nexus that our constitution expressly forbids. Founders could not establish a Christian nation and at the same time cement into its foundation a clause that prevents doing exactly that.  

Christianity, like all religions, implies an exclusivity of belief, if you do not believe you cannot belong.  The constitution was made deliberately flexible to allow for any belief systems. Therefore it is neutral on the subject other than to prevent a state religion.

What the constitution doesn’t do explicitly enough is prevent the state from establishing itself as a religion, which we will discuss in part 2.


Parting question; how can mandating a religious organization to defy it’s doctrine NOT be construed as “prohibiting the free exercise” of that religion? 


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 
     -Thomas Jefferson  

Murmur Endorsement; Santorum Safest Bet

Still Anybody But Obama...the prime directive...
Nothing about this Republican primary has swayed me from my first impressions, first my contention that anyone in the race would be a massive improvement over the incumbent, and second, a flat rejection of the media narrative that this is a particularly weak field.  The only adjustments to those points might be a caveat making Ron Paul an exception on both counts, more on that later.

This really is a pretty straight forward winnowing process; the primaries force a choice from a pool of evils to be the lesser of two evils in the general election.  That is to clarify, not to diminish the process.  Bottom line is there will only be two choices in the end (all third party or otherwise wasted votes being a rubber stamp on the incumbent) and we already know one of them.  

So then, the best we can possibly do is find the candidate with the least dangerous combination of imperfections, who can also survive that process with enough dignity to look better than the other lesser of two evils.  Regardless of who prevails some of us will have to get the clothes pins from 2008 apply firmly, and vote accordingly.  It will be as stark of choice this November as it was then, except now the stakes are higher.  Never before in history has an election offered a starker contrast or clearer choice between freedom and tyranny.  So let the winnowing commence. 

Romney:  In 2008 I supported Romney over McCain because he was the more conservative option.  This time he is the least conservative of many options.  His electability is trumped up by the mainstream media because they see him as the easiest to beat, or if he does win is the most like Obama.  

He may also be their favorite because he is less inclined to call out the press on their water-carrying for Obama.  If he unwilling or unable to challenge the liberal narrative during the campaign we have no reason to expect he would do so in office.   I am not the only one who believes that sort of passiveness is what doomed the Bush Presidency as much as anything.  If one truly intends to beat back socialists it cannot be done while abiding their propagandist handmaidens.  I suspect a big part of Sara Palins appeal, and to some extent also that of Newt Gingrich, is their willingness to aggressively call the media to account.  

My other problem with Romney is a fundamental departure of philosophy on the role of government.  Regardless how far he walks back his stance on health care he still considers it his single most important achievement as Governor.  I have to conclude that deep down inside he really does see health care as a right to be distributed via government rather than a consumer product more efficiently distributed through market forces, a particularly disappointing stance for someone who so readily touts his private sector experience.    

Gingrich; One of the more conservative options, despite the mewling of Dick Morris and Ann Coulter, is Newt Gingrich whose intellect and bravado I have appreciated for many years.  With that bravado, unfortunately, comes a pretty serious case of rhetorical promiscuity, many bits and pieces of which can and will be mined and contorted to irreparable harm.  Of those the most troubling of all to me is his insistence, both as an historian and as a politician, that the greatest President of modern times is FDR.

Seriously?  I would be open to the possibility that with enough time, in view of his considerable argument and debate skills, and depth of historical knowledge, he could probably make a convincing case on why he believes this, but he would never convince me.   FDR, more so than Wilson, Johnson, or even Obama, is the antithesis of conservatism personified.  To hold him out as the greatest American President is an insult to the office and the constitution.  To do so while claiming to be the most conservative candidate is a stretch beyond my grasp, and brings to mind the old Orwell quote that only an intellectual could believe such a damn fool thing.  Sorry Newt, as much as I’d relish the prospect of you wiping the debate floor with Teleprompter Breath, you’re out. On the other hand, the the highly respected Dr Sowell endorses him here ...

