Beginning Fishing

Okay, it's been a while since the last posting. Always thinking and writing about the economy, inflation and bailouts gets a little tiring. So I went fishing.

This is a beautiful fish, isn't it? But fishing is more about the experience than the result (or at least that's what amateurs say when they aren't catching any fish).

The simple plan was to get a rod and reel, some bait, and find a few small private spots on some local lakes-- lakes that could be reached within a half hour of the house or office. Sort of like these pictures--

As it turns out, there are a lot of local lakes that sort of look like that. But most have aluminum cans and plastic bags and Styrofoam coffee cups-- thrown into the water or bushes even though there is a nearby trash can. (I've decided to always carry a trash bag and fill it up with garbage. Then I'll have something to carry away, particularly when I don't catch fish, which will probably be most of the time).

So, I got a decent graphite pole and spinning reel and looked at the maps of the area and found the lakes with public access and fishing from the shore . . . and got some advice and a tour from Clayton (a real fisherman).

For bait, I started out with night crawlers. Clayton showed me how to tie two hooks on a leader and thread the worm on the line. It has worked-- once so far.

One time at a lake I found a lure that sort of looks like this, only green. I later tried it after worms didn't work and caught a fish! It was the biggest trout I'd ever caught. So now that's a favorite lure, of course.

I've learned that other fishermen and bait shop owners are super friendly and love to talk about fishing. They are more than willing to share a few tips with a novice like me. The learning part might be the best part. I'm finding that fishing is a social-- albeit solitary-- sport.

I saw a guy casting a metal lure and he said I needed one, too. So, off to the tackle shop for a Kastmaster and some pointers. I got one like this and caught another big trout! It's fascinating that an animal will try to eat a small metal machine like this lure.

I spend a lot of time (when my reel isn't one big bird nest) casting into tress and bushes. I had to wade into the lake to retrieve my pole tip after using it as a rake to scrape my lure out of some brambles. If you've ever fished, you know how it goes. This fishing sport is going to teach me patience and relaxation-- I hope. It sure tests my patience.

This is not a picture of me (is that a golf club?) but it's a picture of exactly what I went through to hold on to my first big fish. So far, I'm finding that fishing really is fun.

China Will Have Alaska Oil

China (and Japan) Are Biggest US Creditors--

In September 2008 China passed Japan to become the US government's largest foreign creditor. China's investment in US Treasury Bonds surged to $585 billion in September, pulling ahead of Japan which now holds $573 billion worth. Overall, China's holdings may be $800 billion or more.

China is also thought to be purchasing US debt through third countries. China now owns nearly one dollar out of every ten dollars in US public debt. According to some reports, China and Japan hold almost half of the US debt held by all foreign countries.

Simply stated, the US owes a lot of money to foreign countries, of which China and Japan are our biggest creditors.

It’s sort of like owing money to China for the monthly house payment, and owing Japan for the monthly car payment. The monthly paycheck has to go to these creditors. And, more money must be borrowed to buy other things like new household goods (i.e., “stimulate the economy”) or fund retirement plans (i.e. “social security”). For the US, foreign countries have become our bankers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803558.html

The US Is Continuing to Spend Money It Doesn’t Have--
















The US now wants to spend more trillions of dollars. In 2008 there were the $160,000,000,000 “stimulus checks” and $750,000,000,000 TARP funds to “bailout” the banks. In 2009 under President Obama’s administration we already have the $800,000,000,000 “stimulus package” and the 2010 budge is announced to be more than another $600,000,000,000. Other billions ($30,000,000,000+) have been paid to automobile companies.

Further, President Obama has announced projected budgets involving the spending of trillions of dollars which the US does not yet have.

The money needed to pay the US past and future public debt must be obtained from (a) future taxes or (b) the printing of money or (c) continued borrowing from China and Japan and other countries.

