Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Weekend Goal And Open Thread

The 2014-2015 homeschool classes that I teach have finally ended, and report cards have been issued!

Therefore...


Checking blog comments qualifies as moving only enough to prove that I'm alive.

So, what's on your mind?

Here is your chance to opine according to the parameters below:

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: comments consisting of blog gossip will be deleted as soon as an administrator of this blog becomes aware of such comments.

78 comments:

  1. Trans-Pacific Partnership

    I don't believe Paul Ryan and the other lying liars on Crapitall Hill.

    Call your congresspeople and senators and tell them to vote down this sovereignty-sucking give to the global corporate vampires

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      Could you explain to us what the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership involve? I keep hearing about "aid to displaced workers." Who are those people to which the failed trade deal referred?

      Delete
    2. "aid to displaced workers."

      How can anything that even contemplates that be good?

      Delete
    3. What John Berg said. Nobody knows too much about it, but we don't need it. I've heard things like it could allow corporations to sue government, etc. Also, it will be a big HB1 visa bonanza. The foreign scab worker importation will accelerate.

      Delete
    4. YES!What HAPPENED to PAUL? Who got to him? I thought he was a very decent, right-thinking chap –– it a bit dull –– nice looking but no charisma –– just like Mitt Romney.

      I'm STILL wondering who got to Chief Justice John Roberts in the matter of giving Obamacare the Kiss of Life? I wonder even more if the lives of his wife and child were threatened? The International gangster banksters, who practically run the Universe now, have no scruples, and apparently EVERYONE is eminently corruptible –– OR vulnerable to EXTORTION.

      Delete
  2. Didn't have to call then here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

    It may be finished but it may also have more lives than the Terminator. Gotta keep on.

    Questions:

    1. Ted Cruz and a number of other far right loons love it.
    Time for you folks to cut them loose?

    2. Is a new coalition forming over important issues and if it did
    would you still dump on Elizabeth Warren. I'll take Rand Paul as an
    ally on some matters.

    3. Robert Rubin is still running the show and he OWNS Hillary.
    Time to be a little less hostile toward Bernie? I'd support Jim Webb if
    I were convinced he could disown Rubin.

    4. Why did you ever believe Ryan?

    Time for the right to be concerned about more than gay marriage and what toilet people are using.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we can do both.
      But thanks for the concern :)

      Delete
    2. May I point out that you can't do either?

      The gay marriage issue is over and you're just wasting everyone's time. You did get beaten so badly that the movement has expanded to transgendered people and you will lose that also even though the merits aren't as clear.

      As far as the TPP goes, you weren't even aware of it till the show was nearly over.
      In fact #OWS can take some credit for bringing the issue to the fore. I'm sure you think of the movement as nothing but dirty hippies not worthy of Bill "Le Flambeur" Bennett's attention but they have been effective laying the foundation for a progressive movement in America.
      Right now the only attention TPP is drawing on the familiar right wing blogs is a post that blows the alarum that there is a vote to pay foreign workers who lose their jobs as a result of TPP.
      Not really clear on the issue.

      No Ed, you'll continue to march as the corporate masters tell you to march so long as they through in a little anti gay rhetoric.
      It doesn't bode ell for our political future and allows another corporate conservative like Hillary to look like a valid alternative to crazy.

      Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Ben Carson ... you can do both?

      Come on, man, you're being played. Wake up.

      Delete
    3. Well Ducky, all I can say to all you have said is, amen.

      I would point our that Dems step high to the corporate masters as well.

      Have you seen this?

      http://www.amazon.com/How-Many-Too-Progressive-Immigration/dp/022619065X/

      The world is burning, our nation is coming apart at the seams, and the GOOPers are chumming the waters with boob bait for bubba.

      I'm not trying to ingratiate myself with you or repudiate my fellow Right Blogistanis, but yeah, the gay rights wars are over. Gays have won and the transgendered are pouring through the breach, and it damages us not at all.

      I'm probably not a representative conservative, so I'm not really a good spokesman for the cause anymore. The Tea Party ain't it, and neither is the GOOP Party, so what's left?

      I am a firm believer in Russell Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but none of the GOOP politicians are.

      They have damaged the cause of conservatism with their ham-handed idiocy and criminal conduct.