The recent negative ad onslaught in Iowa is a mere sampling of how the general election would look, and probably even benign compared the knives and hatchets Axelrod and company would wield. But its effectiveness is an accurate foreshadowing as well.  

Ron Paul; Speaking of rhetorical promiscuity Ron Paul has come up with some that not only disqualifies him but costs him my respect.   Aside from the blame America first stance he seems all too ready to assume on foreign policy issues the fact that he called Wikileaks traitor Manning a hero was way too over the top.  Libertarians, more so than most, based on their severe constitutionalism believe in the rule of law, not men.  Manning broke the law, one which, I might add, would get him in front of a firing squad in earlier times.  In making this traitor out to be a hero Paul is suggesting the intentions behind his actions, the rule of a man, trump the rule of law. Whether it be for sincere reasons of philosophical empathy or a cheap applause line is irrelevant.  I can’t trust anyone who preaches constitutional purity in one breath and throws it out the window in the next, all for political whimsy.  The line between promiscuity and prostitution is only as thick as that between the rule of men and anarchy.     

This is not a lone incident but a pattern.  There was also a case where tax scofflaws in New Hampshire refused to pay to the point where they took up arms against the IRS.  Again Paul hailed them as heros, putting his opinions on tax laws above the laws themself.  I get the anti-tax position as much as anyone but that requires a change from within the system, not gunfire.  

To his credit I am thankful that someone is finally bringing the whole topic of limited government back to the debate. That the first debate included not one but two libertarians is a remarkable advance for the cause.  Now all it needs is a torch bearer who can be taken seriously by more than recreational drug advocates and 9/11 truthers. Goldstein on Paul   

As for the rest the imperfections are probably not as pronounced but then again if they were contending stronger the scrutiny would have revealed more.  While I like Perry I don’t think the country is ready for someone who followed George W Bush’s path to the White House.  The damage to that brand hasn’t healed yet, and no, it isn’t fair, but that matters little if at all. 

Michelle Bachman is an admirable conservative firebrand but was too quickly branded and demonized as Sara Palin light.  The prospect of the novelty of the first woman president is not strong enough to compensate for her lack of executive experience.  That could be the result of party misogyny but I doubt it.  More likely it’s a lesson learned on the damage that can result from electing a President primarily for reasons of novelty.  The bloom of that rose has faded but the thorn prick damage persists. 

That leaves us with Rick Santorum, the defacto candidate with the least glaring imperfections.  He will do well in Iowa, whose record in picking eventual nominees isn’t exactly stellar, three times since 1979.  If he places or shows the scrutiny he has not been subject to will commence in force, followed quickly by media smears and Romney PAC attacks.  

This process is grueling enough for an observer.  I can’t imagine how tough it must be to endure in person.  They all command a large degree of respect if only for subjecting themselves to the meat grinder.  
    


Thoughts on Campaign 2012

It wasn’t that long ago I was genuinely concerned that Obama was doing such a horrible job he would destroy the chances of a black ever being elected President again.  Then along came citizen Cain who emerged and provided the left with the opportunity to teach us that the only thing more repugnant, vile, and unacceptable than a pro-life woman is a black conservative. 

Democrat strategists making the assertion that conservatives back Cain because they are racist moves this campaign from regular political theater to theatre of the absurd. Such convoluted and wild accusations are so far fetched and desperate one could reasonably conclude they must believe Obama is such a disaster he’s also ruining future chances, including 2012 down ticket campaigns, for all liberals.  Now that’s what I call progress.   

Thomas Sowell points out that if Obama’s 90% black vote from 2008 shrinks 15 points to a still very impressive 75%, and all other categories hold steady, he loses.  That’s gotta be a sobering reality even to the most hopeless kool-aid drunkard. Far be it from me to quibble with the math of an Economics PhD.  

I am beginning to believe the overriding consideration on the GOP side is evolving from who can beat Obama to how big do we want our landslide.  Historians tell us that a second term election is a referendum on the incumbent.  By that measure Obama should be booking lecture gigs by next Christmas.  Now there is a change I can believe in! 

