advertisement

J. KARL MILLER: Woodstock minus the music and mud

Wednesday, November 9, 2011 | 3:54 p.m. CST

For the past several weeks, we have been treated (subjected) to the "occupation" phenomenon.

Originating as "Occupy Wall Street," this protest against bankers, corporations, speculators and any and all who constitute the "oppressive" top 1 percent of the accumulators of wealth has spread to cities both large and small.

MoreStory


Related Media

Reaction to the occupiers has been mixed, primarily along party lines. Republicans and conservative pundits have largely ignored or ridiculed the movement, while reactions from Democrats and the mainstream media have included total support, tentative backing and hoping against hope that gatherings remain orderly and nonviolent, as not to embarrass their sponsors. Progressives have likened the protests to those of the tea party.

Any comparison of the occupiers to the tea partyers is patently ludicrous. Whether one agrees with the aims of the tea party conservatives, that movement is composed of grown-ups who pony up for permits to gather, show up, speak up and clean up after themselves. None of these are attributes demonstrated by the occupy movement.

I won't reiterate the antics and excesses of the dissenters as they are readily available on YouTube and similar outlets. Not surprisingly, their ranks are swelled by 9/11 "truthers," Gray and Black Panthers, social and economic justice advocates, anti-capitalists, aging leftovers of the anti-Vietnam War movement and the lovable, hygienically challenged, work-averse rabble that can be counted on to show up in response to any and all dissent.

To those old enough to remember, the followers of the occupy movement bear a greater resemblance to Al Capp's SWINE (Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything) satirical caricature of 1960s protest groups than to the tea parties.

Support for the occupation protests includes funds from the unions and such leftist organizations as the Alliance for Global Justice.

I have little doubt that those who initiated Occupy Wall Street were armed with the best of intentions; nevertheless, the intent is totally bereft of reality. Some inscribed a list of 13 proposed demands, running the gamut of utopian desires to expand social and economic justice by ending capitalism — translation: helping themselves to other people's money.

These demands included a living wage for all regardless of employment, a free college education, an immediate trillion dollars each for infrastructure and ecological restoration, all nuclear power plants decommissioned, immediate, across-the-board debt forgiveness and a racial and gender equal rights amendment.

How is any reasoned individual expected to react seriously to a bizarre wish list such as this one?

The most disturbing aspect by far of the occupy protests is the attempted pitting of the "impoverished and oppressed" 99 percent of the population against the top 1 percent, an ugly exercise in class warfare.

And to be perfectly clear, the sponsor of this class envy is the president, who since his election has demonized Wall Street, "fat cat bankers," corporate America and the wealthy as the root cause of the economic crisis.

While the frustration over the flawed economy and the lack of jobs is understood, the notion that the 99 percent of the population who are not millionaires or richer are somehow entitled to share the wealth of those who have earned it is an irrational absurdity.

As a matter of fact, I and almost everyone I know has a membership in the 99 percent and have absolutely no designs on that which was earned by others.

The United States of America has long been the envy of the world as a land of opportunity, a nation in which anyone with the determination and initiative can succeed in amassing wealth.  

Along with that opportunity for success is an inalienable right to fail — the Declaration of Independence guaranteed only the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Achievement of that pursuit is an individual responsibility.

In closing, I offer this advice to those participating in the occupy movements: 

You have made the point that you are unhappy with the government, which has failed somehow to provide you with the sustenance to which you think you are entitled.

The scope of your demands and proposed solutions are unreasonable inasmuch as they are little more than a call for redistribution of wealth.

Consequently, you should quit while you are still treading water and before the senseless and uncontrollable violence that tends to become part and parcel of objective-deficient and disorganized demonstrations destroys your movement and what little credibility remains.

Demands for economic justice do not justify picking the pockets of the more affluent among us.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via email at JKarlUSMC@aol.com.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

matt arnall November 9, 2011 | 5:01 p.m.

Mr Miller has stated his opinion. He has told us who is at the protests. He told us why he thinks they are there. Trouble is he is wrong. Yes there are hippies and various types at the protests. There are portions of people that are up to no good. I am not claiming that Occupy is correct in all of their actions.
What I am saying though is there are many people there that are not bums and deadbeats. There are soldiers and teachers and truck drivers. They do have a valid message. The tables are so tilted to the wealthy and corporations that the middle class is dissappearing. Government has stopped being the voice of the people and started being the voice of corporate America.
Maybe these people are tired of the 1% claiming that if they have to pay taxes, they will stop creating jobs. They have not created jobs for years, despite having low or no taxes to pay.
To take the movement as a whole and say that they have no point is a lie. Would it be fair to say the Tea party are just a bunch of racists just because a few racists show up at Tea Party gatherings. No it wouldn't.
Why is it that it is fine to bail out banks with tax payer money, then claim class warfare when these banks won't do things to benefit the people that just saved them from extinction.
And I love how it is the presidents fault. I can't believe that a military man can show blind hatred for our country's elected leader.
Occupy is a valid movement. If you choose to only look at the trouble makers, which make up a small number of the people protesting, you don't actually have a chance to understand why they are there. But, as is shown above, many don't care why they are there, just that they don't like them.
It is not an issue of wanting what others have earned, its anger over the fact that an elite class is given the opportunity to manipulate the system to dominate the rest of us.
The permit of Occupy is the US Constitution. Right to assemble, right to protest. These are Americans using their rights before these rights disappear.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush November 9, 2011 | 5:35 p.m.

Sovereigns need valets
To portage wretched parcels
And cover-up crimes.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush November 9, 2011 | 5:38 p.m.

I would encourage
Empathy. Antipathy
Is not attractive.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush November 9, 2011 | 5:40 p.m.

You're okay with the
Redistribution of wealth.
As long as it's up.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush November 9, 2011 | 5:43 p.m.

Increase the estate
Tax. A corpse has no use for
Wealth. Are you feudal?

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson November 9, 2011 | 6:14 p.m.

Hell, if a corpse has no use for it, why just tax it? Confiscate it. Damn your half-measures. Wealth belongs to the people. Are you gonna finish that sandwich?

Occupy DeerCamp begins Saturday. More purposeful, more respectful, more productive. Less destructive of public and private property. We are the 49%.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson November 9, 2011 | 6:55 p.m.

Col. Miller: Speaking of ridicule, here is where college football meets the 99%:

http://occupyherbstreit.tumblr.com/

My favorite: "My Roth IRA is dropping faster than teams from the Big 12."

(Report Comment)
mike mentor November 9, 2011 | 7:57 p.m.

More truthful words, rare
Awsome, that article was
J, I love you man!

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle November 9, 2011 | 8:09 p.m.

What a gassbag. As if there aren't also plenty of videos on YouTube showing abuse of protesters by authority? You're only going to get to seriously injure so many of today's young war veterans who have come back and joined the protests (plenty of them, BTW) before those against the Occupy movement have a really big, really serious problem on their hands.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. (Ghandi)

Lots of solid Democrat and "liberal" wins in yesterday's elections. You're behind the times, Karl.

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 9, 2011 | 8:48 p.m.

After scrolling by the senseless musings of Gregg Bush and his new found art? I'd like to address the senseless musings of matt arnall.

"The tables are so tilted to the wealthy and corporations that the middle class is dissappearing." Wrong!
"Government has stopped being the voice of the people and started being the voice of corporate America." Wrong!
"the 1% claiming that if they have to pay taxes, they will stop creating jobs. They have not created jobs for years, despite having low or no taxes to pay. Wrong!

"Why is it that it is fine to bail out banks with tax payer money, then claim class warfare when these banks won't do things to benefit the people that just saved them from extinction.
And I love how it is the presidents fault." This is beyond wrong, is idiocy and was written only to demean the writer of the column with no concern for the truth of the statement, which is wrong!

What this bunch has accomplished is described in the last sentence: "The permit of Occupy is the US Constitution. Right to assemble, right to protest. These are Americans using their rights before these rights disappear."

Then, of course, there is the damage and expense the "minority" of those he embraces has inflicted upon the cities they have chosen to represent the "eye" of their wrath. What other accomplishments should we consider?

This sentence surely absolves the protestors from any accusations that they wish for redistribution of wealth. "It is not an issue of wanting what others have earned, its anger over the fact that an elite class is given the opportunity to manipulate the system to dominate the rest of us." Wow!

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson November 9, 2011 | 9:22 p.m.

Derrick Fogle: Let's not get carried away here. Disillusioned young American "Occupiers" are not the Mahatma's Congress Party, and America under Obama is not India under the Raj.

Many of them are way funnier than Gandhi, though. I skipped phase one in your Gandhi quote, and went right to phase two. I would not bet any money at all on my going to phase three or four.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 9, 2011 | 9:48 p.m.

Frank, you repeatedly stating that my opinions and thoughts are wrong in no way makes you right. My statements are my opinion of the matter. What are your opinions? Add to the discussion rather than repeating me and saying wrong. I am sure I won’t agree with you but you are welcome to state your opinion. Practice civility.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote November 10, 2011 | 1:01 a.m.

According to the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485), in 1979 those in the bottom quintile of income received 55% of government tranfers. In 2007 the bottom quintile received 35% of governemnt transfers.
A transfer is defined as money paid to an invidual or an in-kind benefit.
This data would appear to contradict the notion that the underclass is successfully waging class warfare. Rather it suggests the opposite; they are losing.
Who is winning?
These guys... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/busine...

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 10, 2011 | 8:51 a.m.

matt arnall - You didn't provide any information supporting your "opinion", so I omitted mine as well, thinking I could do it if questioned. So here we go.

The middle class (a state of mind) is not disappearing. http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussio...

Gov't not voice of people. Technically, you could be correct here because the Democrats you no doubt helped vote into control are doing everything possible to do that, evidenced by the number of Wall St. "experts" now advising BO.

1% not creating jobs.. You have been told repeatedly and truthfully, why we are in recession (1% not creating jobs, same thing.). Unemployment was just over 7%, up from well under 5 when this prez took office. After spending and stealing 4T$ (to create jobs) we are at 9%, with no change in sight (until Nov '12). The 1% and most all with any money to invest will not do so because of the uncertainty created by this Administration and the obvious fact that this is their prime objective.

bank bailouts. No one thinks bailouts were good except the bankers. Class warfare is being practiced by BO and Co. in the attempt to take yet another 1/2T$ from taxpayers. VP Biden, with his most dramatic expression tells us that rape and crime will increase and police and fireman will not be there for us unless BO's "jobs" bill is passed. We were told yesterday that the majority of the money in this bill would not have been spent until 2015. This is class warfare and the president is to blame!

Most of my points, I hope you will note, include This government as the culprit which is accurate. Therefore, those you praise should be at the doors of the WH and Congress, not Wall St. These moguls are indeed guilty of "receiving stolen goods" but only promote and protect the "perps", Obama and the Democrats in our Congress.

You may now show us where and how, I am wrong.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 9:17 a.m.

There you go Frank. Thanks for stating some of your opinions.
It would be impossible for anyone, dem or GOP, to accomplish anything in office if roughly 50% of the others in government's soul position was to see that person fail. That is what the GOP publicly stated.
I agree that BO did not live up to his billing, but I do believe that he has made efforts for progress where others only effort was to make him fail.
It is your opinion that the middle class is not disappearing. I feel the opposite and I believe that public opinion would side in my favor.
The real power is in the congress. 2010 was a landslide in favor of the GOP. There was some forward movement in government before that election. SO it would be my opinion that the side YOU voted in are the real ones who have stopped any progress. Democrats have all the economic experts on their side, Republicans want things to go 100% their way or no way at all. It is similar to the climate change issue. It would appear Dems listen to the people that are highly educated in their field, while GOP insists that everything those educated people report is a bunch of hogwash.
The economic uncertainty is not created from the Dems. It is a combination of them, the GOP, the stock market, Europe, etc, etc. There are many factors. The overall inability of our government to do even simple tasks increases this uncertainty, and the party of NO, the GOP, heads this charge of get nothing done except for getting rid of the POTUS. This is not helping the employment issue. It is my opinion that if Obama had done nothing, unemployment would be in the 12-15% range and things would be much worse than they are right now. Republicans have no plan to make the job market better. All they want to do in slash spending, which would actually make unemployment much worse. In watching the debate last night, there is not one candidate that has anything to say about improving unemployment except to deregulate everything, which is why we got into this financial disaster in the first place.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 9:18 a.m.