      You know what the problem with unions are? They are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrat party, union leadership rent-seek at the expense of the workers, and union leadership is in bed with the corporations.

      I don't like conspiracy theories, but I'd say the ruling class and the moneyed have us right where they want us.

      Things need to change in DC, but I don't even know if that's possible at this point.

      I understand why people like you are upset with Obama. He's an interesting hybrid. He a power-grabbing statist accreting more imperial power to the presidency, he increases control over everything, but he also lets the the Wall Street banksters and the global corporatists run rampant like the herd of feral swine that they are.

      Meanwhile, I can't remember the last time anyone in the GOOP did anything useful that we could applaud.

      I don't know what the answer is. Jim Webb is about the only one out there I would trust to do the right thing and break some serious DC crockery, but he ain't running.

      I hate to tell you this, but Hillary is your gal. I don't see anyone stopping her. All the scandals, clandestine e-mails, incompetency, pedophile rapist husband, Clinton Foundation nothing more than an influence peddling criminal enterprise...

      Nothing can bring her down. She's like an old battleship riddled with the fusillades of past battles, hull rusted at the waterline, but she refuses to go down.

      Yeah, there are plenty, left and right, who are very upset about what is going on, but our goals are different and we have very little in common.

      Delete
    4. I will say, Duck, it was your comments here a while back that first brought TPP to my attention.
      But there must be some other OWS other than the idiots in the streets that you are crediting intellectual activity to.

      Delete
    5. No, Ed, it is the #OWS that you know and love.

      The movement didn't disintegrate but split up into groups that have been pretty successful getting the word out about this disgrace.

      Interesting that his own party did him down.

      Delete
    6. Those of us who have led in the effort to safeguard marriage have known from the get-go that it was more than just a 'marriage issue.’ It's been a purposeful rollback of western civilization – and our system of law and government in particular - that has seen many thrusts of the spear to turn its flank.

      This one was never about homosexuals being able to enter into a protected relationship, but all about a teeny minority forcing everyone else to knuckle under and approve that which is not approval-worthy as well as to prove that, contrary to our beliefs as once expressed in the Declaration of Independence, God does not give us our rights. If they can advance the role of the state from the protector of those natural rights God has endowed us with to the decider of what those rights are – ruhoh. We are in deep caca.

      Modern liberalism of the past 100 years rejects the Declaration and the Constitution in favor of an “evolutionary” society and government, not a natural one with a constitutional government. Woodrow Wilson wasn’t very subtle about this, nor many of his compatriots since – including the one in the white house today. This is nothing more than an engineering project to remake the society. In this case we have become subjects of the project instead of people whose natural rights are protected by a government that we own.

      The chaotic gender confusion (GC) surfing in on this wave is merely one result of this. And, I’d say, it’s quite a useful tool to those who would distract us from the machinations of Wilson, the bankers and the rest of the oligarchs who have the power. It’s so clear that’s wrong, and it’s easy to focus on – but we can’t see the hand behind the curtain, especially with all the hubbub.

      SO, that gives the GC’s and the power elites a symbiotic alliance to take out a common enemy – the constitution and us. Compare the Washington DC phone book of today to one in the mid-60’s. You’ll notice something missing in the older book: no Fortune 500 companies. What do you suppose they are doing there now? SF’s right – the ruling class and the moneyed class are running the show in new and frightening ways.

      Russell’s principles are brilliant. Too bad we need binoculars to even read them. Welcome to Plato’s cave!

      Delete
    7. A death-blow is a life-blow to some
      Who, till they died had not alive become
      Who, had they lived had died, but when
      They died, vitality begun.


      ~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

      Delete
    8. Those of us who have led in the effort to safeguard marriage have known from the get-go that it was more than just a 'marriage issue.’

      Interesting theory, though not one I can subscribe to. In every case, I would safeguard liberty rather than someones feelings. Your approval is neither demanded nor required.

      Delete
    9. Did you miss the point CI? Being forced to APPROVE that which isn't approval worthy. This is not safeguarding feelings or anything close. It's embedded in freedom. Being forced is much different from being asked to tolerate a broad span of unworthy activities for the sake of principles of freedom - which I have most willingly done all my life, knowingly as that principle. I had a paragraph on that in my original post, but thought it was sufficiently obvious and distracting with the length it added. I stand by the rest.