Not six months ago no one, I mean no one, gave Newt Gingrich a shot, at all.  He is now leading the pack, ahead of Mitt Romney, establishment GOP and Democrat favorite.  Think about that.  In spite of my exceedingly accurate predictions, even in my deepest cynicism I did not fathom that Obama would be so bad that Gingrich, the only Republican out there who exceeds Sara Palin’s unfavorable ratings, would represent an obvious improvement. This would be an interesting match-up, facilitating a center stage demonstration of the difference between sounding smart and being smart.  

I have held from the get go, despite the mainstream medias mindless gibberish about a weak field, that any one of the GOP hopefuls would be a vast improvement.  This, while acknowledging many better choices, Daniels, Christie. Ryan, and yes, Palin, decided not to run.  

What has become more apparent is that the GOP doesn’t necessarily need a strong field because the Democrat field is empty, even, or especially, with Obama in it.  You have to field a team to win.  Judging by all the Democrats deciding not to appear with their defacto party leader when he visits their home districts it looks like no one even wants to admit being on his team.  The self-preservation instincts of the lowly incumbus politicus can be so cold at times. OneDemocrat running for Congress is attacking his Republican rival by accusing him of supporting Obama. 

This is not say it won’t be a vicious battle.  Democrats, their billion-dollar war chest, a ready army of big labor foot soldiers, and the party steno pool known as the mainstream press are absolutely going all in for the win, every bit as wholeheartedly devoted to salvaging their investment in Obama this time as they were in the initial product offering.  The institutional ego of the knee-pad media won’t allow for admitting the possibility they were wrong.  Why waste time belaboring the obvious when there are conservatives to destroy?     

Domestically we have record long-term unemployment, record home foreclosures, green energy and Wall Street cronyism, border gun-running scandal, first ever lower credit rating, and a seemingly incurable addiction to spending to accompany and exacerbate record deficits. It is also approaching 1000 days since the incumbent Democrat presented a budget. Aside from the astonishing display of constitutional duty shirking it also lays bare their indifference to actual solutions. It is bad enough to prioritize maintaining the status quo, but even worse when they make continuing deterioration the new status quo.  

Overseas we are supposed to believe two dead terrorist leaders somehow comprises a serious anti-terrorism strategy, a growing nuclear threat in Iran, growing anti Americanism in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and an Arab spring fast morphing into an Islamist winter making Israel more vulnerable than ever. Meanwhile we are so in hoc to the other world super power they show as much respect to our intellectual property and trade laws as they would any dead-beat.  

Okay then, rephrase the preceding two paragraphs into referendum format with a closing question asking whether a majority would vote to either stay on this track or try something different.  

Now you see why I remain hopeful.  All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, and all the agendized propagandistic snake oil spin in the world, cannot put a shine on the turd that is the Obama presidency. If they can, and a majority swallows it, the fundamental transformation Obama originally campaigned on will be realized, along with the death of American exceptionalism.

Yes, the stakes are that high, and no, this did not happen overnight.  This is the obvious culmination of the trajectory we have been on since Eisenhower. This is "A Time For Choosing" 2.0 

I almost said we get what we deserve if we let this happen, but we don’t.  What we deserve is a President with a modicum of competence who takes the oath of office to heart.  What we need is President who does not view the constitution as a hindrance to his agenda but rather one who gets that his agenda is the constitution.  

It wasn’t so long ago something that basic was a good-faith assumption, no matter which side won.  Another taste of change offered up by the tyransformational one.     


Reconsidering Patriotism

"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon." - -  Winston Churchill

Anyone who believes one can be both anti capitalist and pro American suffers a rather stark misunderstanding of both.  

A recent Facebook thread got me thinking a little deeper about the capitalism patriotism nexus.  I'll start by stipulating that being pro capitalist does not necessarily make you a patriot, and also allow that one can be neutral on capitalism and still be patriotic.  But being against capitalism while claiming to be an American patriot is tantamount to claiming one is a fan of sex, except for intercourse. 

