Saturday, January 28, 2012

George Washington May Have Never Told a Lie, But That Does Not Stop Other People From Telling Lies About George Washington


The following is in response to a post that contained this image entitled, "The Greatness of America & Patriots Then & Now". It also shows how little people actually fact check things before they post them; as this quote I do believe is widely reported to be a hoax. Even bearing that in mind, it is nice when you can find where part of the quote in question originally came from.

I hate to tamp down everyone's enthusiasm for this quote, but I think the majority of its content is fraudulent. The first portion of it is most certainly Washington though; as it is taken from his first State of the Union Address. (Which despite popular conception: is not required to be spoken, and used to be printed.)

The full text is this:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

Which is taken from this:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/ref/blfirstsou.htm

Or if you prefer to see it in its original printed form, you can see it here:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/sou/sou-original.html

(Personally, I think citing that kind of argument in present day times is a bit farfetched; as I don't believe anyone is presently in danger from "certain hostile tribes of Indians" in the western or southern frontiers... or anywhere else in our nation for that matter... in fact if a modern day politician were to refer to them as Indians they would probably be publicly crucified for it.)

Now this quote could potentially mean the same thing, but its language is less clear cut than as it is constructed above.

It is also worth noting that this was before the United States had a standing army, and so part of the reason that it was important for people to have arms at that particular point in time was due to the fact that they might be called to defend the country in a time of war; as was necessary during the revolutionary war with the continental army.

(Although Hamilton moved to establish a permanent army with the support of Washington in the late 1790's; an act that was opposed by members of the Democratic-Replublican Party among others. Of which, perhaps most notably was John Adams; the Federalist elected President at the time of the conflict; a move that eventually led to his loss of the office in the forthcoming election.)

The quote above is actually more commonly cited to Thomas Jefferson (although the fact that it borrows so heavily from Washington, and does not have any credible citations to Jefferson's various public writings: leads me to believe that is a fake.); which is much more in keeping with his perspective on the people's right to defend themselves from their own government. (A point of view that was no doubt shaped by our country's dealings with England prior to and during the Revolutionary War.)

More to that point, he believed that a nation's desire to having a standing professional army ran counter to the freedom of the people of that country, stating, "Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet.", and, "Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]."


You can find more properly cited quoted from Jefferson on the subject here:

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1480.htm

And there are plenty of quotes from other "Founding Fathers" that give some sense that they did not view the second amendment as a protective right against governmental persecution; with the aforementioned John Adams stating in "A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" that,

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

And before you lay waste to John Adams, might I remind you that his writings are some of the most used when supporting the influence of Christianity in our countries foundation. With quotes like,

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.”

Such is the conundrum of anyone wishing to cite the "Founding Fathers" in their support of a resolution to any modern day debate or conflict: since they were as differing in their perspectives as people are today, and nary a one of the perspectives from our country’s founder will ever satisfy all of your arguments.

And that is in its essence the "Greatness of America". The ability to compromise and to come to a resolution that benefits all people and that does not embody one particular perspective or idea. To this point, the Constitution itself was commonly referred to as a "bundle of compromises" at the time of its writing. (Which should give anyone pause when they try assert the infallibility of that document.)

Even the so called "Founding Fathers" recognized it as an imperfect document, with Thomas Jefferson stating,

"This constitution was formed when we were new and unexperienced in the science of government. It was the first too which was formed in the whole United States. No wonder then that time and trial have discovered very capital defects in it."

It is partially due to this fact that we are called upon (by the men that strove to create our country) to, as Americans, not view the Constitution as a perfect document whose tenants should never be challenged, but rather to obey the current laws of our nation and continuously revise and update them with the passage of time.

This principle is perhaps most eloquently encapsulated by the words of the man whose picture resides at the top of this post, George Washington, in his farewell address,

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."

Why It Is a Mistake To Call Warren Buffet A Hypocrite


First off welcome to my first post, and thank you for joining me for this journey. Without further ado: on with the show.

The following post was written as a response to the above image, and is designed to illustrate how badly some people bend the truth in attempt to have a particular fact or news item support their particular perspective. It took me a while to find enough facts to really understand what was going on (as it seems most major news carriers declined to cover it; as in reality there was nothing to it), but I felt like sharing anyways.

Okay lets begin with this:

1) FACT: The reason that Berkshire Hathaway is refusing to pay the taxes in question is because they feel that "the IRS is using "erroneous, wrongful and illegal" interpretation of the U.S. Tax Code in regards to their tax assessment." In fact Berkshire Hathaway previously won a similar suit in 2002 resulting from a similar assessment by the IRS, but, due to the fact that the IRS is currently auditing returns from 2007 to 2009, the company has not yet had the chance to go to court over these most recent allegations.

2) FACT: In the previous case, "U.S. District Judge Lyle Strom, who presided over a three-day nonjury trial, ruled that the IRS mistakenly rejected the deductions because an agent used faulty methods to deny the deductions, resulting in the company paying an excess of $23 million in taxes and interest.

An appeal by the IRS was denied by the court in 2006."

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110904/MONEY/709049884

3) FACT: Berkshire Hathaway may not pay the top marginal rate (35 percent), but their last effective tax rate was 29 percent; which is a great deal higher than over a quarter of the the U.S. corporations comprising the S&P 500 (which paid under 20 percent over the last half decade).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

4) FACT: In a recent study of 280 companies on the Fortune 500 list, it was found that from 2008-2010 the average tax rate was 18.5%; which means that Berkshire Hathaway is paying over 50% more taxes than most large corporations in our country.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/focus-0

4) FACT: Berkshire Hathaway is not refusing to pay taxes. Rather, they are saying that they feel that IRS's application of the tax code is incorrect, the courts have previously agreed with them in that assessment, and due to that fact they are deferring the payment of those taxes until the court system has an equal opportunity to evaluate these most recent claims.

5) FACT: In other cases where there was not a previous ruling to support their claims, Berkshire Hathaway companies have paid their taxes in full as requested, and then gone to court to recoup the funds that they feel were improperly assessed.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-21/buffett-s-netjets-sues-u-s-over-642-7-million-in-taxes.html

6) FACT: There is a difference between corporate taxes and and the individual taxes that someone might pay on their income. To say that they are the same is ridiculous; as corporate tax code is infinitely more complex than those used for individuals, and there is a great deal more ambiguity regarding how those laws are applied.

7) FACT: Just because someone believes that there is something wrong with the tax code that is applied to individual citizens does not mean that they necessarily agree with the IRS on every ruling. If Berkshire Hathaway wants to fight what they feel is an appropriate assessment of their returns: they have that right. It does not make them or Warren Buffet a hypocrite.

8) QUESTION: Seriously which one of you is really going to be affected by an increase of taxes on the wealthy? Why even worry about this? Do any of you really think that it is fair that someone like Mitt Romney paid 13.9% taxes when he made 21.6 million in 2010; especially when you consider that the average American, the teacher, the soldier, or the small businessman (or woman... don't mean to be sexist here) pays 20.4%?

http://www.economist.com/comment/1220380

9)
QUESTION: If you answered yes to any of the questions above... do you think you could loan me some money? I really need a new lens for my camera :).

Jeremy is that enough fact checking for you? (I assume I am the official fact checker of the Jeremy Guider Facebook page; so I thought you were probably talking to me :).)

About Me: I hate these kinds of sections because I never know what to say: so I will keep this short. I consider myself to be a reasonably well educated (although you can be the judge of that after you read some of my posts) and logical individual with a moderate view on the world. I don’t buy into conspiracy theories, doomsday predictions, or anything else that cannot be supported implicitly by factual evidence. I love to research and debate. To find little facts that you can then use to overtake your opponent, and in that regard I am pretty good at what I do. This blog is in part designed to show some of that research, and to help others as they try to find the truth about what is going on in the world around them.

My Political Views: If you were to push me to say that I am one or the other, I suppose I would say I am a Democrat. That said, I don’t particularly believe that either party is inherently evil, and I don’t believe that anyone goes into politics saying, “I am going to purposefully hurt the country.” I believe that most politicians go into government thinking that they can affect some sort of positive change for our country, and in the end politics and parties get in the way of what they otherwise would do. I believe that it is important for both sides to compromise in their vision of the future for the system to work, and only through that compromise can the will of the people on both sides be adequately represented. I mean after all the U.S. Constitution was commonly referred to as a “Bundle of Compromises” when it was written, and that seems to have worked out for us pretty well so far right?

My Religious Views: I was raised Christian in the Southern Baptist Church, and I remain so today. I believe that religion affects us all in how he go about our day to day lives, but in the case of the United States government I think it is best to keep one’s religious views from impairing their political choices. I understand that you may identify better with one candidate who seems to espouse similar beliefs to the ones that you hold dear, but I don’t believe that should be your only criteria for choosing to vote or support a particular candidate; as religion, due to the fact that our government is supposed to operate with a certain separation between church and state, has very small role in how our political leaders in how they are supposed to handle themselves and the office which they represent.

The Point of This Blog: The reason I started this blog is fairly simple: I found myself spending way too much time on Facebook correcting errant posts by some of my friends of mine that involved political, economic, or religious matters. As generally these were well cited rebuttals that involved a great deal of research on my part, I decided that I should create a blog page designed to inform others of these common misconceptions, and then arm them with the same types of facts that I had found so that my readers could share them with their friends or family members. I don't do political propaganda for either side, and, as the title of this blog hints at, my writings/musings are intended to represent a moderate prospective on the world.

What This Blog Is Not: Politically biased flame bait, designed to attract the wrath or ire of others. As I mentioned before I am generally fairly neutral when it comes to politics, and in most cases I am likely to take the contrarian point of view on things; as I feel both sides of an issue need to be adequately explored before you can pass judgment on it.

I may expand on all of this at a later point, but I think that is a fairly good summarization of who I am, what my perspective is, and the purpose of this blog.