      Delete
    10. Bayside - I didn't miss your point....I don't think your premise matches what you are trying to assert. Given that you're proffered no defined metric for you believe constitutes "approval worthy", there's nothing there to address. But your framing of "forced to approve" requires there to be a burden. There is none. You, and like-minded citizens, are not required to approve, tolerate or care about this issue....unless you choose to. That relates explicitly to feelings.

      Further, the action of a majority to deny the civil liberties and social privileges to a minority [sans burden]....based solely on an extralegal [and undefined] notion of "approval worthy"......is the very antithesis of freedom. Liberty should be the default state....not special privileges.

      Delete
    11. CI,
      CI,
      framing of "forced to approve" requires there to be a burden. There is none.

      Really? I think that there is the element of force involved -- or, if not forced, an in-your-face element.

      The recent display of Father's Day books at my local public library is quite something. Almost all of the books present gay fathers or transgender fathers. A "regular" father gets short shrift. I rather imagine that the public school curricula are similar.

      The next years will be interesting to watch. How will society adapt to the gender agendas? What will be the impact on the quality of our society?

      Delete
    12. AOW - I think that there is the element of force involved

      Not without being able to define the burden. Prohibiting same sex couples from enjoying the same legal, contractual protections and social privileges DID constitute force...because there was a burden.

      Delete
    13. CI,
      Redefining marriage seems like a strange step to me. How many centuries has marriage been defined as a union between one man and one woman. In the West, I mean.

      What is your opinion of the legal recognition of bigamy and/or polygamy? Yes, I do think we are headed in that direction within the next few years.

      Delete
    14. Redefining marriage seems like a strange step to me.

      But it doesn't to me. I understand that most people consider it differently than I do. Marriage is a solemn, religious rite for many.....but ultimately, under our legal system, it is a contract. Though marriage has, to present, been a contract restricted by opposite gender.....it has also been at various and lengthy periods.....a non-consensual and unequal contract. "Something is" doesn't necessarily equal "something just".

      In order for contractual access and protections to be denied to an American citizen, there must be a substantial reason for doing so [the burden], or the prohibition has no merit. This has been shown to be the case under varying levels of legal scrutiny.

      Likewise, I don't really have an issue with consensual polygamy. It's not for me [one wife is plenty, thank you], but it doesn't harm me, steal from me nor restrict my liberty.

      Delete
    15. "You, and like-minded citizens, are not required to approve..."

      Oh, but we are - and that is precisely the point. Many people have lost their jobs or livelihoods over this issue. And since these 'victims' are by and large tolerant of others' behavior, that shows acceptance or tolerance isn't enough for a certain group. Much like the Catholic church in medieval England, they will make sure these people suffer and go out of business UNLESS THEY RECANT. Now THAT is FORCE. So is putting legal obstacles in the way of helping young people try to escape from the unhappiness of these relationships. Some don't want to. Others do, but aren't allowed. THAT is California law! And that is force.

      We fundamentally disagree on whether a homosexual union can be a 'marriage.' There is no reason to privilege these alignments as if they were. It’s not a majority-vs-minority issue. It’s apples vs. teacups. You won't agree. I understand that. But that's the crux of the argument, and likely one of many that are devolving from our shift from natural rights protected by government to “new” ones created/imposed by government.

      Delete
    16. "Many people"? That number pales compared to the number persecuted throughout even our modern history, for their sexual orientation. I stand firm that a citizen should have a right to his own labor, regardless of any factor of a prospective customer. But your premise connotes by it's framing, that gays have always to now, been "forced to approve" their own persecution. The small number of instances where a right to one's labor has been unfairly infringed does not statistically support the notion that a larger conspiracy is at play.

      There is no reason to privilege these alignments as if they were.

      There is no reason not to. Liberty should be the default state.

      Delete
    17. CI,
      In order for contractual access and protections to be denied to an American citizen, there must be a substantial reason for doing so [the burden], or the prohibition has no merit.

      I contend that we'll find out if the prohibition has no merit once the prohibition is gone for a while. If merit is seen at that point, then what? Perhaps the nullification of all marriage contracts.

      Delete
    18. "If merit is seen at that point, then what?"

      What would said merit look like, and how would you know? Heterosexuals have damaged the "institution" of marriage steadily for decades now......more so, I contend.....than gays could.