Anti capitalism suggests a couple of things; first, a rejection of the economic principles on which this country was built, and second, by inference, that there is a superior alternative.  While I defy anyone to cite a single example, now or anywhere in history, let's just say there might be, but if so, it isn't American. Capitalism is as much a part of American DNA as freedom itself.  

The whole reason we declared independence in the first place was to escape the system that gave the king claim to everyone's property.  By extension any fruits borne of that property also belonged to the king as it was only through his benevolence that citizens were allowed to produce in the first place. Socialists seem not to notice, or are keeping it secret, that the wealth redistribution system to which they aspire is remarkably similar, except theirs is to be ruled by an enlightened panel of Ivy League technocrats instead of a king.

Capitalism is based on voluntary exchange, or free choices, between equal parties. Conversely, socialism is based on top-down distribution.  Today's fight isn't all that different than that of the revolution; and for the statist it isn't about the distribution, it's about the control.

There is also widespread confusion on the difference between freedom and free. We've all heard the adage that freedom isn't free but the fact of the matter is free isn't free either.  Because someone got it free doesn't render the costs of production non-existent. 

Milton Friedman's admonishment that there is no such thing as a free lunch is more than a trite cliche from Econ 101, it's fundamental, unamendable, irrefutable, economic law.  So, when someone demands "free" healthcare, or that their mortgage or student loans be "forgiven" it may sound like "I want this for free" but what it means is "I want someone else to pay for it".  

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
Winston Churchill

Apparently too many occupiers took that scene from the Wizard of OZ to heart when the great and mighty one awarded the Scarecrow a diploma conjured out of thin air.

I have, to the chagrin of some, suggested maybe the TEA Party and Wall Street Occupiers have something in common.  They do, but it is limited only to the fact that are both separate vents of steam from the same populist boiling pot.  In both cases the frustration is justified but in only one case is the behavior.  Writer Andrew Klaven suggests...

" Look at them, and understand that that’s what tomorrow will look like if they have their way today." (see link below)

While I am not so certain you can equate occupiers goals with the appearance of their encampments I would absolutely believe that to be the case of the TEA Party movement, having witnessed one of those first hand.  The Capitol grounds were cleaner after we left than they were when we got there. 

TEA parties protest the wretched excesses of big government.  Occupiers protest the wretched excesses of big business. They can both be right. But the real crux of the problem is the unholy marriage of the bigs, in a nutshell; crony capitalism, which, on closer inspection should be re-labelled crony socialism. 

Both movements seem to be missing that big business and big government are so intermingled they have become one big fat sow coming ever closer to crushing us by the shear unmanageability of it's size and weight. The worst part is that it can go about its self-serving business of maintaining the status quo so long as each group of malcontents focuses on each other. Political distractions, with the aid of establishment press, have evolved from quaint nuisances to tactical survival ploys. Should we expect change when one half of this power duopoly controls all the wealth and the other half makes all the rules?   

Farrowing crates were developed to prevent the unwitting sow from crushing its offspring.  The government is supposed to be the farrowing crate dispensing limited resources only to the genuinely dependent.  TEA partiers get this and want to restore it. Occupiers seem to be of the belief that the government is some sort of all powerful and limitless multi-million-titted sow. (BTW 98% of those suckers went through government schools. Just sayin...)

When you consider the similarity in structure to the two-party system the parentage of this deformed sow is no mystery. The mini me has grown into a maxi mess....and Napoleon lives.   


An Autumnal Exhilaration of Symmetry

A facebook friend got me pondering fall.  I recently came to the conclusion that, at least here in Wisconsin, the last month of each season is the best.  Maybe it's the feeling that the worst is behind us because something mellower is already here and something very different is coming, very soon. 

The last month of fall is bracketed by holidays.  June at the end of spring is a relief from the coolness and a welcome opportunity for all sorts of outdoor adventures. March at the end of winter feels like your first pain free breath recovering from a hangover.  

