Dann Todd's 'Dain Bramage'^**

Flying The Flag

For those that fly the flag at home or are responsible for flying the flag at work, this link showing the occasions when the flag is flow at half staff is quite useful. They will sent you an email alert for irregular occasions such as the current Presidential proclamation that the flag be flown at half staff until Veteran's Day in honor of those killed at Fort Hood in Texas.

by Dann 

|

History In Art

I had not intended to write about art this evening. But then up jumped the local paper with a story about an artist from Utah that had painted his vision of faith, freedom, and patriotism. If you click on the painting, you get a nifty tool that lets you zoom in and see the details. The same tool also gives the artist, Jon McNaughton, an opportunity to offer an explanation for each and every person in the painting. And the stars. And the papers on the steps in the foreground.

Having art connoisseurs tell you what a work of art [painted or otherwise] is often frustrating. Having the artist do so is just a little more weird than I'm comfortable with.

I had to look. A curious work.

Although I have a strong preference for representational art, Mr. McNaughton's work left me uninspired. It is as if he thought slathering on a layer of patriotic characters here, a layer of historical characters there, and a bit of condescension in the corner all surrounding a central dollop of Jesus was in some way a unique perspective worth hours of labor. I think from this work, one can infer that Mr. McNaughton equates Jesus with freedom. From his commentary online, it appears that he is open to the idea that such freedom extends to people of other faiths and experiences.

Except for liberal-professor-reporter-judge-politician-lawyer-Hollywood types. I guess everyone has to have an asterisk somewhere.

In case it isn't obvious, I love America. I love where we started. I love the historical trip we've taken together to get where we are. I love the ideals of freedom that we are forever failing to meet. I love that people come here to freedom that they can't get in their home countries. I love that we do what we can to so that more people can have freedom where they are.

I love the flag because of what it ideals that it embodies. Some people have "comfort food" that makes them feel good. I put on one of my Marine Corp ball caps and salute the flag in the front yard.

But this painting is just a bit much for me. The conflation of a religion that has had moments of historic intolerance with the cause of individual liberty is more than my libertarian minded heart can take.

Let's be honest. Religiously inspired government actions in the service of enforcing morality have be the source of some of the most damaging policies in our nation's history. Prohibition, slavery, Jim Crow, welfare all come to mind as pretty clear examples of where religious verve have served against the interest of the individual liberty that our Constitution purports to defend.

Perhaps it would be less disconcerting if Jesus were not portrayed as being not simply central, but pivotal to the American existence. There's a difference between being one of many at the table and being the table.

What I find most interesting about this work is how the artist views America and our history. What is also interesting is some of the less positive commentary that has been directed towards the artist and his work. Presumption is apparently a good friend to every corner of the country.

Predictably, there have been a couple of attempts at parody of Mr. McNaughton's art. This one is pretty inspired.

This parody from Shortpacked....not so much. Although it does have the benefit of a widget to permit commentary associated with each individual in the painting, more than a few of them demonstrate ignorance and pretentiousness. One example being the note for Robert Livingston that suggests that he didn't sign the Declaration of Independence because he didn't believe in breaking with England. The truth is that he was recalled to New York before the signing took place. Another example being the black soldier bearing the name King with the inference that apparently the lack of Dr. King's presence was an indication that it is possible to have too many black guys in a painting. In reality, the artist had difficulties with the King Foundation that resulted in his not being able to include Dr. King in his work.

by Dann 

|

What Constitution?

Illinois Senator Roland Burris is probably ill equipped for the office he holds. At least it seems that he has never taken the time to read the Constitution that he took an oath to support and defend.

When asked by CNSNews.com what specific part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country." In fact, the word "health" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

One of the reasons why I was encouraged by the Congressional freshman class of 1994 is that then-Speaker Newt Gingrich had prescribed the reading of various texts written by the founding fathers as a part of preparations to act as United States Congresscritters. He thought it was important that those serving in Congress should have a basic understanding of what the Constitution says.

Now the obvious rejoinder is that Mr. Gingrich might not believe the plain wording of the Constitution from time to time. Based on some of his more recent histrionics, I'd be more than willing to allow that he has a rather selective view of the Constitution.

However his imperfect support for the Constitution as written does not negate the merit of having our Congresscritters read the damned thing before they set to writing laws. There are a whole bunch of Congresscritters that are prepared to use the phrase "promote the general welfare" as an Apollo rocket sized loophole with which they will gladly grind the 9th and 10th Amendments into just so much historical dust.

We are....or we were....a Constitutionally limited republic. That means that there our government is supposed to be legally prevented for exercising power unless we have expressly granted it that power. Those restrictions as well as the process for granting government additional powers have long since been forgotten.

I started reading "What's the matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank recently. This is a tome that purports to ask deep and insightful questions about why Kansans, and other working class stiffs don't mindlessly march to the Democratic tune. The author has ventured into thought provoking territory a couple of times. But he seems more prepared to write presumptuous fluff that is periodically adorned with outright fabrications.

[As an example, he extols the virtues of the "economic reforms" of the 1960s as causing the reduction of poverty in America. Yet anyone that looks at the poverty data on a percentage basis can easily see that the decline of poverty began in the early 1940s and that the poverty rate was below 10% before the Great Society was ever enacted. Free markets, which include workers negotiating labor contracts, and the fact that most of the world's other large manufacturing bases were in post WWII ruins caused the rapid decline in American poverty. Government had little to do with it.]

Back to Mr. Frank's book.....I think it would have been far more interesting if he had written "What's the matter with New York City, Hollywood, and San Francisco?". He might then have focused on why such bastions of the Democratic Party have lost their ability to understand the ethics of Kansas.

Now that would be an interesting read.

My largest frustration with the left is that they cannot bring themselves to ever declare a limit to the size and scope of government. At what point does a person have a right to their earnings? Everything beyond 45%? 60%? Heck I've had folks that won't even say that you have a right to the last 10% of your income!

They cannot bring themselves to declare a limit to government intrusion. There is no area of our lives that would not be improved with a bit of government supervision and regulation in their fevered imaginations.

Of course there is a legitimate role for government in our society. And we do need to properly fund those functions with appropriate levels of taxation.

But for people like Senator Burris, there is no such thing as a Constitutionally limited government. Mostly I suspect that is because they've never read the Constitution, nor seriously studied the men who wrote it.

by Dann 

|

Code Pink Gets A Clue....Finally

The full story is here.

When Medea Benjamin stood up in a Kabul meeting hall this weekend to ask Masooda Jalal if she would prefer more international troops or more development funds, the cofounder of US antiwar group Code Pink was hoping her fellow activist would support her call for US troop withdrawal.

She was disappointed.

Ms. Jalhal, the former Afghan minister of women, bluntly told her both were needed. "It is good for Afghanistan to have more troops – more troops committed with the aim of building peace and against war, terrorism, and security – along with other resources," she answered. "Coming together they will help with better reconstruction."

Code Pink, founded in 2002 to oppose the US invasion of Iraq, is one of the more high-profile women's antiwar groups being forced to rethink its position as Afghan women explain theirs: Without international troops, they say, armed groups could return with a vengeance – and that would leave women most vulnerable.

As is the case with our troops in Iraq and Bosnia. As was the case with our troops when they served in Vietnam.

We're still the good guys. Our military are the defenders of peace and freedom......women and children.....where ever they go.

by Dann 

|

Those Greedy Insurance Companies

Have you ever heard people say things like....

"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers'"obscene profits."

or

"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

or

"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

Sort of makes you think that the health insurance industry is robbing people blind while heating executive offices by burning stacks of $100 bills. Which is why the facts are important.

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

That's right. Health insurance company profits are below that of most other companies. Oooo, those greedy bastards.

by Dann 

|

Oh By The Way

We finally have a high speed connection courtesy of Comcast. Life is good.

by Dann 

|

How The Republican Mind Works

From William Safire and the NYTimes comes this bit of internal debate presented for public consumption:

What holds the five Republican factions together? To find out, I depth-polled my own brain.

He goes on to describe five centers of thought that he feels most Republicans share. What is interesting is how he describes the resolution between the competing factions.

If these different strains of thought were held by discrete groups of single-minded people, we would have a Republican Party of five warring bands. Social conservatives would fight libertarians over sex, who in turn would savage neocons over pre-emption, who in turn would hoot at the objections of economic conservatives (traditional division) to huge deficits.

But think of these internecine battles not as tugs of war among single-minded groups; instead, think of them as often-conflicting ideas held within the brain of an individual Republican. What goes on is ''cognitive dissonance,'' the jangling of competing inclinations, with the owner of the brain having to work out trade-offs, suppressions and compromises until he or she achieves a kind of puzzled tranquillity within.

What helps me work out that continual internal skirmishing is a mind-set. That brings us to those ''values'' that every candidate talks about. My values include self-reliance over community dependence, intervention over isolation, self-discipline over society's regulation, finding pleasure in work rather than working to find pleasure. Principles like those help me gel a mind-set that reduces the loudest dissonances among my fistful of clanging conservatisms.

Which culminates in having to pick a candidate come election time.

Finally, the dissonance inside my head will be forced into harmony by the need to choose one leader who reflects the preponderance of my views and my judgment of his character.

I will take my teeming noggin to both conventions, watch all the debates and cast my vote -- careful, in the tradition of Times columnists, not to endorse anyone. But now you know how one Republican mind will be made up. I presume the liberal brain works the same way.

As does the libertarian brain. Regardless of the bramage.....

by Dann 

|