Known but to God

There is a tomb in Washington D.C. with the inscription: "Here Rests In Honored Glory An American Soldier Known But to God" an epitaph inspired by patriarchs in the waning years of the Great War of 1912, World War One. [please listen to Adagio for Brass and think of our servicemen while reading]

As a nation we honor our war dead, those who died serving to protect the law, the constitution, of These United States.

In an age where wars are fought out of frustration. Where nations are invaded due to a single act of terror that was precisely directed at major institutions of U.S. strength and power, we persevere in the hearts of the free. The problem lays in those that do not understand what sacrifice means. Terrorists sacrifice themselves in the light of day to bring focus to their plight. Their sacrifice killed many innocent U.S. citizens. Men and women who went to work on that September day with diligence in their hearts. If they weren't diligent, they survived because they weren't at work. Flight crews, military personnel, financial managers...one and all. They went to work. Flight crews ferried passengers across a nation, for business and pleasure. Financial managers went to work, building a nation. Military personnel reported to work to protect a nation. All, on one day, fell victim to an attack against this nation. Those responsible for killing our national protectors and our national People were put into the sights of our powerful military. Those that wished that a blow to finance and defense would drop a nation to its knees were found cowering in caves in a foreign land. Found nationless, found desperate, these terrorists were routed out.

The events of 9/11/2001 are not unique to superpowers. Global dissension comes from a culture that is not accustomed to usury and power. Islam despises capitalism for its usury, for its prosperity. This nation revolted against taxation. This nation revolted against oppression. This nation saw Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. This nation set itself against monarchy and tyrannical rule. This nation is a bastion of freedom and liberty. No other nation can see the true freedom that the People of the U.S. enjoy via a constitution that lawfully lays out the rights of man, the law of freedom.

This constitution is, currently, under attack from without and from within. Men have fought to protect the constitution's implications to this nation. Men and women, currently fight to uphold their OATH to the constitution. Honor them, honor those that rush in to the battlefield while others continue their lives. Honor those that leave their homes and pick up arms to fight foreign entities that would wish harm to those that simply stay at home and go to work for the betterment of their homeland. Honor goes to those that pick up arms and protect you from those who wish you harm. Honor goes to those unknown men and women who protect and serve the constitution that founded your way of life. HONOR goes to those that die on the battlefield for you and your freedoms,,,only to come home in a box. Sometimes that box contains the remains of a soldier, fighting for you, that cannot be identified. Sometimes that soldier died unknown to many but fighting for all. That soldier may only be Known but to God. ~The Tomb of The Unknown Soldier~

Remember your neighbor, remember your countrymen, remember those that serve to protect this Constitutional Republic this Veterans Day.

Sphere of Influence.

Cultural issues are on the rise as is evident in the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Montana Wolf issue and even in religious freedom on ski slopes (blog below).

What fascinates me about these struggles is their origins. It's all about the rights of man and beast. The struggle is to prove which idea is superior or whose culture is superior. Democracy is based on superiority and the Occupy Wall Street movement embraces that with "The 99% against the 1%". Where does this superiority come from and is it moral?

Let's look at both the 99% and the 1%. The protesters, the ninety nine percent, are the majority in influence based on physical superiority. The financial elite, the one percent, are the majority in influence based on monetary superiority. It doesn't make sense to say that both sides have a majority in influence, because money doesn't have rights, physical people do. But, yet that is exactly what is being protested, that the 1% has too much influence through financial (economic) channels and that their physical superiority should have the influence through social (society) channels. This is the classic socioeconomic struggle. The rights of the people are their morals. Most of these rights seemed to be handed down through religion with all of the "shall" and "shall nots". Moral superiority, therefore, is held by the people in their god-given rights. We don't need religion to know what is right and wrong, what is moral and just. So we'll keep this somewhat secular.

"Sphere of Influence" is a geopolitical term used to describe one culture's influence within another, or the superiority of one culture over another. The Anglosphere is one such example and is described as all english-speaking cultures; England, the U.S., Canada and Australia as well as several nations within the African continent, India and Pakistan, because English is their official language even though it isn't the majority language. Interesting how the U.S. doesn't have an official language, but English is the majority language. Sphere of Influence doesn't have to be relegated to language, but includes any cultural norm, or moral value shared with multiple cultures. People will argue that the Anglosphere is bigoted and for good reason because it bases its existence on the idea that English is the superior language of these cultures and the definition of racism is: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." But there are other sphere's of influence such as the Sinosphere that includes many nations in Asia whose language is based on Chinese or Kanji. The Hispanosphere is made up of all countries that have a Spanish-speaking population, to include the U.S. The U.S. is in two spheres of influence? Yes, multiple spheres (melting pot of spheres of influence) and just like those that say the Anglosphere is bigoted and that the 1% have too much influence, the issue is far more complex than just catch-phrase generalizations.

To break it down and pick through the complexities of these spheres let's break it down caveman style, down to the most basic influences. To do this I want to write a little about the history of the grey wolf and a microcosm in part of Montana that is currently dealing with one of these struggles; Ravalli County. The history of the grey wolf is pretty well-known, especially in areas where the animal once roamed in vast numbers and by people within the environmental movement. Wolves have spheres of influence just like we humans do, but this is not to say that we share environments as we have evolved beyond living in caves and dens in a hunter/gatherer culture. Our environment now consists of man-made structures and machines. This is an environment that wolves do not share with us, just as we would not survive comfortably in their environment. Our sphere of influence does, however, overlap into theirs via wilderness designations and setting aside national forests and the formation of the Endangered Species Act. The overlap in these spheres has a dark past for both them and us, because we could not live within their sphere of influence, or rather our livestock couldn't live, so we pushed them out and eradicated them from the lower 48. Those species that they once predicated upon began to thrive and grew in numbers and we hunted the elk and raised the livestock and expanded our sphere of influence, becoming a superior influence in their old environment. So superior, it seems, that we've brought them back to flourish in their old stomping grounds. Their sphere of influence has grown massively since their reintroduction, biologists would call this their expanding territory. The hunting of wolves has, once again, been allowed. This is simply to manage the sphere of influence by forcing ourselves into theirs and limiting their influence in ours. It is easy to see why environmental groups are so upset about it right now, because they see history starting to repeat itself. Let's revisit that definition of racism, but with a slight change in the wording:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various species determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own species is superior and has the right to rule others." Speciesism? Animal rights versus human rights and spheres of influence. While I know wolves can't form doctrine, they do have instincts or beliefs and their instinct is to kill, indiscriminately. This is the trait that we struggle against in trying to cope with them as they expand their sphere of influence, their territory, to become the superior species in the environment and our sphere of influence. Matt Kanenwisher, a Ravalli County commissioner, put together a fact-finding board to see how the wolves are influencing and impacting the citizens of the West Fork of the Bitterroot. This area is the major overlap between the two spheres of influence and the source of contention on both sides of the issue. His presentation can be found on YouTube. There is data supporting a decline in elk populations and official reports of attacks, by wolves, on livestock. This is a real issue where we have to look at the superiority in the spheres of influence of multiple species to see if we are going to be superior, or if the wolves are going to be superior. Our superiority in this case will ensure the survival of all of the other species there. The culture in Ravalli County will have to change drastically to accommodate the wolves' influence, because we can't make wolves accommodate our influence without the use of hunting, which led to eradication in the first place. That's the caveman style struggle. So, let's go back to a couple of these other issues and let's face fact that these are cultural issues.

The Occupy Wall Street movement pits wealthy elites and their sphere of influence against the rest of the population's sphere of influence. We can see that their influence comes from money and our influence comes from shear numbers. Again, rewording the definition for racism comes in handy:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various classes of wealth determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own class is superior and has the right to rule others." Classism actually is a real "ism" defined as: prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class. The reworded definition of racism also fits. The people in the Occupy Wall Street movement say this isn't about class warfare, but it truly is and to lie about that is disingenuous. The warfare, or struggle for superiority, in the Bitterroot shows that point as well.

Lastly I want to use the reworded definition again for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the issue that got me thinking about spheres of influence in the first place:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human ideologies determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own ideology is superior and has the right to rule others. Ideologism? Doesn't quite roll eloquently off the tongue but "Ideologue" does.

Ideologue: an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

That could be used to describe both religious organizations and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. One sphere of influence seeking superiority over another is always seen as a struggle where the only loser is society itself. The struggle between wolf and man is only different because it is purely about survival on a primitive level. An atheist's survival is not based on a statue on a mountain in Montana. Struggle for survival can lead to the moral high-ground. That is moral superiority: ensuring survival, ensuring continued existence and avoiding eradication. That is exactly why racism has to be stopped and why speciesism has to be stopped, why classism has to be stopped and why ideologues have to be stopped. The survival of all species, all races, all classes, all ideas is superior to a one-sided society. This is why liberty trumps equality and egalitarianism. The survival of liberty AND equality is the key. Last I checked, this country was founded on both of those ideas. That sphere of influence isn't necessarily ours either. That idea came from the Age of Enlightenment and was used in the Storming of the Bastille and the three important words: Liberté, égalité, fraternité (Liberty, equality, fraternity). Yes, the U.S. does fall into another sphere of influence. Funny how the best ones tend to overlap more frequently in one place.

One last reworded definition:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human morals determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own morals are superior and has the right to rule others.

Moralism: (Philosophy) the practice of moral principles without reference to religion.

For any organic cultural shift there has to be something that all people can agree to shift towards. Freedom from Religion? You'll never be free from it and its sphere of influence, so why not expand a sphere of moralism and maybe one day a better form of religion will emerge, organically.

Go ahead and think of any derision in society and use the definition of racism as a template:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Just replace the words "races" and "race" with any human condition or remove "human" also for other conditions. The resulting "ism" will certainly point you in the right direction in any argument just as it does by being accused of racism.

Try it with:

"Climate theory" (maybe even expand the english language: "climatetheorism")

"Environment"

"Politics"

"Legal Entity" (Corporation vs. an Individual) "Legalentitism" would be a good one to spring on some corporate elites who see themselves as Too Big To Fail and deserve taxpayer dollars to line their coffers or use their superior campaign contributions to get what they want out of government. They have no respect for the individual's survival.

The resulting "ism" will always be the term to show bigotry in the argument to help you push for the moral high-ground...

Bigoted: obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

...in any issue with two sides that is causing derision of epic proportions in this day and age. Remember that the moral high-ground comes from the most primitive of needs: Survival of all and the continuance of both sides of the issue within both spheres of influence. It won't be easy to do, just as the case between wolves and humans, but that's why they call it a struggle.

(I certainly hope I haven't recreated any of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals with this philosophy. He tended to move towards removing liberty from society. Mine is intended to preserve it.)

Holy Big Mountain Jesus.

Ski resorts have a nice symbiotic relationship with the Federal Government by leasing public lands for private use. This isn't unique to just ski resorts, for example Plum Creek Timber leases public lands to harvest timber. What is unique is that ski resorts build permanent structures and rarely will the lease run out or be revoked. Instead, most resorts will actually expand their leased areas to expand their runs and their capacity. Ski resorts such as Big Mountain have a long history of providing a business and a heritage to local areas. Memorials and art are found at some of these locations.

In 1953 the Knights of Columbus of Whitefish Montana wanted to dedicate a memorial to WWII veterans. Their idea was to erect a statue on the well-known mountain that has become a mecca for downhill skiers. That statue, The Big Mountain Jesus, actually isn't as well-known as the mountain itself, until just recently when a atheist group from Wisconsin was informed about the statue and that it violates the separation of church and state. I'll return to that argument in a moment, but first let's look at another iconic statue in Montana that sits on U.S. National Forest land: Our Lady of the Rockies.

This statue sits in the Butte Ranger District of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and to visit the statue you have to drive through the Jefferson Ranger District as well. The website for the statue states that it was "built in the likeness of Mary, Mother of Jesus." That is obvious, but what isn't obvious is the intention of the statue to be "entirely nondenominational and was dedicate to[sic] by workers to woman[sic] everywhere, especially mothers." I suppose the Cristo Redentor in Rio de Janeiro is nondenominational too or the Star of David on the Israeli flag doesn't mean only a Jewish culture. I'm not advocating the removal of Our Lady of the Rockies from Federal land, nor am I advocating that Big Mountain Jesus's intentions be played down as a nondenominational icon.

Enter Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Madison Wisconsin group Freedom From Religion Foundation. Gaylor is advocating removal of the Big Mountain Jesus (BMJ) who, according to the Associated Press, says; "This has huge meaning for Americans. And if you aren't religious it has huge meaning as well. If skiers think it is cute, then put it up on private property. It is not cute to have a state religious association." Her advocacy is, in and of itself, dogma and is no different than religious dogma. Gaylor looks to force her will to have a symbol removed from public land leased by private industry. What's interesting about this group from Wisconsin is that they are worlds apart from Montana in the fact that Wisconsin land is 94.4% privately owned and 5.6% Federally owned whereas Montana land is 70.1% privately owned and a whopping 29.9% Federally owned. So the people of this country own more of Montana than they do of Wisconsin. Yet, here we have a group telling people to go put these symbols on private land and not just on land leased by private industry. That can be done, but looking at Wisconsin vs. Montana, it can be done more easily in Wisconsin with more private land.

Statistics is always a strawman argument so let's look at what the Bill of Rights says about religion and government:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The whole first amendment is pretty powerful. It covers a wide area of rights all related to our right to organically dictate our culture without interference from the Federal Government. Interference from the government would be considered social engineering and is not organic nor democratic.

When I was in high school there was a statute that afforded students exemption from major tests, homework and essays from being due on Thursdays because most churches held services on Wednesday nights. This springs from the McGowan v. Maryland case that challenged the Sunday Closing Laws. The Supreme Court rejected the Establishment Clause challenge by claiming that our culture surrounding a day off is secular and establishing that day as Sunday is just an easy standardization that also takes into account "the dominant Christian sects." Here's where today's secularists get hung up: "make no law respecting the establishment", they paraphrase it differently or perhaps literally; they will not allow congress or the state to respect the establishment of religion. However, "respecting" and "respect" are two different connotations.

We need to return to Freedom from Religion Foundation's argument about BMJ. They claim it is a "ruse and a sham" to consider the statue a historic marker. Gaylor told the Associated Press; "This has been an illegal display. The lease should have never happened. Just because a violation is long lasting doesn't make it historic. It makes it historically bad. It makes it worse. It makes it all the more reason to get rid of it." I'm going to inject my own personal impression here and say that as I read this woman's comments I hear a lot of anger and hatred for this symbol and not any consideration or respect for others who have a love and adoration for this symbol. It is that dogma that has her secular views treading in, or on (pun intended), the same waters as her argument is directed against. The thing is, her symbol is "nothing" and cannot offend anyone, yet her actions offend many and are just as abrasive to the locals as the symbol of BMJ's image, supposedly, is to her. My question to her would not be "why does this offend you" it would be "how can you disrespect what this symbolizes". It seems to me, if she had some twisted amendment in the Bill of Rights to back her up, she'd have St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City torn down or even the Cathedral of St. Helena in Montana's capital city demolished and removed from her view so as to not offend her and other atheists worldwide. The Crusades were pious people going after heretics, Gaylor's movement seems to be secularists going after organic culture (locals devoted to the symbol of BMJ). Equal freedoms doesn't mean equal atrocities and no where in the constitution are her views supported. However, congress or the state shall make no laws respecting her dogma and establishment of her views as well. Paradoxically if read the way secularists interpret the amendment, it doesn't respect her views. So who's inalienable right is being infringed? The private business on leased public land respecting the symbol erected in memorial of WWII veterans or the private secularist foundation that has no respect for the symbol?

Former state legislator and Montana secretary of state, Bob Brown sums it up pretty well:

We all agreed around the table this is a tempest in a teapot. This is making trouble for us in our little community. Why don't they just leave us alone? We are accustomed to it. It is part of our tradition here. So we are thinking, 'why does anyone want to tear that down.'

They won't leave us alone because they don't respect us and our traditional norms, Bob, and those norms are seen as vile and offensive in other cultures like those in Wisconsin. This isn't about secularism, really, it is about standardizing and equalizing an engineered society. Most places call that egalitarianism, I call it totalitarianism. The first amendment protects us from totalitarianism and state-engineered society, so Foundations such as Freedom From Religion dictate to us how our culture should be formed. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are the perfect solution to that social engineering. These foundations and organizations will force their ideals upon us saying that it isn't cute to use symbols of organized religion all the while using the Constitution to back them up. How can they not see the hypocrisy in that? Let the organization of religion force their views on the atheists and see how ugly the battle gets. The sleight of hand with these foundations must be exposed. These atheists are hiding behind the constitution as they see it interpreted but don't see that it protects others from what they are trying to do. The "free expression" of Big Mountain Jesus is protected. If it offends you, don't ski there. If you can't respect Big Mountain's tradition in honoring WWII veterans, maybe they should have you removed.

This is why I don't advocate Our Lady of the Rockies to be removed nor Big Mountain Jesus's intentions to be changed to a nondenominational icon. Both actions are absurd and ridiculous, because I am just one person. Freedom is Freedom. Liberty is Liberty. If the majority in our society see fit that our culture no longer shall use religious symbols, then the society has organically shifted away from these symbols, regardless of their location. If the majority start to see that statues of the Virgin Mary or Jesus are nondenominational, than culture has organically moved away from seeing them as religious symbols. But, to have a small group of atheists impose their culture on the whole of the society is not organic. They may have found a way to get around the Constitution's prohibition of governmental social engineering, but that doesn't mean that the Constitution gives them free reign to socially manipulate our "free expression". The 1st Amendment is worded very well to protect us not only from the Federal Government, but also from small organizations that fall just outside of that purview as well. If Gaylor ran for President, she'd lose all of the power she thinks she has. Using the courts and the Constitution to make laws respecting an establishment of religion is prohibited and negates her entire argument regardless if she is part of an NGO or a government official. Trying to use the system to negate itself is paradoxical and is like trying to build a bottle around the water rather than putting the water into the bottle. If you're prohibited from putting the water into the bottle, than you don't have bottled water,,,period. Okay, that's a weak analogy for such a convoluted issue. No one can take the position of the state to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, not even Gaylor and her Foundation of atheists. However, she has a concentrated group of people who advocate a belief, therefore they have their own "religion" that is protected also from the state and no one can take the position to make a law respecting that. They can't be prohibited by law and they can not use the that same right to prohibit others. That's the paradox. So why do they think they have the power to do just that? More pointedly; How have they been able to form a foundation with the sole purpose of Freedom From Religion? Here's an extension of that paradox. They are manipulating more and more people to advocate their ideas and are growing in numbers to become the majority so that they can claim that this movement, this cultural shift, is organic. The manipulation negates the definition of an organic movement. On top of that, people are free from religion already if they so choose. The advocacy proves that they don't want freedom from religion, emancipation from dogma, they want to erase religion because they think it is best for everyone and they have no respect for your cares, wishes and culture.

As of the writing of this blog on Monday the 24th of October, 2011, there is one article written on Sunday the 23rd that states in its subtitle: "U.S. Forest Service Reverses Decision to Remove Montana Statue" It will be opened for public discussion. The respect of the people comes first. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Free Market?

Do we live in a society where the word "Occupy" has become as normal as saying; "protest"? Are we protesting in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan? Does Israel protest in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights? No. These are occupied nations and territories. Occupying implies that the occupier has command and control of that which is being occupied. These protesters, all over the country, are not Occupying Wall Street in the sense that they are taking over the financial institutions that are deified by the name of a district in Lower Manhattan, rather they are symbolically blocking the street.

However, in a bi-partisan fashion, apathy has finally moved into empathy and even sympathy, but it is early in this movement and there is a fog over even the name of the movement. The 99% will "occupy" each and every city and protest the other 1% who are the targets of blame for the crumbling state of these United States. The fog also shrouds other things like what direction this all should take. The fervor is piqued. The Man is the enemy. There is so much pent up frustration that it is just exploding like a poorly tossed hand-grenade. There are some that are even calling for the end of capitalism.

What is capitalism?

Dictionary.com:

an economic system in which the investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Whew.

How about a more concise statement from Wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.

I'm not trying to be pretentious with the definition of capitalism, but it is important to look at a few key aspects of the system. The one I want to focus on (and what many others should be focusing on) is the last part from the Wikipedia definition: "usually in competitive markets."

We have to look at capitalism like an old piece of machinery, which it really is: The machinery of finance and economy. The working parts have to be free to move as required by those it serves. Yet these parts have to be regulated by engineering to work in tandem with all of the other parts of the system. This is the Free Market and I think the use of the term has been skewed much like the term "occupy", so lets use another word to remove the old paradigm from the lexicon: Liberated Markets. We'll still use the term, coined by Adam Smith; "the invisible hand" to personify the spirit of the people in the market.

A market is any place we trade goods or services. If I'm hungry I can satisfy that hunger by going to a grocery market and trade my cash, which I've gotten for my services in the labor market, for a frozen dinner. If I want to retire I can satisfy the needs of retirement by going to a financial market and investing my cash for its future value. Like the many choices at the grocery market, there are many choices in the financial markets. I chose a frozen dinner because it was quick and easy, but it is "high-risk" because it may not be healthy. There are low and high risks in financial markets too. Some of the more high-risk instruments in finance are the Credit Default Swaps and Derivatives.

In any loan there is a risk for default and as we saw in the housing crash there were a higher-than-normal number of defaults. Finance institutions hedge against default by taking out a form of insurance called a Credit Default Swap (CDS). This derivative is a basket of high- and low-risk loans. They are packaged in such a way that their overall risk is minimal and are traded in the financial markets. People think that when they take out a loan that their bank will hold on to that loan, but it is often traded on the market for investments. Yes, institutions are investing in your investments. They get swapped and repackaged by many entities as they hedge against your potential default. If we were to look at the buzz about a U.S. default on debt, we can look at the price of currency and Treasury Bonds. The rate of T-bond will go up when issuers are at risk of default. These "Junk Bonds" will hedge the currency in the event of default. That is a generalization as there are many factors that swing the pendulum of finance hither and fro. So derivatives are passed around hither and fro as well. These insurance policies against default, or securities, have grown to massive proportions.

There is no exact number or value to be found on the derivatives market because it is too big to calculate. Each time a derivative is repackaged and resold the old value still exists unless the debtor actually defaults (much like a Put Option in perpetuity). For every good citizen making his or her payments on their loan, there is a massive amount of asset value on many different accounting books. Is this the "invisible hand" of the "free market"? No. This is the rambunctious free-wheeling market.

The paradigm is that a true free market will have fewer and fewer regulations oppressing it. This, however, couldn't be further from the truth. The fact of it all is that a free market has to have a set of rules and guidelines in order to maintain order, much like the Constitution of these Free and Independent People of the United States. Hence, the markets need to be Liberated from institutions that are funneling money one way, by investing in your investments (drinking your lemonade). Etymology and definition are need here:

liberare "set free" to free an occupied territory from the enemy.

Liberated; to free from social or economic constraints or discrimination, especially arising from traditional role expectations or bias.

"Or bias". Where can we find an example of bias in our economic situation? Do I even need to ask? Too Big To Fail.

Legislation after the Great Depression created "constraints" in trading on markets to stifle another panic like the one that created the Great Depression. This action did not involve bias. This action went against what the Federal Reserve and the bankers of Wall Street wished. The banks used to loan money at huge discounts to build up interest through the vast number of loans rather than high rates on a small number of loans. Cash seemed free to the debtor and interest through fractional reserve banking was the bankers' dream. The prosperity from this was only a facade though, and when the realization of a devaluing dollar and inflation kicked in, people panicked, leading to the Great Depression. The solution to that problem was regulation for the betterment of the markets and came in the form of the Glass-Steagall Act. This act separated commercial and investment banks and formed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The newly formed Federal Reserve Central Bank (1913) was none too happy with slicing up the banking market because this meant less control over the money supply, which is the Mission of the Federal Reserve (Fed). Loans are, in essence, future reserves of cash and fractional reserve banking methods expanded that future money supply with every new loan. The Fed expands the money supply by purchasing Treasury Bonds (T-bills) on open markets, so when the banks were expanding the money supply for them with massive amounts of loans, they didn't need to buy U.S. debt (T-bills) and the U.S. was a creditor nation. Many factors changed all of that. The U.S. moved away from gold-backed currency, expanded the money supply through purchasing of T-bills and quickly became a debtor nation as the result of WWII, The Korean War, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iraq, and the Global War on Terrorism (war is good for the economy, right?). Glass-Steagall did its part to control the markets in the best interest of the people during these unsure times, with the exception of the Global War on Terrorism.

Now, we are up to the present-day U.S. as a debtor nation, but we need to reverse to 1999 when the regulations of the Glass-Steagall Act were gutted and the CDS and other derivatives were unleashed on the world due to the overinflated Tech Market. The Clinton administration saw the restrictions of Glass-Steagall as a restraint on new fundamentals and that the Act was an anachronism which needed to be removed from the finance markets...setting them "free". The first sonic wave to resound from this action was the Tech-bubble bursting in 2001. This was exacerbated by terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in the same year. The new free-wheeling market, under the Bush administration, took it in stride and created the next bubble in the housing market, which collapsed in 2007-2008. The Fed started printing fiat (not asset-backed) currency at an alarming rate and purchased short-term T-bills with it in hopes of expanding the money supply to cover all of the derivatives that had saturated the markets since the end of Glass-Steagall. On top of that, the U.S. bailed out banks to the tune of trillions of taxpayer-dollars. The Fed is still pumping billions into the money supply and the derivatives void, doing what the banks did prior to the 1929 crash that precipitated the Great Depression.

Occupy Wall Street is a start, but it needs to find focus. The idea to end capitalism (Leninism, 1917) is as old as the Fed (1913), yet no one seems to be looking at the Fed and its abuses with our supply of money. To Liberate the markets is to liberate them from the control of the Fed and this ever-expanding supply of fiat currency to cover an endless void of derivatives created by an unchecked banking cartel known as Wall Street. Who is the dog on the leash and who is the master? The "Creature from Jekyll Island" also known as the Federal Reserve Bank is very much the master of the economy. The history of this privately owned central bank is complex, to say the least. But, it is so very important to know what their mission is and how it directly affects the economy right now.

The Federal Reserve's Mission Statement from The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System:

The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded.

Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

*conducting the nations's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

*supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers.

*maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.

*providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payment system.

1) Prices are unstable. Just visit a grocery store from month to month.

2) Banking is not safe and it is unsound. Just try to get a loan for a small business or a home.

3)Foreign institutions are crumbling faster than ours. Just look at Greece, Italy, Portugal, Germany and France.

4)High unemployment is plaguing the nation.

All of which, according to the Fed's mission statement, are in the purview of the Federal Reserve System.

From the looks of the Fed's mission, they have miserably FAILED in every category of their being and maybe, just maybe, the People will truly start an Occupation....on the Federal Reserve to Liberate our markets and restore the machinery of capitalism so that it will work for the 99% and not just the 1%.

Winter In The Blood

Very rarely do we see stories projected on the silver screen that are completely centered on Native Americans. The independent film industry is starting to change that and we are starting to see a Native American Renaissance in film. One of my favorites is a story of an American Indian man from Idaho who trekked with his boyhood friend to retrieve his estranged father's ashes in Arizona; Smoke Signals.

In 1940 a man was born to parents of both the Blackfeet nation and the Gros Ventre nation. That man was James Welch born in Browning Montana on the Blackfeet reservation and spent his formable years growing up on the Fort Belknap reservation (Gros Ventre) of north central Montana. His parents and he moved to Minneapolis where he finished up his high school education and moved back to Montana to study literature and liberal arts at Northern Montana College in Havre and at the University of Montana in Missoula. In 1974 James Welch wrote his first novel; Winter In The Blood about a man, who remains unnamed throughout the novel, and his struggles of identity on the Fort Belknap reservation. The narrator and protagonist takes us on his journey across the Hi-line of Montana in search for his girlfriend who has left him and taken his cherished rifle and electric razor. Having lost his older brother, Mose, at age 12 and his father 8 years later, he struggles with his identity while living with his mother, her new husband Lame Bull and aging grandmother on their ranch near Dodson.

On his journey to find his girlfriend, Agnes, he visits the towns of Malta, Harlem and Havre. We find him drinking beer in the local bars and sleeping with local women all along the way. In Havre he finds Agnes in a bar called the Gables across the highway from a bar called The Palace. On a personal note; these are real bars in Havre and my great uncle used to own the Gables. The Palace Bar still serves drinks from a huge and ornate mahogany bar, but the Gables is long gone and a large US Bank now stands in its place.

The protagonist confronts Agnes in the Gables bar and is ambushed by her brother who knocks him out. After deciding to leave her and Havre, we find him back at the ranch only to find that his mother, step father and grandmother are not there. Knowing that his grandmother has passed away he rides down to an old blind man's cabin 3 miles from his place. This man, Yellow Calf plays a vital role in helping our protagonist find himself.

This story interspersed with flashbacks of his brother, Mose, and his death all leads him to find himself and to change his drifter ways. It is a great story that can only be told by someone who has lived here and has a deeper understanding of Native American life on the Hi-line and James Welch certainly has painted a very powerful story of alienation and self-discovery in Winter In The Blood.

The Native American Renaissance will be greatly enhanced as this novel is currently being put to film here on the Hi-line by Missoula filmmakers Alex and Andrew Smith. The Smith twins knew James Welch personally while growing up in Missoula. Their most popular film was also filmed in Montana near Great Falls called The Slaughter Rule which they both wrote and directed.

The casting for Winter In The Blood is very impressive and has been conducted in a way to make use of Montana actors as well as Native American actors. The lead character, whom the Smith brothers have named Virgil in their script, hails from the Fort Belknap Reservation, Chaske Spencer who is best known for his recurring role in the Twilight saga as Sam Uley. Virgil's girlfriend, Agnes, will be portrayed by Twilight actress Julia Jones of the Choctaw tribe. Another Montanan from the Blackfeet nation, Lily Gladstone will play a minor role as one of the girls that Virgil takes to bed in Havre and who cared for him after Agnes' brother knocked him out in the Gables; Marlene. The big star, in my opinion, is Gary Farmer who will play Virgil's stepfather Lame Bull. Gary Farmer also played the role of Victor Joseph's father, Arnold, in Smoke Signals.

The producers and directors all agreed to forgo the tax breaks that would come from filming in Canada and have chosen to film entirely in the areas depicted in the book. This movie is set to be the biggest addition to the Native American Renaissance and to Montana films. The support from people across the state also contributed to this remarkable film getting off the ground. The production needed a $60,000 kicker to even go in to production and that was achieved via donations from across the state. This is a purely Montana-inspired and Montana-made movie and it will elevate the Native American entertainment industry to new heights. It is a great honor to be right here, right now...on The Hi-line.

Operation Fast and Furious

No it’s not a movie about tuner cars and illegal street racing where an undercover agent infiltrates the clandestine world of turbochargers and nitrous oxide. This is a real-world operation about infiltrating the gunrunners along the Mexican border. Vince Cefalu, an ATF agent, blew the whistle on this operation after a Border Agent was gunned down. The Border Agent, Brian Terry, wasn’t shot in a botched gun-trading incident. No, he was gunned down by one of the very guns that the U.S. government had sold to Mexican cartels in an effort to track the weapons. Two AK-47s that were part of Operation Fast and Furious were recovered at the scene of the shooting in Rio Rico, Arizona where Terry was attempting to apprehend a group of gunrunners.

In April of 2009, while visiting Felipe Cauldron in Mexico, President Obama said he wanted to renew a ban on some semiautomatic weapons but that it is not likely to pass Congress. Instead, he called for the Senate to ratify a hemisphere-wide treaty that would require nations to mark all weapons produced in the country and track them to make sure no weapons were exported to countries where they were banned. That sounds reasonable considering our neighbors have both banned firearms.

The ATF seems to have taken this idea as a way to track the guns once they were in Mexico. Just like throwing money at the economic crisis, our government decided to throw guns at the violence in Mexico. Might as well throw some liquid hydrogen on the wildfires near Los Alamos while we’re at it and save the liquid dihydrogen monoxide for the flooding in the Mid West.

Here’s the real worrisome part. The anti-gun culture here in the U.S. is claiming that a large number of guns being used in the war in Mexico have come from the U.S. and that we should ban guns here and get rid of the second amendment. Seeing that most of those guns were likely sold by the U.S. government, maybe we should strip the government of its rights to have weapons. Of course the likely rebuttal to that proposition would be that they need their weapons to protect us, thus the double entendre is that the people can’t protect themselves with their own guns.

While it is still too early to say, with certainty, that Eric Holder perjured himself before a congressional hearing about the Executive approval for Operation Fast and Furious I would be hard pressed to believe that an operation like this wasn’t signed off by the executive. Maybe it was the U.N. that authorized it. After all they approved our new war in Libya and threatened Texas over the execution of a rapist. But that usurpation of power is a whole other story from the District of Caesars…er…Columbia.

The fate of the whistleblower, ATF agent Vince Cefalu? He's been served his termination paperwork. That's the transparency and whistleblower-protection that Obama promised.

The Wisdom of Four-wheeling applied to Kinetic Military Action.

In Montana you'll see a wide array of four-wheel drive vehicles. In supposed high-society areas such as Missoula you'll see these vehicles in the form of the light, fuel efficient, venerable Subaru. In most other areas the 4X4 comes in all shapes, sizes, makes and models. You can make the easy distinction between those who own their 4X4 for practical reasons and those who own them just for show and impractical reasons. If it is a stock 3/4 ton pick-up with remnants of alfalfa blowing around in the back or with a utility box loaded with tools, it is the most practical of all; the work truck. If it is a truck that you see running around town with mud covering every square inch of its slightly roughed up body, you're probably seeing a work truck that is also used for some off-roading leisure and still fills a practical niche. However, if it is pristine with over-sized tires and chrome wheels, it probably ranks in the least practical "look-at-me" category. This isn't to say that the "look-at-me" 4X4s never see dirt and mud, but they might only see these when it isn't necessarily practical to.

The practical 4X4 driver tends to know when to use all four wheels or when to "lock it in". For the most part a four-wheel drive vehicle is operate using only the rear wheels. It is only when the terrain gets too muddy or snowy to progress any further that the practical driver throws it in 4-high and, usually to avoid getting stuck, will turn back. You see, the idea of four-wheel drive is to get you out of a situation where you'll get stuck, by bringing one or two more drive-wheels into play, depending on if you have a positive traction or limited slip drive axle. All of the jargon aside, the idea is if you get stuck in two-wheel drive, you've got a backup. If you get stuck in four-wheel drive, you're done. Some hardcore off-roaders will have a third redundancy in the form of a winch. In the case of the winch, I find it more useful mounted on the back of the vehicle, because continuing forward is more likely going to get you into more trouble. The idea, here, is to get the vehicle back into the terrain you were just in and that the vehicle can handle. Summation? If you're bogged down, you don't want to go further into the bog using all of your resources.

However, this is exactly what the term "Kinetic Military Action" implies. Moving our military around from troubled area to troubled area, using all of our resources to go deeper into these areas. It is only a matter of time before we're going to get stuck and then we're done.

Before and during the 2008 Presidential election, we heard the term "Exit Strategy" thrown around a lot. That strategy is very similar to the metaphor of four-wheeling; to have a backup to get us out when it gets too much to go any further. Yet, we're just finding new areas to go into and without the advice or approval of anyone in our legislature.

In a speech, given by Obama about how the Republicans wrecked this country he says this:

"They drove our economy into a ditch and we got in there and put on our boots and we pushed and we shoved. We were sweatin' and these guys were standing, watching us and sipping on a Slurpee. And they were pointing at us saying how come you're not pushing harder? or how come you're not pushing faster? And when we finally got the car up, and it's got a few dings and few dents, they got some mud on it,,,we're going to have to do some work on it. They point to these guys and say; Look what these guys did to your car! After we got it out of the ditch! Then they've got the nerve to ask for the keys back. I don't want to give them the keys back! They don't know how to drive!" ~Milwaukee Wisconsin speech 2008~

Classic Obama, claiming the Republicans can't drive the economy, but takes the military out for a spin and could very well get it bogged down in another conflict. I'd like to place an ad, now, for a new well-rounded practical driver.

The Sword of Damocles.

Power for nothing and your hyperbole for free.

The massive temblor and ensuing tsunami have seriously changed the lives of most Japanese and have tragically ended many lives as well. This tragedy is on par for other tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunami at Banda Aceh. The triple whammy is coming in the form of a nuclear disaster that, if you focus on Western Media, is putting this event on par with Chernobyl.

I am not a nuclear physicist nor am I a power plant engineer, but I have been studying previous nuclear accidents and the construction of safer nuclear facilities as a result of those accidents.

The two accidents that I studied were both intriguing and informative in light of the current situation at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima. I, of course, read many articles and viewed many documentaries on Chernobyl, which is the most severe nuclear accident in the history of nuclear power: International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) Level 7. The other event was a more obscure, INES Level 4, event that occurred in the Idaho desert in 1961. The event was at the country’s nuclear power research laboratories at the National Reactor Testing Station, now known as Idaho National Laboratory. The reactor in this event was known as SL-1 or Stationary Low-power Reactor Number One. It was designed to be small and portable so that it could be used at remote Army outposts for generating 200 kW of power.

The story of the SL-1 shows the aspects of a nuclear reactor on a scale that most laymen can understand and the event that killed three maintainers (the only fatalities from nuclear reactors in the U.S.) helped spur many safety precautions that are now standard in the design and functioning of nuclear reactors.

There are two types of reactor designs used in the majority of power plants and they are Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) and Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR). The main difference between the two is that in a PWR there is a third water circuit that allows heated water to vaporize to run the steam turbines. In the BWR that circuit is combined in the containment vessel surrounding the fuel rods where the water is allowed to boil in the low pressure and high heat generated by the fission of uranium atoms. The water in a PWR is not allowed to boil when under pressure in the containment vessel. The water has three main functions in both types of reactors. Firstly it is there to cool the fuel rods during fission. Next, it acts as a moderator that slows the speed of neutrons released in the fission, or chain reaction, to moderate the reaction and the efficiency of the reaction. Finally it is converted to steam and used as thermal power to run the turbines and generators.

The SL-1 was a BWR that had been shut down during the Christmas break in 1960. A three-man crew came in on January 3, 1961 to prepare the reactor for start up. In a reactor there is a control rod made of carbon and cadmium or some other material such as indium or silver to capture all the neutrons. To restart the reactor the control rod is slowly removed from the core to initiate fission. The neutrons are what split the atoms in the fission and when captured, by the control rod reinserted into the core, they no longer create fission. The SL-1 had 5 of these cadmium control rods and all were inserted in between the fuel rods when the reactor was shut down, or SCRAMed, before the Christmas break. These control rods were also detached from their drive motors for special maintenance and needed to be reattached, hence the 4 inches they had to be removed manually.

The term “SCRAM” comes from the earliest safety precaution used on the first reactors. A rope was tied to the control rods and used to remove the rods to start the fission. A man with an axe was positioned near the rope in case of emergencies to chop the rope to let gravity reinsert the rods for shut down. This man was known as the Safety Control Rod Axe Man or S.C.R.A.M. The control rod, in this case, has been referred to as: The Sword of Damocles.

At about 9:01 P.M. on January 3, 1961 an alarm was sounded at a fire station 10 miles from the SL-1 site. The coded 2-2-1 alarm indicated a temperature spike at the SL-1 facility, but indicates the facility as a whole including the administrative offices there. This was the third alarm that day for that facility. The two previous alarms were related to a faulty detector in the building’s boiler facility. The fire crew arrived at the facility about 9 minutes after the alarm was sounded. They first checked the alarm that they had check twice already that day. It was not the culprit. Further inspection soon revealed a radiation alarm in the control room. The fire fighters went back out and retrieved meters to test the level of radiation and these instruments proved too small in scale to accurately measure the Roentgens/hour that were present, and the needles went off the gauges. The SL-1 had exploded.

The outer walls of the reactor room contained the explosion of the SL-1, even though the facility wasn’t designed to do so. The cylindrical building that housed the reactor now contained the radiation released in the explosion. The heroic efforts of the fire fighters over the next 5 hours ended with the extraction of two of the casualties from the highly reactive facility. The first removed was Navy Electricians Mate McKinley who was still breathing but died on the way to a nearby hospital. The second casualty removed was the body of Army specialist Byrnes who had died instantly in the blast. The last victim of the reactor explosion was Army specialist Richard Legg who had been pinned to the ceiling of the reactor room by one of the control rods. It took several days to devise a plan to extract the body of Richard Legg, by using a large makeshift stretcher attached to the end of a crane boom that was inserted through a freight door and positioned under the body to catch it when dislodged from the ceiling.

The incident report concluded that the central control rod had been pulled far beyond its 4-inch maximum limit of travel. This resulted in the instant restart of the reactor and exceeded the prompt excursion of the reaction. All of the water surrounding the core was instantly and explosively vaporized. It is still not known; do to lack of survivors, as to why the rod was pulled so far out, so quickly.

The things learned from this accident were invaluable to the future of reactor design. One possible reason for the over-extension of the rod was due to Boron chips, deteriorating in the slide channel for the control rod led to a sticking situation. Today’s control rods are spring-loaded to the inserted position to overcome sticking. Also, the rods are never manually removed from the core in today’s reactor maintenance. Another innovation came in the form of containment. Today’s reactors have 3 levels of containment: the Zircaloy tubes for the uranium pellets, the reactor vessel and an outer steel/concrete containment shell. The biggest thing learned from the SL-1 incident was that once the water moderator is removed from the fuel rods, the fission also ceases. This is very important when looking at how reactor cores are moderated, especially when looking at Chernobyl, which used graphite blocks to moderate neutrons.

The incident at Chernobyl could have been far worse than it was, and it was very bad to begin with. The design of the reactor at Chernobyl was quite different than the BWR and the PWR. The fuel rods at Chernobyl were inserted into a grid of graphite blocks to form the core. The core was cooled by water and control rods were used to start and stop the fission. However, the graphite allowed for positive pressure voids, which allowed the fission to continue for a longer period of time after the control rods were insert to shut down the core. This can be viewed as a sort of “dieseling” for reactors. The other risk is that even when the water is vaporized the graphite moderator continues the chain reaction and meltdown is inevitable in a situation where the coolant level drops or is vaporized. The reactor at Chernobyl did have an outer containment, but it was filled with sand rather than concrete. This cheap solution to containment actually was the saving grace at Chernobyl. When the reactor went supercritical, all the coolant was vaporized and the containment vessel around the core exploded. This explosion also breached the outer containment and released the sand, which in turn encased the molten core in glass that oozed through the lower levels of the facility as it cooled and solidified. This actually contained much of the radiation and the fissile material and stopped the chain reaction. If it had not, this core could have gone from fission to fusion according to scientists that inspected the facility for years after the incident. Fusion is what makes an atomic warhead a weapon of Mass Destruction. Fission is used to bump the materials into a situation known as fusion and the energy released can be as great as 50 megatons, which the Soviets achieved with their Tsar Bomba warheads. Scientists and physicist claim that there was enough material at Chernobyl to create at least a 50-megaton explosion and if the sand hadn’t encased this material, it was highly probable that this would have occurred. The largest atomic bomb ever detonated by the U.S. was “Castle Bravo” which yielded 15 megatons, double the expectations of the physicists that created it. The top of the mushroom cloud reached 70,000 feet into the stratosphere with a width of 9 miles. This detonation eliminated an island at the Bikini Atoll.

Looking at the past and going over the incidents that lead to safety innovations in nuclear reactors, we can see that the dangers are immense. The U.S. learned quite a lot from its research out in the deserts of Idaho and our innovations in reactor construction make them the safest in the world. For example: the 3 levels of containment kept Three-mile Island from releasing deadly radiation.

General Electric leads the world in reactor construction and it is their 40-year old Mark I PWR that sits in Fukushima’s Daiichi facility and is the center of current nuclear concerns. In addition to the 3 levels of containment there is an outer structure that houses the whole reactor and its containments. This building is what exploded several hours into the incident after the earthquake. The earthquake would have triggered the spring-loaded control rods to SCRAM the reactors immediately. The reactors still have residual heat produced by the slight amount of free neutrons that do not immediately get absorbed by the control rods (about 3% of the heat when running at critical fission). The coolant is needed to completely cool the core after shutdown, but this was lost as a result of the earthquake and loss of power. The redundancy generators also failed due to a tsunami that took out the generators. The heat is enough to cause a partial meltdown of the core and this molten uranium and zircaloy can act as a moderator and restart the fission. The resulting build-up of pressure from vaporized coolant that the plant workers are desperately introducing to the core, has to be released to maintain the integrity of the reactor vessel. This release of, essentially, radioactive hydrogen was being contained in the outer building, but it built up too much causing the explosion of the outer building. The radioactive hydrogen will lose its dangerous levels of radiation within a few minutes; hence the reason the engineers must of felt it necessary to contain it within the building; to allow it to decay before release to the atmosphere. Reports are that the 3 levels of containment are still intact. In the worse case scenario, the core could go into complete meltdown and melt through the bottom of the containment vessel. In the containment shell below the vessel is a bed of graphite (the moderator at Chernobyl) that will encase the molten fissile material and contain the further release of neutrons. This may be a lesson from Chernobyl but I couldn’t find anything on the decision to use graphite in the bottom of the containment shell.

This reactor is one of the best designs available and is the result of many years of incidents and reactor failures at the testing facilities in Idaho. There is little to worry about outside of the immediate area where Japanese officials are already evacuating nearly 140,000 people from a 12-mile radius around the reactor in question. Potassium Iodide is also being distributed to those in the area to combat the deadly affects of radioactive Iodine 131, which has been detected in small amounts. When a reactor does experience troubles, the whole world sits on the edge of their seats because of the many tragedies in the past, but this incident should prove that even when hit with earthquakes and tsunamis a modern reactor can be “fought” by the technicians to prevent disastrous release of deadly radiation and explosively reactive materials (other than the hydrogen).

Though this is still a highly volatile situation and will, unfortunately, result in some injuries and deaths due to radiation, the affects of it will never reach the west coast of the U.S. as many fear it will. The only comparison between this event and Chernobyl will be that we’ve come a long, long way in safety since the days of SL-1 and Chernobyl. If the reactor at Chernobyl were the one struck by an 8.8 earthquake and further damaged by a 30-foot tsunami, it would have killed millions by now.

In the past this powerful source of energy, fission, was the Sword over our heads. In modern reactors, the roles of Damocles and the Sword have switched to their proper positions. We are the Sword, or control, over the head of some awesome power; the power of fission.

Keith Olbermann bows out.

The country's 24-hour political, pundit, perpetual-panic conflictinator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. ~Jon Stewart~

Those words from political satirist, Jon Stewart, were from the more serious portion of his rally to "Restore Sanity and/or Fear", where he talks about inflammatory news commentary.

Keith Olbermann seemed to take those words to heart. The next day Olbermann made the decision to suspend his "Worst Person of the Week" segment, which had become a central and inflammatory portion of his show on MSNBC. Olbermann brought that segment back, repackaged as "(Not Really) The Worst Person", only to cover Sen. Jay Rockefeller's statement about MSNBC and Fox:

There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End. Goodbye." It would be a big favor to political discourse. ~Sen. Jay Rockefeller.

We are all well aware of the news pundits' blame game in the recent tragedy in Tucson. This all showed us the underbelly of news commentary, as they all seemed to disregard the warnings of both Stewart and Rockefeller.

The hubris of 24-hour news, driven by their ratings, is their undoing. Olbermann seems to have the clairvoyance to see this and he is bowing out.

This, however, is nowhere near the end of this issue. Newspapers across the country are also seeing the writing on the wall as their subscriptions are dropping. Some commentary on that issue includes the environmentally-driven move away from the "dead tree" editions of major papers, but these media groups are also seeing a decrease in viewership online.

Where are these viewers going?

One theory is that there is a massive move towards Alternative Media and for good reason. One such alternative outlet is Alex Jones, a man labeled as a "conspiracy theorist". His network at Genesis Communications has exploded into the alternative media. Alex has a 4-hour daily radio show, that can be downloaded as podcasts, plus several websites. The three most popular websites are Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com and PrisonPlanetTV.com where you can watch his daily radio show as well as his many full-length documentaries.

Jones has spawned many other alternative news shows, such as Jack Blood's "Deadline Live", Doug Owen's economic news "Blacklisted News", Michael Herzog's "American Awakening" and even Gov. Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theories".

What Mainstream media created in its 24-hour news was the institution of commentary. What is commentary? Short answer; it's what bar patrons do down at the local watering hole when they hash out society's woes over a glass of beer or wine. Having the Mainstream media institutionalize this act, took it away from the average citizen and made it their own. This leaves the average citizen to inject talking points from mainstream media, rather than reasoning the issues themselves. This created a void that Alternative Media is now filling.

I'm not suggesting that the average citizen is driven by conspiracy theories, nor am I suggesting that all alternative media is made up of conspiracy theorists. What Alex Jones brings to the table is a very diverse crowd of professionals in economics, politics and history who all talk about the issues in current and past events. Many of his guests are rather obscure in popular circles, but more and more they are now becoming mainstream. They talk about real issues and actually try to find solutions. Finding solutions, as Jon Stewart alludes to, is not on the agenda of Mainstream news commentary.

The attempt to come up with solutions is exactly what makes the Alternative Media so attractive. It is what was missing from the surrogate bar crowd, known as commentary news.

But what might make Alternative Media more dangerous than Mainstream Media is the very pejorative that it has been labelled: "Theorists". If people do not discern fact from fiction or apply objectivity to the alternative media, this could perpetuate what commentary started: Political Discourse.

If people can see alternative media as a complete circle of discussion, rather than mainstream media's open-ended discussion, then it can be a great tool for debate and, possibly, for solutions.

Alternative media treads where only bar patrons once treaded, into the realm of solving the world's problems. It is imperfect, but a progressive step in society. Reveal the problems and work together to fix them on a grand scale. In that view alternative media can be seen as a nationwide think-tank, involving everyone. One of Jones' main ideas in his show is to open up the program for callers for hours of discussion...and he doesn't screen any of those callers. He loves all the new directions that callers take the show.

If Keith Olbermann could see this, he could come back with his own alternative media show. He could be the harbinger of change in media. His action could lead others like Palin, Maddow, Beck, and all the other commentators to strike out into the fast-growing world of the alternative media. So long as they remember that they would have to offer up reasonable solutions to the problems they bring to the table.

Tragedy begets political derision.

First and foremost, I wish to express my sincerest condolences to all who lost loved ones in Tucson and to all who have been affected by the horrific event there.

The media, however, seems to lack the same sympathy that most U.S. Citizens are expressing in this moment of tragedy. The attack has only moved into the political spectrum for them. The media is focusing its reporting on "who is to blame" and making it a political thing. Not one news outlet is focusing on the lives affected by this tragedy.

Judge John M. Roll; a defender of the 10th Amendment and State's Rights, is among the victims.

Rep. Gabriella Giffords; another defender of the 10th Amendment as well as a defender of the 2nd Amendment. May she make a full recovery.

Then there is the 9-year-old little girl, Christina Green, whose father expressed his wishes that the government not use this tragedy as an excuse to further repress the U.S. population. Upon hearing John Green express that sentiment, a columnist by the name Jeanne Sager attacked the parents for their actions. I won't go into her scathing article, but will post it for you to read: Should Christina Taylor Green Parents Get Off TV?

The BBC is even reporting "The Febrile Politics" of this tragedy and helping build the fervor against everyone's favorite target; Sarah Palin.

The Left is pointing blame at Fox News and the Right is pointing blame at MSNBC. In fact, if you look at the majority of the articles put out by the mainstream media, you'll see them all pointing fingers at one another and crying; "inflammatory", "hate-baiting", "fear mongering"... All the while, they collectively fail to realize that they are all to blame for the derision in this country.

Which brings us to the real problem: Who is the enemy? Well, it could be the ratings-driven media. It could be the activist media. It could, even, be the apathy of the media.

Solution? Find a new way. Get rid of commentary and activist media. Report the news and only the news. Sounds simply enough, but then when you look at the empires of capitalism surrounding these media outlets, you start to see that it would be next to impossible to ask our journalists to step away from their "hard-hitting" "insightful" "commentary" "ratings-driven" money machines.

There is a watch group that could be a good model for the answer to mainstream media: Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), but they too cater to "both activists and journalists". The "active" media seems to be at the root of the problem. Is it time to get away from that? I tend think so, especially after seeing how they have acted in the face of this tragedy.

As for where we should put the real blame for the Tucson Massacre? The man in custody known as Jared Lee Loughner.

Navy Camaraderie.

I've been following a viral story about a Navy Captain who is being demonized for a humorous video. This is my view of this story.

If you haven't heard the story, it is about a lewd video that is unbecoming a Naval Officer. The officer is Captain Owen Honors and the video was part of a series of videos he made for the crew while serving in the capacity of Executive Officer of the USS Enterprise. I watched the video and it is clearly evident that it was created in a humorous manner that depicts the antics of shipboard life.

The problem is the lack of understanding of how the military functions. The #1 rule in the military is "Work hard. Play hard". The role of the Commanding Officer and the Executive Officer is to play "good cop/bad cop". The XO is always the "good cop" and one of his duties is to build camaraderie among the crew by being the master of "play hard" ceremonies.

Military men and women are a different breed, we don't play by the Politically Correct rules that most of the civilians do. This kind of fun, off-the-wall humor isn't offending to any of us, but it does, apparently, offend the general public. Much of the misunderstanding comes from not seeing the world of the military through the eyes of those who serve.

I have another, personal, experience that became misconstrued and was, and still is, used to demonize a U.S. President when he bolstered camaraderie. The civilian masses simply know the story as the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Here is the real story through the eyes of the military.

The Lincoln Battle Group deployed to the Indian Ocean, leaving San Diego on July 20, 2002. Our initial mission was to provide air and sea support for ground forces in Afghanistan. This was our role in Operation Enduring Freedom. We successfully flew thousands of sorties in keeping our troops protected from the sky. In November of 2002 we transited into the Persian Gulf to continue support of OEF, but to also participate in the decade-long Operation Southern Watch. Scuttlebutt was that we may extend the war on terror into Iraq. This is months before the civilians learned of this. We were set to "out-chop" from the 5th fleet and the operations in the combat zone in December. Rumors turned into actual preparation for a possible return to the Gulf to participate in the opening campaign against Iraq.

Navy deployments, unlike the Army deployments, are 6 months long and our time was up and we headed for Perth, Australia to spend Christmas there. The news, that Christmas, was dominated by Bush's ultimatums for Iraq to disclose all documents related to their nuclear program. We knew the odds of us going back were high and when we pulled out of Australia to head home, Admiral Kelly told the crew that if we were to be called upon for action in Iraq we would have to re-surface the flight deck. The point of no return on our way home was Guam. If we stopped there it would be to re-surface the flight deck and we would turn around and head back to Iraq. We never made it as far as Guam.

It was New Years Day and we hadn't even made it to Indonesia when we realized that we were heading south again. We were on our way back to Perth to resurface our flight deck. It has become known as the "Big U-Turn" and Admiral Kelly quipped "Get Over It!".

We returned to the Gulf to "relieve ourselves on station" January 20th, the very same day we were scheduled to pull into San Diego to end our "war cruise". The rest is history known as "Shock and Awe".

We did our job and we did it well. Ground forces were in Baghdad when we finally "out-chopped" for the second time on the same cruise and were relieved by the USS Nimitz, on station. We had over 300 reporters onboard with us that planned to stay with us because we were going to end our record-breaking deployment by making a record-breaking run across the Pacific to return home. We made that run in three days and we were welcomed home by the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, George W. Bush. Our 6-month initial mission and our secondary 4-month mission had both been accomplished and we returned home with all souls onboard, we didn't lose any crew members which is a rarity even on peace-time deployments. A banner was placed on the "island" (superstructure) of the ship that declared "Mission Accomplished". This was an announcement for the Lincoln Battle Group's mission status. It felt good to finally be home.

After Bush's speech to the nation from the flight deck, he spent nearly an hour with us on the flight deck as the Secret Service agents tried to wrangle him down to his other engagements. During this meet-n-greet Bush pointed up to the banner and stated; "I'm going to catch hell for that, you know." We didn't really know, but it soon became evident that our mission status had become misconstrued to represent the mission status of all our brethren still fighting the war on terror, which simply wasn't the case.

Now, you've read the events as seen through the eyes of the military and seen how things get misconstrued. Does XO Honors' "lewd" video still garner a harsh condemnation?

The Montana Fort Assiniboine.

Author's note: This is an old blog that I wrote back in November of 2007. I'm dusting it off and reposting it to show some of the history of the Hi-line and to also get something up that will help me fall back into my "groove" so to speak.

To have simply named this article "Fort Assiniboine" would have been too ambiguous, as there is another Fort Assiniboine further north in Canada. This is the story of the U.S. Ft. Assiniboine near Havre, Montana. Most of my research is simply looking for articles and references to Fort Assiniboine and my realization of the two different forts occurred to me when reading an entry in Father Pierre Jean DeSmet's journals about his description of Ft. Assiniboine and it didn't describe the one near Havre. Father DeSmet (of historical importance to the Bitterroot Valley) was describing lakes and streams and large mountains....describing the second oldest fort in Alberta, Canada.

The namesake of Fort Assiniboine is a quite remarkable tribe of the Great Sioux Nation. Some times referred to as the Assnipaw, the Ojibwa word for Stone Sioux, primarily because they would use fire-heated stones to boil water for cooking meat . The Assiniboine were found in the vast Great Northern Prairies of North America.

They were allies and trading partners with the Cree, often warring alongside the Cree in their battles against the Gros Ventre (pronounced gro-von) and later the Blackfeet. Ironically, the Assiniboine now share Fort Belknap Reservation with the Gros Ventre in North Central Montana.

During the expedition, Corp of Discovery, led by Lewis and Clark, there were rumors that the Assiniboine were a hostile people and the Corp made every effort to avoid these people, and never encountered them during their expedition. Later in history, it was discovered that the Assiniboine were not as hostile as once believed and became great trading partners with the Europeans that were moving into the area.

The following is the story of the large fort that was named in their honor, Fort Assiniboine.

During railroad expansion in the 1870s many Lakota Sioux fought the survey and construction crews that were found in the Black Hills area of the Dakotas. The Lakota had defeated the Cheynne in 1776 and had taken the land known as the Black Hills. The Black Hills were very sacred ground for the Lakota and the "white man's" trespasses were not welcome.

During the economic Panic of 1873, the U.S. Government sent General George A. Custer and the U.S. 7th Cavalry to the Dakotas as a deterrent to the Lakota attacks. The first clash in what would become the Black Hills War occurred on August 4th, 1873. This is were history gets a little fuzzy, because it was Gen. Custer that discovered gold in the Black Hills, in 1874, during an expedition and while under different auspices. This discovery led the U.S. to attempt a purchase of the Black Hills, which the Lakota refused and this was the beginning of the Black Hills War, a year after the 1873 battle that supposedly start it.

General Custer and the U.S. 7th Cavalry were completely defeated by the Lakota at the Battle of the Little Bighorn on June 25th, 1876.

The following year, near the Milk River in North Central Montana, a massive fort "rose out of the ground."

Fort Assiniboine was constructed as a result of the devastating loss at the Battle of The Little Bighorn.

Chief Sitting Bull, the spiritual leader of the Lakota Sioux that led the attack at Little Bighorn, had fled to the Cypress Hills just over the Canadian border, to hide from the repercussions that were sure to follow the defeat of the 7th Cavalry. The U.S. Cavalry needed to construct a large fort to thwart any attack that Sitting Bull may engage in. The fort was also part of General William Sherman's vision of a line of forts along the Northern and Southern borders of the United States.

The fort was constructed on the edge of what is now The Rocky Boy Reservation (Chippewa Cree). Indians in the area were so impressed by the speed with which the soldiers, led by Colonal Broadwater, were fabricating bricks on the spot to building the structures, that they described it as the fort "that rose out of the ground." Over a four year period, 104 buildings were constructed on Fort Assiniboine, under the direction of L.K. Devlin, a civilian architect hired by the U.S. Government.

Fort Assiniboine was the largest post in the U.S. at the time of its construction. It also was constructed without a perimeter wall, unlike the other frontier posts. The reason for this was that Fort Assiniboine was an Offensive fort and not a Defensive fort. At it's peak, Fort Assiniboine was home to 36 officers and 720 enlisted.

Of those enlisted men of the fort, were two units of the 10th Cavalry, known as the "Buffalo Soldiers". The 24th and 25th units were stationed at Fort Assiniboine between 1895 and 1897. These "black" soldiers had been given their name by local Indians who referred to their curly hair and likened their fighting abilities to that of the sacred buffalo.

The First Lieutenant in charge of the Buffalo Soldiers was also the most famous military man to ever serve at Fort Assiniboine, John J. Pershing, also known as "Black Jack", a nickname given to him later while teaching at West Point, it is a softer version of the more bigoted moniker that he was originally given.

While at Fort Assiniboine it has been written that Pershing showed his superior marksmanship while on many hunting expeditions in the region, taking impossible shots at the local Prong Horn (antelop) and killing them with one shot. During his orders at the fort, Pershing's only expedition in the Indian Wars was to round up a renegade band of Chippewa Cree that had been spotted in the area of Great Falls, Montana and leading them back to Canada. In June 1897, Pershing was assigned to West Point as an assistant instructor in Tactics. He was not a popular officer there because the cadets thought his discipline was too strict. John J. Pershing went on to become the highest ranking officer in U.S. military history. His appointment to General of The Armed Forces during World War I was a specially designed rank, a Gold Five Star which has never been achieved before or since.

Another important reason for the construction of Fort Assiniboine was the Nez Perce. The Nez Perce, led by Chief Joseph, were trekking their way across Oregon, Idaho and Montana to escape to Canada after the Battle of Canyon Creek, where they had defeated Colonel Samuel D. Sturgis.

On September 30th, 1877, the same year that construction started on Fort Assiniboine, The Nez Perce, camped out in the Bears Paw Mountains near Fort Assiniboine, spotted their pursuer, Colonel Nelson Miles. Without enough time to retreat, but enough time to fortify, the Nez Perce prepared to battle Miles' forces. The outcome of this battle, The Battle of the Bears Paw, was Chief Joseph's surrender and Chief White Bird's fleeing with 50 Nez Perce to Canada

At the end of this battle, Chief Joseph handed his Winchester rifle to Colonel Miles and is quoted as saying: "I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever."

After the Surrender of Chief Joseph and a majority of the Nez Perce, Fort Assiniboine's mission included, not only the threat from Chief Sitting Bull, but also the threat of Chief White Bird and a hand-full of Nez Perce.

Today there isn't much left of Fort Assiniboine. In 1916 a portion of it was ceded to the Rocky Boy Reservation and its buildings were torn down. A larger portion was ceded to Hill County Montana as part of the 10,000 acre Beaver Creek Park, the nation's largest county park. The few remaining buildings on the post are under the use of the Montana State University system as an agriculture experimentation facility. Tours are rare, but I am planning to see those buildings someday.

The plight of the Nez Perce is an excellent segue to my next blog which will also tie my Bitterroot heritage to that of Havre. Be on the look out for my Nez Perce blog.

"The Imperial Cruise" Review.

I was recently given the book The Imperial Cruise written by James Bradley, the same author who brought us Flyboys and Flags of Our Fathers.

Bradley's father, John, has been enshrined in the annals of U.S. history as one of the men who raised the flag on Mount Suribachi on the Pacific island of Iwo Jima. James wrote of those tales and thrilled movie-goers with the big screen versions of those books. In The Imperial Cruise, James intends to uncover the events that led to that "day that would live in infamy", December 7, 1941. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ushered the U.S. into a world at war and Bradley's question was "Why?" and the book he wrote after his discovery is fascinating to say the least.

The crux of the book explains the expansion of two U.S. doctrines of the late 19th century, The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny, to the maritime claims of the Caribbean and the Pacific. The man at the center of this expansion is the visceral image of the pioneering U.S., Theodore Roosevelt. Bradley paints the life of the "Rough Rider" with narrower strokes than previous biographies and focuses on Teddy's Teutonic leanings and exposes his racially-driven motives to expand the U.S. sphere of influence beyond the western shore, "following the sun". The conquest of the Philippines and the absorption of the Hawaiian islands were stepping stones to the "Open Door" doctrine into the Orient and China in particular. He referred to it as "civilizing the Orient".

Bradley makes a brilliantly resourced case for the covert actions of T.R. and his yes-man William Taft in making deals behind the backs of Congress. These deals were with the Japanese in their conquests against Russia and Korea, in an effort to create a safety zone or buffer between Czarist Russia and the islands of Japan.

Bradley also relies on Samuel Clemens a.k.a. Mark Twain, the outspoken anti-imperialist who wrote seething critiques about the Moro Massacre in the Philippines, by using his stories to re-paint the fervor of the conquest of the Philippines.

What I find of further interest beyond what Bradley put together were the avenues that could be extended beyond WWII and the Korean war. The Moro were a Muslim group within the Philippines and still control the southern islands of that archipelago. Also, the Chinese "Open Door/Closed Door" U.S. relations created in the very early years of the 20th century. Many reasonable people would tell you that this is all antiquated and has little influence on relations a century later, but I say that once an idea has been unleashed upon the world, it is very hard to put back in the box. What Roosevelt called "civilizing of the world" we still call "spreading democracy". I would surmise that the doctrines espoused in 1900 are still sought today. To that I say history is not something we should emulate, it is something we should avoid and move beyond, especially if it is replete with imperial ideals.

The Imperial Cruise