Since we only have a few more shopping days until Christmas….

…I thought it’d be appropriate to re-post this. 

Everyone keeps saying that we buy more and more online, and that the bricks-and-mortar stores are suffering. Well, someone neglected to tell that to the people in my city. I live near a large shopping district and a mall, and the only way to get more folks in here on the weekends is if we airdropped them in like relief packages. 

So, whether you’re venturing out to just purchase one present or all of them, you should probably read this first. It’s some good information to have freshly tucked away, before you and your MasterCard leave the house. The merchants have been waiting all year to see you, …and they’re intent on having you spend some cash during your stay. 

Here’s hoping you enjoy the ‘hustle-and-bustle’ of the stores (that sounds more festive than ‘crazed mobs‘, don’t you think?), and be sure to wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

–JTR

—————————

BEFORE YOU GO SHOPPING TODAY….

(***Originally posted 6/23/2012)

….you may wish to check out Kathryn Blaze Carlson’s excellent article in the National Post from earlier this month. It touches on something that we all know in our hearts, but we usually feel we’re smart enough to avoid: Marketing.

The marketers are everywhere: Google, the supermarket, where we buy gas…….we can’t escape ‘em. To deal with being constantly saturated by marketing, we simply believe we’re so savvy that we can see through all of the marketer’s ploys.

Yeah, right. Guess again.

From Canada’s National Post:

The most unusual headline I’ve seen in ages….

Usually, there is either a political or religious story that catches our eye. Today, however, one headline stood out among the rest. Easily.

In fact, I had to look twice to make sure it wasn’t a joke headline from The Onion.

From Canada’s National Post:

***MYSTERIOUS ‘GOAT MAN’ SPOTTED IN UTAH MOUNTAINS***

Now admit it: you’d read that story. Heck, with that headline, you pretty much HAVE to.

I’m not a hunter, so I’ll ask the hunters out there: Is this normal? I mean, do you guys rent bear costumes or deer costumes, too?

I’m just askin’…

OGDEN, Utah — State wildfire officials have identified a man who has been spotted dressed in a goat suit among a herd of wild goats in the mountains of northern Utah.

Phil Douglass of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources said Monday the mystery man is a 57-year-old hunter from Southern California.

Douglass told the Standard-Examiner that the hunter called officials and provided enough information to put their curiosity to rest. Douglass says he didn’t ask for a name.

The man told Douglass he was preparing for an archery hunt of mountain goats next year and testing a goat suit. Douglass says the hunter came to Utah because he heard it was easier to get near goats for training.

The man described his suit as a hooded painter’s uniform and a fleece.

Last week, officials said they were worried the “goat man” was putting himself in danger, either from the animals themselves, or by being mistaken for a goat by another hunter.

 —-

UPDATE:

After literally minutes of research, we believe we’ve figured out where this guy got the idea:

 

Sign Codes vs. Free Speech

This post is being lifted from “Let’s Get Political” blog, who also happens to be one of our oldest friends here at “Two Heads…“.  I urge you to check his site out: Rick’s writing is consistently good, regardless of subject matter.

The first part of his post (italics mine):

Across the country, government is dealing a one-two punch to property rights and free speech. Using sign codes, cities are demanding large signs protesting eminent domain abuse be taken down. Free speech rights are essential to protect our other rights, including our property rights. If victims of eminent domain abuse can’t speak out against it, who can? The Institute for Justice is working to defend individuals’ property rights and free speech rights when they come under attack.

Zoning bylaws, like any other bylaw or statutory law, can be used for immoral, unjust and subjective purposes just as easily as they can be used for good.  This is good reason to fight to limit them to only what is truly necessary to protect health, life and private property concerns while seeking to keep individual liberty, individual property rights and the right to pursue one’s desired use of property as one wishes so long as that use does not infringe upon the rights of any other.

You can read the remainder of his post HERE at this link, where you’ll also find a super-short video (3 minutes) from the Institute For Justice, which gives examples of eminent domain abuse and how the IJ is fighting them.

This topic is scary stuff, since it basically attempts to criminalize dissent. Most of us have witnessed eminent domain in our towns, and often what is proposed appears to be for ostensibly “good” reasons. However, to be skeptical is not the same as being cynical, and I’d suggest that we each be considerably more skeptical of such proposals going forward.

Thanks again to Rick and “Let’s Get Political” blog.

No

The word just came down from the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare: even though Obama himself insisted, repeatedly, that this was not a tax, it was ruled constitutional on the grounds that…it’s a tax.

One of the saddest days of our lifetimes.

—-

This is a complete takeover of our lives. Everything, …everything….can be said to pertain to health. As I sit here, there is literally no aspect of daily life that I can’t imagine this impacting. If allowed to stand, this is a death knell to both our secular and religious freedom.

We really have only one choice now: ignore them.

Ignore the ruling; ignore the mandate; call/write/email your representatives, and tell them what you think of this. Tell them to tell Washington to take their Obamacare and its mandated “tax” and to place them both where sunlight won’t find ‘em, IYKWIMAITYD.

You can sit on the sidelines, wringing your hands and cursing the sky, or you can act. Peacefully, of course, yet act.

—-

An unjust law is not a law, and this is one of the most unjust laws of our country’s history.

Municipal Bankruptcy in California (aka “Scott Walker looking better every day”)

Courtesy of the Washington Post:

STOCKTON, CA, said it will file for bankruptcy after talks with bondholders and labor unions failed, making the agricultural center the biggest U.S. city to seek court protection from creditors.

“The city is fiscally insolvent and must seek chapter 9 bankruptcy protection,” Stockton said in a statement released yesterday after its council voted 6-1 to adopt a spending plan for operating under bankruptcy protection. “In addition to the bankruptcy petition, the city will file a motion with the courts to share information from the confidential mediation.”

The budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 calls for defaulting on $10.2 million in debt payments and cutting $11.2 million in employee pay and benefits under union contracts that could be voided by the bankruptcy court. The city of 292,000 may file its petition as soon as today.

“It’s a sad day in the city of Stockton,” Mayor Ann Johnston said before the budget vote. “I see no other solution to this.”

Hey, you know what would have been an option prior to this? I’m thinkin’….maybe to not spend so much money?? I know….that’s just silly; heck, it’s crazy talk.

And yet.

If the municipalities and/or school districts were given a real option between what the public sector unions say they HAVE to do, and what makes the most SENSE, those municipalities and school districts might actually take….the option that makes the most sense.

For instance, JUST for a comparison, let’s take a peek at what happened up in Wisconsin, which was well on its way towards a similar fate as Stockton, until Scott Walker showed up. From Townhall.com, last month:

“Once it was enacted, the bill President Obama once described as “an assault on unions,” became a pathway to independence. Wisconsin schools and local governments were given the freedom to live within their means when they were granted the ability to hire, fire and compensate based upon performance. The nonpartisan group, Wisconsin Taxpayer’s Alliance, reported that the savings from employee benefits “allowed districts to reduce costs” allowing districts like the Kaukauna school district to control their own destiny and convert a $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus.”

—–

So, if I’m reading between the lines on this properly, it appears that today’s lesson is:

• Make the common-sense fiscal decisions, and then don’t yield to the Public Sector Unions = SUCCESS!!
• Punt on all the tough decisions, keep raising taxes, and/or cave to the Public Sector Unions = BANKRUPTCY.

Yeah, I think I can remember that.

Better Interpretation of new SCOTUS ruling: ‘Sanctuary Cities illegal, too’

It appears that Obama and his minions are completely willing to see the divide on illegal immigration devolve into chaos, since his Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has already indicated that they won’t be taking any calls from Arizona going forward.

It takes a small, petty man to make such a small, self-interested decision. President Populist is just such a man.

From the Examiner:

On Monday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency suspended the federal program known as 287(g) for Arizona, which allows local law enforcement to investigate a suspect’s immigration status after an arrest had been made for any offense. The program has been highly effective in identifying criminal aliens at the local level.

The decision came only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court announced their decision to let stand the portion of Arizona’s immigration law which requires local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is here illegally.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, 287 (g) agreements are “not useful” in states that have enacted SB1070-type laws. So, even if local law enforcement arrests an illegal alien, their requests to ICE are likely to fall upon deaf ears and the suspect will simply be released.

This has been discussed quite a bit in the last 24 hours, and by folks several orders of magnitude smarter than me. BUT: there is a factor missing. I want to highlight it, because I made this exact point months ago with a couple of my buddies. And it’s something that I haven’t heard from anyone else other than Levin last night.

Hey, if I have to agree with someone, I’m happy to have the “Great One” on my side.

From the Daily Caller:

On his Monday show, conservative radio host Mark Levin explained why  yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070, the controversial Arizona  immigration law, could pave the way for legal action against “sanctuary” areas  that welcome undocumented immigrants.

Levin, the author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” first  expressed his disappointment in Chief Justice John Roberts for signing on with  the decision, which dismantled much of the Arizona law while upholding a section  that allows law enforcement to force suspected immigrants to show documentation  that proves their legal residency.

“I must tell you that the decision is bizarre,” he said. “It’s not  incomprehensible, but it is largely incoherent. I’m extremely disappointed in  the chief justice for signing on with this. There is no deal, no reason for him  to jump on that side. It was 8-0 on the issue of stopping and checking for  documentation in the course of an investigation for possible criminal  activity.”

However, Levin said, if states can no longer set policies dealing with  someone’s immigration status, then sanctuary cities or states may find  themselves in hot water.

“If this case stands for the point that only the federal government has power  in the area of immigration, then let me suggest that sanctuary cities and  sanctuary states are unconstitutional because they exist to defy federal  immigration law,” Levin said. “That’s number one. So folks out there that have  standing, sue your cities, sue your states if they have declared themselves to  be sanctuary cities or states because they do not have the constitutional  authority to declare butkus. So turn this law against them.”

Now obviously I’m no lawyer, but this point seemed rather obvious even to little ol’ me. That’s why I was surprised that no one else seemed to be making it. It’s also why I didn’t dwell on it for awfully long: I just figured there must be more to it which my non-lawyerly brain didn’t properly comprehend. That may still be the case, but it doesn’t change the fact that Levin’s law firm, Landmark Legal Foundation, also reached the same conclusion in a brief published earlier this year,  noting a decision similar to the one yesterday would create “chaos and  confusion”.

If the federal government’s politically motivated challenge of SB 1070 is  successful, rather than bring consistency and certainty to immigration on a  national level, it will create even more chaos and confusion. The federal  Executive Branch’s selective and inconsistent application of field preemption in  immigration law must not be given this Court’s imprimatur. Otherwise, lawless  state and local governments that have adopted sanctuary policies that directly  violate federal immigration law and have not been challenged by the Executive  Branch will continue to be lawless. Conversely, law-abiding governments that  help enforce federal immigration law will be without direction.

The illegal immigration issue (and it’s important to remember to include the word ‘illegal’ here) is only going to grow more rancorous and divisive, as a direct result of Obama’s actions. However, Arizona didn’t pick this battle: they just decided to fight back. I have sided with them from the start, and my reason is simple: the Arizona law is a direct outgrowth of that state’s frustration over our own Federal Government’s failure to secure the border. This law would be superfluous if that were to happen. ALL other methods they choose to rationally deal with this issue need to be viewed through the prism of being told, point-blank, by Uncle Sam, “No, the US gov’t won’t protect you, and you can’t protect yourself, either”.

Well, they are protecting themselves, and God Bless ‘em for having the spine to do so.

I’m not from Arizona, but I can certainly understand their plight. In the face of an increasingly hostile Federal Government, I am completely on the side of the State, any state, which is merely trying to fulfill their obligation to protect their legal citizens.

Furious about 'Fast and Furious'

Reblogged from The Constitution Club:

• 
• 

The Right is all abuzz and rightfully outraged about what should be considered President Obama's Watergate moment. Obama's attempt at a complicated gun control gimmick and propaganda effort blew up in his face and has unleashed a myriad of unforeseen consequences.

The recent claim by the administration of 'Executive Privilege' to stonewall congressional inquiries into this momentous disaster that unfolded under the supervision of his own Attorney General.

Read more… 305 more words

(Courtesy of the Constitution Club blog)...... ***This issue has been roundly ignored by the press for over a year. On the rare occasions when it IS addressed, it's largely ridiculed by the Left & the Media (sorry for repeating myself there). We've written about this here several times, so consider this a 'refresher course' on F&F. Be sure to read it and then watch the excellent, ..and terrifying, ...video from Bill Whittle. A must see.

Before you go shopping today…

….you may wish to check out Kathryn Blaze Carlson’s excellent article in the National Post from earlier this month. It touches on something that we all know in our hearts, but we usually feel we’re smart enough to avoid: Marketing.

The marketers are everywhere: Google, the supermarket, where we buy gas…….we can’t escape ‘em. To deal with being constantly saturated by marketing, we simply believe we’re so savvy that we can see through all of the marketer’s ploys.

Yeah, right. Guess again.

From Canada’s National Post:

Robb Engen weaves back and forth through the maze, following his wife in what he calls “zombie mode.” He submits to her and the labyrinthine Calgary retail outlet, wandering along as she adds this and that to their shopping cart. By the time they finally reach the exit, the Alberta couple has almost always bought more than they had planned.

“We go there with a list and with the intention to leave with what we planned on buying, but something about that store makes it so you can’t help but leave with a few extra things,” Mr. Engen said.

The 32-year-old father and personal finance blogger is, of course, describing a typical visit to IKEA, the iconic Swedish retailer that attracts 734 million shoppers annually and which has just announced plans for its largest North American store in Montreal. At 464,694 square feet, the store will knock the Berlin IKEA from its ranking as the fifth-largest in the world.

By the time customers wind through 54 “inspirational room settings,” three full home settings, the so-called market hall, and a restaurant that seats 600, they will have shopped for 1.5 kilometres. Most will have spent an entire Saturday afternoon zig-zagging back and forth and up and down, all for the privilege of passing a gazillion items they had no intention of buying but suddenly realize they must have.

—–

So shoppers might think they buy a particular item because they decided on their own that they want it, but they also buy because stores use tactics that make it almost impossible for them not to: From the oversized shopping carts proven to make us spend more, to the escalators that take us deeper into a store only to force us across the entire retail floor to go back up or down, to the pie crusts in the grocery store fruit section that inspire us to bake on a whim, to the placement of staple foods toward the back of a supermarket so we have to pass everything else on the way.

—–

But IKEA, with its maze that winds shoppers first through a series of inspirational room settings and then through the market hall, is the retailer that stands out in its almost backward and yet highly successful approach. When Mr. Engen said there is “something about that store,” he was right.

(**Click the map below to ENLARGE**)

According to one expert, the flow of the store disorients customers, it coaxes them past every household item imaginable [unless they access the shortcuts], it tempts them to put items in their cart “just in case I want it” for fear of having to try to find it again later, and it gives them license to impulse-buy.

“By the time you get [to the market hall] you’ve already gone backwards and forwards on yourself through the showrooms, past every [inspirational] setting, and you’ve probably spent half-an-hour,” said Alan Penn, a University College London professor who, together with a former graduate student, used the school’s virtual reality centre to study how shoppers navigate and buy at IKEA. “Only then are you allowed to start buying, and I think you feel licensed to sort of treat yourself.”

Carlson’s article is more in-depth than just the sampling included here, and covers other retailers Abercrombie & Fitch (and why you either love or hate it), and Costco. She also discusses how music and scents are connected to your moods and your purchasing habits.

Very well written, and certainly worth a few minutes.

AND: It just might save you $$$$ this weekend when, armed with this new knowledge, you manage to NOT buy that new duvet, some framed prints of fruit, or a ceramic monkey, despite thinking how nice they would look in your house.

Hey, you laugh now, but when you’re in the store later today, …you’ll be thanking me.

Internet freedom vs. the U.N.

The United Nations is one of those topics that causes one of three reactions: (1) strident defense from the Left, (2) snarling disdain from the Right, …and (3) bored, yawning shrugs, which come from pretty much everyone else.

I understand the reason for all three, of course. The Right sees the U.N. as thieves and backers of every tin-pot dictator in the world, and I happen to agree. The Left adores the U.N., since its primary aim appears to be stealing from those mean old Western nations, (whom they resent) and giving to the poor, third-world dictatorships, socialist regimes and tyrants (whom they love). And everyone else sees it as some ethereal-yet-benign body, which doesn’t have anything to do with their daily lives.

If the U.N. gets their way, that last description will change, and in a hurry.

From cnet.com:

The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations.

The European proposal, offered for debate at a December meeting of a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents.

The article goes on to explain the costs associated with this and how it could cripple the internet forever. But this time there is a more insidious goal than simply money.

From wsj.com:

It’s easy to understand why countries like Russia, China and Iran would want to rewire the Internet, cutting off access to their citizens and undermining the idea of a World Wide Web. What’s more surprising is that U.S. diplomats are letting authoritarian regimes hijack an obscure U.N. agency to undermine how the Internet works, including for Americans.

—–

The U.N. process is mind-numbing, but as Vincent Cerf, one of the founders of the Web, recently told Congress, this U.N. involvement means “the open Internet has never been at a higher risk than it is now.”

—–

The broadest proposal in the draft materials is an initiative by China to give countries authority over “the information and communication infrastructure within their state” and require that online companies “operating in their territory” use the Internet “in a rational way”—in short, to legitimize full government control. The Internet Society, which represents the engineers around the world who keep the Internet functioning, says this proposal “would require member states to take on a very active and inappropriate role in patrolling” the Internet.

This is indefensible, but par for the course with this bunch. I could list other such U.N. meddling for days without once repeating myself:

• proposed global levies,
• International Gun Control,
• the Law Of the Sea Treaty,
• the U.N. council on Climate Change,
• Israel,
• the Orwellian ‘Human Rights Council’,

…and the list goes on, and on, and on.

Boy-oh-boy, do I miss John Bolton.

The fact that the United States of America is the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since that organization’s founding in 1945 (providing roughly a quarter of their annual budget) gives us the right to question this international assemblage of thugs, which consistently manages to undermine freedom at every turn. We need to get a handle on what is being misspent by them, how, and why…and then stand up for freedom as we used to do….or we must seriously consider getting out altogether.

Because if we don’t choose one of those options, and quickly, we will be funding our own demise.

Liberal Media Cage Match: POLITICO calls out MSNBC

From Politico:

MSNBC aired footage today that inaccurately portrayed Mitt Romney’s remarks at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania.

Discussing how the public sector suffers from a lack of competition, Romney told the audience about an optometrist who wanted to change his address and subsequently received 33 pages of paperwork from the federal government, which begat a months-long bureaucratic nightmare during which the optometrist in question wasn’t receiving his checks. “That’s how government works,” Romney said.

Then, to illustrate the advantages of competition in the private sector, Romney shared an anecdote from his visit to the local WaWa chain store. “I was at WaWas, I went in to order a sandwich. You press a little touch-tone keypad — you touch this, touch this, go pay the cashier — there’s your sandwich. It’s amazing. People in the private sector have learned how to compete. It’s time to bring some competition to the federal government.”

An easy to see comparison, an illustration of two competing business models, with Romney accurately pointing out the superior one. Sounds innocuous, right?

Not when MSNBC got ahold of it:

But in the MSNBC clip, which first aired on Andrea Mitchell Reports, Romney’s remarks begin with the WaWa anecdote and end at “It’s amazing,” an edit — first noted by conservative blogger Sooper Mexican — that makes it seem as though Romney was expressing amazement at the advent of touch-tone screens.

The MSNBC clip feeds into the narrative, beloved by some on the left, that Romney is a 1950′s throwback. After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter — which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine. In fact, what Romney found so “amazing” was the discord between private sector innovation and public sector bureaucracy.

There’s video of this, but I feel I should direct you to Politico for it (I’ve cribbed enough from them). Plus, they deserve credit for yelling ‘foul’ on this one.

(Romney video on Politico is HERE)

That’s twice they’ve surprised me in the past month. Just goes to prove: you live long enough, you end up seeing everything.

Dear Green Police: Make up your mind, would ya’??

When I was in high school and college, I worked at the local supermarket. Thus I am very familiar with the age-old question: “Paper, or plastic”?

Back in the 80′s, the switch was on to get away from the paper bags which were immensely popular, and replace them with a new, photo-degradable plastic bag. The bag was promised to be more environmentally friendly, would breakdown in sunlight, and we wouldn’t have to “cut down all the forests” for bags.

Even back then, such statements didn’t ring true to me. I was raised in a fairly rural part of New England, yet we had a paper company plant right in town. I was curious as to why, if the trees were a source of profit for the manufacturers (like our local paper plant), why would they be so stupid as to not replace their product source ? The answer, of course, is that they wouldn’t, ’cause they’re not that stupid, and there are more trees now than there were 100 years go.

Anyway, back to bags. All the supermarkets started to use the new photo-degradable bags back then, and we were encouraged to steer people away from paper. By doing this we were repeatedly assured that we would be helping the environment.

And now we have this:

Los Angeles became the largest city in the nation to approve a ban on plastic bags at supermarket checkout lines, handing a hard-fought victory to environmentalists and promising to change the way Angelenos do their grocery shopping.

The City Council voted 13 to 1 to phase out plastic bags over the next 16 months at an estimated 7,500 stores, meaning shoppers will need to bring reusable bags or purchase paper bags for 10 cents each.

So let me get this straight: the same eco-weenies (or maybe by now it’s their kids) who were telling me 25 years ago that we should use the photo-degradable bags, and should steer folks away from paper bags, have done an about-face and are now saying that plastic, photo-degradable are so bad that they need to be completely banned, but they’ll “allow” you to buy the old paper ones for a dime, or you can bring a cloth bag?

Huh? Does this make sense? Does actual science back any of this up?

You can guess the answer by now:

In 2011, the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency released a study that evaluated nine categories of environmental impacts caused by different types of supermarket bags.

—

….the study found that the average supermarket shopper would have to reuse the same cotton tote from 94 up to 1,899 times before it had less environmental impact than the disposable plastic bags needed to carry the same amount of groceries. This wide-varying amount of reuse that is required until the breakeven point is reached depends upon the type of environmental impact, but the median is 314 times, and it is more 170 times for all but one of the 9 impact categories.

—

Why is this? Because the environmental impacts of supermarket bags are dominated by the energy and raw materials needed to manufacture them. Plastic bags are inexpensive because relatively small amounts of energy and raw materials are needed to make them. These same attributes that make plastic bags affordable and light also make them easier on the environment than alternatives like paper bags and reusable cotton totes.

The article then goes on to explain why organic items in landfills don’t decompose any better than plastic bags (they become mummified) and also blows up the myth that plastic bags are bad because they’re rarely recycled:

Another common talking point about supermarket plastic bags is that they are rarely recycled, but this argument ignores the fact that a large portion of supermarket plastic bags (40% in the U.K.) are reused as garbage pail liners. Interestingly, the U.K. study found that it is better for the environment to reuse these bags as garbage pail liners rather than recycle them. This is due to the environmental “benefits of avoiding the production of the bin liners they replace.”

Just another in a verrrrry long series of times that the eco-libs got it wrong, again. It won’t make them slow down, of course: the eco-freaks are too convinced of their own importance.

And since I KNOW how important this is to them, this has become one of my biggest concerns out of self-defense. It’s also the reason why, far from making us laugh, this commercial from 2010 made my wife and I extremely uncomfortable.

‘Cause anymore, this no longer looks that unbelievable to me.

“If We Don’t Learn from History” (….you know the rest…)

I’ve always been a Fred Thompson fan: from the first time that I saw him in the movies, in Die Hard 2 back in 1990, you couldn’t help BUT like the guy. And his portrayal of District Attorney Arthur Branch on the series Law & Order made it watchable for the first time since Michael Moriarty was the Chief Assistant DA.

But between those two appearances, I noticed Thompson when he was elected to finish the remaining two years of Al Gore’s unexpired U.S. Senate term, and somewhere along the line I found out about his involvement with the Watergate investigations for the very first time. Fred was appointed minority counsel to assist the Republican senators on the Senate Watergate Committee, which certainly gave him a different perspective on the whole ordeal, and gives any lessons drawn from that time significantly more weight.

What lessons, you may ask? Here’s a taste:

Today, the office of the president, along with the entire executive branch of government, grows with each administration, bringing less accountability and more opportunity for improper activity. Today, unelected bureaucrats tell states what they can and cannot do about the enforcement of their own well-established laws. Federal regulations run every aspect of American life, even as the Supreme Court regularly slaps them down. These actions on the part of the executive branch are not criminal, but neither were many of the arrogant and foolish things the Watergate crowd did. At issue here is not just a few bad individuals. At issue is the way power can be used and abused. Watergate was not the first time the darker side of human nature manifested itself, nor was it the last time.

—-

We make a mistake when we build a moral fence around Watergate. It was, indeed, unprecedented in many ways, and the ugly array of crimes, misplaced loyalties, immaturity, and hubris speaks for itself. But Watergate is more about the frailties of man and his tendency to abuse power than it is about the unique evil of a small group of people at one time in history.

Thompson is a long-time Federalist, and his ideas on what constitutes an ‘abuse of power’ is a bit different from the current crew’s in the White House right now. For instance:

“The Founders knew what they were doing when they separated and balanced governmental powers. Federalism with limited, delineated federal power was an important part of that equation.”

Yeah: there’s a slew of jokers in Washington right now who’d read that and just *roll their eyes*….

Thompson’s opinions are informed by more diverse experience than most folks, and certainly more diverse than most politicians. This piece is a break from the political play-by-play that we usually see, and you really should read the full article.