      Delete
    19. CI,
      What would said merit look like, and how would you know?

      I don't know what it would look like. That's one of my points.

      But I'll speculate a bit:

      1. I think that all spouse/partner benefits for entitlements and retirements would disappear. In that case, many more wives who are mothers would have to work outside the home. Goodbye to the homeschool option then.

      2. No longer would a spouse be able to will the deceased's estate to the surviving spouse without the government exacting death taxes. In that case, more surviving spouses would end up on the government teat. This topic is on our minds here in the household because Mr. AOW has a sudden, acute problem which may well end in death in just a short time.

      3. The end of the marriage contract per se. All relationships would become legal contracts (business contracts). I don't know how such a change might affect the children of those who have entered into several contracts; children might feel unmoored and "act out."

      I will not disagree with you that there has been decline in the institution of marriage -- particularly since the 1960's.

      Delete
    20. Aside from marriage already being a legal contract, in the eyes of the State and the law......I understand that it's speculation, but I'm having trouble connecting your dots, as to how expanding the civil liberties and social privileges of marriage to homosexuals would bring about the disappearance of spousal protections and benefits.

      Delete
    21. CI,
      There was a time that there was a death tax on a deceased spouse's passing to the surviving spouse. This happened to my mother-in-law in 1979; there was also no exemption from death tax at that time -- that is, the first x-amount of dollars for exemption did not exist. Whether property was held in separate names or not, all of father-in-law's estate was subject to a tax of 55%.

      At the time of my father's passing in 1998 (Mom had predeceased him in 1987 and left him everything with zero death tax), the death-tax exemption for estates was the first $600,000. I don't know what the exemption figures are now.

      There is also the matter of Social Security benefits for surviving spouses. Yes, spouses plural. See the Social Security web site for further information on that topic. There is no reduction of benefits for each of the surviving spouses -- provided that the marriage survived 10 or 11 years before dissolution.

      Delete
    22. CI: I understand and share your motives for defending the rights of all to couple however they see fit.

      Like you, I see it as equality under the law completely divorced from any morality. I am a Christian so I believe gay marriage is wrong, but our state operates under the constitution, not the Bible.

      My main disagreement with you is that the state should not call it marriage.

      However, you cannot discount these arguments of those who disagree with you.

      Yes, there are sincere gay people who just want to be married and be left alone, but there is a whole parade of people who are using this cause to advance other agendas:

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/you-will-be-assimilated_969581.html?page=1

      Yes, the article is from a conservative site, but the author provides links to liberal writers to substantiate his point of view.

      Delete
    23. Have more to post on this, but off to a meeting. I've long contended that for all the good death taxes do (nada, zippo!) they should have been abolished long ago. Leave what you want to whom you want. The government has no interest in it except greed. It doesn't break up the kingdoms of the uber-wealthy who hire buildings full of lawyers and attorneys to get around it. And it stops the only legit complaint homosexuals have about not being able to marry a friend of the same sex. As CI points out, this is an ultimate right to the fruits of your labor - to give it to anyone without penalty on anyone once you've paid your reasonable taxes.

      All the planning we did in the 90's is out the window now - and back to the drawing board cuz of bureaucratic meddlers.

      Prayers for Mr. AOW.

      Delete
    24. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    25. SF - I absolutely concur. There are those who are attempting to advance an agenda beyond just marriage equality; and I use marriage, because there is no trademark on the semantic definition. I simply don't possess the same deference for such, as my marriage is no less strong and secure if gays enter a contract of the same name.

      But, let's remember.....there is an enormous host of those who oppose this extension of civil liberty, based on no less an agenda. An agenda designed solely to maintain a special privilege, most often based on a religious faith. Attempting to legislate one's morality simply for it's own sake is no more noble trait than those on the other side.

      Delete
    26. SF,
      Excellent article!

      I have saved it to my computer files -- and printed it as well. A lot to consider there, and I need to have a hard copy in hand so as to read the article more carefully as soon as I can find the time.

      Delete
    27. It's an interesting article, though it wastes no time in jumping to the left fringe.....while being seemingly ignorant of the right fringe. Both extreme positions engage in the same type of tactics....cals for criminalization of the opposition, social and market pressures, and a tone-deaf, one-sided rhetorical package of the 'true aims' the other side is allegedly in pursuit of.

      Delete
    28. CI: That article makes no pretense of being David Frum fair and balanced.

      It's purpose is to shine a light on the leftwing rats and cockroached hiding in the shadows and perverting a legitimate rights issue to their own twisted agendas.

      Delete
    29. Oh, I'm well aware of the source [Frum, fair and balanced?]......I can't help it, I'm always entertained by irony.

      Delete
  3. ___ The House on the Hill ___

    They are all gone away,
    The House is shut and still,
    There is nothing more to say.

    Through broken walls and gray
    The winds blow bleak and shrill:
    They are all gone away.

    Nor is there one to-day
    To speak them good or ill:
    There is nothing more to say.

    Why is it then we stray
    Around the sunken sill?
    They are all gone away,

    And our poor fancy-play
    For them is wasted skill:
    There is nothing more to say.

    There is ruin and decay
    In the House on the Hill:
    They are all gone away,
    There is nothing more to say.


    ~ Edwin Arlington Robinson

    This well-known villanelle might be an eloquent description of our once vibrant country today. The life has drained out of us. There is nothing left but bluster, deceit, dejection, derangement and decay.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ________ The Labyrinth ________

    Dementia mocks and teases as it lures
    Into a maze of ever-smaller halls,
    And leads to places where one finds no cures

    Places where we hope to find detours
    That help avoid colliding with blank walls.
    Dementia mocks and teases as it lures

    The hapless to where nothing reassures.
    Where projects die, and yet Hope still enthralls,
    And leads to places where one finds no cures.

    Still, respiration cunningly endures,
    And memory sharpening briefly quickly stalls.
    Dementia mocks and teases as it lures.

    Each shred of fading consciousness immures
    The view we long to see within high walls,
    And leads to places where one finds no cures.

    A dreariness takes charge, and then adjures
    Us to endure a journey of withdrawals.
    Dementia mocks and teases as it lures,
    And leads to places where one finds no cures.


    ~ FreeThinke

    That was another equally bleak villanelle. The most famous example of the genre is Dylan Thomas' Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So if the Chinese got all those SSNs, which one of Obama's did they get, or was that part of the WH security strategy?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gonna pimp my submission in the Your Voice Your Ad Contest.
    http://yourvoiceyourad.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the right of "I'm Your Neighbor", click "Send to Next Bracket",
      then click "Submit My Vote".
      please.

      Delete
    2. There are some excellent entries there - but Ed's is great. I hope others visit and vote!

      Delete
  7. _____ Yorkshiremen in Pub Gardens _____

    As they sit there, happily drinking,
    their strokes, cancers and so forth are not in their minds.
    Indeed, what earthly good would thinking
    about the future (which is Death) do? Each summer finds
    beer in their hands in big pint glasses.
    And so their leisure passes.

    Perhaps the older ones allow some inkling
    into their thoughts. Being hauled, as a kid, upstairs to bed
    screaming for a teddy or a tinkling
    musical box, against their will. Each Joe or Fred
    wants longer with the life and lasses
    And so their time passes.

    Second childhood: and ‘Come in, number eighty!’
    shouts inexorably the man in charge of the boating pool.
    When you’re called you must go, matey,
    so don’t complain, keep it all calm and cool,
    there’s masses of time yet, masses, masses…
    And so their life passes.


    ~Gavin Ewart - from Selected Poems, New Directions, 1988

    ReplyDelete
  8. ____________ Stillness ____________

    No sound beyond the dropping of the leaves
    Or shushing in the treetops of the stirring
    In the air and periodic whirring
    Soft of wings and bundling of sheaves ––

    Every now and then a bird may call
    Looking for or longing for his mate;
    Escaping still the hunter’s dinner plate.
    Scythes swish steadily as grain grown tall

    Submits to delicate compelling force.
    Workers silently bent to their task
    Over whom hot sunshine spills its rays

    Reap swiftly knowing pain could come, of course.
    Later, in the afterglow they’ll bask
    Dreaming foolishly of better days.


    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  9. The pressure others to reform is great.
    Whoever won't conform inspires hate.

    An Ethos prevalent demands adherence,
    Or at least be lent a feigned sincere appearance.

    No one will tolerate what he despises,
    So, he'll berate who otherwise advises.

    The Bowels of Belief is where we live
    Where challenge never has Relief to give.

