LUNCH AT DASCHLE’S DINER

(This has been around and I like this version - PJ)

Every day at a few minutes past noon ten men walk into Daschle’s Diner on the outskirts of Washington D.C. These are men of habit, a habit which dictates that they will all order the exact same meals every day, and every day the final tab will come to the exact same total.  The ten meals are priced at  $10 each, so the tab was $100.  One hundred dollars each and every day.

Does every man pay the price of his $10 meal as he leaves?  Not at Daschle’s Diner.  No sir!  At Daschle’s Diner the motto is “From each according to their ability, to each according to their hunger.”  So, each man was charged for his meal according to his ability to pay!

So, every day the ten diners would finish their lunch and line up in exactly the same order as they pass the cashier and leave.  The first four men would walk right past the cashier without paying a thing.  A free meal!

The fifth man in line would hand over $1 as he left.  At least he was paying something.

Diner number six would hand over $3 to the cashier.  Number seven would pay $7.

Diner number eight paid $12.  That was more than the value of his meal, but he, like those who followed him in line, had been very lucky in life and was, therefore, he was in a position to pay for his meal and for a part of someone else’s.

Diner number nine paid $18.

Then comes diner number 10.  He is the wealthiest of the ten diners.  He’s taken some real chances and has worked well into the night when the other diners were home drinking beer, and it has paid off.  When number 10 gets to the cashier he pays the balance of the bill.  He forks over $59.

One day an amazing thing happens.  It seems that Daschle has a partner in Daschle’s Diner.  The partner runs an upscale restaurant,  Lott's Luncheonette, located in a wealthier section of D.C.  Times have been good and the partnership has been raking in record profits, so the partner, who controls 51% of the partnership, orders a 20% reduction in the price of meals.

The next day the ten diners arrive on schedule.  They sit down and eat their same meals.  This time, though, the 20% price cut has gone into effect and the bill comes to $80.  Eight bucks per diner.

The diners line up at the cashier in the same order as before.  For the first four diners, no change.  They march out without paying a cent.  Free meal.

Diner number five and six lay claim to their portion of the $20 price cut right away. Five used to pay $1.  Today, though, he walks out with the first four and pays nothing. That’s one more diner on the “freeloader’s” list.

Diner number six cuts his share of the tab from $3 to $2.  Life is good.

Diner number seven?  His tab before the price cut was $7.  He now gets by with just $5.

Diner number eight lowers his payment from $12 to $9.  He moves ever-so-slightly into the freeloading category.

Next is diner number nine.  He’s still paying more than his share, but that’s OK, he’s been successful ("lucky") and can afford it.  He pays $12.

Now --- here comes diner number ten.  He, too, wants his share of the $20 price cut, so his share of the tab goes from $59 to $52.  He saves $7.00 per day!

Outside the restaurant there is unrest.  The first nine diners have convened on the street corner to discuss the events of the day.  Diner six spots diner ten with $7 in his hand.  “Not fair!” he screams. “I only got one dollar.  He’s got seven!”

Diner five, who now eats for free, is similarly outraged.  “I only got one dollar too!  This is wrong!”   Diner seven joins the rumblings; “Hey!  I only get two bucks back!  Why should he get seven?”

The unrest spreads.  Now the first four men - men who have been getting a free ride all along - join in.  They demand to know why they didn’t share in the savings from the $20 price cut!  Sure, they haven’t been paying for their meals anyway, but they do have other bills to pay and they felt that a share of the $20 savings should have gone to them.

Now we have a mob.  The laws of Democracy - mob rule - take over and they  turn on the tenth diner.  They grab him, tie him up, then take him to the top of a hill and threaten to lynch him.

Proprietor Daschle watches the goings-on, smiles, and offers to spare the tenth diner's life in return for the seven dollars, which he re-distributes among the first nine.

The next day nine men show up at Daschle’s Diner for their noon meal.

Daschle frowns, as he doesn't know how to charge for it.

Apparently diner ten has fled the country.

TANSTAAFL.

Spin

Drudge: BROWN PRAISES BUSH LEADERSHIP

Fox: Bush, Brown Best Buds

MSNBC: Bush, U.K.'s Brown seek rapport

CNN: Iraq to dominate Bush-Brown talks

ABC:  United Front: Bush, Brown Agree on Iraq

CBS: U.K.'s Brown Affirms Commitment To Iraq

USA Today: Bush, Brown tout common ground on efforts in Iraq

WSJ: British Prime Minister Brown told Bush he shares the U.S. view that there are "duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep" in Iraq.