Taxes Can’t Cover the Spending--

Even if the incomes of our nation’s “richest” and “wealthiest” citizens were taxed at 100% the money would not be enough to cover even half of the projected spending. See my other posting— "$250,000 Minimum Wage.” The US will be increasingly forced to rely upon China and Japan as the US seeks to raise money.














In February 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returned from Asia where she urged China to keep buying US debt and to work with Washington to fix the global economic crisis. She said Washington must incur more debt to China to boost the ailing U.S. economy (and stimulate demand for Chinese products). She says it would not be in China's interest if the US is unable to get its economy out of a recession.

Continued Printing of Money Won’t Cover the Debt—

In short, printing money cheaply does not create wealth, but simply dilutes the purchasing power of existing dollars. See my other postings— “Fiat Money Inflation in France,” “Redistribution” and “Real Silver Coins.” Besides, China and Japan would not be pleased if we paid our debts to them with dilluted dollars.

How the US Borrows Money—

A great amount of money is borrowed from foreign countries. How so?












Well, the US imports a lot of its consumer goods from other countries. Take a look at the labels on products and see where they are made. Most products today are made in China and Japan and other foreign countries. The US trades US dollars for goods made in Asia and elsewhere— the US accumulates a lot of Chinese goods, and China accumulates a lot of US dollars.
















The US borrows back some of those dollars held by China and others to cover some current obligations the US can't pay simply by raising taxes and printing money (e.g., roads and building projects, military expenses, Medicare and Social Security).

The US gives its promise in the form of an “IOU” called a Treasury Bond or Treasury Note or Treasury Bill. All these “promissory notes” require that the US pay back the loans in the future, with interest. Bonds are long-term debt instruments and may be due in 30 years, Notes may be due in 2-10 years, and Bills are usually short term debts due in 13, 26 or 52 weeks.

China and Japan loan US dollars back to the US, taking these Treasury debt instruments in return. In short, these countries trust the US to repay the debts, plus interest. The US must repay these debts. Mature notes may also be replaced with new notes-- sort of like constantly re-financing the house.

At some point China and Japan may want some collateral for the debts. I.e., China and Japan may want something to repossess in case the US defaults and can’t continue to pay its debts with interest.

China Will Have Alaska Oil --
















It is conceivable that China will insist upon something other than a simple unsecured promise of the US government that it will pay its debts. (Recall how France used lands seized from the church as collateral to back its fiat money in the 1790s).

What does the US have to use as collateral?

The US has unused oil reserves in Alaska (because federal law prohibits development there by US citizens and companies— the federal government would rather US citizens trade some of their dollars to other foreign countries for oil).

With its expanding population and need for natural resources, it could be only a matter of time before China insists on getting repaid in oil instead of more paper dollars. China may insist that the Treasury Bonds and Notes be secured by using the oil reserves as collateral—sort of like how the bank takes a mortgage on the house. If the debt is not paid, the bank seizes the collateral (such as the house, or car, or oil). Or…

Maybe Japan Will Protect Alaskan Oil from China--


















A twist on the above scenario might be that the US would refuse to pledge its oil assets to China. Japan is an ally of the US. Japan has the world’s second largest economy after the US. Before World War II Japan had the world’s largest navy.

Could it be that, rather than allow China to get Alaskan oil, the US will strike a bargain with Japan for Japan to assume the US debt to China in exchange for US oil? Would the US turn over its Alaskan oil to Japan if Japan would help the US get out of debt to China? Could it involve a scenario where Japan would use its Navy to protect Alaska from China (if the US couldn’t even afford a strong navy anymore)?

It’s because the US is spending more than it can afford that these questions are even considered.


UPDATE:

China's premier Wen Jiabao expressed concern (Friday March 13, 2009) about China’s massive holdings of Treasuries and other U.S. debt, appealing to Washington to safeguard their value. He noted that Beijing is the biggest foreign creditor to the United States.

"We have made a huge amount of loans to the United States. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."

Inside China there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090313/D96T37FO0.html

UPDATE:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sought Arab support Tuesday (March 31 in Doha, Qatar) for a proposed oil-backed currency to challenge the U.S. dollar in his latest swipe at Washington's dominance in global financial affairs.

While it's highly unlikely Chavez will gain any serious momentum for his "petro-currency" proposal at a summit of South American and Arab League leaders, it represented another attempt to undercut the dollar's standing as the world's leading commercial currency.

China has struck deals—most recently this week with Argentina—to conduct trade in currencies other than the dollar. Iran has proposed replacing the dollar with the euro or other currencies to set worldwide oil prices.

The $250,000 "Minimum Wage"

$250,000 will eventually be the new “minimum wage” (as well as the effective “maximum wage” people will limit themselves to-- if the federal government doesn’t).

The Obama administration has claimed that taxes will only increase for that 2% to 5% of the working population earning more than $250,000—increases required in the interests of “fairness.” The current 39% top tax rate is scheduled to rise to 41% under President Obama’s plan. It will likely rise above that during the next few years.

Can taxes be increased so that the government takes 40%, 50%, 75% or even 90% of a person’s property? Of course they can— and they have. Remember, the top rate was more than 70% under Carter, was at 80% under Franklin Roosevelt, and reached 90% under Eisenhower and Kennedy. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19

Year after year, election after election, politicians always say “the rich” and “the wealthiest” should pay “their fair share” of taxes. What is the "fair share?" Is it the present 39%, or the 70% imposed under Carter, or the 90% imposed under Roosevelt? How about 100%?

The answer depends upon whom you ask— If you ask the person paying that 50% or 90%, the answer is “Taxes are too high.” If you ask the person who is not the target or subject of the higher tax, the answer is “The rich should pay more— they aren’t paying ‘their fair share’.”

What is the purpose of taxation? It could be to pay for essential government projects (whatever “essential” means).

But, if the purpose becomes “economic equality” or another redistribution scheme, then “fairness” requires that incomes eventually become equal—from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.

Incomes are not equal due to a number of reasons. In the end, “inequality” presupposes that “the rich make too much” or “the poor don’t make enough.”

Confiscatory taxes could equalize income—

If property is taken from the top 5% and redistributed to the benefit of the other 95% (whether by direct payments or through specialized entitlements), incomes will still be disparate unless the money taken from the 5% is enough to raise the 95% to the desired $250,000.

Raising the minimum wage could equalize income—

A law could be passed that simply requires that each “poor” person be paid the same amount as any “rich” person. Why should the minimum wage stop at $15 per hour? Why shouldn’t the minimum yearly wage be $250,000— the same amount made by a “rich” person?

Income could be equalized through a combination of both— by taxing everything over $250,000 and raising everybody else’s income up to $250,000.

An accounting period, perhaps ending on April 15th of each year, would be the date at which books would be balanced to make sure that each person earned no more than $250,000 and that each person was paid no less than $250,000.

And, suppose that somebody made a bad investment so that his income was only $200,000 on April 15th— the deficiency of $50,000 would be corrected by issuance of a government check. Incomes could remain equal at $250,000— regardless of effort, abilities, opportunity, discipline, recklessness or prudence.

Curiously, however, nobody would want to work once his or her income hit $250,000 per year— once the $250,000 ceiling is reached, the worker will take a vacation for the rest of the year (unless forced to work for free at a gulag the rest of the year). Also, there just aren’t enough people earning more than $250,000 to take from to make incomes equal for the rest of us. Perhaps the limit should be reduced to $200,000, or dropped to $150,000 or less until all our incomes can be balanced evenly.

If the economic and taxation policies proposed by President Obama are implemented, given the record deficit spending that would result, in reality the maximum wage and minimum wage should really be about $75,000—

A recent WSJ article “The 2% Illusion— Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough” is illustrative:

IRS data for 2006 (the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%") shows that filers with adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 comprised just 7% of all returns. Yet, the "top" taxpayers paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The “richest 1%” paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues. This was at the current 39% top income tax rate.