To increase some spending to create jobs, as proposed in BO's jobs bill is a smart idea, made even more intelligent by paying for those spending increases by slightly increasing taxes on those "Job Creators" who have not created jobs in a very favorable environment for them to do so. I can't for the life of me understand why it would be a bad thing to invest in infastructure and education, as is supported by 70% of the American public. It makes good sense to force the hand of these Job Creators by taxing them if they will not help this economy and country on their own accord.
It would also seem to me that if you were told anything yesterday, it was most likely by FOX News, therefore tainting the validity of what ever that information was.
You stated your opinion, and I appreciate that. I disagree with you strongly in all of your opinions, but totally agree that you have the right to your opinion. It would seem that you are still very confident for the 2012 election, and I wish your side good luck. I believe that you will need it.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 10, 2011 | 9:40 a.m.

Ah yes, Al Capp, like Walt Kelly a cartoonist who was a true social commentator.

Meanwhile, let's cut the bland, stale haiku, have some rousing music and join the song:

Fight on for old SC,
Our men fight on to victory.
Our Alma Mater dear
Looks up to you,
Fight on and win
(For old SC)
Fight on to victory!
(Fight on!)

Now, doesn't that get your blood racing? :) Do we know any Columbia girls who matriculated at USC?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 10, 2011 | 10:07 a.m.

matt arnall wrote:

"Why is it that it is fine to bail out banks with tax payer money, then claim class warfare when these banks won't do things to benefit the people that just saved them from extinction."

Well, the bailouts were simply to keep the banks from going into bankruptcy, laying off thousands of people and putting pension funds at risk (Not that I necessarily approve). They still have to be banks, which includes foreclosing on people who aren't paying their mortgage for whatever reason.

GM and Chrysler took bailouts too. Should they be giving away free cars?

frank christian wrote:

"The 1% and most all with any money to invest will not do so because of the uncertainty created by this Administration and the obvious fact that this is their prime objective."

No, they're not investing here because it's better to invest in Asia (if investing in production capacity), or in financial and derivates markets, which don't create many jobs. We can't compete with Asia as far as the manufacturing operations that formerly employed so much of the middle class.

That climate is largely independent of the administration. We tend to have as little regulation as we can get away with. I'm sure we could compete with the Chinese (in manufacturing) if we dropped most of our environmental and safety regs, and paid workers $2.00/hour. But would anyone here want those jobs?

There is an awful lot of scapegoating from both sides to affix blame for something that is really much more complicated. Our economy can't go back to the 60's and 70's. We have to transition to a more knowledge and information based economy, and in the meantime, the only real source for job creation is going to be public sector work. We also have to prepare our students MUCH better for participation in a knowledge economy - our educational system lags the first world in the important subjects.

We need to define the problems before we can solve them. Neither side, IMO, seems to be doing that very well.

DK

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 10:33 a.m.

Mark, do you really think I am suggesting that banks hand out free money. Come on. I do believe that BoA could do without charging their customers $5 a month to accesss their own money. Look at their profits and tell me that they couldn't make things a bit more attractive to the customer. The auto industry got a bail out (not Ford), and if they acted like the banks, a $15000 car would now be priced at $25000. Would that be fair? No, so how are the banks playing fair? They are not. Don't take my words and turn them around. Big banks are dirty. Do you disagree?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 10, 2011 | 10:43 a.m.

@matt, what I have seen people suggest is they forgive delinquent mortgages and allow people to stay in their homes, which is the same thing as free money. As if it's their fault that some homeowner who bought as much house as he could afford lost his job. If you're not suggesting that, then maybe I'm oof base here.

Actually, right now they're not that profitable (on a percentage basis of revenue, which is how you have to express profit to be fair). They're having trouble because of the bad debt that they, and everyone else, got themselves into.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 10, 2011 | 10:49 a.m.

matt arnall - You have done it again. Make erroneous statements then defend them as "your opinion".

His inability to pass disastrous legislation while he owned both houses of Congress is due to"others only effort was to make him fail."?

"There was some forward movement in government before that election." Where?

"Democrats have all the economic experts on their side,". Wouldn't these experts be the ones your minions are protesting?

"The economic uncertainty is not created from the Dems. It is a combination of them, the GOP, the stock market, Europe, etc, etc. There are many factors." And, all these factors are the result of liberal spending!

"Republicans have no plan to make the job market better"

"Secretary Geithner, who presides over the world’s largest economy, is apparently unaware that the House has passed 22 bipartisan jobs bills that are stalled in the Democratic-run Senate." J. Boehner Apparently you are "unaware" as well.

"improving unemployment except to deregulate everything,". The Frank Dodd "reform" Act left "Fannie & Freddie" intact and they are now back requiring more billions to cover their losses while passing out millions to their executives in "bonuses".

"To increase some spending to create jobs, as proposed in BO's jobs bill is a smart idea,". Ignoring the first 1T$ spent supposedly for this purpose. Remember ""Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,"? No of course not.

"It makes good sense to force the hand of these Job Creators by taxing them if they will not help this economy and country on their own accord." Is this theory from K. Marx or Mao Tse-tung?

Lastly you have wrapped yourself in your liberal superiority complex and reject the most watched news source as one whose reporting is "tainted". Ridiculous, as are most of your views. Oops, have I lost my civility? I should respect the probable fact that your views are obtained from Paul Krugman.

(Report Comment)
Hank York November 10, 2011 | 11:09 a.m.

"Lastly you have wrapped yourself in your liberal superiority complex and reject the most watched news source as one whose reporting is "tainted"."

The most watched news source is the only one of all the major sources willing to pander itself to suckers like yourself. Intelligent people seldom watch television.

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 10, 2011 | 11:14 a.m.

Mark Froeking - "We tend to have as little regulation as we can get away with. I'm sure we could compete with the Chinese (in manufacturing) if we dropped most of our environmental and safety regs, and paid workers $2.00/hour". You too sometimes seem to have a problem presenting our economic problems as they really are. Our "environmental and safety regs" have decimated at least two industries, logging and oil refinery with nothing but derogatory effect for Americans. We have found that even the spotted owl can successfully nest in a K-Mart sign, not needing old growth trees. Before rejection of the piece because it comes from a conservative source, read -

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/10...

(Report Comment)
mike mentor November 10, 2011 | 11:17 a.m.

If bofa was charging fees I thought were unfair, I wouldn't go hoola hooping in front of city hall to whine about it. I would simply choose to do business with a different bank. Guess what people. That's exactly what happened. Bofa will not be charging the $5 debit card fee. The market has spoken. Problem solved.

I want to know why my tax dollars are being used to pay former ACORN people to protest?

That should have you progressives outraged!

How dare we pay someone more than they deserve for a job that anyone could do when there are people that are homeless and starving?

The horror... the horror...

(Report Comment)
Hank York November 10, 2011 | 11:26 a.m.

That sounds interesting. You should elaborate on that assertion.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 11:27 a.m.

Frank, you have no civility. I don't know who Paul Krugman is. Lets go over your statements.
1) He came into office with this mess already happening. The steps he took minimized the damage that was already occuring.
2) Health care has to be adressed. He did something rather than nothing. Your boys do nothing rather than something.
3) The experts I mentioned are scientists. My "minions" are not protesting science, again that is your boys.
4) All these factors are due to liberal spending. If you believe that you are insane. It was Bush who got us into 2 unpaid for wars. Reagan spent like crazy. Your memory is failing you.
5) If those 22 jobs bills were truely bipartisan, that would mean that both sides support them and neither side would be against them.
6) Fannie and Freddie were forced to take on all the nonsense loans that the big banks made that were bad. These same banks found ways in the system to win on good loans and win on bad loans. It was the banks that made the problem and it is Fannie and Freddie who have to clean up these messes. Blame is with the banks.
7) The jobs bill is smart. If it was enacted, the execution would also have to be smart. If you don't like it, tell me what the GOP would suggest to improve unemployment besides slashing spending therefore increasing unemployment.
8) If the wealthy are allowed to run this country into the ground as they have been doing for years, swallowing up the middle class and taking away our rights as citizens, how far do you think that path will go. Why do all these corporations have record amounts of cash on hand while we have 9% unemployment. Why are workers required to do more and more. To increase the bonuses that the CEO's recieve? To further increase the amount of cash that is being withheld from the economy and the citizens whos work creates that cash stock pile. How is that a plus for our present sitiation.
It would do you good to stop attacking me, and make a valid point for any of these things that you support. My views are created from my brain. My brain processes what I see and read and hear. Where do your opinions come from?
Again, practice civility. I can think what I want and so can you. I am not to be degraded for my thoughts on this forum. That is a rule from the Missourian. You are treading on thin ice.

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 10, 2011 | 11:28 a.m.

Hank York - "The most watched news source is the only one of all the major sources willing to pander itself to suckers like yourself. Intelligent people seldom watch television."

Can you define "pander itself to suckers" and how you know, "Intelligent people seldom watch television."? Or, is yours just one of those drive-by posts, not meant to inform, just to show your angst with one who has severely "gored your ox"?

(Report Comment)
Hank York November 10, 2011 | 11:47 a.m.

Both newspapers and television are dead. Interview most young people and you will find they gather most of their information from the internet. It takes about two hours worth of mind numbing news feed to gain what you could in five minutes of ripping through the print of an article, but why would anybody bother to do even that much when they can pull the same up on their computer screen and have a thousand times as many choices of what to read with no time lag and generally no cost? The only people watching television are a bunch of grumpy old people sitting around waiting for their welfare checks.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 11:47 a.m.

Mark, an intelligent solution is needed in the housing market. I don't think forclosing on everyone immediately, therefore increasing the amount of empty houses greatly, therefore further driving down the value of the houses that those of us that pay our mortgage own is a great idea. I do NOT support giving people a free pass. I do support attacking our country's problems with intelligent solutions. I don't have all of these solutions, but I engage in conversations to try to come up with some. If we don't, who will. Not our present government. And do you believe that predatory lending by the banks has no part in this blame. Isn't allowing a person to purchase a $500,000 house that could only afford a $250,000 a bad decision not only by the person that did it but the bank that made that loan. I bought a house I could afford. I make my payments. I don't recieve any government assistance. I take care of myself and my family. I don't believe that people should no responsiblity for their actions. I also don't believe that big business should have no responsiblity either. Smart actions should be what we are looking for.

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 10, 2011 | 11:59 a.m.

matt arnall - I attacked your views. Here is an example of attacking the person. "Your memory is failing you." And my memory is not failing me. "All these factors are due to liberal spending. If you believe that you are insane. It was Bush who got us into 2 unpaid for wars. Reagan spent like crazy." Every EU government has created the "European model of socialism", avowed by liberals far and wide as the economic look America should achieve. The only war "paid for" was Vietnam when LBJ first raided our Social security Fund for the money. Reagan borrowed the spending of the T. O'Neill Democrat controlled Congress, rather than print it which caused the stagflation of the James E. Carter Administration.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield November 10, 2011 | 12:28 p.m.

"This data would appear to contradict the notion that the underclass is successfully waging class warfare. Rather it suggests the opposite; they are losing."

The winners are the folks who receive $8.21 in government spending for every dollar of taxes paid. See figures 4, 5 and 6 in the PDF at www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2286.htm...

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 12:29 p.m.

If you believe that this is a mess created completely by the democratic party then you are insane and your memory is failing you. Dems have blame, GOP has blame, I have blame, you have blame. Everyone is at fault. I am looking for good intelligent solutions. You are here to tell me I am wrong. Please respond to the point by point comment I made previously in regards to your last "your wrong" attack you shot off. I can remember a debate we had were you claimed to be able to tell the future, then denied you wrote what you wrote from 30 minutes previous, so I would say that is evidence to support my claim of your memory failing, but you probably have no memory of that. Make a point or please stop directing your comments at me. If you have something to say other than I am wrong, say it.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 12:40 p.m.

Jimmy has supplied us with an article produced by the Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington DC that is funded by exxon mobile, the koch brothers and other big business right wing people and groups. I am sure the information is fair and balanced.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 10, 2011 | 12:56 p.m.

frank christian wrote:

"Before rejection of the piece because it comes from a conservative source, read -"

The Spectator article actually makes my point, Frank.

China is like the US was ealier in the 20th century to after WWII. Economic development was first and foremost on everyone's minds. But we found out, as our lives became more comfortable, that there were downsides to that progress that we (not just politicians - citizens) didn't feel desirable. They were things like air and water pollution, destruction of wilderness, workplace wages, conditions, and safety, etc. Therefore all these regulations evolved along with our increasing standard of living.

China is the most polluted country on Earth, and our poorest enjoy a standard of living comparable or better than the average Chinese factory worker. Of course, they're overjoyed cause they're off the farm, and might get a TV, McDonald's once a week as a treat, and not live with intestines full of roundworms. But that's the price of these things - you can either have regulations that protect people from the negligence or greed of others, or not. I'd imagine most Americans would rather have the regulation - a a youngster, I saw first hand a dead Lake Erie, and spent the summer of 1970 choking in LA's smog. You can't suggest we go back to that.

Matt Arnall is right that much of the blame for the recession stems from lack of regulation of financial markets. The big banks should never have been allowed to pull some of the derivative shenanigans they pulled. But no one wanted to step in and regulate it cause things were going so well there for a bit.

They're issuing deepwater drilling permits even after Macondo, and fracking still happens everywhere even with evidence it endangers groundwater in certain circumstances. This administration isn't regulating anything to death.

DK

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum November 10, 2011 | 1:08 p.m.

Speaking of "fair and balanced", haven't you ever noticed the conservative attitude towards poverty and discrimination is "Life ain't fair" but then the likes of Hannity, etc are brought to a shrill, raving, yet almost sobbing pitch when a comment in the media is (allegedly) "not fair and balanced". FOX News needs to change its slogan to "Life ain't fair" or "This is mine, I want more and you can't have any".

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 10, 2011 | 1:08 p.m.

matt arnall wrote:

"I am sure the information is fair and balanced."

Taxfoundation.org numbers come straight from government statistics. You can check them at the sources (which are given).

One of the great logical fallacies of our time is that if a commercial or political entity publishes something in its favor, that it is somehow wrong or biased. That's the lazy way out. You have to go to the sources, read the papers, etc. before making any judgements.

DK

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield November 10, 2011 | 1:09 p.m.

"Jimmy has supplied us with an article produced by the Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington DC that is funded by exxon mobile, the koch brothers and other big business right wing people and groups. I am sure the information is fair and balanced."

Feel free to refute it, if you can. We're waiting.

(Report Comment)
Danielle Rodabaugh November 10, 2011 | 1:28 p.m.

I challenge anybody who doesn't understand the purpose of the Occupy movement to read through this in its entirety (41 slides). It's primarily based on statistics from the Department of Labor, Department of Commerce, etc. from the past 50 years or so.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall...

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 10, 2011 | 1:38 p.m.

matt arnall -Assuming you are addressing me, "you are insane and your memory is failing you." Another attack upon my person. I started to mention previously that I had responded to every "point" you posted, some more than once with factual information. If you wish, we can delve further into them.
1. Clinton, Frank, Dodd actions to bully banks into new mortgage lending practices had been going on since 1994 (instigated in 1993), so yes "this mess" was already happening. I'd like you to prove "The steps he took minimized the damage that was already occuring." Try to remember, the steps he took were supposed to contain unemployment at 8%.
2. Why can't you admit that this health care "reform" Act is a disaster, both to our health care system and our economy? "He did something rather than nothing.", is a simplistic, shallow, meaningless assessment, not worthy of a response.
3. The paragraph here, was about our economic situation. You compared it to the climate situation, and now purport the experts to be scientists. My reference was to the many Goldman Sachs and other financial executives now advising BO.
5. As tho you didn't know "bipartisan" in this case means both D's and R's voted for the bills in the House.

This is how your opinions have been expressed from the start. Revise the facts or ignore them to suit your purpose. I did address each of your other "point by point comment". I therefore feel free to address your comments whenever I deem it necessary.

And you are right, I don't recall having ever told , Anyone that I could foretell? the future.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 1:42 p.m.

I am sure that more government spending goes to lower income households. Not arguing that. And I agree that numbers can be produced and printed in a way to frame your position in a positive light. The dollars that the govenment has given me equals $0.00. I am not asking for hand outs. To pretend that poor people are living this dream of pulling the wool over the government and wealthy peoples eyes and getting a great deal is so far out of whack with reality that it is nearly offensive. Do you think that the majority of people struggling to make ends meet are happy that they are in that situation. Do you all suggest that given a choice to make a living and support their families or live off the free-bees that the government provides that most would choose the latter. DO you really believe this to be true? I am happy to admit that there are those out there who are lazy and would rather do nothing than try to better their situation. But the majority has been dealt a bad hand and would do just about anything to improve their situation by their own hand, not the hand outs provided by government. The brainwashed that choose to say that poor get 8 dollars out for every one dollar they put in are happy to be in that situation truely offend me. Lets jsut put them out on the streets. Lets watch kids die, adults turn into criminals to survive. I am sure this would correct our economy. We could just write off the unemployed as not real people and make our unemployment rate 0%. God knows that none of you could ever have any bad circumstances come your way and knock you on your ear. If you are christian, love your brother as yourself. If you are American, it is not the American way to jsut ignore those that are poor, sick, elderly or unable to take care of themselves. Your numbers are CORRECT, Jimmy. Your morals are off.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 1:58 p.m.

Frank, you are great at playing both sides of the fiddle. I don't have anything else to say to you. You are firm in your beliefs and there is no room to debate someone like you. You will write that like all liberals, I quit the conversation beacause I have no point. You are nasty in your comments, you are insulting in your tone. I have debated you before, but I never will again in this format. You deserve to be broken down and put in your place, but that is not allowed here in this forum. I am entitled to speak my piece for my beliefs. If I offended you by my comments, I apologize. No sense in beating a dead horse. I wish you well and please, have a nice day.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 10, 2011 | 2:05 p.m.

