Administration: The Game

The following is from a clipping that my mother placed in a folder along with some other miscellaneous, personal "stuff".

I believe the source of this article to be the Shreveport Journal, the afternoon paper published in Shreveport with a democrat-labor slant. (At that time Shreveport supported two daily papers.) The Shreveport Journal and The Shreveport Times, published by the Ewing family, which was conservative and even in the democratic south, supported republican candidates, when they could be found. Now, The Shreveport Times is known only as The Times and is owned by Gannet Corp. (USA Today), any questions.
I also believe this column was written sometime between October 1962 and November 21, 1963 when Kennedy's popularity was at an all time low and before he became a martyr to the left.
Goldwater had begun preparing to take on Kennedy in the presidential election in 1964.
als

"The Rambler....Finds a New Game
by John McKelway

Someone recently slipped the Rambler a game that might be of some interest to members of the present administration.
Presumably, it was given as a Christmas gift and it may be a big hit in some areas of the city. In other areas, however, it is likely it may have been tossed out with the Christmas tree.
Like most games nowadays, it is a version of Monopoly. But it is not without its special twists. It is called " Administration."
The rules of the game, for example, start out with this explanation:
"Unlike other board games, nobody really wins at Administration. During the game each playere gets poorer as, little by little, all money and property pass into the hands of the Administration. Thus the game is much like real life.
The object is to remain "financially solvent" if possible and the winner is the player who is still able to pay of his debts at the end of the game.
As one plops around the board, after a throw of the dice, he is able to pick up certain pieces of property.
These include such holdings as "The Managed News Service", the "Re-run TV Network," the "Featherbedded Railroad", the "Lemon Auto Co.," the "Rusty Steel Co.," and the "Big Brother Power Co."
HOWEVER, THERE ARE other blocks to land on and some of these carry rather snide directions such as:
"Collect $2,000 for information on fellow taxpayer."
Or, "Election time; Administration exacts your contribution. Pay $3,000."
Or, "You are remanded to public psychiatric hearing for remark critical to the administration; lose one turn."
Or, "You get free Medicare but each other player pays tax of $1,500."

Apparently, the game can get quite complicated. Quoting again from the rules: "When a player lands on another player's privately owned property, rent shown on the deed is paid as follows:
1. The landing player pays rent to the property owner.
2. The property owner is taxed half of his rent by the Administration, except that unions are exempt from this tax.
3. If the property has a union, and if the union is owned, the property owner pays half of his remaining rent to the owner of the union."
Still another aspect of the games comes in the collection of cards the player must draw from time to time.
These are broken down into three groups, "Planning, Court Rulings and Favoritism."

The Planning cards include such directions as:
"Share the wealth. Give $5,000 to the player who has the least cash."
"Administration announces a new welfare program. You get something for nothing. A new tax. Pay $5,000".
"By extensive correspondence, you refute Administration claim that you owe $600 in back taxes. Pay $500 postage."
"Administrative planning staff hires malcontent leftist professors recently employed by the university. Pay $2,000 staff salaries."

"COURT RULINGS" cards include these notices:
"You win case but must pay $1,000 to Administration for court record."
"You lose case and are charged $3,000 for contempt of court.

"FAVORITISM" cards run like this:
"Rusty Steel Co. gets order from Communist for 190 million shovels. Administration subsidizes sale. If you own the company, collect $5,000 from the Administration."
"Administration gives you $9,000 for concocting an October crises for the next election."
"Collect $3,000 for not raising cotton."
"As a relative of the chief administrator, you get cheap oil lease from Administration, which you sell back at a profit. Collect $4,000."

According to the message on the box the game comes in, Administration is "simple enough for children" and "delightful for adults." And, Administration is the game "the entire nation is playing."

It is put out by "The Administration Co." of Shreveport, LA." "

Progressivism and Mark Steyn

While doing preliminary prep to write this post, it was intended to be on a couple of articles by Mark Steyn, my mind wandered (could it be ADD?) when I stumbled across a link to this article in the Nation, a marxist rag which was founded in 1865.
This was during the genesis of the "progressive era" in the United States.
Anyhow, as you can see the author of the article is bemoaning the fact that what we know as Western Europe is "lurching" to the right.
While I would not characterize it so much as a lurch, there were definite signs of a refreshing tilt to the right in recent elections in France, Italy and Germany. Gains were also made in the Netherlands where Geert Wilders, an anti-Islamist polled 17 percent of the vote.
Mr. Wilders was denied entry into England in February of this year. He had been invited by the House of Lords to present his movie Fitna.
Wilders has warned repeatedly of the western Europeans ceding their sovereignty to the Islamic infiltrators. Wilders was in the forefront of people who were willing to speak out on the dangers to western civilization raised by Islamofascist.
Now, back to my original topic: Mark Steyn:
For those of you who are not familiar with Mark Steyn
Mark Steyn has been at the forefront of warning the western world of the potential results if radical Islamofascism is allowed to progress unchallenged. Lights Out on Liberty and Live Free or Die !!

A Moderation Rant

Ronald Reagan, "A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."

Barry Goldwater, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Now, from the dark side, Lyndon Johnson, "Extremism in the pursuit of the Presidency is an unpardonable vice. Moderation in the affairs of the nation is the highest virtue.""

Ever since the 1964 election, the "extremism" charge has been used extremely effectively by leftists and "moderates" against the right.
The term "extremism" has been primarily used to attack certain politicians -- Goldwater, Reagan, DeLay, Paul, Palin and even G.W. Bush -- and what they stand for. Such politicians are widely regarded -- validly or not -- as enemies of statism and defenders of capitalism.
America was founded by men who opposed the violation of individual rights -- men who opposed statism. If "moderation" in politics is the current ideal, then any uncompromising defender of the principles of man's inalienable rights -- the principles of freedom and capitalism -- could be labeled an "extremist."
Why is it used against proponents of smaller governments but not against proponents of bigger governments? Why Goldwater, Palin or Paul, but not Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid?
"Moderation" in politics implies inconsistent, middle-of-the-road and compromising, it promotes a lack of principles and integrity in politics.
You, who are "moderates" cherish the status quo. You are desperate to preserve the present political system -- a chaotic battleground of countless pressure groups fighting for more government favors and handouts at the expense of individual rights. The attacks on "extremism" serve to advance statism.
Conservatives should resolve to bury the "extremism" smear once and for all. They should do so by making a ringing declaration: a "moderate" defense of our form of government is an extreme vice -- a consistent and principled defense of our constitution and heritage is an extreme virtue.

100 Day Miracle

We are witnessing a miracle of sorts. In the span of 100 days our leader, Barack Hussein Obama, has led this country from light into darkness.
In this short period of time, he has done more damage to the fabric of our nation than his 43 predecessors combined. He, along with his minions in congress and elsewhere, is chipping away at the foundation of laws upon which this country was built.
He has appointed, to high office, the most unqualified group of malcontents ever assembled.
Not only has he appointed them, but they have rubber stamped his appointments. The senate approved tax cheat Timothy Geithner's appointment to be Secretary of the Treasury. Hilda Solis, a union activist, to be Secretary of Labor. Janet Napolitano, Secretary Department of Homeland Security. Eric Holder, Attorney General, whose greatest quote was to refer to the United States as "a nation of cowards" in reference to race relations. Robert Gates, a republican ?, hold over as Secretary of Defense. Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, Secretary of Energy. Dr. Chu cannot explain how vast petroleum reserves appeared under Alaska except to say it was shifting Teutonic Plates.
These are only examples of the dangers the United States and our way of life is facing at the hands of the Obama Administration.
And, it has only been 100 days

Congressional Tyranny

There is considerable misunderstanding concerning the "tea partys" which are going to be held in many cities and towns across the country April 15, 2009.
The "rant" that may have been the genesis of it all tea partys
According to my recollection, Santelli first made mention of a protest during this "rant". Then, the first tea partys, to my knowledge were held in a number of cities the last weekend in February.
I offer the following as proof that the sob's in the mainstream media just do not get it. It is none of Matthews damn business who Santelli voted for!

Anyone who is an enemy of my enemy, is my friend.

"Only the Little People Pay Taxes"

What is it about democrats that believe, like Leona Helmsley, that only the "little people" pay taxes?
Why people continue to elect and reelect these s.o.b.'s is beyond my comprehension. And why is the MSM giving them a pass?
democrat equals corruption and vice versa.
Incidentally, the pretender (Obama) said over and over during his campaign for the idiot vote, that only the "rich" would see an increase in their taxes. He got the vote he needed from the idiots, now we are all screwed. Hmmmm, does that mean that all nicotine addicts are "rich"? And how will the pretender president(?) avoid paying taxes on his smokes?
Obviously the queen of mean,(no, not Barney Frank) Leona Helmsley had it right.
So many questions, so few answers. :-)

Natasha and Socialized Medicine

I will be the first to admit that the death of Natasha Richardson after a skiing accident in Canada was, indeed, tragic.
As tragic as this death may be, it is my hope that it will serve as a warning to my fellow Americans of the shortcomings of universal healthcare, which is about tightfisted as the government clerks rationing care.

"Think about the folks at the Department of Motor Vehicles making your healthcare decisions for you while you wait in line.

Under government healthcare, faceless bureaucrats do not care if you live or die, as long as everyone receives equal treatment.

Natasha Richardson received the same kind of treatment anyone in Quebec would have received, and now she’s dead at the age of 45 because Quebec didn’t have something as basic as a medical helicopter system."

Will we be able to count on the mainstream media to investigate such possible inadequacies in the Canadian health care system? Wouldn't such debate be apropos given the Obama administration's commitment to implementing Universal Health Care, a system remarkably similar to Canada's?