The Conservative Brotherhood

Recently my interests have gravitated to subjects not pertinent to this site, so I have only been making occasional visits lately, but last week I find that BGlover and MichaelEmmanuel have registered views on best practices for a stimulus package for the economy. Both feel an income tax suspension, for a limited time, as opposed to a marginal rate decrease, is a better step the government could take to address financial difficulties and stimulate the economy. At first blush their proposal has appeal, but for me, upon consideration, ends up more delicious than nutritious.

Often I think I am in Big Brother's wonderland already. History is rewritten with such audacity I sometimes doubt my own memory. I may possibly be in the early stages of Alzheimer's, but I distinctly remember the economic wisdom of the 1980's, when Japan was the economic behemoth, proclaiming the problem with Americans was that we didn't save enough. Credit, aka, living beyond our means in crass materialistic stupor, as opposed the personal frugality of the average Japanese, was the metaphor for their rise and our decline. Now Washington proposes to either take less or give back more of our money with the proviso that we do our patriotic duty and spend it like crazy. Some pundits and contemporary sages have even expressed fear, "fear" mind you, that skittish Americans might interpret the recent economic convolutions as a caution to save rather than spend. BGlover and MichaelEmmanuel are apparently among Big Brother's second generation, because they obviously were never instructed from the ancient text I reference.

Anthony K. Modafferi III, Esq.

As an attorney and personal friend of Bernard Kerik, the former New York City Police Commissioner, the recent spectacle surrounding Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, illustrates the overwhelming press bias in favor of Democrat appointees and politicians.

Prominent Democrats – including the President-elect – have labeled Geithner’s failure to pay taxes as a “hiccup,” or “honest mistake,” while excoriating Kerik for allegedly failing to pay nanny-taxes included in a charging instrument that puzzled the trial judge for its failure to abide by basic rules of pleading and which the prosecutor re-wrote to “fix” his sophomoric “mistakes.” The press has regurgitated the government’s charges without any investigation into the circumstances giving rise to these baseless charges. Instead, the press labeled Kerik a “disgrace” while, at the same time, preferred to describe tax-expert Geithner’s own failure to pay taxes as a “hiccup” or an “honest mistake.”

Since "stimulus plan" is the phrase of the day. I thought I would offer my own. As I said shortly after the election, Conservatives must jettison the social issues at the federal level and get back to the basics of economic growth and fiscal discipline.

1: Stimulus could more efficiently be gotten to the people by an immediate temporary freeze on federal income tax withholding out of payroll checks rather than printing money, which is inflationary. If Obama really believes in stimulating from the bottom up, this is the most cost-effective way to do it without printing and borrowing money. The deficit would increase over time through lower tax revenues. The end result would be the same and probably cost hundreds of billions less.

I am usually at odds with Cobb, but today I find I must agree with him. This week, he posted here at 'The Conservative Brotherhood", a couple of articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian war in Gaza. He, and another who commented on his posts, hit the nail right on the head. I finally understand the conflict in its entirety. The Palestinians are not the “victims” they claim to be. After all the Jews only came there because they were fleeing oppression. And the land was basically empty. It was sparsely populated and not being employed to its highest and best use. There was no government by European standards, no civil administration, and no modern infrastructure.

UNMASKING HAMAS: Former Palestinian Terrorist Explains The Mindset Of Militants

After months of having rockets fired by Hamas militants into civilian neighborhoods, Israel decided to respond with air strikes on Gaza, directed at Hamas.

Can there ever be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

Former Palestinian terrorist Walid Shoebat insists that for things to change, it needs to start with the Palestinians. “Most people simply do not understand the level of hatred palestinians have for Israel,” he says, “If they did, there would be no discussion about whether or not Israel is justified in these attacks.”

An acquaintance called my last post entitled, "Our Elite Class 2" a "diatribe". As I am sure she knows the meaning of the word, and have every reason to respect her intellect and credentials, the tone I struck must have been more cacophonous than I intended. I didn't intend for it to sound angry or pugnacious, though upon a re-read I can understand how it could be taken that way. In my defense, my upbringing is making a belated re-appearance. I am one of those folks who were raised by people who talked one way at the kitchen table and another way when transacting business on site or phone, or speaking in a public forum, such as the PTA or block meeting. There came a time when it was politically incorrect to speak "properly". It was only recently that I understood how communication was inhibited, and to an extent limited, by colloquialisms of convenience, outside of a convenient dialect called Standard English, with its helpful vocabulary and complexity. Since this is a public forum, and I am a novice, I naturally rely on my dictionary and thesaurus. I admit I find the process of translating thoughts into words daunting, especially for public consumption, but I do it voluntarily, and more often than not, joyously. It is somewhat disconcerting and humbling that I have messed up and come across as angry and bitter. Was the “diatribe” the words or the thought? If the question is asked, I need to improve my prose.

In a prior post I asked, "Is our elite class a failure?" I acknowledge there are many ways to evaluate and assess the trajectory of our nation. Some may see our transition as positive evolution, leaving the temporary advantages of older schemes to those emerging nations enriching themselves on the remaining entrails of twentieth century industry and technology, while we endure the painful and necessary conversion to the economy of the twenty-first century. Another school of thought is that our elite leadership class has become arrogant, self-serving, effete, and hidebound; losing to more intellectually vigorous and ambitious societies. The record of history and current evidence extends more plausibility to the latter scenario. One signpost to support this may be the state of what was once the jewel of our society, our educational system.

An odd question occurred to me recently which may only be very tenuously connected to the raison d’être of this site. I strive, with varying degrees of success, to make proper use of this forum and to submit contributions that are topical and hopefully display an attempt at thoughtfulness. I try to resist casual ruminations and navel gazing and usually focus on producing a response to a current political event, situation, or blog. But, there is a question that has been rattling around in my head for a while that is sort of relevant to things discussed here, with the added advantage of offering me a change of mental scenery. Before I state the question, I will admit that I'm not immune to the deceptions of jealousy, envy, and the rationalizations necessary to assuage my inadequacies and failures, and I request that particular attention be paid to any influence of such things that may appear in what follows. Having said that, it is against the backdrop of the multiple calamities that presently afflict our nation that I ask, "Is our elite class a failure?" When caught up in the maelstrom of catastrophe and controversy, it seems it is the usual tendency to search, not the elite plateau, but the other regions of society to find the origins of the problems; as we see in the scapegoating of the unionized workers in the auto industry debacle. The highly educated and wealthy decision makers are benignly treated as victims of circumstance rather than as vicars of circumstance, and are passively charged with solving problems using their same methodology and intellectual pathology that are the genesis of the problems. I realize that is a very provocative allegation to make, and is so broad and general it can be expected to be infected with much error and points of contention. But the genuine question is not if my allusion possesses error, but to what degree is it erroneous?