“A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable ‘dime’ of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html

So, even if the government took every dime over $75,000 of every living taxpayer, there wouldn’t be enough revenue to pay for the government’s existing programs and promises to people now living. Perhaps that’s why the US government borrows today and promises to pay in the future— having our future children continue to pay our bills with their energy and money.

"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" -- Whimpy

Ira Hayes and Other Heroes

Ira Hamilton Hayes (1923 – 1955) was Pima Native American and member of the Gila River Indian Community. He was in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) and a veteran of the World War II Battle of Iwo Jima. Hayes was one of five Marines (along with a Navy medic) shown in Joe Rosenthal’s photograph of the flag raising on Iwo Jima’s Mount Suribachi.

Hayes (on the far left of the photograph) became a national hero, along with the two other survivors of the famous photograph, Rene Gagnon and John Bradley. Hayes's story drew particular attention because he was Native American.


After the war Hayes was arrested some fifty times for drunkenness. He apparently suffered greatly from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which was not well known or understood at the time. Hayes was found dead in 1955 at the age of 32, face down and lying in his own vomit and blood near an abandoned hut close to his home on the Gila River Indian Reservation. He had been drinking and playing cards with several other men. The coroner concluded that Hayes' death was due to both exposure and alcohol. Hayes is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Ira Hayes appeared in the 1949 John Wayne film Sands of Iwo Jima along with the two other surviving fellow flag raisers. All three men played themselves in the movie when Wayne hands the flag to be raised to the three men. (The actual flag that was raised on Mount Suribachi is used in the film.) The life of Ira Hayes was featured in a book by James Bradley called Flags of Our Fathers
(2000).














http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Hayes

Johnny Cash (who was actually Scottish and not part Native American as he had believed for a time) performed “The Ballad of Ira Hayes” by Peter LaFarge. Cash took the song to No. 3 on the Billboard country music chart in 1964. Here are some of the lyrics--

There they battled up Iwo Jima's hill

Two hundred and fifty men

But only twenty-seven lived
To walk back down again

And when the fight was over

And when Old Glory raised

Among the men who held it high

Was the Indian Ira Hayes

Ira returned a hero

Celebrated through the land

He was wined and speeched and honored
Everybody shook his hand

Then Ira started drinkin' hard

Jail was often his home

They'd let him raise the flag and lower it

Like you'd throw a dog a bone

He died drunk one mornin'

Alone in the land he fought to save

Two inches of water in a lonely ditch

Was a grave for Ira Hayes

[CHORUS:]

Call him drunken Ira Hayes

He won't answer anymore

Not the whiskey drinkin' Indian

Nor the Marine that went to war

Another Native American war hero was Billy Walkabout (1949-2006) who served in the US Army during the Viet Nam War. He was a native Cherokee from Oklahoma. He died at the age of 57. He is also buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Billy Walkabout was one of the most decorated soldiers of that war. He received the Purple Heart, five Silver Stars and five Bronze Stars. He received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism in Vietnam in 1968 while with U.S. Army Company F, 58th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. The citation states that—

Sgt. Walkabout (then a Specialist) distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous actions during a long range reconnaissance patrol southwest of Hue. After successfully ambushing an enemy squad on a jungle trail, his patrol radioed for immediate extraction by helicopter.

When the helicopters arrived the lead man was seriously wounded by hostile machine gun fire. Walkabout started shooting at the enemy while the wounded man was pulled back to safety. Walkabout then administered first aid to the soldier. As the wounded solider was being loaded onto the helicopter, enemy elements again attacked the team.

While maneuvering under heavy fire Walkabout started shooting at the enemy again. A mine then blasted through Walkabout’s team, killing three men and wounding all the others. While he was wounded himself, Walkabout rushed from man to man administering first aid, bandaging one soldier's severe chest wound and reviving another soldier by heart massage. He then coordinated gunship and tactical air strikes on the enemy's positions.

When evacuation helicopters arrived again, he worked single-handedly under fire to board his disabled comrades. Only when the casualties had been evacuated and friendly reinforcements had arrived, did he allow himself to be extracted.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799091/posts

Lori Ann Piestewa (1979 - 2003) was the first woman in the US armed forces to be killed in the 2003 Iraq War. She was also the first Native American woman to die in combat while serving with the US military. She was a member of the Hopi Tribe from Arizona.

PFC Piestewa was a member of the US Army's 507th Army Maintenance Company, a support unit of clerks, cooks, and repair personnel. Her company was traveling in a convoy through the desert and was meant to bypass Nasiriyah in southern Iraq during the opening days of the war.

The convoy became lost and ran into an ambush in Nasiriyah on March 23, 2003. Under heavy enemy fire, PFC Piestewa drove at a high speed, successfully evading the enemy fire until an RPG hit the front-left wheel-well of her Humvee. The force of the explosion sent her vehicle into the rear of a disabled tractor-trailer. Three other soldiers in the Humvee died in the crash.

Piestewa was injured in the ambush, as was her friend Jessica Lynch. Both Piestewa and Lynch survived but were wounded. They were taken prisoner, with Piestewa dying soon after of her wounds. Piestewa and her company were first considered missing in action. Later it was learned that Piestewa and several other members of her company did not survive the ambush.

Piestewa was a single mother of two children at the time of her death. She was 24.

"Pendleton 8"

A couple of years ago it was disturbing to read the story of a young Marine who had gone to the same Mukilteo high school as my kids. The Marine was being held in shackles in a San Diego military prison while awaiting trial for the April 2006 killing of a man in Iraq. The young Marine was on his third combat tour of duty. According to military reports, Marine Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington and six other Marines and a Navy medic plotted to seize and kill a suspected insurgent and then staged a scene to cover it up.

Reports assert that four of the men went to find their intended target but he wasn't home, instead grabbing a neighbor. The neighbor was led to a crater left by a roadside bomb, then tied up and tossed in. A sergeant gave the order to several fellow Marines to shoot the man.

Pennington was not one of those who shot. The men then placed a shovel and an AK-47 next to the body to make it appear the victim had been planting a roadside bomb. This occurred in the village of Hamdania Iraq.

The squad was incarcerated in Iraq and returned to the US in May 2006. The men were held in continued custody in the maximum security division of the Camp Pendleton brig as potentially dangerous and violent. Supporters dubbed them the "Pendleton 8" and conducted rallies in front of Camp Pendleton's main gate.


While he was awaiting trial, the presumption of innocence was abandoned and Pennington was kept in shackles. He also had difficulties getting medical treatment. His normal discharge date passed while he was in custody and his pay was stopped even though he had not yet been convicted of anything.

His parents set up a web site which told the story of their son, requested contributions for a defense fund, and contained pictures of supportive demonstrations in California and of neighbors holding candlelight vigil. They hired a civilian attorney to work with the three military lawyers for Pennington.

Within months of being accused, five of the eight men (including Pennington) pleaded guilty to a variety of reduced charges. The other three (including the sergeant) were tried and convicted. The sergeant, described as the leader and mastermind of the killing, was sentenced to fifteen years, later reduced to eleven.

As part of a plea bargain, Pennington pleaded guilty to kidnapping and conspiracy. He was not the first to plead guilty. He was to serve either the sentence imposed by the military judge or eight years, whichever was less. While awaiting sentencing the conditions of his confinement were improved.

Evidence was presented at the five-day sentencing hearing. On the website his family writes--

"We listened to Rob's testimony about that night, but also heard a lot of information that we never heard before about the previous two deployments. . . one of the most important things we learned in that courtroom was that Fallujah was far more horrific, far more devastating than any of us really understood. We watched film, listened to testimony and realized how devastating this was for the boys who fought that bloody battle."

"We knew something was wrong when Rob came home, but we took his word that he could handle it. That's what those grunts do, right? Suck it up . . . We did not think he was in any shape to return to Iraq after Fallujah, but we took the easy route and let him tell us what we really wanted to hear -- that he was really okay."

The judge sentenced Robert Pennington to fourteen years in a military prison, which was limited to 8 years by the plea bargain. He was also to receive a dishonorable discharge. Then in 2007 his commanding general made a clemency decision that reduced the sentence to 21 months of confinement and a bad conduct discharge.

Except for the sergeant who is still seeking an appeal and sentence reduction, none of the eight served more than 15 months behind bars due to a combination plea deals and clemency.

In December 2008 Robert Pennington was "working hard at a tack and feed store in Del Mar California as a truck loader and driver, doing well."

http://www.defendrob.com/

Black Cat of Anarchy

Twenty years ago I wrote a play about the “Everett Massacre.” (It’s the subject of another posting). In short, on November 5, 1916, there was an armed confrontation between city officials and members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). The IWW were also know as “Wobblies.”

The Wobblies were “one-world” idealists professing solidarity with workers of all nations. Their goals included the dissolution of capitalism, employers, management and all the rest. No doubt there was a connection to Russia’s Marxists and Leninists, but the US Wobblies seemed to be more like anarchists.

In theory “anarchy” suggests the absence of all direct or coercive government as the political ideal, and proposes cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups. That sounds fine. As a practical matter however, “anarchy” suggests confusion, disorder and chaos. That seems to be its reality, too.

Anyway, while doing research for the play I noticed that the black cat had been adopted by the Wobblies as their mascot.

It seems the black cat is also called the “wild cat” or “sabot cat.” The Wobblies were no strangers to labor violence, and there was some use of company-busting “sabotage.” A “Wobbly” named Ralph Chaplin is credited with the design.

One story about the origin of the black cat symbol is that a IWW strike was going badly, with beaten members hospitalized. About that time a skinny black cat wandered into the strikers’ camp. It was fed by the striking workers, and as the cat regained its health events looked better to the Wobblies. Eventually the striking workers got some of their demands and they adopted the cat as their mascot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism

There was a lumber and hardware store in Arlington Washington called “Copeland Lumber” which had orange buildings and a sign which featured the black cat of anarchy. I don’t know the history of that sign—I believe there were other Copeland Lumber stores. Perhaps there is an historical connection between the mill-working Wobblies and the lumber store.

Yet, well before the Wobblies appointed the black

cat to be the symbol of disorder and chaos, the black cat had long been associated with witchcraft and the dark side.

American short story writer Edgar Allen Poe (1809 – 1849) wrote a short story called “The Black Cat.” Poe wrote that his wife got a black cat for them. It was . . .

“. . . a remarkably large and beautiful animal, entirely black, and sagacious to an astonishing degree. In speaking of his intelligence, my wife, who at heart was not a little tinctured with superstition, made frequent allusion to the ancient popular notion, which regarded all black cats as witches in disguise. "

"One night, returning home, much intoxicated, from one of my haunts about town, I fancied that the cat avoided my presence. I seized him, when in his fright at my violence, he inflicted a slight wound upon my hand with his teeth. The fury of a demon instantly possessed me. I knew myself no longer. My original soul seemed, at once, to take its flight from my body, and a more than fiendish malevolence, gin-nurtured, thrilled every fibre of my frame. I took from my waistcoat-pocket a pen-knife, opened it, grasped the poor beast by the throat, and deliberately cut one of its eyes from the socket! I blush, I burn, I shudder, while I pen the damnable atrocity. "

Well, I can only hope that Poe’s story was not autobiographical. Poe did not soften the part of the black cat in the rest of the story, which of course caused him a lot of revenge and stress.

Maybe the Wobblies just wanted a little more sinister version of other black cats who were popular at the same time—

“Felix the Cat” (on the left) is a black cat cartoon character created in the silent-film era. He was pretty popular in the 1920s. “Krazy Kat” (on the right) was also a popular newspaper black cat cartoon strip character between 1913 and 1944.

“Fritz the Cat” was a popular underground comic book cartoon character in the 1960s. Fritz was "glib, smooth and self-assured.” In 1972, Fritz starred in his own movie called “Fritz the Cat.” Cartoonist Robert Crumb, who created Fritz, did not like the way Fritz was portrayed in the film and reportedly decided to have Fritz “killed” in the comic strip-- After recording a television appearance, Fritz is approached by a neurotic ex-girlfriend of his, who urges him to have sex with her. At her apartment, he ignores her as he watches the television show, despite her repeatedly threatening to commit suicide. When the show is over, Fritz gives her a kick in the pants before leaving. As he walks out of the apartment, she stabs him in the back of the head with an icepick. After having killed off Fritz, Crumb never drew another story featuring the character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_the_Cat

The evolution of the cartoon black cat has resulted in the sexy female version, of course, but still somewhat out of society’s mainstream--

“Black Cat” is a Marvel Comics anti-hero who has been an ex-girlfriend of Spider-Man. Black Cat should not be confused with “Cat Woman,” who is associated with DC Comics. Cat Woman has been one of Batman’s most enduring love interests, occasionally depicted as his one “true love.”












And, finally, is it any surprise that the evolution of the black cat of anarchy would result in a child's toy, still looking like a sinister trouble-maker?

Order out of chaos and anarchy.

Redistribution -- Part 1 of 4

This is Part 1 of 4 on this subject—the promised “rescue” of families having delinquent mortgages by spending $75,000,000,000 through yet another federal "bail out" over and above the other "bail out" and "stimulus" money to be printed and spent.

When I write here that “The federal government is taking your real estate equity,” you might be thinking “He’s nuts” or “Prove it.” Fair enough, so please follow—

Suppose for the moment that federal government politicians want you to help fund an existing or new project— like the new currently proposed $75,000,000,000 ($75 Billion) “homeowner mortgage foreclosure rescue plan.” It is claimed that the plan will assist between 7 and 9 million people who applied for and received home loans with little or no down payment, and who have not been making their mortgage payments for some reason. (Defaults of these “sub-prime” mortgages appear as threatening liabilities on bank balance sheets).

It can be argued that other taxpayers and responsible homeowners have already paid enough to help delinquent buyers get into their houses and condos and stay there. Consider the “affordable housing” policy of the federal government . . .

The federal policy to provide “affordable housing for all citizens” has been advanced for several decades during both Democratic and Republican administrations through programs such as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Also, the “fractional reserve” scheme of the Federal Reserve (to be discussed in a later posting) has helped facilitate the policy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are quasi-private institutions which encouraged such risky sub-prime loans through assurance that any losses would be covered by the taxpayer.

These programs and policies were utilized to sell houses to people who wouldn’t otherwise qualify to afford them (whether it was a “poor” person buying a modest home, or a working couple trying to get into a more “expensive home,” or a speculator trying to “flip houses”).

President Obama has announced that he intends to enact such a "rescue" into law.

Thus, $75 Billion will be needed immediately to pay the investors and banks holding the mortgages on the houses owned by the people not making their monthly payments. The money needed to fund this new program can’t come from those who have not made their house payments because they have no money or have chosen to not pay.

Those who are in default will be getting a big gift by this program— because somebody else (you) will pay for part of their housing (as well as your own). (We haven’t quite reached the point yet where the government will simply tell the banks they can’t collect the loans at all . . . and can’t get their collateral back, either). You the taxpayer must pay for the “bail out” of these defaulting homeowners. You can voluntarily surrender and give your money to the government by sending in a check (in addition to what you are already paying as income tax, sales tax, real estate taxes, gasoline taxes, vehicle excise taxes, etc., etc.). Or . . .

(Continue to next posting on this subject, Part 2 of 4).