Can't foretell the future?

To paraphrase a celebrated newspaperman, c.1920: "I have seen the future, and it sucks!" (Sounds like something out of an old "Pogo" comic strip.)

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield November 10, 2011 | 2:07 p.m.

"Do you think that the majority of people struggling to make ends meet are happy that they are in that situation. Do you all suggest that given a choice to make a living and support their families or live off the free-bees that the government provides that most would choose the latter. DO you really believe this to be true?"

I don't know if the majority are freeloaders, but it is possible to quantify them to some extent. For example:

1) 40% of welfare recipients didn't graduate high school: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-report...

2) Nearly half of all infants and about one-quarter of all children 1-4 years are on WIC: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr27/fa...

3) 38.9% of CPS students qualify for free or reduced lunch: www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/...

Sure, some kids are poor because a parent died or lost a job. But when that many kids qualify for WIC and free/reduced lunches, it's clear that there also are a lot of parents choosing to have kids even when they know they won't be able to support them. That's selfish and irresponsible, just as it's selfish and irresponsible to drop out of high school and then expect everyone else to give you money to shield you from the consequences of your poor decision.

I'm not "brainwashed." My analysis is based not just on statistics, but on the freeloaders I know personally, including some of my relatives. They're the ones whose morals are off.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 10, 2011 | 2:22 p.m.

matt arnall wrote:

"Do you think that the majority of people struggling to make ends meet are happy that they are in that situation."

I would say that most people who "struggle to make ends meet" are in fact struggling to live within their income. The two are often entirely different situations. One is a legitimate struggle. The other is a choice (whether they understand that or not).

DK

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 2:45 p.m.

Jimmy and Mark, okay. You think that people make their bed and they should lie in it. That is a fine opinion to have. As I have said in the past, I recieve no government assistance and do not support giving hand outs to deadbeats. Believe as you wish. I believe that big business is ruining this country and the people that live in it. I am glad that there is a movement happening that addresses the big business issue. I think government should represent the people, not the businesses. Thanks for listening to my opinions.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 10, 2011 | 2:46 p.m.

@Danielle Rodabaugh:

Thanks for the information. Some of us are more at home with graphs, technical drawings and math equations than with sentences and paragraphs.

Looking at the first graph, unemployment plotted vs. year, I note something interesting. It appears that even under good overall economic conditions we can expect as much as 4-5% unemployment. Is that just us (USA)? I monitor German news, and their unemployment rate at present is about 5%, which is far better than most industrialized countries. Other European countries wish they only had 5% unemployment.

This suggests that even in "better times" we need to be addressing a 4-5% BASE unemployment rate, caused in part of displacement due to technological changes.

It's something that needs to be addressed as a long range problem, not just as a "make work" gimmick for those presently unemployed. Unfortunately, American politicians, both parties, show no aptitude for long-term solutions.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield November 10, 2011 | 2:55 p.m.

Matt, I agree that a lot of big businesses (e.g., some banks) screwed up and should have been allowed to fail instead of being bailed out. The problem with the Occupy movement and their ilk is that they're fixated on big business and "the rich" while ignoring both the freeloaders and those in the middle class who make poor choices (e.g, buying more house than they could afford, not saving for retirement and rainy days). Those folks also are a major drag on the economy and need their day of reckoning.

(Report Comment)
matt arnall November 10, 2011 | 3:28 p.m.

Jimmy, okay lets skin the people that were irresposible, but at the same time the corporations that have been involved in shady deals and overall coruption MUST be skinned at the same time. This means if you take away a persons home, family, life, the corporation that cheats to pay no taxes or just straight robs the public blind have to be shut down, doors closed, end of game. I will give one for the other. Corporations want to be people, then ruin them like they ruin actual people. People make bad choices, they are out of luck. Business makes bad choices, and they are propped up by loopholes and funny book keeping. Make things fair.

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 10, 2011 | 3:30 p.m.

Mark F. - china and our regs- "there were downsides to that progress that we (not just politicians - citizens) didn't feel desirable." the "citizens" became the replacement for conservationists, the "environmentalists" whom somehow, have never been able to recommend any, to my knowledge, remedy to our economic problems or the environmental damages (real or imagined) that has not cost someone their job. Is it not noteworthy that these "citizens" for the most part, are in the embrace of liberal Democrats? Are no conservatives interested in saving our environment? I think that conservative Republicans insistence upon including the welfare of our citizens as well as the actuality of a strong U.S.A. not subservient to the U.N. has to do with their rejection by the citizen environmentalists. I long ago came to the conclusion (and stated it) that no source of energy for our future use is acceptable to the "environmentalist" except the ones we do not yet have. I think Mr. Obama's actions with our stimulus money and the solar industry now tells us why this is still true. 4200 new regulations, 15% more than last year are now in place. These are killing our economy along with the thousands instituted with the advent of the "environmental movement" 40 years ago.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield November 10, 2011 | 3:38 p.m.

"People make bad choices, they are out of luck."

Not always. For example, if you choose to work as little as possible or not at all, and then you choose to have a child, you're eligible for WIC, TANF, Medicaid and even deeply subsidized day care and a Pell grant if you decide to go to school.

"Business makes bad choices, and they are propped up by loopholes."

Sure. But there are also lots of loopholes, deductions, credits and breaks for the 99 percenters. That's why roughly 47 percent of taxpayers owe no federal taxes and why many of them also get a check paid for by the other 53 percent.

I'm fine with closing the business loopholes. But be prepared to pay for that. After all, when a business' taxes increase, it simply passes that cost onto its customers, shareholders or both.

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 10, 2011 | 3:50 p.m.

Ellis - I got in trouble once because I thought Gary Trudeau had done that Pogo bit. "We have seen the enemy and it is us!" I'll try it again. The Pogo "sighting" was promoted far and wide to convince the "people" that our consumerism was the reason for for the stagflation that was engulfing the country during Carter years, not the printing presses of the Fed used to pay for the Democrat excessive spending. Remember NC D Senator Fritz Stallings, in the same effort telling the world that, "We Americans are consooomin' too much"?

(Report Comment)
mike mentor November 10, 2011 | 4:18 p.m.

One group of about ten Hispanic protesters marched behind Mark McGrath from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, a non-profit organization made up of previous ACORN employees dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C.

Asked why they were there, some Hispanic protesters holding up English protest signs could not articulate what their signs said.

Interviewed in Spanish, the protesters told conflicting stories about how their group was organized. Some said it was organized at their church, and that they were there as volunteers. Others, however, referred to the man from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition as their “boss.”

At first McGrath said, “Some of them are volunteers. Some of them aren’t”. “I can’t identify them. I’m not going to get into an identification game.”

He later changed his story to...

"They were volunteers. We don't have anything other than volunteers,"

He nevertheless made the distinction that he paid the apparent volunteer workers out of his own pocket, because he wanted to compensate them.

But he also says the demonstrators wanted to be there, and he was merely compensating them for their time.

"If you think I'm going to ask impoverished Latinos out of work, and out of luck, to parade for four hours under a broiling sun ... think again,"
__________________________________________________________

Mr McGrath, I am thinking again. About how you think we are going to believe that "protesters" who don't know what their signs say and don't know what they are protesting, are there by choice, and that you paying them for their time isn't the same as paying them to protest when that's what you tell them to do during the time you are paying them...

(Report Comment)
mike mentor November 10, 2011 | 5:06 p.m.

The former director of New York ACORN, Jon Kest, and his top aides are now busy working at protest events for New York Communities for Change (NYCC). That organization was created in late 2009 when some ACORN offices disbanded and reorganized under new names. NYCC’s connection to ACORN isn’t a tenuous one: It works from the former ACORN offices in Brooklyn, uses old ACORN office stationery, employs much of the old ACORN staff and engages in some of the old organization’s controversial techniques. NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day - to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour. At least some of those hired are being used as door-to-door canvassers to collect money that’s used to support the protests. Cash donations collected by NYCC on behalf of some unions and various causes are being pooled and spent on Occupy Wall Street. In one such case, NYCC staff members collected cash donations for what they were told was a United Federation of Teachers fundraising drive, but the money was diverted to the protests. Sources who participated in the teachers union campaign said NYCC supervisors gave them the addresses of union members and told them to go knock on their doors and ask for contributions—and did not mention that the money would go toward Occupy Wall Street expenses. One source said the campaign raked in about $5,000. Current staff members at NYCC said the union fundraising drive was called off abruptly last week, and they were told NYCC should not have been raising money for the union at all.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush November 10, 2011 | 7:55 p.m.

I wonder if there
Are clawback provisions for
Inflated billing.
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

Some people try their
Best; others game the system.
It sounds familiar.

(Report Comment)
Vince Powers November 10, 2011 | 7:56 p.m.

Say, that's some really incredible information. Can you explain what it has to do with the conversation?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 11, 2011 | 2:53 a.m.

Here's some perspective for the Occupiers:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

These are the 400 richest people in America. Unquestionably 1 percenters. Scroll down the list and notice how few of these people work in finance, or ever took a bailout. They're mostly in things like tech and IT, retail, oil and gas and associated pipelines, even candy (lardass America being a perfect place to make a killing).

Your anger is misplaced, and focusing on a populist, class warfare message will not solve anything.

You won't bring home the venison if you don't aim properly.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 11, 2011 | 6:21 a.m.

@ Mark Foecking:

Nicely put.

Despedida no les doy
porque no tengo minguna
basta con saber que estoy
Aqui en el Columbia.

(Hispanic haiku)

(Report Comment)
Gary Straub November 11, 2011 | 10:03 a.m.

Maybe Frank can't see the future, but I can. If we don't quit fighting each other and start working together the future is very bleak. The only constant is change. Liberals want to create change and conservatives resist it. The problem is change happens and no one can control it, or at least never has. However when we as a society work together the change has been positive and when we don't, negative. It seems that there must be a problem since everyone can tell you what is wrong, but no one seems to know the problem, which now seems to be antipathy.
The occupiers appear to be personifying this dilemma. They know there is a problem but cannot seem to find the root cause or a solution, consequently they have been airing a plethora of problems yet are finding few solutions. They, like the country as a whole, have become to diverse to really become effective.
We have fallen off the proverbial horse and are fighting over which side to re-mount it from. Just get back on the damn horse before it runs away.

(Report Comment)
Daniel Jordan November 11, 2011 | 12:10 p.m.

So how did Woodstock fit in to all this?

(Report Comment)
mike mentor November 11, 2011 | 2:03 p.m.

Wow, some great posts here at the end... Seems like talking this one out helped !!!

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 11, 2011 | 5:38 p.m.

mike mentor cut and pasted:

"The former director of New York ACORN, Jon Kest, and his top aides are now busy working at protest events for New York Communities for Change (NYCC). That organization was created in late 2009 when some ACORN offices disbanded and reorganized under new names. NYCC’s connection to ACORN isn’t a tenuous one: It works from the former ACORN offices in Brooklyn, uses old ACORN office stationery, employs much of the old ACORN staff and engages in some of the old organization’s controversial techniques. NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day - to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour. At least some of those hired are being used as door-to-door canvassers to collect money that’s used to support the protests. Cash donations collected by NYCC on behalf of some unions and various causes are being pooled and spent on Occupy Wall Street. In one such case, NYCC staff members collected cash donations for what they were told was a United Federation of Teachers fundraising drive, but the money was diverted to the protests. Sources who participated in the teachers union campaign said NYCC supervisors gave them the addresses of union members and told them to go knock on their doors and ask for contributions—and did not mention that the money would go toward Occupy Wall Street expenses. One source said the campaign raked in about $5,000. Current staff members at NYCC said the union fundraising drive was called off abruptly last week, and they were told NYCC"

I think you should attribute what you cut and paste. To not do so is a violation of copyright laws. I think the Missourian should remove comments that are so obviously plagiarized, without proper attribution.

DK

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller November 13, 2011 | 9:54 a.m.

All of the preceding commentary is both interesting and/or amusing. Nevertheless, not one bothered to address just how the top 1 percent (who pay almost 40 percent of the income tax) is responsible for the presumed lack of success of the "99 percent" nor why those comprising that 99 percent are entitled to any portion of that wealth.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams November 13, 2011 | 10:39 a.m.

.....why those comprising that 99 percent are entitled to any portion of that wealth.
_____________________

Just...because.

Or "cause I say so".
___________________

Other that that, I got nuttin'.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 13, 2011 | 12:47 p.m.

J. Karl:

How is one to explain what is unexplainable?

My stance on the matter is similar to that frequently taken by Williams, Foecking, Christian, Mentor, Robertson and Bearfield. Sorry if left anyone out.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush November 13, 2011 | 2:32 p.m.

Forbes and Koch brothers,
They did what now to deserve
Their wealth? Feudalists.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote November 13, 2011 | 5:17 p.m.

@Mr. Miller,
Perhaps you missed my comment.
The bottom quintile received 55% of gov't. transfers in 1979. In 2007 that number was 35%. 35/55 = 63%
Over the same time period, the top quintile went from 9% to 13% of government transfers. 4/9 = 44%.
So in the past 30 years, the poorest families saw a 37% reduction in transfers. In contrast, the wealthiest families saw their share increase by 44%. At the same time the income of the top quintile increased considerably, while everyone else's has remained stagnant.
I think the percentage of government transfers that the top quintile receives should be zero. This does not mean that I also think the 99% are entitled to other people's money.
I realize that it is easier to criticize the latter position (a position most people don't actually hold). Maybe you could take a shot at criticizing the former, i.e. zero government transfers for the wealthy. If you can't, than perhaps you have more in common with the OWS movement than you realize (hair and youth excepted).

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield November 13, 2011 | 6:29 p.m.

The folks at the bottom still do relatively well, considering that they currently receive $8.21 in government spending for every dollar of taxes paid. See figures 4, 5 and 6 in the PDF at www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2286.htm... It's time for them to step up and start paying for the services they receive.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush November 13, 2011 | 7:56 p.m.

You're right. Poor People
Are so lucky. Some even
Have no house to clean.

Still others don't have
To worry about which clothes
To wear - just one set!

The only real
Decision some poor folks make:
Food or medicine?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz November 13, 2011 | 9:04 p.m.

Can Warren Buffet,
George Soros, and Steve Jobs keep
their wealth in your eyes?

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush November 13, 2011 | 11:00 p.m.

They are welcome to
Put as much wealth as they want
Into my eyeballs.

However, I will
Suggest that a bank may be
More accessible.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 14, 2011 | 5:14 a.m.

J. Karl:

The following is submitted as a rebuttal to the above haikus, and I trust you will receive it in the same "gravity" for which it is intended.

Her name was Lola, she was a showgirl
With yellow feathers in her hair and a dress cut down to there
She would merengue and do the cha-cha
And while she tried to be a star, Tony always tended bar
Across a crowded floor they worked from 8 til 4
They were young and had each other
Who could ask for more?

At the Copa, Copacabana
The hottest spot north of Havana
At the Copa, Copacabana
Music and passion were always the fashion
At the Copa...they fell in love.

(Apologies to Barry Manilow)

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 15, 2011 | 9:40 p.m.

Ellis - I've been studying the above posts for two days. Have decided yours makes the only sense. That you rebut the others is the sense. Apologizing to B. Manilow is not appropriate. This musically gifted, politically challenged, yo-yo, refused to appear on the commie produced, barbara walters TV, the view with the lone conservative Eliz. Hasselbeck because it would "compromise his democratic principals". Used to love his music, am disgusted with him.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 16, 2011 | 12:57 a.m.

C'mon, Frank, my apology to Barry Manilow was intended in jest. I have a Dell ergonomic computer keyboard (since 1998) and have searched diligently for a key that says "jest" but haven't found one.

Which reminds me, I still have those two standard computer keyboards, brand new, and am looking to give at least one of them away.

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 16, 2011 | 8:57 a.m.

OK Ellis, your "Manilow malfunction" is forgiven. You and J. Karl have been "jesting" about Southern food for sometime, but I only last night recalled an "important" historical reference the dish known as "grits".

It is recorded history that in the FL Keys, times were tough back in the days when multimillionaire Henry Flagler was trying to build a railroad to Key West. Also recorded is, for those few Keys residents, along with the railroad workers the universal favorite for Saturday night table fare was "grits and Grunts".

Grits, being the prepared delight you two have many times described. Grunts being the white grunt, an ugly, but tasty pan fish found on and around the reefs in the ocean. They frequently "grunt" while hook is being removed. Grunts are always there, somewhat like Sunfish when one is fishing for Bass. Personally, I would prefer Grunts to grits.

I would have suffered great mental anquish, had I not been able to submit this small serving of crap to the discussion.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 16, 2011 | 10:30 a.m.

Ah, forgiveness! What would we ever do without it?

I'm not familiar with the fish you've named. I need to try it.

My daughter who lives in the land of perpetually drifting snow, likes to order grits (which she loves) for breakfast in restaurants there. The usual response is a perplexed look on the poor "waitperson's" face. The trick with grits, if you don't particularly care for them, is to put more melted butter on them.

For under $10.00, including coffee and tax, you can go to Cracker Barrel and get country ham, eggs (as you like them), fried apples or potatoes, grits and two biscuits with sausage gravy, served all day. When I'm traveling I try to stay near a Cracker Barrel restaurant.

(Report Comment)
Daniel Jordan Jordan November 23, 2011 | 5:56 p.m.

And Woodstock fits in to all this how?

(Report Comment)
John Hardon November 23, 2011 | 11:01 p.m.

He doesn't like Woodstock.

(Report Comment)
Daniel Jordan Jordan November 25, 2011 | 1:51 p.m.

John, I guess you're right. At least, the colonel has no better explanation in his own article. All that peace, love, and artistry must rub some people the wrong way.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements