The Petulant President scolds Republicans, Conservatives and Anyone Else who dares to Oppose Obamaism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 17th, 2013

Politics 101

The government shutdown is over. And we avoided defaulting on the national debt  Or so they say.  So who won and who lost?  Well, at this point in time it looks like the Democrats lost less than the Republicans.  But it is the American people who lost.  For they are stuck with Obamacare for the time being.  And President Obama can raise the national debt to a new record high.  But it gets worse.  This morning the president gave a petulant, God-awful speech scolding the Republicans, the Tea Party, talk radio, the blogosphere and pretty much anyone else who dares to oppose Obamaism (see Transcript of Obama Remarks on End of Standoff posted 10/17/2013 on The Wall Street Journal).

Good morning, everybody.  Please have a seat.

Well, last night, I signed legislation to reopen our government and pay America’s bills.  Because Democrats and responsible Republicans came together, the first government shutdown in 17 years is now over.  The first default in more than 200 years will not happen.  These twin threats to our economy have now been lifted.  And I want to thank those Democrats and Republicans for getting together and ultimately getting this job done.

There was never a risk of default.  With $2.45 trillion in annual revenue coming into the treasury from the taxpayers there was never a risk of the $415.7 billion annual interest payment on the debt going unpaid.  Lying about it just helped a petulant child get his way.  Waaa.

Now, there’s been a lot of discussion lately of the politics of this shutdown.  But let’s be clear:  There are no winners here.  These last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy.  We don’t know yet the full scope of the damage, but every analyst out there believes it slowed our growth.

What growth?  Since coming to office the president’s policies have lost approximately 9,966,000 jobs through the September jobs report.  That’s just shy of 10 million jobs he’s lost.  So what recovery?  Or is he just setting the stage to blame the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression on this 16 day shutdown?  And not the lost economic activity from those 10 million or so lost jobs?  Of course he is.  Because what are 10 million jobs when he can stick it to the Republicans?

We know that families have gone without paychecks or services they depend on.  We know that potential homebuyers have gotten fewer mortgages, and small business loans have been put on hold.  We know that consumers have cut back on spending, and that half of all CEOs say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months.  We know that just the threat of default — of America not paying all the bills that we owe on time — increased our borrowing costs, which adds to our deficit.

Yes, pity the government bureaucrats who had to go 16 days without reporting to work.  Even though they will be paid for those 16 days they missed.  Yes, pity the government bureaucrats.  And not the 10 million who have disappeared from the labor force since President Obama assumed office.  I mean, what are 5 years without a paycheck compared to missing 16 days of work?  Which the taxpayers will still pay them for?

Businesses cut back on spending and hiring because of the great uncertainty of a 16-day shutdown?  Are you sure it wasn’t the regulatory requirements of Obamacare that is forcing employers with close to 30 ‘full time’ employees (30 hours or more per week) to not hire any more workers?  Even pushing full-time workers to part time?  Are you sure this isn’t the reason why they’re not hiring?  Especially with the cost of health insurance going through the roof now that it must cover everything under the sun (such as pediatric care for a couple whose children are now grown adults) as well as pre-existing conditions?  Where someone can walk in off the street who was just diagnosed with cancer and buy an insurance policy for the first time in their life?  Are you absolutely sure it’s the 16-day shutdown and not Obamacare?   If so someone needs to attend a high school economics class to learn the first thing about economics.

And, of course, we know that the American people’s frustration with what goes on in this town has never been higher. That’s not a surprise that the American people are completely fed up with Washington.  At a moment when our economic recovery demands more jobs, more momentum, we’ve got yet another self-inflicted crisis that set our economy back.  And for what?

Again, are you sure it was the 16-day shutdown and not the 4 years or so of Obamacare?

There was no economic rationale for all of this.  Over the past four years, our economy has been growing, our businesses have been creating jobs, and our deficits have been cut in half. We hear some members who pushed for the shutdown say they were doing it to save the American economy — but nothing has done more to undermine our economy these past three years than the kind of tactics that create these manufactured crises.

The last fiscal year ending deficit while George W. Bush was president was $498.37 billion (adjusted for inflation).  At the end of the first fiscal year with President Obama in office the deficit soared to $1.539.22 trillion.  An increase of 208.9%.  It is this deficit number that he cut in half.  The one he exploded with his near trillion dollar stimulus that did not stimulate anything but unions and the president’s cronies on Wall Street and in Big Business.  Especially Big Green Business.

And the president had something else preventing him from spending as much as he did during his first term.  Sequestration.  Which the Democrats hate with a passion and want to get rid of.  So they can turn on the spending spigot once again.  Like they did during his first term.

And you don’t have to take my word for it.  The agency that put America’s credit rating on watch the other day explicitly cited all of this, saying that our economy “remains more dynamic and resilient” than other advanced economies, and that the only thing putting us at risk is — and I’m quoting here — “repeated brinksmanship.”  That’s what the credit rating agency said.  That wasn’t a political statement; that was an analysis of what’s hurting our economy by people whose job it is to analyze these things.

Really?  Brinkmanship?  You don’t think adding $6.2 trillion to the national debt during your presidency had anything to do with the credit rating agency’s concern about our debt paying ability?  A high school economics student can understand that the greater your debt is the greater your debt-paying problem.  Funny how you don’t, Mr. President.

That also happens to be the view of our diplomats who’ve been hearing from their counterparts internationally.  Some of the same folks who pushed for the shutdown and threatened default claim their actions were needed to get America back on the right track, to make sure we’re strong.  But probably nothing has done more damage to America’s credibility in the world, our standing with other countries, than the spectacle that we’ve seen these past several weeks.  It’s encouraged our enemies.  It’s emboldened our competitors.  And it’s depressed our friends who look to us for steady leadership.

I thought it would have been your bad foreign policy that did all those things.  Starting with the Green Revolution in Iran.  An uprising of the people against the Islamist and oppressive government of Iran.  The precursor to the Arab Spring.  Where you did nothing.  Leaving the good Iranian people with that oppressive Islamist government.  Which is currently working to produce a nuclear bomb.  Then there was the Arab Spring and you telling our friend and ally and anchor to peace and stability in the Middle East, Hosni Mubarak, that he had to go.  Turning Egypt over to the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood.  And then there was Libya.  Another ally in the War on Terror, Muammar Gaddafi (who joined the fight against terrorism after our invasion of Iraq), that he had to go.  Turning Libya over to radical Islamists.  Who killed four Americans in Benghazi.  Then there was the red line fiasco with Syria.  If you cross that red line I will hem and haw and stammer.  Then I might say something else.  Then Vladimir Putin steps in and saves the day for their Syrian ally.  Russia.  Who suspended all adoptions to Americans to spite America.  Who are also helping the Iranians with their nuclear program.  All the while laughing at President Obama who they see as weak.  Who couldn’t get one nation to join him for military strikes against Syria.  If you want to talk about our prestige on the world stage you gave that up long ago.  For today no one fears the wrath of the United States these days.  With some nations seeing the United States becoming irrelevant in the world.  Especially Russia and China.  As well as radical Islam.

Now, the good news is we’ll bounce back from this.  We always do.  America is the bedrock of the global economy for a reason.  We are the indispensable nation that the rest of the world looks to as the safest and most reliable place to invest — something that’s made it easier for generations of Americans to invest in their own futures.  We have earned that responsibility over more than two centuries because of the dynamism of our economy and our entrepreneurs, the productivity of our workers, but also because we keep our word and we meet our obligations.  That’s what full faith and credit means — you can count on us.

And today, I want our people and our businesses and the rest of the world to know that the full faith and credit of the United States remains unquestioned.

There is a difference between economic investment and buying our bonds.  Any money that buys government bonds is money pulled out of the economy.  Investing in government bonds doesn’t create economic activity.  It actually destroys economic activity.  And the only worry the rest of the world had was what you were going to do, Mr. President.  Would you not pay the interest on the national debt out of spite to attack the Republicans?  That’s what they were worried about.  For even they knew we had the money to pay our debt without new borrowing.  They just don’t trust you.

But to all my friends in Congress, understand that how business is done in this town has to change.  Because we’ve all got a lot of work to do on behalf of the American people — and that includes the hard work of regaining their trust.  Our system of self-government doesn’t function without it.  And now that the government is reopened, and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists and the bloggers and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do, and that’s grow this economy; create good jobs; strengthen the middle class; educate our kids; lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul.  That’s why we’re here.  That should be our focus.

Strong words coming from a professional activist.  For he was a community organizer.  And taught activism.  Funny how there are two types of activism.  The good kind in his world.  When it advances a liberal agenda.  And the bad kind in his world.  The kind based in conservatism.  The president hates conservative activism, otherwise known as a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and believes it should be silenced and replaced with one-party rule.

Now, that won’t be easy.  We all know that we have divided government right now.  There’s a lot of noise out there, and the pressure from the extremes affect how a lot of members of Congress see the day-to-day work that’s supposed to be done here. And let’s face it, the American people don’t see every issue the same way.  But that doesn’t mean we can’t make progress.  And when we disagree, we don’t have to suggest that the other side doesn’t love this country or believe in free enterprise, or all the other rhetoric that seems to get worse every single year.  If we disagree on something, we can move on and focus on the things we agree on, and get some stuff done.

And the Democrats calling the political opposition terrorists, arsonists, hostage takers, the Taliban, etc., how is that coming together to focus on the things we agree on?  To get some stuff done?  Well, Mr. President, it is obvious you believe compromise is the Republicans caving and becoming your bitch.  This is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  This is a government of, by and for you.

Let me be specific about three places where I believe we can make progress right now.  First, in the coming days and weeks, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget, a budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further.

At the beginning of this year, that’s what both Democrats and Republicans committed to doing.  The Senate passed a budget; House passed a budget; they were supposed to come together and negotiate.  And had one side not decided to pursue a strategy of brinksmanship, each side could have gotten together and figured out, how do we shape a budget that provides certainty to businesses and people who rely on government, provides certainty to investors in our economy, and we’d be growing faster right now.

The last time we did this little dance it was the same.  You want to raise taxes and cut no spending.  That’s your idea of a balanced approach.  Oh, you’ll promise spending cuts after we raise some taxes.  But those spending cuts will never come.  Democrats just don’t cut spending.  Unless they get themselves stuck in a sequester.  And that’s not even real spending cuts.  It’s only smaller increases in future spending.

Now, the good news is the legislation I signed yesterday now requires Congress to do exactly that — what it could have been doing all along.

And we shouldn’t approach this process of creating a budget as an ideological exercise — just cutting for the sake of cutting.  The issue is not growth versus fiscal responsibility — we need both.  We need a budget that deals with the issues that most Americans are focused on:  creating more good jobs that pay better wages.

Can the nation afford anymore of your job creation?  After losing some 10 million jobs we should just cut our losses.  And refuse anymore of your ‘help’ with the economy.

Cutting for the sake of cutting?  What, we don’t have a debt crisis that requires our debt ceiling to be raised again and again?  We’re spending too much.  Hence the need to keep raising our debt ceiling.  And Obamacare only makes this worse.  A lot worse.  Hence that 16-day government shutdown.  Or did he miss that?

And remember, the deficit is getting smaller, not bigger.  It’s going down faster than it has in the last 50 years. The challenges we have right now are not short-term deficits; it’s the long-term obligations that we have around things like Medicare and Social Security.  We want to make sure those are there for future generations.

Oh, you are devious, Mr. President.  The deficit is going down faster than in the last 50 years only because you raised it to record highs in your first year in office.  Your smallest deficit is still larger than George W. Bush’s last deficit.

Medicare?  You cut Medicare spending so you can spend that money on Obamacare.  And Social Security?  The Social Security Trust Fund has no cash in it.  It’s stuffed with government IOUs.  Because the government is spending so much money that they have to raid the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for it.  And even that’s not enough to prevent deficit spending.  So they’re robbing Peter to pay Paul.  This out of control spending is why Medicare and Social Security may not be there for future generations.

So the key now is a budget that cuts out the things that we don’t need, closes corporate tax loopholes that don’t help create jobs, and frees up resources for the things that do help us grow — like education and infrastructure and research.  And these things historically have not been partisan.  And this shouldn’t be as difficult as it’s been in past years because we already spend less than we did a few years ago.  Our deficits are half of what they were a few years ago.  The debt problems we have now are long term, and we can address them without shortchanging our kids, or shortchanging our grandkids, or weakening the security that current generations have earned from their hard work.

More on education?  That’s to shore up the teachers’ underfunded pensions.  Infrastructure?  That’s just pork-barrel spending.  Building airports where no one wants to fly.  Or high-speed rail that requires constant government subsidies.  Money that buys votes in Congress to pass huge spending bills.  Like Obamacare.  Which passed only by buying off Democrats with the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Florida Flim Flam, etc.

So that’s number one.  Number two, we should finish fixing the job of — let me say that again.  Number two, we should finish the job of fixing our broken immigration system.

There’s already a broad coalition across America that’s behind this effort of comprehensive immigration reform — from business leaders to faith leaders to law enforcement.  In fact, the Senate has already passed a bill with strong bipartisan support that would make the biggest commitment to border security in our history; would modernize our legal immigration system; make sure everyone plays by the same rules, makes sure that folks who came here illegally have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, meet their responsibilities.  That bill has already passed the Senate. And economists estimate that if that bill becomes law, our economy would be 5 percent larger two decades from now.  That’s $1.4 trillion in new economic growth.

There’s a reason why people hire illegal aliens.  So they can pay them less than legal citizens.  So once these illegals become legal they’re not going to work for illegal wages anymore.  So it will raise labor costs.  Forcing businesses to lay off some workers.  Creating no net economic benefit.  But the Democrats don’t care.  Because it’s not about the economy.  It’s about all those new Democrat voters.  To turn the nation, like they turned California, Democrat.

The majority of Americans think this is the right thing to do.  And it’s sitting there waiting for the House to pass it.  Now, if the House has ideas on how to improve the Senate bill, let’s hear them.  Let’s start the negotiations.  But let’s not leave this problem to keep festering for another year, or two years, or three years.  This can and should get done by the end of this year.

Really?  A majority of people want immigration reform?  And because of that we should pass it?  Well, the majority of people want to repeal Obamacare.  So perhaps this is a negotiation the Republicans and Democrats can agree on.  To please the majority of people.  Exchange immigration reform for the repealing of Obamacare.

Number three, we should pass a farm bill, one that American farmers and ranchers can depend on; one that protects vulnerable children and adults in times of need; one that gives rural communities opportunities to grow and the long-term certainty that they deserve.

You know, it was a farm bill that helped precipitate the Great Depression.  Price parity.  Increasing the price of farm goods so they were closer to the price of nonfarm goods.  In response to their increased productivity due to the mechanization of the farm that produced bumper crops.  Increasing supply beyond demand.  Causing the price of farm goods to fall.  So Hoover passed legislation raising the price of food.  Making it harder to put food on the table for the average American.  An example of the unintended consequences of government intervention.  Such as requiring gasoline to include a portion of the corn crop.  Thus raising the price of corn.  And everything in the food chain downstream from corn.  Like beef, chicken, milk, eggs, etc.  No, the last thing consumers need who are trying to put food on the table is another farm bill.

Again, the Senate has already passed a solid bipartisan bill.  It’s got support from Democrats and Republicans.  It’s sitting in the House waiting for passage.  If House Republicans have ideas that they think would improve the farm bill, let’s see them.  Let’s negotiate.  What are we waiting for?  Let’s get this done.

So, passing a budget; immigration reform; farm bill.  Those are three specific things that would make a huge difference in our economy right now.  And we could get them done by the end of the year if our focus is on what’s good for the American people. And that’s just the big stuff.  There are all kinds of other things that we could be doing that don’t get as much attention.

I understand we will not suddenly agree on everything now that the cloud of crisis has passed.  Democrats and Republicans are far apart on a lot of issues.  And I recognize there are folks on the other side who think that my policies are misguided — that’s putting it mildly.  That’s okay.  That’s democracy.  That’s how it works.  We can debate those differences vigorously, passionately, in good faith, through the normal democratic process.

And sometimes, we’ll be just too far apart to forge an agreement.  But that should not hold back our efforts in areas where we do agree.  We shouldn’t fail to act on areas that we do agree or could agree just because we don’t think it’s good politics; just because the extremes in our party don’t like the word “compromise.”

When the Republicans wanted to add tax breaks for small business in the stimulus bill President Obama refused to listen.  Because he won the election.  And elections have consequences, he said.  And to the winner goes the spoils.  When the Democrats had the House, Senate and the White House they had no interest in compromise.  And didn’t.  But when they don’t have all the power they expect the other side to compromise.  And give them what they want.  That’s their idea of compromise.  Unconditional surrender.

I will look for willing partners wherever I can to get important work done.  And there’s no good reason why we can’t govern responsibly, despite our differences, without lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis.  In fact, one of the things that I hope all of us have learned these past few weeks is that it turns out smart, effective government is important.  It matters.  I think the American people during this shutdown had a chance to get some idea of all the things, large and small, that government does that make a difference in people’s lives.

We hear all the time about how government is the problem.  Well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways.  Not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement, it plays a vital role in caring for our seniors and our veterans, educating our kids, making sure our workers are trained for the jobs that are being created, arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries.  It plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe.  It helps folks rebuild after a storm.  It conserves our natural resources.  It finances startups.  It helps to sell our products overseas.  It provides security to our diplomats abroad.

Really?  You want to go there?  Security of our diplomats?  The administration that let 4 Americans die in Benghazi on its watch?  Despite ample warnings?  Warnings so serious that the British pulled out of Benghazi?  Before our four diplomats were killed?  But there was an election, wasn’t there?  And we just couldn’t have trouble with terrorists during an election, could we?  Not for the president that won the War on Terror with the killing of Osama bin Laden.

So let’s work together to make government work better, instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse.  That’s not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self-government.  You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position.  Go out there and win an election.  Push to change it. But don’t break it.  Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building.  That’s not being faithful to what this country is about.

The Founding Fathers created LIMITED government.  What we have today is far from limited.  The progressives/liberals have destroyed what the Founding Fathers gave us.  Today we have a big, fat, bloated bureaucracy.  And the Republicans would like to change it by winning elections.  Which isn’t that easy when the Obama administration suppresses the vote by turning the IRS loose on the Tea Party.  Limiting their fundraising ability.  Causing their turnout to be less than it was in the 2010 midterm election.  When the Tea Party stirred the people to vote the House of Representatives back to the Republicans.  Which they weren’t going to let happen in 2012.  Hence using the IRS to suppress the Republican vote.

And that brings me to one last point.  I’ve got a simple message for all the dedicated and patriotic federal workers who’ve either worked without pay or been forced off the job without pay these past few weeks, including most of my own staff: Thank you.  Thanks for your service.  Welcome back.  What you do is important.  It matters.

You defend our country overseas.  You deliver benefits to our troops who’ve earned them when they come home.  You guard our borders.  You protect our civil rights.  You help businesses grow and gain footholds in overseas markets.  You protect the air we breathe and the water our children drink.  And you push the boundaries of science and space, and you guide hundreds of thousands of people each day through the glories of this country. Thank you.  What you do is important.  And don’t let anybody else tell you different.  Especially the young people who come to this city to serve — believe that it matters.  Well, you know what, you’re right.  It does.

And those of us who have the privilege to serve this country have an obligation to do our job as best we can.  We come from different parties, but we are Americans first.  And that’s why disagreement cannot mean dysfunction.  It can’t degenerate into hatred.  The American people’s hopes and dreams are what matters, not ours.  Our obligations are to them.  Our regard for them compels us all, Democrats and Republicans, to cooperate, and compromise, and act in the best interests of our nation –- one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thanks very much.

The majority of people want to repeal Obamacare.  But the president doesn’t care about these American people.  Because they don’t share his vision of expanding government power in our lives.  People who would prefer to keep the health insurance they have.  And the doctors they have.  As well as not paying more for their health insurance.  But what they want isn’t as important to President Obama as what he wants.  So there is no compromise.  No cooperation.  Or acting in the best interest of the United States.  For this may be one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.  Where all Americans are equal.  Only some are more equal than others.  Like those who share President Obama’s vision.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Engineering Tradeoffs, Security System, Fire Alarm System and HVAC System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 13th, 2013

Technology 101

A Security System basically locks Doors while a Fire Alarm System unlocks Doors

Engineering is basically a study of compromise.  Of tradeoffs.  For solving one problem often creates another problem.  For example, boiling water creates steam.  And the pressure of steam is so strong that it can do useful work for us.  However, the pressure of steam is so strong that it can also blow up boilers.  Which was common in the early days of steam.  So we install pressure relief valves on boilers.  To safely dump excessive steam pressure.  So they don’t explode violently.

We want steam pressure to do work for us.  And the higher pressure the steam is the more work it can do for us.  But the higher the pressure the greater the chance for a catastrophic explosion.  So the engineering of steam systems is a tradeoff.  We design them to produce the maximum steam pressure that won’t blow up any part of the system.  Trading additional useful work for safety.

Then there are systems that come together with opposing design criteria.  Such as security and fire alarm systems.  A security system basically locks doors in a building.  Preventing the free passage of unauthorized people.  While a fire alarm system basically unlocks doors.  To allow the free passage of everyone.  Authorized and unauthorized.  For example, few people can get into the maternity area of a hospital.  Even the elevator won’t stop on that floor if you don’t have a security card to swipe in the elevator.  But if there is a fire in the building, all the secured doors will release to allow everyone to get out of the building.

If the Duct Smoke Detector detects Smoke it will Break the Safety Circuit and Shut Down the HVAC Unit

Interfacing the fire alarm system to HVAC systems require additional compromises.  The primary design criteria of a heating, ventilating and air conditioning unit (basically a big box with a supply fan and a return fan with filters, heating/cooling coils and air dampers to blend in a varying amount of outside air) is to move air.  To prevent the dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide from our exhaled breath.  They also cool buildings in the cooling season.  And help to heat the building in the heating season.  In addition to the floor-mounted perimeter hot-water heating system.  Located under most exterior windows.

Keeping the air moving helps to keep the air safe to breathe.  Which allows us to work safely within enclosed buildings.  But this moving air can be a problem if there is a fire in the building.  For in a fire it’s smoke inhalation that kills most people.  So if there is a fire someplace in a building you don’t want the HVAC system to blow that smoke throughout the building.  Especially in areas where there is no fire.  Which is why we interface the HVAC system to the fire alarm system.  When there is no fire alarm condition the HVAC system is free to operate to meet the HVAC design criteria.  Keeping dangerous levels of carbon dioxide from building up.  If there is a fire alarm condition the fire alarm system takes control of the HVAC system to meet the fire alarm system design criteria.  Preventing smoke from spreading throughout the building.  In exchange for a less dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide.  For in a fire alarm condition people will be leaving the building.  So they will be out of the building before any buildup of carbon dioxide can harm them.

Air moves through ductwork.  There is a supply-air duct system.  And a return-air duct system (or a ceiling plenum where all the airspace above the ceiling is the return-air pathway back to an HVAC unit).  They both terminate to an HVAC unit.  The return-air fan pulls air from the building and the supply-air fan blows air back into the building.  Located shortly downstream of an HVAC unit in the supply-air duct is a duct smoke detector.  We wire this into the safety circuit of the HVAC unit.  Which is basically a lot of switches wired in series.  They all have to close for the HVAC unit to start.  Such as the freeze-stat on the heating coil.  Which prevents the unit from blowing freezing air onto a cold heating coil to prevent the water from freezing and breaking the coil.  Also in the safety circuit are end-switches installed on the air dampers.  Which close when the unit isn’t running to prevent heated air from venting out and cold air from migrating in.  Before the fans start these damper have to open.  And once they fully open switches close in the safety circuit clearing these safeties.  Also in this safety circuit is the duct smoke detector.  When the duct smoke detector is powered it closes a set of contacts.  The duct smoke detector safety runs through these contacts.  When closed it clears this safety.  If there is smoke in this duct (or if the duct smoke detector loses power) this set of contacts opens.  Breaking the safety circuit.  And shuts down the HVAC unit.

Providing Smoke-Free Routes out of a Building gives People the best Chance of Surviving a Fire

HVAC units may feed more than one zone in a building.  And if the ductwork serving these units pass through a wall (i.e., a fire/smoke barrier) there will be a fire damper in the ductwork at this location.  Either one with a fusible link that melts in a fire.  And when it melts energy stored in a spring releases and closes the damper.  Preventing smoke from crossing this barrier.  Often times they will install a combination fire/smoke damper.  That will have both a fusible link that will melt in a fire.  And a duct smoke detector and a motor.  When powered up the motor winds up a spring and holds open the damper.  These will also have end-switches on them.  And we will also wire these into an HVAC unit’s safety circuit.  Either hard-wired.  Or by computer programming.  If the detector detects smoke or loses power the contacts open the holding circuit and the energy in the spring will close the damper.  As well as shutting down the HVAC unit connected to that duct.

The reason why we tie these into the safety circuit is that if the HVAC units start up without opening these dampers first dangerous pressures will build up in the ductwork.  And blow them apart.  Which is why there are end switches on the air dampers at the unit.  For if the unit starts with those closed they will blow the dampers apart.  All of a building’s HVAC units and dampers are controlled by a building management system (BMS).  Which makes all the components in the building work harmoniously together.  Varying the speeds of the fans, the positions of the dampers, the position of the valves on the piping serving the heating/cooling coils, etc.  Unless there is a fire alarm condition.  Then the fire alarm system takes control.  And sends a fire alarm signal to the BMS system.  Which, upon receiving this, executes an orderly shutdown of all systems.  So when the fire alarm condition clears it can begin an orderly and safe startup.  Often staggering the starting of the HVAC units to prevent dimming the lights from the power surge if they all started at the same time.

These systems can be even more complex in large buildings.  Stairwells may have a stairwell pressurization system.  If there is a fire alarm condition a dedicated fan will start up and blow air into the stairwell.  And shut down any HVAC units serving areas outside these stairwells.  So there will be a higher pressure inside the stairwell than outside the stairwell.  So air, and smoke, blow out of and not into the stairwell.  Making them safe for people to use to leave a building during a fire.  An even more complex fire alarm system will take over control of the fans and dampers of the HVAC system to ventilate smoke out of building.  Smoke evacuation systems are very complex.  And costly.  But they can save a lot of lives.  As most people die from smoke inhalation in a fire.  So having the ability to provide smoke-free routes out of a building or venting it out of a building gives people the best chance of surviving a fire.  Which we can do when we make some engineering compromises.  And make some tradeoffs between the security, HVAC and the fire alarm designs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

State of the Union, Benghazi, Sequestration and the Politics of Spending

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 14th, 2013

Politics 101

President Obama’s Idea of Compromise and Bipartisanship is Unconditional Surrender

President Obama’s State of the Union Address was a little light on details.  But the general gist is no spending cuts.  And more taxes.  Which makes the sequestration about to hit a crisis in the making for the president.  For it was sort of his idea.  And he did sign it into law.  But to him it was more like playing a game of chicken.  Confident that the Republicans would cave and roll over.  Giving him whatever additional tax increases he wanted to prevent cuts in defense spending.  But the Republicans aren’t blinking.  Because this is the only way they’re going to get any spending cuts.  Even if it means gutting defense spending.  Something the president didn’t consider.

