Quote of the week

"None of us have to settle for the best this [Obama] administration offers -- a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.

"Listen to the way we're spoken to already, as if everyone is stuck in some class or station in life, victims of circumstances beyond our control, with government there to help us cope with our fate.

"It's the exact opposite of everything I learned growing up in Wisconsin, or at college in Ohio.

"When I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That's what we do in this country. That's the American Dream.

"That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."

(Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican Party's nominee for Vice President, from his acceptance speech Wednesday evening)

Facebook follies

During a ritual cruise of Facebook this morning I came across a few posts that had me shaking my head. The first was an image crediting liberal political ideology with the creation of weekends -- seriously.

"In 1886," the graphic claims, "7 union members in Wisconsin died fighting for the 5-day work week and the 8-hour work day."

In 1886 my great-grandfather was a young man, mining coal to feed his family, working as many hours as the company would give him. One of his sons, my grandfather, became a farmer, raising dairy cattle and coaxing crops from 240 acres behind teams of draft horses.

After my father left military service, he became the first member of his family to graduate from college. He returned to his hometown and worked over four decades as a veterinarian -- out the door at 4am every day for his farm clients and in the clinic 'til 10pm (or later) every night treating housepets and performing surgery.

As for me, I can't imagine being proud of insisting on working a 5-day, 40-hour week. I guess it's not in my blood.

The second Facebook puzzler, not unexpected in this political climate, also displayed breathtaking ignorance of work and business.

Reacting to Pres. Barack Obama's "You didn't build that" speech, Georgia business owner Ray Gaster added a panel to the sign outside each of his three Gaster Lumber and Hardware locations:

I built this business without gov't help.

Obama can Kiss my ass.

I'm Ray Gaster & I approve this message.

One of my Facebook friends, a committed statist, posted an annotated photo of Ray Gaster and his sign. The altered image features 18 callouts, each presuming to show how the owner couldn't possibly have succeeded without the government's help.

My friend was hoist by his own petard -- the unintended result was a fairly comprehensive illustration of how our federal government meddles where it doesn't belong, how it takes credit for what it doesn't do, how it plunders and squanders and wastes and overspends the citizens' money.

The Annotated Gaster doesn't deserve even a participant ribbon, much less a gold star.

Finally, it's been entertaining to watch left-wingers' heads explode over Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan. The disinformation, the tortured talking points...let's just say that I may run out of popcorn well before Election Day.

Perhaps the most sideways reaction I've seen, however, came to me from New York City by way of a Facebook thread:

"I am personally embarrassed that Paul Ryan was a graduate of Miami of Ohio. Yes, there were many conservatives that attended in my days at the University. However, I developed my liberal and ethical leanings from Miami. He obviously had a different 'Miami experience.' So sad."

Sad? Really? How arrogant is that?

Looks like Paul Ryan didn't read the chapter in the student handbook requiring all Miami grads to ply the waters of the world listing to port.

Really?

That poster is part of a campaign by USDA Food and Nutrition Services, aimed at recruiting applicants for its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as "food stamps."

It must be working. Since January of 2009 the number of Americans living in poverty, statistically speaking, has risen 6 million to almost 16 million. And today almost 46 million Americans are on food stamps, up 14 million over the same period.

Yes, times are tough.

Last week we learned that the USDA made an agreement with the government of Mexico to increase participation in the food-stamps program among Mexican nationals living in this country. As if that weren't enough of a puzzler, few days earlier the House Minority Whip opined that food stamps is one of the "most stimulative" things that our government can do for the national economy.

You read that right.

I'm sure that taxpayer-funded assistance, when used according to directions, helps keep individual Americans and their families from going hungry. You won't convince me, however, that a ballooning and much-abused entitlement program is making our nation stronger.

Principle & counter-principle

Speaking last Friday in Roanoke, Virginia, Pres. Barack Obama now-infamously said,

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Mitt Romney, at a campaign event yesterday in Irwin, Pennsylvania, responded:

"Something happened on Friday -- President Obama exposed what he really thinks about free people and the American vision and government, what he really thinks about America itself.

"He probably wants to understand why his policies failed. If you want to understand why his policies have failed, why what he has done has not created jobs or rising incomes in America, you can look at what he said.

"And what he said was this, he said, and I quote -- and he's speaking, by the way, of businesses like this one, small businesses, big businesses, middle-size businesses, mining businesses, manufacturing, service businesses of all kinds. He said this:

'If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'

"That 'somebody else' is government, in his view. He goes on to describe the people who deserve the credit for building this business. And, of course, he describes people who we care very deeply about, who make a difference in our lives -- our schoolteachers, firefighters, people who build roads.

"We need those things. We value schoolteachers, firefighters, people who build roads. You really couldn't have a business if you didn't have those things. But, you know, we pay for those things.

"The taxpayers pay for government. It's not like government just provides those to all of us and we say,

'Oh thank you, government, for doing those things.'

"No, in fact, we pay for them and we benefit from them, and we appreciate the work that they do and the sacrifices that are done by people who work in government. But they did not build this business."

And that's the truth -- not bankable truth, alas, but truth nonetheless.

And you thought Scalia was cranky this morning...

[This irresponsible decision by the Department of Homeland Security reflects callous disregard for the People and stunning political arrogance. What are they doing to our country?]

Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police

The Washington Times

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police -- but that won't change President Obama's decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

"We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities," one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won't be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

"We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona," the official said.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.

That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status -- but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

Federal officials said they'll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.

Officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren't working and took the Supreme Court's ruling as a chance to scrap them.

[Read the complete article here.]

Righteous dissent

"After [Arizona v. United States] was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30."

"The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress's failure to pass the Administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so.

"But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."

"...There has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation's immigration laws?

"A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court's holding?"

"Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty -- not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State."

(U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting from the Court's majority opinion in the case of Arizona v. United States. Read the Opinion of the Court here; Justice Scalia's scathing 22-page dissent begins on page 30 of the pdf document.)

Border crossing

This is today's big news -- so far, anyway -- as reported by Reuters:

"The Obama administration will relax enforcement of deportation rules for young people brought to the United States without legal status...."

"U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday that illegal immigrants up to 30 years old who came to the United States as children and do not pose a risk to national security would be eligible to stay in the country and allowed to apply for work permits.

"'Our nation's immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner,' Napolitano said in a statement. 'But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case.'"

It's a transparent attempt to pander to Hispanic voters and the open-borders crowd -- no doubt about that.

Despite what we're hearing from the Right, however, the move isn't illegal. It's not unconstitutional nor is it dictatorial. And although it does award de facto immunity to more than a million young illegal immigrants, granting them an official blanket exception to existing work-permit regulations, it's not amnesty per se.

Immigration law hasn't changed -- this is an enforcement decision. It's the federal equivalent of a local police department choosing how to allocate its finite resources, something that happens every day.

It's also shameful disregard for the will of the People.

The new DHS policy is wholly unacceptable to this independent citizen-patriot. It reflects the Obama administration's indisputably poor grasp of both economic issues and national security. Worse, it smuggles the ill-conceived DREAM Act through the back door.

In that sense, the action announced today is extra-constitutional, yet another example of the federal bureaucracy operating beyond the reach of representation.

That isn't in the best interest of our country -- but then, this is about election-year politics, not governing.

The Choice

From early childhood, words attributed to Patrick Henry were imprinted both in my head and on my heart:

"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!"

Such expressions of commitment and courage are anathema to today's youth and, sadly, to the masses that choose entitlements over independence. These citizens dismiss the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, favoring instead the likes of Bill Maher:

"Well, sometimes you do need a nanny state -- that old thing about, 'the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.' I mean, at what point does the environment get so bad that we -- that the government says, 'Yes, we're going to have to infringe on your freedom a little'?

"These people don't want any infringing on freedom. That, to me, is a suicide pact."

Patrick Henry, I think, would have been proud to count himself among "these people" so maligned by the patronizing Maher.

I know I am. Like Henry, I choose Liberty.

I'll wrap with a video released by Free Market America on Earth Day 2012, which was observed last Sunday. The video makes a powerful statement about how our government has squashed economic Liberty and, in the process, sabotaged our future.

'Without Cyclones or Blizzards'

That iconic poster, produced in 1885, no doubt lured hordes of opportunists to California. A present-day incident, described in the following article, should repel thinking Americans in equal numbers:

(CNSNews.com) -- The government spent at least $205,075 in 2010 to "translocate" a single bush in San Francisco that stood in the path of a $1.045-billion highway-renovation project that was partially funded by the economic stimulus legislation President Barack Obama signed in 2009.

The bush -- a Franciscan manzanita -- was a specimen of a commercially cultivated species of shrub that can be purchased from nurseries for as little as $15.98 per plant. The particular plant in question, however, was discovered in the midst of the City of San Francisco, in the median strip of a highway, and was deemed to be the last example of the species in the "wild."

Prior to the discovery of this "wild" Franciscan manzanita, the plant had been considered extinct for as long as 62 years -- extinct, that is, outside of people's yards and botanical gardens.

Caltrans agreed to transfer $79,470 to the Presidio Trust "to fund the establishment, nurturing, and monitoring of the Mother Plant in its new location for a period not to exceed ten (10) years following relocation and two (2) years for salvaged rooted layers and cuttings according to the activities outlined in the Conservation Plan."

Furthermore, Presidio Parkway Project spokesperson Molly Graham told CNSNews.com that the "hard removal" -- n.b. actually digging up the plant, putting it on a truck, driving it somewhere else and replanting it -- cost $100,000.

Caltrans also agreed to "Transfer $25,605.00 to the Trust to fund the costs of reporting requirements of the initial 10-year period as outlined in the Conservation Plan."

[Read the complete article here.]

In the midst of our national economic crisis, this is pure madness.

The People's Republic of California is where fiscal responsibility goes to die, interred right next to Liberty. The state faces its own budget shortfall of $10 billion, so it has no problem squandering federal money -- my money, your money, our kids' money.

Although the Left Coast deserves every ounce of outrage we can muster, by no means should it be the sole target of our ire.

Consider that New York, New Jersey, Maryland and the southern New England states, among others, engage in the same assault on their citizens. See how corruption grows, entitlements blossom and individual liberties vanish in large cities, and how quickly these cancers spread to the suburbs and beyond.

Independent citizen-patriots are being pressed into "flyover country." It looks like we're going to have to make our stand -- practically and politically -- right here in the Heartland.

Posted: Condemned

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana)

Our entitlement culture, defined

[The following analysis, published on Monday, should be required reading for every citizen, especially those who pretend that we can continue to cater to an entitlement-hungry populace.]


A Nation of Government Dependents?
49% of U.S. Population Lives in Households Receiving Gov't Benefits
Veronique de Rugy
Mercatus Center at George Mason University

This week Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy examines the share of the U.S. population that live in a household with at least one member receiving government benefits using the Census Bureau's data from the third quarter of 2010.

The red bar represents the percentage of the population living in a household receiving benefits from one or more federal and state programs. The green bar represents the share of the population receiving benefits from at least one means-tested program (a program that targets low-income people with non-welfare income) for food, housing, or children's aid, etc. The blue bars give a breakdown of the population living in households receiving benefits from various federal programs. (Note that the bars do not add up to 100% because it is common for people to receive benefits from more than one program.)

In 2010, 49% -- or nearly half -- of the U.S. population lived in a household receiving government assistance. According to Investors.com, this percentage of the population has gone "up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries."

Spending on entitlement programs is one of the main drivers to U.S. debt as such programs have the most recipients. Specifically, 16% of the population lived in a household receiving Social Security benefits, and 15% in a household receiving Medicare benefits. Medicaid benefits had the largest share of dependents, with 26% of the population living in a household receiving such benefits.

About 35% of Americans in 2010 lived in households that received benefits from at least one means-tested transfer program. Out of these programs, more than 46 million -- or 15% of all Americans -- lived in households receiving food stamps, 2% unemployment compensation, and 6% supplemental security income. The percent of the population living in a household receiving benefits for low-income families with children reached 8%, and those receiving temporary assistance for needy families reached 2%.

Means-tested welfare spending at both federal and state levels has grown faster than any other category of government spending. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation found that annual spending for means-tested programs increased by nearly 300% between 1989 and 2008. According to Rector, the growth in means-tested aid "greatly exceeded the growth in government spending on education (143%) and defense (126%)" during this same time period.

The more people receive government assistance, the more difficult it will be to reform these programs. The majority of future federal spending will be to finance this growing nation of dependents.

Iconic, ironic or patriotic?

Each of my favorite Super Bowl commercials, posted here yesterday, promotes a venerable American brand.

Chevy. Chrysler. Budweiser.

None of those corporate icons represents what it once did. Chevrolet (founded in 1911) and Chrysler (1925) survived Chapter 11 thanks to billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts and, in the case of Chrysler, because an Italian carmaker bought almost 60% of the company. Budweiser (1876) is the flagship brand of a brewer headquartered not in St. Louis, but in Belgium.

Ever since the commercials ran on Sunday, pundits have been cranking out commentary after ironic commentary. The Chrysler ad has come in for special criticism.

Pres. Obama's backers see the spot as supporting his approach to our national economic crisis. Conservative klaxons view it the same way, accusing Clint Eastwood of being a shill for the administration.

When you're a hammer, as it's said, everything looks like a nail.

Of all the perspectives I've read and heard, only three ring remotely true with me. The first came from Jay Leno:

"One of the most talked about [Super Bowl] commercials was the one with Clint Eastwood, where he said, 'It's halftime in America, and our second half is about to begin.'

"The bad news? China has the ball and we're down $15 trillion."

The second belongs to John Avlon:

"When the next Republican assumes the Oval Office, whether in four years or eight, he or she will find that the political culture is set up to destroy rather than build. Unifying the nation absent an urgent crisis is increasingly difficult, if not impossible. The organized activist class from your own party will not tolerate dissension from ideological purity, even in the face of real-world responsibilities. The opposition will have been conditioned to reflexively attack, demonizing the duly elected president almost regardless of what policies he proposes. This cannot be good for the country."

Last, here's what Eastwood himself said to FOXNation:

"I just want to say that the spin stops with you guys, and there is no spin in that ad. On this I am certain.

"I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message...just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was ok.

"I am not supporting any politician at this time.

"Chrysler, to their credit, didn't even have cars in the ad.

"Anything they gave me for it went for charity.

"If...Obama or any other politician wants to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."

Now permit me, please, to offer my own view: Attacking Chrysler's "Halftime in America" commercial because it's somehow pro-Obama is intellectually dishonest and ideologically crippled.

There's nothing so patriotic as (to quote Avlon) "making the case for American resilience." That's what the ad did, simply and with the conviction of an independent citizen, and that's why I love it.

KintlaLake's favorite Super Bowl commercials

Occupy à la mode

No doubt about it, those Occupy people have themselves a catchy battle cry -- "We are the 99%!" -- but no one really believes that a fragmented mob of idealists represents virtually all Americans. It's not even close to the truth, which makes the protesters an easy mark for ridicule well deserved.

Real numbers -- and by that I mean facts, backed up by polling or other research -- tend to make lousy slogans, even when the numbers themselves highlight something that may be, in one way or another, significant. To wit:

We are the 15%
...of Americans who profess no religion.

We are the 18%
...of Americans who believe that Pres. Barack Obama is a Muslim.

We are the 20%
...of Americans who admit to having peed in a swimming pool.

We are the 21%
...of Americans who pledge allegiance to the Republican Party -- coincidentally, the same percentage that identify their political ideology as "liberal."

We are the 24%
...of Americans who are unemployed.

We are the 32%
...of Americans who pledge allegiance to the Democratic Party.

We are the 36%
...of Americans who identify their political ideology as "moderate."

We are the 41%
...of Americans who identify their political ideology as "conservative."

We are the 46%
...of Americans who pledge allegiance to neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party.

We are the 55%
...of Americans who disapprove of the way that Pres. Obama is handling his job.

We are the 66%
...of likely Republican-primary voters who want the former Mayor of Wasilla to stay the hell out of the 2012 presidential campaign.

We are the 75%
...of likely Republican-primary voters who want someone other than Mitt Romney to be President of the United States.

We are the 77%
...of Americans who say that our country is on the wrong track.

We are the 81%
...of Americans who disapprove of the way that the U.S. Congress is handling its job.

Listening post: 'Cost of Livin''

We tuned the shop radio to a local country-music station while we counted stock Friday night. I was about to take a break when Ronnie Dunn's "Cost of Livin'" began playing, and I stopped to listen.

Co-written by Dunn and Phillip Coleman, the sparse and touching song was released earlier this year but I hadn't heard it before the other night. As good as the radio single is, the video is even better -- watch.

Tags: Cost of Livin', Ronnie Dunn, Ronnie Dunn Videos

"Cost of Livin'" and what it represents breaks my heart. Maybe my reaction has something to do with the road I've traveled over the last few years, the simple labor that now helps feed my family, or what I see happening all around me here in the Heartland.

The get-a-damned-job crowd has no idea.

A middle-class perspective

Breaking it down

I'm not fond of mass e-mails. I don't encourage folks to send them to me, and it's rare that I pass them along.

Today I'll make an exception.

Maybe you've seen this already -- lopping eight zeroes from U.S. federal financials to illustrate what annual household finances would look like in proportion. To wit, I present the mythical "Jones" family:

Income (net): $21,700
Expenditures: $38,200
Borrowing: $16,500
Debt (total): $142,710

Obviously, any household with a balance sheet like that is living irresponsibly beyond its means. The Joneses, recognizing this, decide to cut this year's spending:

Reduction in expenditures: $385

That's absurd, of course -- but it's precisely what our elected officials are doing.

I've read commentary suggesting that the Jones analogy demonstrates the need to increase household income dramatically (that is, the U.S. government must impose onerous taxes). That misses the point by a country mile.

What the Obama administration calls "a balanced approach" -- reducing spending while increasing revenue -- truly is, in my view, the only intellectually honest solution to the debt-and-deficit problem. Still, a simplistic household analogy makes it clear that it's our spending that needs change -- revolutionary change -- and I have absolutely zero confidence that'll happen.

Our President, who's showing us that inspiration isn't the same thing as leadership, doesn't have the juice to do it. Congress isn't capable of it, and neither is a bipartisan "super committee," which is nothing more than a dysfunctional Congress en micro.

In any case, the entitlement-hungry masses wouldn't allow it.

I can't see the status quo lasting longer than a few years more -- and since the problems won't be fixed, American life as we know it could crumble. I can imagine order beginning to break down within a year and civil unrest becoming widespread within two.

Pessimistic? Damned right.

A handful of discoveries

It's a damp, overcast morning here at KintlaLake Ranch. Seems like a good time to catalog some unexpected finds.

In one of my Urban Resources posts I surveyed The Other Economy, that rich source of goods and services operating outside the conventional marketplace. My family and I have been "shopping the roadside" a lot lately, turning up bargain after useful bargain.

I've regretted parting with my Black & Decker Benchtop Workmate since leaving it behind when I moved back to Ohio ten years ago. Introduced in the late 1970s, the Benchtop model eventually was discontinued, so if I wanted to replace it I'd have to explore the secondhand market.

I discovered this one (above) earlier this summer at a garage sale halfway down a narrow alley in our village. Other than a few stains and a little rust, I found it in excellent condition, complete except for a pair of original-issue L-bolts that clamp it to a bench.

The price: just $3.00. Two carriage bolts, two flat washers and two wingnuts, purchased at the local hardware store, put it on my workbench for a grand total of four bucks.

Because a man can never have enough vises (or vices, for that matter), at another garage sale that same day I picked up this "hobby vise" (left) for two dollars. It clamps to the work-surface with a thumbscrew and will come in handy for a variety of small projects.

Speaking of The Other Economy, our village held its annual flea market last weekend. It's not a big event, just a coupla dozen canopied tables piled with household castoffs. My wife and I came home with a three-foot chocolate rabbit (brown plastic, actually) that'll grace our front porch next Easter, and a 1960s-vintage glass-and-chrome teapot. Together, the two items cost us two bucks.

I spent one more dollar, that on an old Boy Scout "contest medal." These awards were introduced in the late 1920s, as I understand it, but they'd been retired by the time I became a Scout myself.

Wanting to get a better fix on this medal's age, yesterday I examined it with a magnifying glass. Other than the word CAMPING cast into the front, the pendant bears no markings. Stamped on the clasp at the top of the ribbon, however, is PAT. NO. 2,795,064. A bit of web-sleuthing unearthed a copy of the original patent for the clasp -- applied for in 1953, granted in 1957.

So the clasp, at least, probably is as old as I am. A buck bought me a keeper and a pleasant exercise in discovery.

I love beer -- and I mean good beer. Sure, I'm willing to throw back my earthly portion of mass-produced barley pop, but I prefer beer that has actual flavor.

In a corner-store lager, for example, I enjoy an ice-cold Rolling Rock. If I had to choose a favorite, without a doubt it'd be Rogue Brewery Dead Guy Ale. And as you might expect, I'm especially partial to small-batch local brews, like those from Columbus Brewing Company.

Recently I learned of Rockmill Brewery, located in nearby Lancaster, and its Belgian-style ales. As the story goes, Rockmill's founder discovered that the well on his family's farm produced water with the same mineral content as that found in Wallonia, Belgium, and that served as the inspiration for four unusual ales.

Mrs. KintlaLake and I savored a bottle of Rockmill Dubbel over a plate of summer sausage, sharp cheese and apple slices (this isn't a beer one serves with nachos), and we came away truly amazed. It's strong (6% to 8% ABM), full-bodied and fruity, as well as pricey ($16 for a 22-ounce bottle) -- and worth every penny.

Great beer, brewed barely a stone's throw from home -- that's as good as it gets. There's a bottle of high-octane Rockmill Tripel in my fridge, and I can't wait to pop the cork.

Finally, of course, our vegetable garden offers up discoveries almost every day -- take this green-and-yellow beauty (below) that sprang from one of the "volunteer" vines I mentioned last week. At about 12 inches long, it's the largest gourd that's set (so far). Our unintentional crop continues to spread, so there will be more.

SHIFT_down

As every thinking person expected, our government's credit rating got dinged by Standard & Poor's. Moody's and Fitch, each of which has expressed formal pessimism about U.S. debt, now contemplate downgrades of their own.

What happens next? No one knows, and anyone who claims to know is guessing. These are uncharted waters, nationally and globally. Any honest analysis admits as much.

S&P, in explaining its rationale for the downgrade, judged the U.S.'s debt-to-GDP ratio to be unsustainable. It was the current political climate, however -- read, ineptitude and ideological inertia  -- that caused the agency to pull the trigger.

It would've been reasonable to hope (if not predict), then, that the feuding factions -- Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as well as the Obama administration -- would start acting like Americans for a change. No such luck.

On the weekly talk shows yesterday, partisan finger-pointing ruled, with each side flaming the other. Republicans blamed Pres. Obama. (Natch.) Sen. John Kerry and others test-flew a new Democratic Party talking point, calling S&P's action the "Tea Party downgrade" -- which is idiotic, of course, but unfortunately it'll probably catch on.

Surrogates for the White House busied themselves pitching rocks at S&P, calling it "amateurish" (among other things). That prompted this reaction from Sen. John McCain on Meet the Press:

"On the S&P thing, don’t shoot the messenger. Is there anybody that believes that S&P is wrong in their assessment of the situation -- of the fiscal situation of this country?"

That's the truth, as succinct as it can be. And until

Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-
Congress-Bureaucracy Downgrade

fits easily on a bumper sticker, it'll have to do.

I spent ten years of my professional life in the corporate headquarters of two financial-services companies, the last four in the executive suite of a major player in the investment business, so I know something about the influence of agencies like S&P, Moody's, Fitch and Best.

I can say that in the private sector, a downgrade (or even a negative outlook) can suck the life out of a company. I also know that corporate instability -- the comings and goings of fund managers, for example -- can tip a ratings agency toward taking action. Finally, I can't recall a downgraded company that hasn't issued a press release saying that S&P (e.g.) is full of shit, abuses kittens, etc.

That's just the way it works.

After all that, the same question burns: So what's going to happen after this downgrade? The answer remains: We simply don't know. Common sense and convenient parallels, however, combine to offer us a few useful clues.

Interest rates are likely to rise for businesses and, consequently, for consumers. The recession is bound to deepen, and sharply. Depending on how bad things get, how long they stay that way and what cuts are announced in November, I envision civil unrest resembling what we've seen in the U.K. and Greece.

On the bright side, gas prices may come down -- maybe.

It's not the duty of citizens to save the nation's economy, but as much as possible, in my view, this is the time to renew our commitment to supporting domestic and local commerce. We should ignore the flailings of Wall Street and the wailings of its shills -- anyone who spews chestnuts like "historical performance" or exhorts us to "stay in the market" is a self-interested robot, not an expert and certainly not a friend.

And, of course, when Election Day rolls 'round, we must send incompetent incumbents packing.

Making wise choices now, deliberately, preparing for deteriorating economic and social conditions -- and I predict that they will deteriorate -- will give us the agility we'll need when the time comes to act in the interest of ourselves, our families and our communities.

What goes up...

The Dow pitched headlong off a cliff at the open this morning. It kept tumbling all day long, ending just off session lows -- down 512.76 (4.31%). It's being reported as the worst day for the index "since the financial crisis of 2008."

I find that characterization laughable -- and if you have a lick of sense, so do you. I'd argue that the "financial crisis" began long before 2008, and it's beyond dispute that it hasn't abated, much less ended.

That the Dow clawed its way back from 6,500 to 12,800 is all but irrelevant -- the stock market is just one component of an economy that shows no signs of a sustainable recovery.

For evidence, look no further than today's other economic news. The national unemployment rate is 9.2%, and last week 400,000 Americans filed for first-time jobless benefits. Nearly 15% of Americans -- 46 million of us -- used food stamps in May. Virtually every meaningful indicator -- consumer confidence, retail, manufacturing, housing -- continues to head in the wrong direction.

Today's stock-market plunge, say the talking heads, might signal another recession or, perhaps, a double-dip recession.

Pull-eeze. Another recession?

If there's a bright side to the recent harangue over debt and deficits, it's that it formally introduced the elephant in the room. It gave every American the chance to see that our government's profligate spending has pushed us to the brink of national bankruptcy.

In the same way, the last time the Dow went precipitously south it exposed the markets as nothing but casinos of capital, driven more by collusion than by commerce. Either we got that message or we didn't.

If we learned our lessons well, right now we're pushing back from the table -- if we hadn't already.