But the end of summer is particularly special for some reason.  Somehow the feelings of sadness at the departure of the passing season and anticipation of the coming season are more acute when fall rolls around.  

My friend exalts in the thrill of the seasons.  I agree there is a certain heightened exhilaration induced by seasonal symmetry.  This time of year we go from t-shirts and shorts to pants and hoodies, salads and garden veggies to root vegetables soups and stews, summer vacation to school year, and, of course the libational adjustment from the whites, vodka and gin, to the amber bourbons and scotch, color change of another sort.  I wonder if football isn't some sort of contrived event designed to give us an outlet to celebrate and exalt in the thrill of the seasonal transition. If not, it certainly seems to have become so. 

The extremes have relaxed, the cold of winter, dampness of spring, and heat of summer.  So what's the extreme of fall, beauty maybe?  That or there isn't one, and that too makes it special.  Having attended a wedding recently I was reminded I have always considered fall more romantic than spring.  Perhaps it's the allure of a form fitting sweater on the fairer sex, warm fires, blankets and all that. Both of my weddings were in the fall.

The canning is in process, freezers and pantries are being stocked and we savor the late harvest of zucchini, squash, and are blessed with a straggling tomato, unarguably the singular best thing August has to offer.  Mentally we are not quite yet in hunkering down mode, because we don't have to be, but we know it's coming. For now though friends the seasonal extremes are in abeyance.  Enjoy your fall.

Here is the recipe of wafting aromas I endured while writing this.  I mean seriously, how can you possibly go wrong with any recipe that starts with bacon, includes beer, cheese, onions, and beef? Really?

Threshers Stew
(hat tip Savoring the Seasons of the Northern Heartland, Beth Dooley and Lucia Watson)

2 strips bacon
3 tablespoon butter
3 onions, peeled and sliced thin
pinch salt
2 pounds leans, boneless stew meat, or upgrade to sirloin tip if you please
vegetable oil for saute`ing
1 1/2 tablespoons all-purpose flour
1 (12 oz.) bottle strong dark beer
1/2 teaspoon salt
3 grinds fresh pepper (3? yeah right)
2 bay leaves
1 sprig thyme (I use 1/2 to 3/4 tsp dry)
2 sprigs parsley ( 1 to 2 tsp.dry)
1 quart dark stock (beef broth) Note: I never used even half of that when following this recipe to the letter.  Any more than 2 cups makes it way too soupy in my book.
2 tablespoons good quality red wine vinegar
1 cup crumbled blue cheese for garnish

Fry bacon in heavy skillet to render the fat.  Remove bacon, add butter, melt, add sliced onions with a pinch of salt and a sugar and caramelize (medium/low heat at least a half an hour, stir occasionally, you CANNOT hurry this step, relax, have one of the other beers.  Like the name implies they have to be at least as dark as caramel before they are ready)
Meanwhile pull out your favorite stewing pot and saute beef chunks in the veggie oil until completely browned.  Sprinkle with flour coat and stir.  Add the beer and be sure to scrape up yummy bottom clingers.  Add caramelized onions to the stew pot along with the herbs and salt. cover it all with dark stock, reduce heat and simmer about 1-1/2 hours stirring occasionally.  prior to serving add the vinegar.  Serve and bowls and top off with the blue cheese.

This, a good hearty bread, and green salad makes a great fall meal.  Enjoy.

 

No Escape from Lefty Jerkitude

I'm just a guy trying to unload some construction waste.  Following letter to my alderman and the DA has fallen on deaf ears.  What's a guy gotta do to hear from his elected official, pour beer on him? (note: I do not have a Walker bumper sticker or any political messages on my vehicle) 

To: Wille C. Wade, 7th District Alderman, Milwaukee  

CC: District Attorney John Chisholm

 
 

On Sunday August 28th at approximately 1:30 p.m.  I made a trip to the city self-help salvage yard on Industrial Ave on the north side.

 

An employee at the gate greeted me.  As is the practice he verified my residency and checked the type of waste I intended to dicard, which in this case was approximately 11 feet of old picket fencing.

 

I was informed that disposal of construction waste now required a $15 fee.  I showed disappointment.

 

With virtually no verbal complaint on my part the comment I got was “I know, it’s all Scott Walkers fault.  He f***ed it all up.  That’s why we gotta get rid of him”.

 

I proceeded to leave my lawn waste and while unloading heard at least 3 more comments about the importance of getting rid of Scott Walker, although peppered with equally colorful language.

 

It is my understanding that public employees are forbidden by law to engage in political activities in the work place.  It was unmistakably clear to me this person was agitating for the recall of Governor Walker on work time, and on that basis a violation had occurred. 

 

A resident should be able to partake of a city service without getting a face full political partisanship from a public servant.

 

This was so blatant and pointed I am left wondering if the union leadership has issued orders for rank and file to trash talk the Governor at every opportunity when dealing with the public.  If it happened to me virtually unprovoked is it happening as a matter of routine among all city, county, and state workers?  I kindly request the Alderman and District Attorney investigate to that end.   

 

In the mean time please consider this letter a formal complaint as it pertains to statute prohibiting state employees from engaging in political activities in the workplace. 

Sincerely,
        Frank Byrne

Milwaukee Resident

Ten Years After, Thoughts on 911

Ten years already.  Many of us will be reliving that fateful Tuesday morning, 8:15 a.m. central time, where we were, what we were doing, what we were feeling.   It was a gorgeous day, not unlike our recent weather.  I was in the middle of my morning drop-off routine, hearing about the first plane in the middle of an interview about something else, probably Chandra Levy, remember her? After walking the kids into pre-school I returned to and started the car, and with it the radio, which resumed it's regular program.  By the time I got back home the second plane had not yet met it's target.  

When I got home I immediately turned on the TV to see what was going on, and saw the second plane collide.  I was sitting on the floor, mouth agape, feeling like someone just kicked me in the chest.  

As a rule I don't consider myself all that outwardly emotional, the most recent display of which was crying like a baby at my Mothers funeral more than ten years prior.  I remembered that because the weeping that ensued when the second tower fell was so familiar.

I wept for grief on so many levels, the largest at the realization that in this day and age the civilization we had been lulled into believing was so advanced really, truly, wasn't.  When a group of people, even if only the tiniest fraction of a major religion, was of the mindest that an act such as this was in any way justifiable all of mankind must have, in some way, failed.   

I wept at the massive lost of innocent life at the hands some fanatic sect hell bent on destroying my country.  I wept in knowing life as we knew it had changed, forever, not likely for the bettter.  I wept knowing somehow, some way, war was inevitable and possibly for admitting I was all for it.   

I remember talking with a friend on the phone, needing someone to calm me down as much she did.  I remember doing an ammo inventory in my head, not knowing what the follow up to the air attack might be.

As the next few days dragged on the emotions ranged from despair to rage and everything in between.  As a form of therapy I began to articulate my emotions in writing mostly as a way to sort them out.  The following essay is the result of that sorting which I sent to my email list.  The reaction was heartfelt and wide ranging.  Most of my conservative friends were totally on board but the most encouraging responses came from some of my most liberal friends.

As I reread this September 2001 missive I find my resolve has not changed much but has actually stiffened. Even though we have not suffered a similar domestic assault on Amercican soil rogue elements have tried and succeeded elsewhere, and on a smaller scale in the case of Hassan's Fort Hood massacre.  Reports of threatened anniversary attacks are todays news. 

That tiny fraction presented itself as a malignancy requiring eradication.  It took almost all of these ten years to remove the source tumor.  As I stated then and since a massive dose of self policing within the religion that spwaned this scum would be most welcome.  

All due apologies if there has been any, but if there has been they must have the worst public relations ever.  One would think leadership of a major religion who has any regard for its standing in the world would make a great display of cleaning its house but, as a news junkie, I haven't seen much.   Most noise from the so called religion of peace is of complaints of bigotry or that we infidels blame the actions of their tiny fanatical sect on the entire religion, apparently oblivious to the possibility that their lack of aggressive internal cleansing can justifiably be construed as complicity.

The mystery of how they could have let it fester to the point of mass murder in their God's name then is only surpassed by the mystery of why they are not the front line in the war on terror now. Subsequently I don't think it unreasonable to equate inaction with complicity.


from September 2001
Oh That It Could Be So Simple...
Recent poles show a groundswell of support for a military response to the recent atrocities in New York and Washington DC. Oh that it could be so simple. If only this could be handled like swatting an annoying bug. Unfortunately, this particular bug is viral and if there is a cure it will be eventual rather than swift. I am afraid my four-year old son will reach recruitment age before this is over. 

In Madison and other liberal strongholds they're organizing peace rallies. We can’t blame the students. Society has traditionally afforded them this time for enlightenment and to ponder various ideologies to form their worldview. If the events of September 11 didn't do it, perhaps the body bags of their non-student contemporaries will help them see the difference between the world we have and the world we want. Rally to your bleeding hearts content but ignoring reality will not help. Our soft underbelly is those without the stomach to respond with force. If that mentality prevails we might as well replace Old Glory with a white flag.
 
They are in school to learn so let’s urge them to study the lessons of contemporary history. The original World Trade Center bombing was our wake up call and the attack on the USS Cole was a shot across the bow, though deliberately low. The tepid responses to those events brought us the events of September 11. The painfully clear lesson is that our unwillingness to render harsh consequences escalates terrorism. Given this lesson it is easy to see why this enemy considers us a paper tiger.
 
If, like many believe, this is an attack on our national psyche, it is not paranoid but practical to believe that this enemy is relying on the pacifist movement as an unwitting collaborator. It is also prudent to note that both targets may well have been chosen because they were icons of conservatism, capitalism and military might. 

 At the very least, a deepened political chasm works to their advantage because divisive rhetoric compromises our unity and diffuses our focus. Right wing nut Jerry Falwell’s claim that we deserved this because of God’s displeasure is no less damaging than left wing nut Michael Moore’s open question, “why bomb the blue states, they didn’t vote for Bush”? For the good of the country this brand of rhetorical rubbish should be shelved until we regain the luxury of debating relatively petty concerns like social security. 

For the time being we have bigger fish to fry. Liberals should note that their fear of reckless retaliation decreases with each passing day and new coalition ally. Conservatives should not confuse patience with a lack of resolve. 

We have no quarrel with the majority of Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, but at what point do we hold the citizenry of a country accountable for the actions of their government? Oh that it could be so simple to carpet bomb terrorism out of existence. 

We need the maturity to accept that difficult problems do not have easy solutions and keep our obsession with instant gratification from justifying excessive force. It was the killing of innocent people that awakened this country from the dreamy slumber of complacency and to respond in kind would make matters worse. More of the same would help the recruitment of brainwashed zealots and alienate more countries.

Conversely, we cannot let the fear of a tarnished reputation compromise our resolve. Our response must be fierce but measured, lethal but precise. Anything less would be tantamount to surrender and an invitation for more. Terrorism unanswered makes it perpetual and allowing it to continue is equally immoral.
 


  

  

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  1. Not Shorty
    Thursday, January 10, 2013
  2. Romney For a Change
    Saturday, November 03, 2012
  3. Mirror Images, Sort Of
    Tuesday, April 10, 2012
  4. God & Country, Right & Left; pt 1
    Friday, February 10, 2012
  5. Murmur Endorsement; Santorum Safest Bet
    Tuesday, January 03, 2012
  6. Thoughts on Campaign 2012
    Saturday, December 03, 2011
  7. Reconsidering Patriotism
    Saturday, November 12, 2011
  8. An Autumnal Exhilaration of Symmetry
    Tuesday, September 20, 2011
  9. No Escape from Lefty Jerkitude
    Friday, September 16, 2011
  10. Ten Years After, Thoughts on 911
    Friday, September 09, 2011
Blog Software