WaPost:Brown, Bush, Reaffirm Shared Values

Boston Globe: Bush and Brown meet at Camp David

AP: Brown, Bush reaffirm shared values

Reuters: Brown, Bush meet - Brown underscored the UK's commitment to preserving a close bond with the U.S.

From Capt. Ed - on Things Are Getting Better in Iraq

They've Got To Admit, It's Getting Better

By Ed Morrissey on Iraq

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the center-left Brookings Institution take to the pages of the solidly-left New York Times with an unusual mission. The pair have recently returned from Iraq to study the military effort by the US, and they have some bad news for the Gray Lady's readers. We really have turned the corner in Iraq:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

O'Hanlon and Brookings point out the differences that created the shift in fortunes. The chief change comes at the top. General David Petraeus has transformed the mission, the strategy, and the tactics, which has transformed morale and set the US on track to building the Iraqi nation from the bottom up, instead of the top down. The men and women on the ground understand and appreciate the difference, and they have responded with enthusiasm.

The Iraqi Army has also greatly improved. While a few units remain "useless", the authors found this to be the exception rather than the rule, as they observed before. It also has integrated to a far greater degree. During previous visits, the armed forces were almost exclusively Kurdish, but now represents the rough proportions of the Iraqi nation. They operate much more effectively, as do the Americans, who have learned how to interact with the local populace and to guide the Iraqi security forces.

They also note the effectiveness of the EPRTs, which came up in our conference call on Friday. Col. Stephen Twitty called them a "great asset", and these authors agree. When fully staffed, these reconstruction teams coordinate with local Iraqis to restart their community economies effectively. This will have to happen quickly in order to put Iraqis back to work and give them a real stake in success -- and the administration should ensure that the EPRTs remain fully staffed.

In fact, O'Hanlon and Pollack recommend that Congress stop talking about withdrawal. They conclude with a near-heresy: they recommend sustaining the current effort until 2008. Now that we have found a formula for success, have brought the Iraqis on board with our focus on their worst enemy, and have figured out the nation-building process, it would be a tragedy to throw all of this success away.

PM hails Bush's leadership

Let's see how US-MSM spins it this week!

Tee cosy ... Brown & Bush in Camp David golf buggy

From GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Political Editor, at Camp David
July 30, 2007

GORDON Brown last night praised George Bush for leading the global war on terror — saying the world owed America a huge debt.

The Prime Minister vowed to take Winston Churchill’s lead and make Britain’s ties with America even stronger.

Mr Brown stunned critics by THANKING President Bush for the fight against Islamic extremism, and insisted the UK-US relationship will be his No1 foreign policy priority.

He said on his first visit to the President’s US retreat at Camp David: “Winston Churchill spoke of the ‘joint inheritance’ of our two countries.”

The PM said that meant “a joint inheritance not just of shared history but shared values founded on a shared destiny”.

He added: “America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from September 11 that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructable.

“We acknowledge the debt the world owes to the US for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism.”

Mr Brown’s two-day summit is his most important diplomatic hurdle.

He must show the Americans he is every bit as trustworthy with the Special Relationship as Tony Blair.

Washington feared he would weaken ties over the Iraq War and rising anti-Americanism in the Labour Party and Europe.

The appointment of the anti-US Lord Malloch Brown as a Foreign Office minister has been a major headache.

But the PM stressed America and Britain will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder.

He said: “I have always been an Atlanticist and a great admirer of the American spirit of enterprise and national purpose and commitment to opportunity to all.

“And as Prime Minister I want to do more to strengthen even further our relationship with the US.”

Last night he and Mr Bush had dinner at Camp David. Today they will be joined by Foreign Secretary David Miliband and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

They will discuss the pullout of British troops from Iraq, though Mr Brown will stress he does not intend to speed it up.

Mr Bush will get the thumbs-up from Mr Brown for taking a tough line on Iran over its nuclear programme.

The pair will also take a fresh look at the Darfur crisis.

It All Depends On Whose Church Is Being Separated

He Only Saved a Billion People (1,000,000,000)

 

Alex Wong / Getty Images

---

Norman who? Few news organizations covered last week's Congressional Gold Medal ceremony for Borlaug, which was presided over by President Bush and the leadership of the House and Senate. An elderly agronomist doesn't make news, even when he is widely credited with saving the lives of 1 billion human beings worldwide, more than one in seven people on the planet.

Borlaug's success in feeding the world testifies to the difference a single person can make. But the obscurity of a man of such surpassing accomplishment is a reminder of our culture's surpassing superficiality. Reading Walter Isaacson's terrific biography of Albert Einstein, I was struck by how famous Einstein was, long before his role in the atom bomb. Great scientists and humanitarians were once heroes and cover boys. No more. (Why is that?  Does it really trace back to the liberal educators who's agenda is only to to perpetuate their own?)

For Borlaug, still vital at 93, to win more notice, he would have to make his next trip to Africa in the company of Angelina Jolie.

The consequences of obscuring complex issues like agriculture are serious. Take the huge farm bill now nearing passage, a subject Borlaug knows a thing or two about. Because it seems boring and technical and unrelated to our busy urban lives, we aren't focused on how it relates directly to the environment, immigration, global poverty and the budget deficit, not to mention the highly subsidized high-fructose corn syrup we ingest every day. We can blame the mindless media for failing to keep us better informed about how $95 billion a year is hijacked by a few powerful corporate interests. But we can also blame ourselves. It's all there on the Internet (or in books like Daniel Imhoff's breezy "Food Fight"), if we decide to get interested. But will we? Sometimes it seems the more we've got at our fingertips, the less that sticks in our minds.

Born poor in Iowa and turned down at first by the University of Minnesota, Borlaug brought his fingertips and mind together in rural Mexico in the 1940s and 1950s to develop a hybrid called "dwarf wheat" that tripled grain production there. Then, with the help of the Rockefeller Foundation, he brought agronomists from around the world to northwest Mexico to learn his planting and soil conservation techniques. "They [academic and U.S. government critics] said I was nutty to think that it would work in different soil," Borlaug told me last week. The resulting "nuttiness" led to what was arguably the greatest humanitarian accomplishment of the 20th century, the so-called Green Revolution. By 1965 he was dodging artillery shells in the Indo-Pakistan War but still managed to increase Indian output sevenfold.

The experts who said peasants would never change their centuries-old ways were wrong. In the mid-1970s, Nobel in hand, Borlaug brought his approach to Communist China, where he arguably had his greatest success. In only a few years, his ideas—which go far beyond seed varieties—had spread around the world and disproved Malthusian doomsday scenarios like Paul Ehrlich's 1968 best seller "The Population Bomb." Now the Gates Foundation is helping extend his innovations to the one continent where famine remains a serious threat—Africa.

Borlaug, who launched the prestigious World Food Prize, has little patience for current agricultural policy in the developed world. "The claims for these subsidies today by the affluent nations are pretty silly," he says. So far, Congress isn't listening. The octopus-like farm bill does little to curb the ridiculous corporate welfare payments to a tiny number of wealthy (and often absentee) "farmers" who get more than $1 million a year each for subsidized commodities that make our children obese. (Did you ever wonder why junk food is cheaper than nutritious food? Because it's taxpayer-funded).

Borlaug scoffs at the mania for organic food, which he proves with calm logic is unsuited to fight global hunger. (Dung, for instance, is an inefficient source of nitrogen.) And while he encourages energy-conscious people to "use all the organic you can, especially on high-end crops like vegetables," he's convinced that paying more for organic is "a lot of nonsense." There's "no evidence the food is any different than that produced by chemical fertilizer."

In 1960 about 60 percent of the world's people experienced some hunger every year. By 2000 that number was 14 percent, a remarkable achievement. But as Borlaug cautioned at the ceremony in his honor, that still leaves 850 million hungry men, women and children. They are waiting for the Norman Borlaugs of the future to make their mark, even if they aren't likely to get famous for it.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

-----------------------------------------------------

I inserted some emphasis and comments. 

I'm actually surprised Newsweek printed this.

Hell Yes - I'm With Fred!

"Social" Security - (Bogus Post!!)

I should have read "SNOPES" before I posted this - Oh well!!!

Some is true, some is not quite.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.  He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. 

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:
Q:  Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A:  It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? 

A: The Democratic Party.

Q:  Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities????

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

This is MY FAVORITE:
A:  That's right! Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party, of course! Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is - uninformed citizens believe it!