Despite being an architect of the sequestration he called it a stupid idea during the State of the Union.  He doesn’t care about the cuts in defense spending.  He is, after all, a leftist liberal.  And they hate defense spending.  He even denied Ambassador Stevens’ request to beef up security in Benghazi.  Which led to Ambassador Stevens’ death.  Along with three other Americans.  But it’s the equal cuts in things he does care about that has him worried.  That social spending.  The kinds of things that buy votes.  And makes people dependent on government.  Helping to endear the Democrat Party to the American people.  While making them hate the Republican Party.  Who want to take away the great things the Democrats so generously give them.  Even if the government can’t afford to give these things to the American people.

President Obama may talk about compromise and bipartisanship but he doesn’t mean it.  His idea of bipartisanship is unconditional surrender.  He has no interest in meeting Republicans halfway.  He wants to destroy the Republican Party.  And undo the Reagan Revolution.  And bring back the Big Government of the Sixties and Seventies.  When the Democrats ruled supreme.  And you do that with spending money.  Not cutting spending.  Which is why the sequestration bothers him so much.

Running Deficits is OK if it provides for Senior Citizens, Our Children and Clean Stuff

Leading Democrats are saying we don’t have a spending problem.  We’re just not paying enough for the stuff we want.  Which also happens to be the stuff that buys votes.  So the excess spending to buy votes is not the problem.  The problem is that we’re not raising taxes enough to pay for this orgy of spending that is the problem.  We’re not taxing rich people enough.  Or corporations.  And once we do then we won’t be taxing the middle class enough.  And once we do that it probably won’t matter what we do as the country will be so deep in debt that no amount of new taxes will help.  Unless they figure out a way to tax away more than 100% of a person’s earnings.

So low tax revenue is the problem.  Well, that, and spending money on the wrong things.  On things that don’t buy votes.  Things that weren’t on the laundry list President Obama rattled off during the State of the Union that we need to spend more on.  Defense spending.  And…, well, defense spending.  Which is the only thing the Obama administration is willing to consider cutting.  Because we can get a lot of free things by gutting defense.  New programs that won’t add a single dime to the deficit.  Something he said more than once during the state of the union.  Obamacare, for example, will be deficit neutral.  Because the money we were going to spend on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will pay for it.  So even though the spending will still add to the deficit it’s now Obamacare spending.  Not defense spending.  Which is OK.

You see, running deficits is OK if it provides for senior citizens.  Our children.  If it gives us clean water.  And air.  Invests in clean energy.  And in those jobs of the future.  If it builds roads and bridges.  For less face it, we would be nothing without our government-provided roads and bridges.  Which we simply could not have it if it weren’t for government.  (Then again railroads build and maintain their own roads and bridges.  With funds they earn operating their railroads.  But I digress.)   In fact, any deficit reduction that comes from cutting this spending is just about the worst thing in the world we could do.  According to those on the left.  So we should tax rich people and corporations more.  And cut defense spending more.  Because we spend way too much on defense spending anyway.  And for what?  It’s not like we’re going to use it for anything.  Such as protecting our ambassadors in hostile lands.

Defense Spending is the only Spending growing at a Rate less than Total Federal Outlays

If you listened to the State of the Union (and didn’t fall asleep during it) you’ve learned that we don’t spend enough on our social spending.  And too much on defense spending.  That’s what the president said.  But what do the numbers say?  To find out let’s look at federal outlays (see Table 3.1—OUTLAYS BY SUPERFUNCTION AND FUNCTION: 1940–2017).  The following chart graphs the historical data from 1958 to 2011 and the projection for 2012.  We look at 4 areas of spending: defense; education, training, employment and social services; Medicare; and Social Security.  We calculate the spending as a percentage of total spending and graph the results.

Percent of Total Federal Outlays

The one area we spend too much on that the Obama administration is willing to cut is the one area that has seen the greatest decline in spending.  Defense spending.  Which as a percentage of total outlays has fallen while non-defense has trended up or held steady.  This tells us the government has pulled money from defense to pay for these other things.  But this chart doesn’t tell the whole story.  For although Medicare and Social Security have trended up they haven’t taken as big a piece of total spending as defense gave up.  And education spending has been pretty flat.  Perhaps giving credence to President Obama’s claim that we’re not spending enough on education.  But if you look at the year-to-year growth in spending you see a different picture.

Federal Outlays as a Percentage of 1958 Outlays

Here we divide each year’s spending by the spending in 1958 (or 1966 for Medicare).  Showing the increase in spending over time.  This chart also includes total federal outlays.  Which tells a startling story.  Not only is defense spending being gutted to pay for other spending it is the only spending growing less than the growth rate of total federal spending.  While the other three areas are growing at greater rates.  In 2011 Social Security spending was 8,892% of the spending in 1958.  Medicare, which came into existence in 1965, grew at an even greater rate.  In 2011 it was 17,673% of the spending in 1966.  More than twice the growth in less time.  And education spending tracked pretty close to Medicare spending.  In 2011 it was 15,744% of the spending in 1958.  While defense spending in 2011 was only 1,509% of the spending in 1958.

Note that the general trend of increased spending holds regardless of who is in power.  That’s because of baseline budgeting.  Which provides for automatic increases in spending.  When government talks about spending cuts it not really spending cuts.  It a cut in the rate spending increases.  You can see some dips in the graphs and where they may have cut the rate of growth.  But nowhere is there really a cut that results in reducing net spending.  Except for defense.

Increases in spending on education (and training, employment and social services) has grown at a rate greater than most other spending.  And what can we learn by throwing money at education?  Well, based on the president’s remarks, it doesn’t work.  It doesn’t increase the quality of education.  At least based on the great increases year after year that only give us the need to spend more money.  And this spending doesn’t even include the bulk of education spending.  That generated from property taxes.  Which can mean only one thing.  If we’re paying more and need to spend even more the quality of education is not as good as it should be.  Or all that money is going to teachers’ salaries, pensions and health care benefits.

Of all this spending the only sustainable spending is defense spending. For it is the only one growing at a rate less than total federal outlays.  While increases in the other spending is going off the chart.  With the slopes of these graphs getting ever steeper.  And the closer they get to vertical the more impossible it will be able to pay for these programs.  That’s why Medicare is near crisis mode.  With the cost of our aging population pushing that graph closer and closer to vertical.  Where our spending obligations will approach infinity.  Which is, of course, impossible to sustain.

Of all this spending the only sustainable spending is defense spending. For it is the only one growing at a rate less than total federal outlays.  While increases in the other spending is going off the chart.  Contrary to what the president said we are increasing spending in these areas so much that we won’t be able to sustain it.  For there just won’t be enough money to tax away from the people.  Unless we figure out a way to tax away more than 100% of their earnings.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nikola Tesla, Sheldon Cooper, Inventors & Entrepreneurs, Compromise & Tradeoff, Theoretical & the Practical, GM and Hostess

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 4th, 2012

History 101

Geniuses strive for Theoretical Perfection which often doesn’t work in the Market Place

There have been a lot of brilliant inventors that gave the world incredible things.  Nikola Tesla gave us the modern world thanks to his work in electromagnetic fields.  Giving us the AC power we take for granted today.  Electric motors.  The wireless radio.  Etc.  But as brilliant as Tesla was he was not brilliant in making money from his inventions.  He died broke and in debt.  And, some say, insane.  Though he was probably more like Sheldon Cooper on The Big bang Theory.  As one character on the show called him, “The skinny weirdo.”  Tesla had an eidetic memory (often called a photographic memory).  And probably suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).  Which when added to genius can be mistaken for crazy genius.

So Tesla and the fictional Sheldon Cooper have some things in common.  Genius.  And some odd behavioral traits.  As well as something else.  Neither was rich.  Their genius did not make them rich.  Which is a common trait of all brilliant inventors.  Their genius gets in the way of practicality.  They strive for theoretical perfection.  Which often doesn’t work in the market place.  Because perfection is costly.  And this is what separates the theoretical geniuses from practical engineers.  And entrepreneurs.

The internal combustion engine is a technological marvel.  It has changed the world.  Modernized the world.  It gave us inexpensive modes of transportation like cars, trucks, ships, trains and airplanes.  But the engine is not theoretically perfect.  It is a study of compromise and tradeoff.  Providing a final product that isn’t perfect.  But one that is economically viable.  For example, pistons need to compress an air-fuel mixture for combustion.  However, the piston can’t make such a tight seal that it can’t move up and down in the cylinder.  So the piston is smaller than the cylinder opening.  This allows it to move.  But it doesn’t contain the air-fuel mixture for compression and combustion.  So they add a piston ring.  Which contains the air-fuel mixture but restricts the movement of the piston.  So they add another piston ring that takes oil that splashes up from crank case and passes it through the ring to the cylinder wall.  The heat of combustion, though, can leave deposits from the oil on the cylinder wall.  So they add another piston ring to scrape the cylinder wall.

Selling a ‘Low Price’ is a Dangerous Game to Play Especially if you don’t Know your Costs

Every part of the internal combustion engine is a compromise and tradeoff.  Each part by itself is not the best it can be.  But the assembled whole is.  A theoretical genius may look at the assembled whole and want to add improvements to make it better.  Adding great costs to take it from 97% good to 99% good.  While that 2% improvement may result with a better product no one driving the car would notice any difference.  Other than the much higher price the car carried for that additional 2% improvement.

This is the difference between the theoretical and the practical.  Between brilliant inventor and entrepreneur.  Between successful business owner and someone with a great idea but who can’t bring it to market.  The entrepreneur sees both the little picture (the brilliant idea) and the big picture (bringing it to market).  Something that a lot of people can’t see when they go into business.  The number one and number two business that fail are restaurants and construction.  Why?  Because these are often little picture people.  They may be a great chef or a great carpenter but they often haven’t a clue about business.

They don’t understand their costs.  And because they don’t they often don’t charge enough.  A lot of new business owners often think they need to charge less to lure business away from their competition.  And sometimes that’s true.  But selling a ‘low price’ instead of quality or value is a dangerous game to play.  Especially if you don’t know your costs.  Because as you sell you incur costs.  And have bills to pay.  Bills you need to pay with your sales revenue.  Which you won’t be able to do if you’re not charging enough.

If Business Operations can’t Produce Cash a Business Owner will have to Borrow Money to Pay the Bills

The successful small business owners understand both their long-term financing needs.  And their short-term financing needs.  They incur long-term debt to establish their business.  Debt they need to service.  And pay back.  To do that they need a source of money.  This must come from profitable business operations.  Which means that their sales revenue must make their current assets greater than their current liabilities.  The sum total of cash, accounts receivables and other current assets must be greater than their accounts payable, accrued payroll, accrued taxes, current portion of long-term debt, etc.  And there is only one thing that will do that.  Having sales revenue that covers all a business’s costs.

The successful business owner knows how much to charge.  They know how much their revenue can buy.  And what it can’t buy. They make the tough decisions.  These business owners stay in business.  They see the big picture.  How all the pieces of business fit together.  And how it is imperative to keep their current assets greater than their current liabilities.  For the difference between the two gives a business its working capital.  Which must be positive if they have any hope of servicing their debt.  And repaying it.  As well as growing their business.  Whereas if their working capital is negative the future is bleak.  For they won’t be able to pay their bills.  Grow their business.  Or service their debt.  Worse, because they can’t pay their bills they incur more debt.  As they will have to borrow more money to pay their bills.  Because their business isn’t producing the necessary cash.

Those restaurants and construction companies fail because their owners didn’t know any better.  Others fail despite knowing better.  Like GM, Chrysler, Hostess, just about any airline, Bethlehem Steel, most print newspapers, etc.  Who all entered costly union contracts during good economic times.  Costs their revenues couldn’t pay for in bad economic times.  Which was most of the time.  As they struggled to pay union labor and benefits they run out of money before they could pay their other bills.  As their current liabilities exceeded their current assets.  So instead of producing working capital they ran a deficit.  Forcing them to incur more debt to finance this shortfall.  Again and again.  Until their debt grew so great that it required an interest payment they couldn’t pay.  And now they are no longer with us today.  Having had no choice but to file bankruptcy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT143: “When liberals say ‘unite and work together’ they really mean ‘divide and conquer’.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 9th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

President Obama didn’t Moderate any of his Positions after the Punishing Losses of the 2010 Midterm Elections

During President Obama’s victory speech following the 2012 election he said there are no red states and no blue states.  Just the United States of America.  Which was a common theme during all his campaign stops.  He kept saying that together we can do these great things.  If we unite we can overcome any obstacles.  Yet he did anything but unite people during his campaign.  Instead he was a great wedge driver.  To drive people away from each other.  And into opposing camps.  To foment anger between these disparate groups.  And to peel these groups away from the Republicans.

We heard compromise talk like this following the 2008 election.  And what happened then?  There was no uniting or working together.  When it came to the stimulus bill the President and Nancy Pelosi shut the Republicans out.  When the Republicans offered suggestions President Obama brushed them aside.  Saying elections have consequences.  And that the Republicans could make all the suggestions they’d like but it wouldn’t matter.  Because he wasn’t listening.  Nancy Pelosi acknowledged that the Democrats wrote the stimulus bill in its entirety without any Republican input.  Why?  Because they won she smirked.  The Democrats weren’t interested in any bipartisan compromise then.  So it isn’t likely they are now.  Unless it’s the kind of bipartisan compromise they like.  The kind where the Democrats get what they want.  And the Republicans surrender unconditionally.

So there’s ancient history (2008-2010) and the words from the recent campaign that tell us not to hold our breath for all of that uniting and working together to materialize.  It just won’t happen.  For the president didn’t moderate any of his positions after the punishing Democrat losses of the 2010 midterm elections.  So why would he after a triumphant victory of the status quo in 2012?

Democrats warned America that if Mitt Romney became President he would take the Country back to the 1950s

The Democrats have no interest in bipartisan compromise.  Because to compromise you have to give up stuff you want.  And let others have a little of what they want.  But when you look at the negative campaign ads of the past election there can be no compromise.  For the Democrats did not battle the Republicans in the arena of ideas.  They demonized their opponents for thinking differently than they did.  Looking for issues of opportunity to seize.  Such as the war on women.

Catholicism does not permit birth control or abortion.  Extreme positions to some, perhaps.  But not to Catholics.  Who choose to be Catholics.  When Obamacare forced Catholics to provide free birth control and the abortion pill in their health care benefits they took offense.  As did the Republicans.  For the First Amendment states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  And forcing Catholics to provide birth control and the abortion pill clearly prohibited the free exercise thereof.  So the Catholics, and the Republicans, protested this violation of a First Amendment right.  And the Democrats responded to this protest by calling it a war on women.  Where Republicans wanted to take birth control and access to abortion away from women.  As well as wanting women to die from cancer.

The Democrats helped organize the Occupy Wall Street movement to stoke up hatred for rich people.  In anticipation for the Republican nominee they were already planning to campaign against.  Mitt Romney.  A rich person.  But not just any rich person.  But an old rich white man.  Who worked in high finance.  Which, of course, tied him to Wall Street.  A man disconnected from the common people.  And from contemporary times.  The Democrats warned America that if Mitt Romney became president he would take the country back to the 1950s.  Take away women’s birth control and access to abortion.  As well as happily letting them die from cancer.  In addition to cutting taxes for rich people.  While raising taxes on the poor and middle class.  When he wasn’t busy closing down factories and shipping jobs overseas.  And, of course, stacking the deck against blacks, Hispanics and anyone else that wasn’t as white as he.

Liberals must Divide and Conquer as their Records don’t allow them to run any other Campaign

You see, the Republicans are hateful people.  For example, they’re bigots and homophobes because they oppose gay marriage.  So it’s okay to hate Republicans.  Because they hate gay people.  While at the same time they hate women because they want all women to be barefoot and pregnant.  In a marriage.  So on the one hand Republicans are hateful people for trying to prevent gay people from marrying.  While on the other hand they’re hateful people for trying to encourage women to get married.  Making marriage a fascinating issue.  For if gay people want it marriage is a beautiful thing.  An expression of love between two people.  But for single women who want a career it’s nothing less than slavery.  Pure male subjugation of women.

Odd, isn’t it?  How Democrats can be on both sides of the same issue.  For they can both love and hate marriage.  And they can hate Republicans for both opposing and promoting marriage.  How can that be you ask?  Easy.  For marriage is not what’s important to Democrats.  What’s important to them is using marriage to demonize Republicans.  It’s about the hate.  And the opportunity to drive a wedge between people.  To drive people into opposing camps.  That have a common enemy.  Republicans.

Democrats don’t have a great success record for their policies.  They can’t hold up the Carter years as a success.  For they were horrible.  They like to point to the Clinton years as vindication for their policies.  But his economy was helped by Japan’s Lost Decade.  And an inflationary binge that caused the dot-com bubble.  As well as the run up to the subprime housing bubble.  Neither of which burst during his presidency.  Though he was largely responsible for them.  And the Democrats couldn’t point to anything in the Obama years as a success.  So they didn’t run on their record.  But attacked their opponent.  By demonizing Mitt Romney.  Getting one group after another to hate Mitt Romney and the Republicans.  And to vote against them.  Not for the Democrats’ successful policies.  For they had none.  So when liberals say ‘unite and work together’ they really mean ‘divide and conquer’ as they have always done.  As they always must do.  For their records don’t allow them to run any other campaign.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Yorktown, North, Rockingham, Shelburne, Franco-Spanish Alliance, Vergennes, Adams, Franklin, Jay and the Treaty of Paris

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 5th, 2012

Politics 101

For the British to Maintain the Balance of Power in Europe an Independent America actually Helped Them

The war wasn’t over with Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown.  But his surrender changed everything.  The continuing war was becoming more and more unpopular in Britain.  And costly.  Britain was fighting four wars.   One with the Americans.  One with the French.  One with the Spanish.  And one with the Dutch.  The debt was growing so great that there were discussions about suspending some interest payments.  The British wanted out of these wars.  The opposition blamed Lord North for the latest debacle at Yorktown.  The Prime Minister resigned.  His government fell.  And the opposition took power.

The new Prime Minister, Lord Rockingham, had favored American independence.  His foreign secretary, Charles James Fox, had favored American independence.  In fact, those who had favored American independence filled all cabinet positions.  Except for one.  The Secretary of Colonial Affairs.  Lord Shelburne.  Fox and Shelburne did not much care for each other.  They quarreled.  Each having their own idea of how they should conduct the peace.  Fox sent Thomas Green to France to begin negotiations with the French.  Shelburne sent Richard Oswald to France to begin negotiations with the Americans (Benjamin Franklin was in Paris).

The French had a debt problem of their own.  And they, too, were anxious for the war to end.  But on favorable terms.  They were looking to change the balance of power with their eternal enemy.  The British.  And therefore wanted to negotiate the peace for the Americans.  Get back some of their lost North American territories.  And elsewhere.  Meanwhile the Spanish were laying siege to the British in Gibraltar.  Anxious to retrieve that from the British.  They were greatly interested in blocking American westward expansion.  And they also wanted to keep them off the Mississippi River.  Which flowed to the Gulf of Mexico through their Louisiana Territory.  So the politics were quite complex in negotiating the peace.  For the British to maintain the balance of power they enjoyed an independent America actually helped them.  While an independent America actually harmed the French and the Spanish.

Shelburne negotiated Directly with the Americans to use them to gain Favorable Terms with their European Enemies

The original peace commission in Paris was just John Adams.  Few could be found that were more adamant on American independence than he.  And this was a problem for the French foreign minister.  Charles Gravier, comte de Vergennes.  He didn’t like Adams.  Who was not willing to compromise.  Vergennes wanted to end the war.  And stop the financial hemorrhaging.   And he was willing to compromise with the British to make that happen.  Willing to compromise away American independence.  American navigation of the Mississippi River.  American territorial ambitions beyond the Appalachians (leaving Maine, New York City, portions of the Northwest territories, Charleston and Savannah British).  And the American fishing rights off Newfoundland.  He was willing to give all that up to end the war with Britain.  He had only one problem.  John Adams.  Who refused to give up what the Americans were actually fighting for in the first place.

Vergennes instructed the French minister in America, the Chevalier de la Luzerne, to lobby the Continental Congress.  To have them order Adams to be less belligerent.  To be more willing to compromise.  And to accept the wise counsel of the King of France.  The most generous sovereign who made it possible for the Americans to bring the British to the negotiating table.  Luzerne was successful.  Perhaps with a little bribery.  The Congress sent Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and Henry Laurens to join Adams.  With the instructions to follow the advice of the French in the peace negotiations. 

Fox still favored granting American independence.  And he wanted to do it quickly.  To split the allies apart.  And make separate peace treaties to limit the damage.  For the French, Spanish and Dutch could hold out for a grander bargain.  Especially if the fortunes of war turned their way.  As the Spanish were hoping would soon happen at Gibraltar.  So the British warned that their allies could force the Americans to continue the war not for their own interests but that of these Europeans.  He told Green to tell Franklin that Britain was prepared to recognize American independence.  And that it was in America’s best interests to negotiate a separate peace.  Franklin suggested early that Britain may want to throw Canada into the deal.  To help pay for all the damage the British did to American property.  Shelburne wasn’t about to negotiate away Canada.  His answer was to bring up the debt owed to British creditors.  And reimbursing the Loyalists who lost their property in America.  Things that weren’t high on the American list of demands.  Then Rockingham died.  Shelburne became prime minister.  And Fox quit.  Pro-American independence ministers no longer filled the government.  Still, Shelburne continued to negotiate directly with the Americans.  So he could use them to gain favorable terms with their European enemies.

The American Negotiators were being Played by the Best of European Intrigue

In Franklin’s talks with Oswald he made it clear that independence was a prerequisite for peace.  Officially that was a problem for Oswald.  For his original commission from Shelburne directed him to negotiate with a commissioner from the colonies or plantations.  Not a commissioner from the United States of America.  Which, of course, would recognize American independence.  Vergennes urged Franklin and Jay to proceed anyway.  That official recognition could follow in the final peace treaty.  Jay suspected that the French were stalling.  He knew of the siege of Gibraltar.  And didn’t trust the Franco-Spanish alliance.  So he ignored Congress’ order.  And did not listen to the wise French counsel.  Joining Franklin and Adams in stating that independence was a prerequisite for peace.

The American commission had good reason to not trust their European allies.  The French wanted the British to agree to keep the Americans out of the fisheries along Newfoundland.  So they could fish these waters.  A bitter pill for a New Englander like Adams to swallow.  The French were also opposed to the Americans annexing Canada.  What they once called New France.  Before it became British.  While the Spanish were working hard behind the scenes to keep the Mississippi River away from the Americans.  Had they gotten their way the Mississippi south of the Ohio River would have been in Spanish hands.  As well as the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama and parts of Louisiana. 

The American negotiators were being played by the best of European intrigue.  But thanks to the principled men America sent to negotiate the peace the Americans bested the Europeans at their own game.  John Adams.  Benjamin Franklin.  And John Jay.  For the Americas got their independence.  Territory that stretched to the Mississippi River.  And navigation on the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.  Even their fishing rights off of Newfoundland (though they would revisit that issue later).  It would be America’s greatest achievement in diplomacy.  The Treaty of Paris (1783).  And they made this treaty without consulting the French.  Who were miffed.  But thanks to Franklin America and France remained friends.  So the Americans won the Revolutionary War.  And the peace.  While avoiding any entangling alliances with the old European powers.  Not bad for a brand new nation on the world’s stage.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Egypt getting Chummier with Hamas, Hamas Reiterates their Earnest Desire for Israel to Die

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 18th, 2011

Week in Review

Whenever people talk about peace in the Middle East you keep hearing that Israel is the problem.  That they need to compromise.  Go back to the 1967 borders.  If the Israelis did that then there would be peace.  At least, that’s what they say.  But listening to Hamas it doesn’t sound like Israel will get any lasting peace.  No matter what they compromise away (see On Anniversary, Hamas Repeats Vows on Israel and Violence by FARES AKRAM posted 12/14/2011 on The New York Times).

The Hamas movement celebrated the 24th anniversary of its founding on Wednesday by reasserting that it would never recognize Israel nor abandon violence…

Political changes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya augur well for Hamas’s brand of Islamist politics, and the flags of those countries were present on the stage.

This doesn’t sound like anyone who wants to compromise to get a lasting peace.  It sounds more like someone who will refuse to any deal that includes an Israel on the map.  Not much of a bargaining position.  In exchange for land Israel gets nothing but its own demise?  Now I’m no skilled negotiator.  But I don’t think that’s a good deal for Israel.

Oh, incidentally, the one name left out of this report is Iran.  Who is quite chummy with Hamas.  And Hezbollah.  Another group none too keen with an Israel on the map.  All of this Arab Spring doesn’t seem to be favoring Israel.  Especially with the flag of long-time trading partner and neighbor Egypt on the stage with Hamas.  Something that would never have happened with Hosni Mubarak in office.  Of course, he’s no longer in office.  Because Barack Obama told him he had to go.  And he did.  Making the Middle East a far more dangerous place than it has been for a long, long time.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Primary and General Elections

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2011

Politics 101

The Founding Fathers pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor

People have protested and died fighting for the right to vote throughout history.  The American Revolutionary War was over taxation without representation.  Meaning that the American colonies wanted representation in British Parliament.  Something the British government did not allow.  Worse, they started taxing the Americans.  Who had no representation in Parliament.  And this did not go over well with the American colonists.  They had had enough.  They wanted a say in their government.

So the Founding Fathers committed treason.  They signed the Declaration of Independence.  And fought 8 years to have that say in their government.  It took awhile.  And a lot of the signers of the Declaration of Independence suffered for their treason.  They lost their property.  Their wealth.  And even their families.  Who suffered all sorts of brutality at the hands of the British.  These traitors.  Who defied their king.  But the cause persevered.  And the Americans won their independence.  As well as their right to self-government.

Back then people cared.  Enough to pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.  But today?  People have other priorities in life.  Where reality television is more important in their lives than having that say in their government.  For they have no idea what the Founding Fathers paid to give us this cushy life of plenty.  And just assume the good times will continue to roll.  Especially if they keep voting for whoever promises to give them more free stuff.

Candidates move to the Center after Winning their Party’s Nomination and become someone Completely Different

In the country that struggled for 8 years to get the right to vote.  In the country that inspired people all around the world to follow them in the pursuit of happiness.  In the very bastion of liberty and self-government.  In America.  Guess how many people vote today in a typical presidential election.  Little more than half of eligible voters.  And that’s in the general election.  It’s far worse in the primary election.  Where we see maybe half of that turnout.  Which is rather sad.  Considering that these are the people who actually pay attention to politics.  For this is where a political party chooses their candidate for the general election.  You see, each party has a platform.  A set of political ideas.  Their core philosophy.  And the people choose who they think will best advance their party platform in the primary election.

So during the primary election candidates try to be that candidate.  The one who will best advance the party platform.  Typically the conservative moves as far right as possible to show his or her conservative bona fides.  And the liberal moves as far left as possible to show his or her liberal bona fides.  Here they’re trying to appeal to the party base.  The hardcore.  Those who are as far away from the political center as is possible.  Those who don’t give a whit about compromise or bipartisanship.  They want a purebred candidate that will take the country where they feel it should be.  They don’t want someone who will reach across the aisle and compromise away their most cherished principles.

The population roughly breaks down to 40% conservative, 20% liberal and 40% moderate/independent.  Which is all fine and dandy during the primary election.  But it’s a bit of a problem during the general election.  For that 40% moderate/independent forms the political center.  That area the candidates run away from during the primary election.  So they must scramble back to it after winning their party’s nomination.  And hope that most of those in the center didn’t pay attention during the primary.  To make the lying easier.  To no longer be who they said they were during the primary.  But to be someone completely different.  Someone who can reach across the aisle.  Someone who can compromise away their base’s most cherished principles.  Someone who believes politics should be bipartisan.  Or, better still, nonpartisan.  In other words, the last person their base would want.

When the Choice is between two Moderates, Democrats will always Choose the Democrat Moderate

Liberals have to run to the center.  For their base only amounts to about 20% of the electorate.  But it’s not quite the same for conservatives.  At 40% of the electorate they don’t have to run the center.  They only need another 10% or so of the vote to win.  So running to the center actually hurts them.  Because a lot of that political center is Democrat.  And if the vote comes down to 2 moderates they’re going to vote for the Democrat moderate over the Republican moderate every time.  Because all things being equal, a Democrat will vote for a Democrat.

When the Republicans ran a moderate who campaigned as someone who would reach across the aisle and compromise away his base’s most cherished principles, John McCain didn’t get the moderate vote.  They voted for the Democrat.  Who lied during the general election and ran as a moderate.  Sometimes he even talked like a conservative.  Even though Barack Obama was as liberal as they came.  At least based on his voting record in public office.

When Republican Ronald Reagan won his party nomination he didn’t run to the center.  He remained a conservative.  And he won.  Because a lot of Democrats voted for him.  The Reagan Democrats.  Because there was a real difference between him and Jimmy Carter.  There was a conservative and a liberal.  And the Reagan Democrats decided to vote for the conservative because they liked the conservative message better than the liberal message.  But when the choice is between two moderates who promise to reach across the aisle more than the other there’s no real difference between the candidates.  And no reason to vote for the other guy when he or she is no different than the one from your own party.

Ignoring the Primary Elections ignores the Philosophical Debate and turns the General Election into a Populist Contest

It is a shame the level of voter apathy in the country that stands for self-government.  Almost half of the eligible voters ignore politics 3 years out of 4.  And only vote in the presidential general election.  It’s a shame because we have a 2-party system.  Like it or not.  There are only two core political philosophies to choose from.  For those in the middle don’t have a philosophy.  A party.  A party platform.  A primary election.  Or a political convention.  They only get involved once every 4 years at the general election.  And ultimately end up voting for a Democrat or a Republican.  Even though they refuse to identify themselves with either party.

But ignoring the primary elections ignores the party platforms.  The meat and potatoes of the philosophical debate.  And turns the general election into nothing but a populist contest.  True democracy.  Mob rule.  With the winner often being the one who promises the most to the least politically informed.

Politics has come a long way since the Founding Fathers pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.  It’s probably a good thing they’re not here to see what has become of their self-government.  They wouldn’t like what they would see.  Especially the voter apathy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #77: “Liberals only call for bipartisan compromise when they’ve lost majority power and can no longer dictate policy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2011

The Liberal Ruling Class hails from the Ivy League

Liberals hail from the Ivy League.  Where they’re taught important life skills.  Arrogance.  Conceit.  And condescension.  It is here at these universities that they learn to hold everyone in contempt.  Yes, there are some out there with true liberal bona fides that didn’t go to the Ivy League, but they are the exception.  Not the rule.  These people may bleat the liberal line as well as the Ivy Leaguer, but they are not going to ascend to the Ruling Class.  And though they won’t admit it, the Ruling Class holds most of these liberals in contempt, too.

Amassing wealth and power in a few, elite hands is nothing new.  Even in early America.  The Planter Elite of the Deep South were a small minority of the population.  But they held the wealth and power in the Deep South.  And they wielded it during the Philadelphia Convention.  They held the founding of the new nation hostage.  Unless the land where all men were created equal had slavery there would be no new nation.  So there was slavery.  And the Ruling Class of the Deep South gave themselves extra political clout in the new federal government.  Thanks to the Three-Fifths Compromise.  The minority planter elite were able to inflate their numbers by counting 3/5 of each slave.  Thus inflating their numbers in the House of Representatives.

So for the first 50 years or so of the new nation the new federal government spoke with a decidedly southern accent.  And often dictated policy in the new nation.  And for those 50 or so years the Deep South was happy to be part of the union.  Because they sort of ran the show.  Then all that immigration into the north started to change the balance of power in the House of Representatives.  Which left the presidency (where they did whatever they could to make sure the president would be sympathetic to southern views and willing to compromise to save the union).  And the Senate.  And to maintain power in the Senate they had to hold on to slavery. 

The Planter Elite used Slavery to Concentrate Wealth and Power in their Hands

The Ruling Class, the Planter Elite (approximately 5% of the Southern population), used slavery to concentrate wealth and power in their hands.  It was truly an old-school aristocracy in the Deep South.  The ‘landed aristocracy’ in these states owned these states.  And up to the mid 19th century they took this disproportionate power to Congress.  They advanced and blocked legislation to protect their slaveholding interests.  To maintain their minority rule.  Their power.  And their wealth.

As immigration began to tip the balance of power away from them they turned their focus to the Senate.  Each state got two senators.  Population numbers didn’t matter.  What mattered was that there wasn’t more ‘free’ states than ‘slave’ states.  And that there was no prevailing antislavery sentiment.  As there was throughout the northern states at the time.  Not only did they eschew slavery, they weren’t even returning runaway slaves to their rightful owners.  So while they could the Planter Elite would use the power of the federal government to override any state law they felt counterproductive to their interests.  And dictate policy to these recalcitrant northern states.

For you see, slavery is a lot like socialism.  It doesn’t work well when those trapped in it can escape it.  And that was a problem for the Deep South.  Their slaves were escaping to these northern states.  And these uppity northern state governments refused to return this southern ‘property’.  Not only were they taking a financial loss on these runaway slaves, but this northern sanctuary was encouraging more slaves to run away.  This would not do.  So they passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 compelling them to return these slaves to bondage.  Or be fined and/or jailed.  This did not go over well in the North.  And it placed the country on the road to civil war.

The Civil War was a Battle between Privileged Aristocracy and the Equality of Self-Government

All during the run up to the Civil War, the Ruling Class, the planter elite of the Deep South, participated in the democratic process.  Because for a long time they were free to dictate a lot of U.S. policy.  From a stacked deck (thanks to the Three-Fifths Compromise).  And repeated threats of secession if they didn’t get their way.  Politicians on both sides of the slavery issue made compromise after compromise to keep the union together.  But that all changed with the election of Abraham Lincoln.  A Republican.   Which was the party taking a moral stance on the issue of slavery.  This did not bode well for the Ruling Class. 

South Carolina seceded first.  Then the rest followed.  The planter elite in these states led their states out of the union.  And into civil war.  Arguing that Lincoln’s federal government was going to infringe on their states’ rights (in particular their right to continue the institution of slavery).  They called it the War of Northern Aggression even though they fired the first shot at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.  And they told their brave soldiers to fight these Yankee invaders to protect their country (i.e., state), their families and their way of life.  And they did.  Some 300,000 dying in the process.  But not to maintain the institution of slavery.  For 95% of all Southerners didn’t own any slaves.  They fought to protect their country, their families and their way of life.  Most of which was a life of backbreaking labor on a small patch of land they called the family farm.  That was in no way threatened by the North.  But the Ruling Class lied.  To protect their interests.  Their wealth.  And sacrificed a generation of their own people.  Because to them, they were as expendable as the slaves on their plantations.  Actually, they were more expendable.  For Confederate soldiers didn’t show up on their balance sheets.  But slaves did.

The Confederate soldier fought valiantly.  But lost.  In what was a battle between the Old World.  And the New World.  Between the privilege of aristocracy.  And the equality of self-government.  Between the Ruling Class.  And ordinary Americans.  The balance of power shifted.  Away from the Deep South.  But, alas, not to the people.  Instead, to the North East.  To the Ivy League.  Where another Ruling Class would rise.  And take over the reins of government.  Keeping class warfare alive and well in the United States.

Tea Party Republicans are Decidedly Anti-Ruling Class

The players may change but the Ruling Class lives on.  Those who feel entitled to an elevated position because of their birthright.  Or wealth.  Most often both.  Which is what you need to get into the Ivy League.  And you have to think correctly.  Which isn’t too much of a problem for they make sure you do so in their curriculum.  Which is heavy on liberal progressivism.  And light on staying out of other people’s business.

Case in point, Obamacare.  Universal health care.  The holy grail of liberalism.  The people didn’t want it.  Based on the polling.  And the town hall meetings.  They didn’t want the government intruding into their health care.  But they had both houses of Congress.  So they could do just about anything they wanted.  Dictate policy.  And sneak things through in the dead of night.  Which they did to make Obamacare law.  Strictly along pure partisan party lines.  Some of their members paid the ultimate price and lost in the following election.  But they take care of their own.  The Ruling Class.  Though out of office, they’re never out of power.

That is until a bunch of uppity freshmen Republicans descended on Congress.  Tea Party Republicans we call them.  And decidedly anti-Ruling Class.  And they’ve become a problem.  For they won’t accept the established order.  They can’t be bought.  And they don’t care if they get reelected.  The boobs.  All they care about is keeping their campaign promises.  Which is anathema to the Ruling Class.

And soon the shoe was on the other foot.  The Ruling Class lost the House in the 2010 midterm election.  And had to deal with obstructionism.  And by obstructionism I mean responsible governing.  Per the will of the people.  From that contemptible Tea Party.  For they are interfering with the natural order of things.  That is, letting liberals do whatever they want.  So now the liberals cry foul.  And demand bipartisan compromise.  Until they can dictate policy again.  They way it should be.  According to the Ruling Class.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #77: “Liberals only call for bipartisan compromise when they’ve lost majority power and can no longer dictate policy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 2nd, 2011

English Law and Capitalism gave People Freedom few knew in the 18th Century

Politics is a class struggle.  The ruling class against everyone else.  The ruling elite fights to keep the power in the hands of the privileged few.  While everyone else tries to wrest it away.  So they can live a better life.  Free from tyranny.  And oppression.

Life was pretty good in British North America.  The colonies were growing.  Their English law and free market capitalism gave people freedom that few knew in the 18th century.  Over in Europe the masses were poor and worked for subsistence.  Over in British America, though, a thriving middle class was emerging.  Like I said, life was pretty good.  Until the French had to go and spoil everything.

Great Britain and France were at war.  Again.  And this one was a world war.  The Seven Years’ War (the French and Indian War in North America).  Great Britain ultimately prevailed.  And made all French North America British.  We call it Canada today.  But conquering a world power and managing an empire that stretched around the globe was expensive.  And to make matters worse, the treasury was running low.  They needed more tax revenue.  But Britain’s land owning aristocracy was already heavily taxed.  And they were none too keen on paying any more.  So what to do?

Well, there was this.  There was a vast continent on the other side of the Atlantic with a lot of wealth that just got a whole lot safer thanks to some brilliant, and very expensive, military engagements.  Surely, they would not refuse to pay for some of the safety they gained in the recent war.

The London Ruling Class wouldn’t let a bunch of Backwoods Upstarts challenge their Authority

Well, as it turned out, yes, they could.  And did.  And don’t call me Shirley.

At the time, the American colonialists were proud Britons.  They loved their way of life.  And the representative government enshrined in Parliament.  Based on the Rule of Law.  Only thing was that they had no say in Parliament.  No representation.  Which was fine.  For awhile.  Being that far from the seat of government had its advantages.  But it was a different story when that distant power started flexing its muscle.  And a great power desperate for money could be rather presumptuous.

Now the colonists were reasonable people.  They were willing to make some kind of bipartisan deal of fair-share sacrifice.  But they wanted to talk about it.  They want to sit in Parliament.  And they wanted more say about their future on the new continent.  They were already very unhappy with some of the treaty details the British made with the French.  And the Indians.  Forbidding western expansion?  And allowing the French Canadians to practice their Catholicism in their very backyard?  No.  These would not do.  Americans had to have more say in America’s future.  And the British response?  “Shut your bloody mouths you insolent swine.  You do as we say.  And like it.”

I’m paraphrasing, of course, but you get the gist.  The ruling class in London wasn’t about to listen to a bunch of backwoods upstarts challenging their authority.  No, they were going to dictate policy from London.  And the Americans were going to accept their second class status and do as they were told.  Well, long story short there was a rebellion, the colonies declared their independence from Great Britain and a new confederation of states was born.

After Winning Independence the States got Drunk on Democracy

The Revolutionary War lasted from 1775 until the Treaty of Paris formally ended the war in 1783.  It was a long and bitter war.  Especially in the South where it evolved into a civil war between Patriot and Loyalist.  Independence did not come easy.  Nor was it cheap.  Like Great Britain, the young confederation of states racked up a large war debt.

With the common enemy defeated the several states went their own ways.  And threatened to destroy what they just won.  Some states were fighting over land.  Over tariffs.  Trade.  The united confederation of states wasn’t very united.  And they were more on the road to becoming another war-plagued Europe than the great nation envisioned by George Washington and the others who had served in the Continental Army.  Who saw the greater America.  Beyond the borders of their own state.

And the worst danger was democracy.  Mob-rule.  Religious persecution.  And the general feeling you didn’t have to do anything you didn’t want to.  The people were drunk on democracy.  They were voting themselves whatever they wanted.  In debt?  No problem.  We’ll pass debtor laws to protect you and rip up those contracts you signed.  Or we’ll give you worthless money we’ve printed to pay your debts.  And we’ll pass a law forcing creditors to accept this worthless money as legal tender.  Even though it’s worthless.  The Rule of Law was collapsing.  As was the new ‘nation’.

Madison and Jefferson feared the Power a Permanent Government Debt Gave 

This was quite the pickle.  An oppressive ruling class was bad.  But so was mob-rule.  They needed something else.  Something between these two extremes.  That would somehow strike a delicate balance between responsible governing.  And liberty.  The solution was federalism.  As created in a new Constitution.  Drafted during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia.  Which created a new central government.  That shared power with the states.

Getting the new constitution ratified wasn’t easy.  Most of the old Patriots from the Revolutionary days hated the thought of a new central government.  They didn’t trust it.  This was just King George all over again.  Only on this side of the Atlantic.  The wrong side.

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison worked tirelessly for ratification.  They wrote a series of essays explaining why it was the best compromise possible.  These essays became the Federalist Papers.  An extensive set of checks and balances would greatly limit the powers of the new federal government.  And the only thing the new central government would do would be the things the several states couldn’t do well.  Coin money, treat with other nations, raise an army and navy, etc.

Hamilton and Madison succeeded.  The constitution was ratified.  And the United States of America was born.  And soon thereafter Hamilton and Madison (and Jefferson who was out of the country during the Constitutional Convention) parted ways philosophically.  Hamilton wanted to assume all the states’ debts and fund it.  It was the right thing to do because they had to pay it to be taken seriously on the world stage.  But this scared both Madison and Jefferson.  They feared the power a permanent government debt gave.  Money and government was (and still is) a dangerous combination.  All the world powers consolidated money and power in their capitals.  And all the great mischief of the Old World was a direct result of this combination.  It’s what lets the ruling class oppress the people.  Money and power concentrated into the hands of a privileged few.

Had Liberals lived during the Revolution they would have been Loyalists

Fast forward a few hundred years and we see exactly what Madison and Jefferson feared.  The federal government is bloated beyond the Founding Fathers worst nightmares.  And handling such vast sums of money that would even make Alexander Hamilton spin in his grave. 

We’ve come full circle.  We began by rejecting a distant ruling class.  And we now have a distant ruling class again.  In Washington.  Made up of liberal Democrats.  And obedient RINO Republicans who toe the liberal line.  And the nation has a permanent debt so large that we’ll never pay it off.  Thanks to out of control government spending.  It’s as Madison and Jefferson feared.  All of that spending and debt require ever more taxation.  And ever more borrowing.  And whenever taxation and borrowing is not enough, they manufacture a crisis to scare us into raising both taxes and the borrowing limit.  For we have no choice.  Because if we don’t the consequences will be unbearable.

This is the liberal way.  Big Government.  The bigger the better.  With all power concentrated into as few hands as possible.  Their hands.  The privileged few.  The ruling elite.  Who like to dictate policy when they have majority power.  And cry foul when they don’t.  For the only interest they have in bipartisan compromise is when they can’t have their way.   

Liberals like to invoke the Founding Fathers (and Ronald Reagan) whenever they can in some twisted explanation of why they would support their policies (i.e., the new central government was created to raise taxes and therefore would approve high taxes).  But their actions are clearly more consistent with King George and his ruling class than the Founding Fathers.  And had they lived during the Revolution, no doubt they would have been Loyalists.  To support and maintain the ruling class.  And their privilege.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries