Kleverly Koncealed Klan?

Vanity plates always catch my eye and the fun ones require some thinking to figure them out. Steph spotted this one tonight and she doesn't think it's all that fun.

Steph figured this one out on her own. "K" is the eleventh letter in the English alphabet. Konclusive evidence or konjecture on our part?

Adventures In Breakfast Food

I thought I'd try this recipe but with a slight variation because I like my eggs with a runny yolk on toast. This was delicious. Steph tried one bite and said it was okay, but her tepid approval was probably due to the recently consumed strawberries affecting her palate.

The onion ring recipe looks pretty good, too. I'll save that for another day.

Income Disparity Is Not The Issue

In last Thursday's issue of The Inlander, our former congressman, George Nethercutt, misdirects and misleads the reader about the Occupy movement and income disparity in America. He leads off with this:

In the debate over the legitimacy of the “Occupy” movement and the frustration some Americans feel over the alleged 99 percent vs. 1 percent (poor vs. rich) ratio in the United States, it’s fair to pose the question: “What is the right ratio of rich to poor in the U.S. today?”

First, he seeds doubt in the reader's mind by saying there's a debate over the legitimacy of the Occupy movement and then uses the 99 and 1 percent numbers as a poor versus rich ratio. Establishing that, he leads the reader further away by asking a question nobody else is asking. And then he's off on a "discussion" about tax fairness and income equality.

Mr Nethercutt gets it wrong from the start and the millions poured into this election season provide an example of why he is wrong. The Occupy movement is not about resenting the wealthy for being wealthy. It's not about establishing a specific ratio of wealthy vs poor. It's about the undue influence of wealth in our democracy that benefits the wealthy to the detriment of everyone else. It's about a system that promotes and protects a concentration of wealth. The expanding gap in income equality is a function of this influence.

The market-oriented society he refers to isn't necessarily the same one envisioned by the 99 percent. In Mr Nethercutt's market-oriented society, corporations and businesses are a privileged class always trying to overcome obstacles placed by a government whose sole existence only serves to interfere. Combined with a theme emphasizing freedom and personal responsibility, individuals are left to their own devices when a weakened government is unable to help after fracking makes their their tap water flammable.

Mr Nethercutt's position is hardly surprising when you consider his actions while representing Washington's 5th District. He voted for the Bush tax cuts, which overwhelming benefited the wealthy and became the single largest contributor towards the deficit. He also voted to make those tax cuts permanent. He sponsored legislation to repeal the estate tax, which affected only 2 percent of Americans. The wealthiest Americans. He voted against campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. One fight in the area of campaign finance reform ended up with the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens vs United allowing unlimited donations via purportedly independent groups. One "benefit" of that is that we're now getting to know the billionaires influencing our election process with their millions.

Mr Nethercutt closes his short discussion on poverty with this:

No matter how hard we try to eradicate poverty, we likely never will. While trying to do so is laudable, we shouldn’t stifle the creativity that is a hallmark of American life. Creativity often leads to great wealth for those with ingenuity, drive, energy and free will. Ambition levels, like talent levels, will always be unequal for individuals in a free society, and those disparities will result in disparate income outcomes.

How trying to eradicate poverty stifles creativity taxes even my imagination. But he is right that creativity, ambition, and talent can result in disparate income outcomes. Again, that is not the problem. The problem is the inordinate amount of influence in our democracy by "the haves and the have mores" and the injustices resulting from it. Just look at the criminal behavior by mortgage lenders and the failures of regulatory agencies resulting in the 2008 crash and the disparity in the number of prosecutions there.

Mr Nethercutt closes with this:

While helping America’s poor is legitimate, worthwhile and an American tradition, an income equality goal doesn’t fit a market-oriented society. Capitalism and free enterprise, having produced the strongest economy and most advanced society in world history, should largely be left to reach natural levels, allowing those who seek, and achieve, financial reward to enjoy their good fortune, distribute it as they wish and pay a reasonable income-tax rate.

He again distracts the reader. Nobody is talking about establishing an income equality goal. As for the U.S. being the strongest economy and most advanced society in world history, world history isn't over yet. It has yet to be seen if this most advanced society will allow itself to be bought out.

A Sight To Make Sore Eyes

I'm back to bike commuting. Whoohoo! The last three mornings I layered up against the cold, including a balaclava that would get me stopped at the door of any pharmacy, and pedaled my way downtown, my raspy breath puffing and sounding like a steam locomotive and my nose running like a faucet that stops momentarily when you crank on the handle and then resumes its relentless dripping once you're five steps away. My apologies to those drivers to whom I treated to the sight of a burst of vapor accompanied by mostly failed snot rocket launches. Yes, I wash my gloves. Besides, that's what the fuzzy patch on the back of them is for. But you have to admit, I did have that one time where it was very cleanly shot.

The temperature rose quit a bit yesterday, so much so that it felt oppressive while I was running and I had to take my shirt off. So my apologies to those on the Centennial Trail who were blinded by the sun reflecting off my fish belly-white upper torso still carrying a slightly jouncing holiday season five pound gain. No, not President's Day. Christmas.

But look at the bright side. (Get it? Bright? Trying to add to the humor here so please play along.) Riding twice a day will help trim down that slight belly bulge, the sun will transform me from a whiter shade of pale to more of an ivory, and the warmer weather will dry my sinuses. Until then, just look away.

More From The Terrorism Boogeyman

Yesterday we learned this from FBI Director Robert Mueller's testimony before a House appropriations committee.

“Terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack, but we cannot underestimate their intent.”

He also said terrorists have shown interest in developing hacking skills, and that the evolving nature of the problem makes the FBI’s counterterrorism mission more difficult.

So terrorists showing an interest in developing hacking skills--What, did they google "hacking skills"?--are more capable than Anonymous and LulzSec?

He could make just as much sense by claiming that a 15-year-old kid who's interested in driving can win the Indianapolis 500 his first time behind the wheel. We wouldn't want to underestimate the kid's intent.

Taking The Low Road

In today's Spokesman Review we read about Attorney General Eric Holder defending the decision to kill a U.S. citizen living abroad.

Holder presented a three-part test for determining whether killing an American citizen is legal: "...the government must determine after careful review that the citizen poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S., capture is not feasible, and the killing would be consistent with laws of war."

Thank goodness there's a careful review.

How did we get to a position that would've been considered abhorrent 20 or 30 years ago? Congress did not declare war. It passed an authority to use military force. We are not warring against a country. In response to an attack by a fanatical religious terrorist group we established a Global War on Terrorism. Where before we treated terrorism as a crime, we elevated its status to one requiring a military response. We compiled lists of terrorists and their organizations resulting in a definition so broad and encompassing Congress had to pass a bill stating the African National Congress was no longer a terrorist organization so Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa and former leader of the African National Congress, could travel unrestricted to the United States.

Fear played a huge part if escalating and justifying our response as it still does today. It would be more appropriate for the If You See Something, Say Something program to apply to our own government's actions.

The Guardian has a more thorough version of the article.

"Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen – even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaida in a foreign land – is among the gravest that government leaders can face," Holder said. "The American people can be – and deserve to be – assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws."
...
"The constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."

And now, after careful review and consistent with our values(?) and laws(?), due process means we can kill American citizens with a missile launched from an unmanned aircraft.

I wonder what our response would be if another country killed one of its citizens in the U.S. and justified it by saying, "This was done only after careful review determined that the citizen posed an imminent threat of violent attack against us, capture was not feasible, and the killing was consistent with laws of war."

"Oh, and sorry about the innocent civilians we took out with him."

*** Update
The New York Review of Books blog has a thoughtful article on this subject.