    Parochialism jails, and then it smothers
    Conformity impales, then kills all others.

    Most people fail to see this works all ways,
    And so the Blight will kill till end of days.


    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That ain't no span, Anon.

      Mr. Cox is speakin' the cold, hard facts.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. It seemed to be very much factual to me.
      Spam? Why call it "spam"?

      Delete
    3. "Spam? Why call it "spam"?"

      Because some people just can't handle the truth and have NO cogent rebuttal!

      Delete
    4. He posted the exact stuff stuff at other blogs. That is exactly what SPAM is. Not only that he uses too many words, a lot too many. Typical blog hog behavior.

      Delete
    5. Yes, it is spam -- copied and pasted at at least one other blog site.

      Now, a bit of copy and paste is no problem as far as administers of this blog go. However, this batch of comments -- even if they do contain some truth -- is a waste bandwidth.

      Delete
  16. _________ FROM THE WEEKLY STANDARD _________

    Republicans Forced to Turn Shirts Inside Out at Clinton Launch


    1:12 PM, JUN 13, 2015 • BY DANIEL HALPER

    New York

    Three Republican National Committee staffers were forced to turn their t-shirts inside out at Hillary Clinton's official campaign kick-off event today on Roosevelt Island. The offending t-shirts featured a stop sign with the words "Stop Hillary."

    The Republicans held general admission tickets to the event. They walked through the security zone to get into the event without a problem. But as they proceeded toward the stage, A green-shirted campaign aide trailed them.

    "Read their shirts, you can't let them in," a campaign staffer said.

    The Republicans were told that no protesting was allowed inside the Clinton event. It was considered a no protest zone.

    "You got to go," the campaign staffer told them.

    But they were allowed to stay inside the event so long as they turned their shirts inside out.

    The Republicans were again scolded by campaign staffers for handing out GOP swag to reporters at the event.

    Separately, a larger group of GOP staffers protested outside the New York City event. Which apparently was allowed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So much for the hypocrisy of persecuting wedding cake bakers over the right to practice their ideologies...

      Delete
  17. Clinton is a worn-out shoe. Yesterday, Hillary continued her class warfare strategy by attacking billionaires and hedge fund managers. This is fine, of course. I simply wonder if she intends to return to Citigroup its $782,000, Goldman Sachs its $711,000, or JP Morgan its $621,000. Hypocrite ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw her briefly while scrambling desperately to find the remote. I imagine that she will appeal to a whole host of "useful idiots"! "Hypocrite", indeed she epitomizes the definition thereof.

      Delete
    2. Well Berg, look at it this way ... she can defeat anyone currently riding in the right wing clown car so either field a sane candidate or swallow.

      Delete
    3. " she can defeat anyone "

      So that means that we have a preponderance of "useful idiots" in the electorate. For once I agree with you.

      Delete
  18. From back at the beginning of the thread:

    We have aborted our labor market for decades now. Can you say the words "human capital"? So of course, we have to import foreign labor. We have aborted our own citizens and future labor force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ABORTED?

      I don't think so. The word you were looking for might be BETRAYED.

      But then it was UNIONS who truly betrayed and then destroyed the American working class, because they got too powerful, too greedy and too thuggish. They killed the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs.

      Business HAD to leave the American Field of Battle in order to survive.

      - Solomon Grundy

      Delete
  19. And AOW - congratulations on wrapping another year!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baysider,
      Thank you.

      I didn't get much sleep this weekend after all. Too busy trying to clean out my office for the community shred scheduled for later this week. In the process of my cleaning frenzy, I somehow lost my checkbook! I'm so upset with myself that I can barely eat -- let along sleep. I spent hours today recreating what I could from bank statements. So much for my relaxing day of yoga therapy followed by the swimming pool.

      Dental surgery tomorrow. Ugh.

      Delete
    2. Baysider,
      Allow me to take this moment to thank you for something else. You know what I mean, I'm sure.

      Delete
    3. AOW, Pray to St Anthony, the Saint of lost articles.

      Delete
  20. You're welcome, AOW. Sooo sorry about the checkbook. We just went through that a month ago. We have several, so it didn't manifest itself soon enough. Best for your surgery Monday. Ugh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baysider,
      When you say soon enough, I'm not sure what you mean.

      Take this to an email discussion if you're willing to elaborate.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective