Outrage of the Day

I used to follow politics like a hawk. Every day I'd follow all the ins and outs and various other goings-on up on the Hill. Eventually I had to take a big step back and realize that it's all a sort of subterfuge. Everyday we hear about different squabbles over things that really don't matter. People think Obama is a Muslim. Glenn Beck had a rally on the anniversary of MLK's "I have a dream" speech and he *GASP!* held it in the same location. In the big picture scheme of things, do either of these things really matter?

It's all just a clever ploy to distract you from the real problems facing this country. We've got rampant unemployment that's only going to get worse because the tax burden on the "evil rich people" will skyrocket over the next couple of years so more money can be given to the non-producers to subsidize their uselessness. "Why not tax the hell out of the rich?" you ask. Well, who do you think creates the jobs we so desperately need right now? That's right. The evil rich. The more money they have to break off for Uncle Sam, the less money they have to create jobs.

I guess the point of this little rant is that we, as a country, need to start thinking about things in the long term while ignoring the day to day trivialities that take up so much of our precious time. With an election coming up in a little more than a month these "outrages of the day", as I like to call them, are going to get ratcheted up into high gear very soon. While you'll need a set of wings to fly above all the bullshit, I urge you to try and focus on the things that actually matter.

I know voting records don't make an exciting news story as extramarital affairs but only one of them really has an actual impact on the future of our country. Which one is that? I'll give you a hint: It's the one that doesn't involve orgasms.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

A Three Month Hiatus

I thought I was done with this little blog but now I've decided to get it back up and running. I'm going to try and do at least one post every other day or so. We'll see how well that plan works out. Until then....

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

My Glorious Return a.k.a. A Gross Overstatement

Well, well, well. A so much has happened in the world since I last ranted that I seriously don't know where to begin. We're going to have a new Supreme Court Justice pretty soon. Neither side seems to be really pleased about the pick so that might actually be a good sign. Elena Kagan gets points in my book for the simple fact that Keith Olbermann doesn't seem to like her. I don't really know where she stands but I see no reason to get all up in arms about something I have no real control over. No matter what really happens in this country, all there is for me to really do is simply bide my time until the elections in November roll around.

I haven't been really following politics lately as close as I usually do. I'm getting just a little sick of the "Outrage of the Day" as I like to call it. I don't want to turn into one of those political hounds who's positively indignant about something one day only to discard their outrage in the matter in place of whatever is sticking in their craw the next.

Remember about a year ago when people were up in arms about a picture of Barack Obama with his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office? Of all the legitimate reasons anyone could have for being angry at Obama and this is what they chose? His jacket off and (GASP!) his feet up on the Oval Office desk? Give me a fucking break. The only reason anyone ran with that one is because it was immediate and could easily give the impression that the President was somehow lax and disrespectful in the carrying out of his duties and his attitudes toward this country.

Why have a real policy debate when you can have a stupid picture and manufactured outrage? You have to break it down into really simple components for the idiotic public at large to be able to mentally digest it, you know? That story was all over the place (on the right wing websites anyway) for exactly one day. Then it disappeared to be replaced by whatever trivial bullshit was conjured the next day. Daily outrage is one of the few things that both sides of the aisle can agree on.

Today there were some state primary elections. I don't know if there was one in my home state but I'm not allowed to vote in primaries so there's really no point to my caring above idle curiosity. FYI: I'm not a felon or anything, just not registered as a Democrat or a Republican. (EDIT: I've learned that Wisconsin has open primaries so I can vote in both parties primaries.)

Here's something that made my day today: That fucking mummy Arlen Specter was beaten by his Democratic primary challenger. That's what he gets for switching parties to avoid that exact fate in a Republican primary. He'd been a RINO for some time before officially switching parties but I feel he got what he deserved because of his reason for switching. It wasn't over some moral or ideological differences he had with the Republican party but merely an attempt to try and avoid a challenge to his hold on power and to save his own skin. That's it, pure and simple. To top it off, Specter switched parties a mere two months after vehemently denying he would ever do it.

If today wasn't a case of someone getting exactly what they deserve, I don't know what is. I can only hope that today is just a taste of things to come in November. The day of reckoning for all the whores and cancers in Washington is nigh (I hope).

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

I'll Be Back Very Soon

I've got a lot going on right now but I will be back up and posting on a regular basis sometime very soon.

Wish me luck.

I thank you for your patience and apologize for any typos.

The Glue of Morality

"I never did, or countenanced, in public life, a single act inconsistent with the strictest faith; having never believed there was one code of morality for a public, and another for a private man."
-Thomas Jefferson


Where would we be without morals? As far as I'm concerned, morality is the glue that holds civilized society together. I also believe that morality can exist independent of religion, though I believe that any source of morality is inherently a good thing. I used to be a straight-up atheist, but even when I was I still considered myself moral. I don't pretend to know exactly where morals really come from but I do know that they somewhat stem from a sense of personal responsibility. Or maybe it's the other way around.

To be a functioning member of society you must grasp the fact that you are an independent cog in a giant machine we call "civilization". How we all act towards our fellow cogs determines how smoothly the machine functions or if it functions at all. Everybody must play their part or the whole system starts to break down. That's your responsibility. It's a responsibility not only to yourself, but to others as well.

Call it your "moral responsibility" if you will.

It is mostly because of morals that we can live safely (for the most part) in this country under the rule of law. It's not simply the fear of getting caught and punished that deters people from committing crimes. It certainly plays it's part but it's not the main reason to not commit a crime. You don't steal, murder and rob because deep down you would know that it's wrong. Not illegal, but wrong.

Is the fact that it's illegal the only reason you wouldn't murder your neighbor in his sleep because his dog barks at all hours of the night? If you're a sane member of society at large, chances are you would answer "no" to that question. You wouldn't do it because you know it's immoral to take a life the same way you know it's immoral to steal and rob. You just know (as long as your moral compass isn't broken) the general rules that govern society. You know how to abide by these rules but most importantly you know why you must abide by these rules.

Most importantly, it's morality that keeps you honest when nobody is looking. It's not the fear that there may be some unknown witness that saw you ding an unoccupied car when you were trying to park that makes you leave a note on the windshield. It's the instinct to do the right thing that does. And that instinct is driven by your morality. You know what must be done even though it will bring unwanted consequences upon you. You still know that you were in the wrong and with every action there is an appropriate responsibility that goes with it.

I firmly believe that the reason so many people smoke marijuana despite the fact that it's illegal is because they don't feel that it's morally wrong. The fact that it's illegal has little no no bearing on a person's decision to do it or not. It'll make them more careful about when and where they do it, but I seriously doubt it dissuades any significant number of potential smokers.

Without morals there would be a complete breakdown of law and order. Would an immoral officer of the peace be able to protect and serve the citizenry? Would he serve with societies best interest in mind? Of course not. He'd be no different than the criminals he's tasked to protect us from.

So I guess my point is this: When it comes down to it, morality is just about the most important thing in the world. Everything else stems from it. Without morality there is no responsibility, no order, no society. Without morality there is only anarchy.

Is There Anybody Out There?

Where have all the anti-war protesters gone? Since President Obama took office they've all been strangely silent, almost absent, you could say. I just don't get it. They were all up in arms when George W. Bush was handling the war but now that Obama has taken the reigns you don't hear so much as a peep out of those folks. My question is: Why?

Both Presidents handled the war in very much the same manner when it really comes down to it. Bush was certainly more publicly boisterous but that can't be why the anti-war folks were all up in arms. It wasn't who was waging the war or how it was being waged that they were protesting, right? It was the fact that we were at war in the first place that they were so angry, was it not? Either I'm missing something glaringly obvious or there's a double standard that is rearing it's ugly head. A liberal President seems to get a lot more slack on this issue from the anti-war crowd than a conservative one does. At least that's the way I'm seeing it.

If you're against the war, that's fine with me. Make yourself a sign, come up with a catchy slogan to chant and take to the streets. Exercise your Constitutional right to free assembly. It's still a free country. I only ask one thing: Be consistent about it. Stand by your principals and hold both side's feet to the fire. Don't get all huffy when the "other" side does something and then turn a blind eye when "your" side does the same thing.

I just don't understand what's going on. Did all the anti-war protesters get so drunk at their Obama Inauguration party that they completely forgot there's still a war going on?

There was an AP story out today that said that the number of U.S. casualties has nearly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the numbers from the same time last year.

Here's a quote from the same AP story telling about the happy times ahead for our brave men and women overseas:

U.S. officials have warned that casualties are likely to rise even further as the Pentagon completes its deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and sets its sights on the Taliban's home base of Kandahar province, where a major operation is expected in the coming months.

So again I say: Where are all the protesters? Are they just strangely silent as I posed earlier or are they just not getting any coverage from the news media? I seriously doubt the latter because while I could see why most of the mainstream media would fail to give any substantial, or fair, coverage to any protests aimed at President Obama (Tea Paries), Fox News and other conservative media outlets would be all over that shit. I seriously think there's no media coverage because they just aren't really taking place anymore. So what's the deal?

All this seriously begs the question: Were these protests genuine or just another way for the left to tear down a President they so obviously, and thoroughly, despised? Were these anit-war protests "astro-turf" events like all the pro-health care rallies (brought to you by SEIU) with a majority of the participants bused in especially for the event?

It's up to you to make the call, but this all seems a bit fishy to me. Maybe it is just me, who knows. I support the troops and the war so it's not like I want there be be mass protests or anything just because it would make Obama look bad. I'm just trying to make the point that principles ahould come before any pointless partisan bickering. I railed against Bush for the Patriot Act because it bloated an already seriously bloated federal government and I gave Obama praise for the troop surge in Afghanistan and his use of Predator Drones so nobody can accuse me of being a partisan hack.

Principles should always come before party affiliations. Otherwise you're just a partisan hack schilling for your side and I could never take you seriously because I'd always have to question your motives and overall agenda. Stick by your principles and shine the light of truth on whoever betrays theirs no matter which side of the aisle they sit on.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

Health Care Reform: Some Thoughts On The Individual Mandate

I know what you're thinking: Two posts in one night? I know I need a life, but after so many blogs about Health care Reform it just didn't sit right with me that I've had nothing to say on the subject since the bill actually passed the House. As of today, it has not yet been signed into law by President Obama because some of the bill's wording was slightly altered during the Senate's Reconciliation process. Now the bill gets kicked back to the House for yet another vote. It's likely Health Care Reform will be signed into law early next week at the latest.

Now, on to the point. I had a point, right? Oh, yeah: Uncle Sam saying "I want YOU to buy health insurance".

I have a lot of problems with this bill but I'd like to talk to you today about one point in particular that's been sticking in my craw, as they say. The individual mandate. "What is that?" you might say if you're not a loser like me who's been following this process for the last year (which has felt like ten years at least). Basically, what the individual mandate is is a provision in the bill that says you MUST buy health insurance and show proof of it when you do your taxes otherwise the IRS will punish you. And by punish I don't mean a spanking or anything cool- er, I mean anything bad like that.

If you can't prove to the IRS come tax time that you have adequate health insurance, they will fine you something like $350 the first year after it kicks in and then $600 or so the next year and so on and so on. Now why is this done through the IRS you may ask? This is a just way of getting around the blatant unconstitutionality of the Government fining you for not buying a product (by that I mean health insurance) and calling it a "tax". I know it's a fine, you know it's a fine. Let's call a spade a spade. Calling it a "tax" is just the usual Washington smoke and mirrors to confuse the issue.

How, in a so-called free country, can the Government punish you for not buying something even if it's in the name of "the greater good"? I'm really getting sick of all this altruistic nonsense that's permeating Washington lately. This is nothing like how it is in certain states where you have to have car insurance in order to drive a car. Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. With PRIVILEGE comes RESPONSIBILITY. If you don't want to buy car insurance the solution is actually quite simple: don't drive a car. If you don't want to buy health insurance the solution is not so clear: Pay the fine, do to jail, jump off a very tall building or put a gun in your mouth and paint the wall with your brains. None of these solutions jumps out at me as a good idea.

I hate to use the tired slippery slope argument but this will set a scary precedence. Now the government could conceivably force you to buy whatever it deems to be in your best interest of the best interest of the country at large. What's next? Maybe we'll all be forced to buy a Prius next time we want to buy a new car. Maybe we'll just be forced to buy a Prius when the Government says we should. Now obviously I'm exaggerating to make a point, but the point I'm making is still a valid one.

Individual mandate aside, the whole concept behind this health care bill is unconstitutional. Health care is a state issue, not a federal one. Hello? 10th Amendment anyone? That's why I have no problem (Constitution-wise anyway) with the whole RomneyCare thing they've got going on up in Massachusetts. If the individual states want to do it, that's their prerogative. It certainly doesn't fall under the federal government's powers, clearly defined in our Constitution, to force this on the states. Are we still a republic of sovereign states or are we not?

Our Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their respective graves if they could see the way the people of this great country were letting their so-called leaders walk all over them. However, they wouldn't be too surprised at the way our supposed representatives were behaving. They understood that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If they could see what has become of the once great people of America they would be fucking ashamed. I hope you're proud of yourself, America. Those who would trade their freedom for a little security deserve neither freedom nor security.

I thank you for you time and apologize for any typos.

Bad Moon Rising

The world is a dangerous place. That's nothing really new to anyone with half a brain and it's always been that way. I don't see every man, woman and child holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" any time soon but it seems to me like a lot of seeming separate actions by various nations are starting to produce a very vivid and extremely frightening picture.

I'm not trying be some kind of fear-monger screaming "Repent! The end is extremely fucking nigh!" either. I'm just rather concerned about a confluence of many events and feel like speaking my mind about it. It's still a free country, is it not?

Earlier today a story broke regarding our friends the North Koreans and their very sane and rational leader, Kim Jong-Il.(Did that come off sarcastic enough?). This may need to be taken with a grain of salt because Lil Kim Jong is bat shit crazy and all but I don't think it's wise to completely write it off as the usual crazy rhetoric either. What was said today (actually yesterday) is that North Korea believes that it is no longer bound by the cease-fire agreement that ended the Korean War because of some U.S./South Korea military drills that are scheduled to take place in a few days In response, North Korea will begin to increase it's nuclear arsenal. Isn't that grand?

Crazy Kim believes that these drill are simply a ruse and that the U.S. and South Korea are gearing up for an invasion. Never mind that these drill are a regular occurrence in South Korea and we've never invaded before. All the previous drills were obviously part of an elaborate plan to lull the North Koreans into a false sense of security so we could just pretend to be running some standard military drills and then BAM! We invade and kill all those mother fuckers. I guess the plan's off guys. They're on to us.

Now, by itself, this would just seem to be yet another instance of Crazy Kim rattling his sabre and saying "Look at me, look at me!". That could very well be the case this time but you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Kim Jong-Il is not in the best of health lately and, this is pure speculation on my part, he may want to go out with a big bang before one of his sons, the youngest one I believe, takes his place.

Then you've got Iran. They recently stepped up their own nuke program and President Ahmadinejad announced it in the ironically named Freedom Square in Tehran on the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. Of course they say they're only doing it so they can have nuclear energy you know? It's completely innocent. Never mind that their President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a crazy Twelver who believes if you throw the world into a chaotic state of perpetual war you'll hasten the second coming of Mohammad and get your seventy-two virgins in the afterlife. He sounds like a pretty trustworthy guy if you ask me so I wouldn't worry about Iran too much if I were you.

Enter Israel. Iran doesn't really get along with Israel too much. As a matter of fact, every single Muslim country in the Middle East would love nothing more than to wipe Israel and all of its people off the map entirely. Remember that Ahmadinejad guy? He believes that Holocaust was simply a fabrication to allow the foundation of the free state of Israel and also denies that Israel even has a right to exist. Something makes me say that the first thing that Iran would do if it possessed a nuclear weapon would be to enjoy the sight of a nice, big mushroom cloud rising over the city of Tel Aviv.

Israel is the only functioning free democracy in the Middle East and probably our staunchest ally after England. Though it seems like President Obama is hell-bent on throwing them under the bus lately, we would have no choice but to retaliate if Iran attacked Israel. Nukes or not, we'd have to do something and I'm not talking about U.N. sanctions either. That would be the start of WWIII any way you slice it.

Finally we come to Russia. I don't know if it's because I had to hide underneath my desk for air raid drill when I was in grade school during the Cold War but I've never been able to completely trust the Russians. Maybe it's because of too many James Bond movies, who knows? They're always up to some shady shit in my opinion and I simply think the U.S. needs to keep a close eye on them.

The Cold War never ended as far as I'm concerned. It just went underground. It's no surprise that in 1992 (after the "official" end of the Cold War), when we invaded Iraq, a lot of Russian arms, intelligence and funding flooded into that country. They were trying to do to us what we did to them in the late 70's early 80's when Russia invaded Afghanistan. Hell, Russia and China funded the shit out of the NVA in Vietnam and bogged us down in that jungle hellhole for so many years that it nearly tore this great country apart. Shit, I can be argued that it did. Why the fuck should we trust them?

Sorry if I seem to be ranting a little more than usual but this is a topic I have a lot of passion for.

When George W. Bush was President none of the aforementioned countries would have pulled this kind of shit so blatantly. Our enemies may not have respected us but they sure as shit were afraid of us. I don't care if I sound like an evil bastard when I say this but in situations like this I'll take my enemy's fear over their respect any day. President Obama tries to be respected by the shit-bag leaders of these third world hell holes but doesn't seem to realize that they will always hate him for the simple fact that he's an American. (That's right, I'm saying Barack Hussein Obama was born in America. Fuck you, Birthers)

America, and the whole world for that matter, would be a lot better off if President Obama finally grew a pair and invoked the fear of God in our enemies. You can try to hold out the olive branch at first, but if they continue to step out of line you sometimes have to beat the ever loving snot out of them with it.

I thank you for you time and apologize for any typos.

P.S. In a completely unrelated side-note: I've officially lost all respect for Dennis Kucinich. We never really saw eye to eye politically but I always thought he was a man of principle. Plus I loved the fact that he carried around a copy of the U.S. Constitution with him everywhere he went. Now, I think he can jump off a cliff as long as he gives his Constitution to a bystander before jumping. He sold out his supporters by voting for the Health Care Bill shortly after signing a pledge of some sort saying he would never vote for any bill that didn't contain a robust public option. He either sold out or Obama informed him what a lot of people already suspect and that is that the Health Care Bill than was recently passed is just the first step to Universal Health Care. Not a Trojan Horse, but hiding in plain sight. It's much more devious that way. I thank you again for your patronage to my wonderful, rant-filled blog. I hope I didn't scare you too bad this time.

The Death of American Exceptionalism

From the ineffectual version of near anarchy set forth in 1777 by the Articles of Confederation, where the federal government essentially had no real authority, to the balanced version of limited powers brought about by the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1787, giving us our unprecedented system of checks and balances, America has always been a laboratory for the experiment called individual freedom exercised according to natural law.

It was unique and unprecedented because of the idea that the power originated in the people and trickled up through the ranks to the limited central government. While this may seem passe or even, God forbid, outdated today, it was a bold new system that had never before been attempted in the long history of civilized man. It was this glorious system, articulated by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution, that made America the great beacon of hope the rest of the world looked on as truly the land of the free and the home of the brave.

It created a nation of free men the likes of which had never been seen before in the whole of human history. A nation where you could be free to rise, and fall, based on your own merits with little to no interference from some tyrannical central authority. No kings. No Noblemen. It was truly a nation of, by and for the people. It was not some utopia of perfection but it was by far the greatest leap civilization had ever made in regard to advancing the principles of personal freedom according to natural, or god's, law.

It put forth the idea that man was endowed with a set of unalienable rights that could never be taken away. It was a far cry from "The King givith and the King taketh away" that was the norm for a supposed "free" people. Any rights arbitrarily given by some authority can be just as arbitrarily taken away. No man, however, can usurp the laws of nature. They are laws not written by man but imbued by man's very humanity. You could no sooner legislate away the rights of man than you could outlaw gravity or love. These fundamental rights were the foundation, the very essence, of what it means to be human.

Now we find ourselves in the year 2010 and we have done a complete 180 degree turn in what we stand for as a nation. In the minds of many Americans the Government has not only become the provider of their freedoms, but the provider of "stuff". Whatever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?

It's sad for me to say this, but if you stopped 10 people on the street and asked them where their rights come from, most would probably reply something along the lines of "They come from the Government". This couldn't be further from the truth. It is only true that the freedom to exorcise these inherent rights are safeguarded by the Government. The Government is merely there to be a protector, not a provider.

American Exceptionalism is on the road to its demise. You can only take from those who produce and give to those who don't for so long before you take away any incentives there may be to personally make something out of yourself to better your position in life. Why get a job or start a business when you can just sit back and collect Government benefits? We're all on the road to serfdom and few seem to realize it. Maybe they do but they simply don't care. It's easier to sit around and wait for your handout than it is to go out and produce. Fifty years from now we'll all be wards of the State, dependent on the Federal Government for our very existence.

The private sector is disappearing all around us. The Government has nationalized banks, taken over car companies, and now they've got the health care industry in their dirty little claws. What's next? Oh, yeah, student loans. Tucked into the recently passed health care bill is language that will allow the government to take over student loans. So now, after you graduate on the Uncle Sam's dime, instead of having to pay back your student loan you can simply work for the Government for ten years to pay it off. How many people do you think will move into the private sector after being entrenched in the public sector for ten years? My guess is: not too many. It's all about expanding the public sector at the expense of the private. When Barack Obama was campaigning and he said that he was going to fundamentally transform America he actually meant it. The capitalist system that has made this country great is being dismantled brick by brick as a majority of American's sit idly by waiting for all their free stuff to start falling from the sky.

It's really all about, in a single word, one thing: Power. The more a person depends on the Government to live their life, the weaker they become. A weak populace that relies on their Government for all their needs is many things but they are not free.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

The "Evil" Bush Tax Cuts

I'm sure you've heard about the much decried 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts as a tax cut for the "rich". It sounds good coming out of the mouths of Democrats whose economic agenda lately seems to be to instigate class envy and warfare but, the truth of the matter is that they were across-the-board tax reductions. They affected every single American taxpayer no matter their income.

So when Democrats say they were tax cuts for the rich, they're right in a sense but you have to take into account that they're leaving out the crucial fact that Bush reduced the tax rates for the poor and middle classes as well. A lie of omission is a lie just the same.

Granted, these tax cuts added to the deficit because domestic spending wasn't cut as well (as it should have been) but they were necessary at the time and actually increased the tax base according to an article in the New York Sun. The Sun's source was a study by the vice president for economic policy at the Tax Foundation, Robert Carroll, and economists Gerald Auten and Geoffrey Gee of the Department of the Treasury so it's pretty reliable.

That's right, the tax cuts actually increased the amount of taxable income generated by American taxpayers. While the tax cuts didn't completely pay for themselves, they offset as much as 40% of the revenues lost from the tax rate reduction.

Now that these tax cuts are due to expire, Congressional Democrats are screaming about Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" and, in allowing them to expire, they will end up with a decreased revenue stream. This will no doubt do nothing to curb their excessive spending and add to our already massive debt as higher tax rates force money underground and away from the greedy hands of the Government instead of into the economy where it can create jobs at a time we desperately need job creation.

It just goes to show that politicians do not read history. This has all happened before. Don't believe me? Look into the tax rates under Woodrow Wilson and the "Laffer Curve". If you don't want to do that, you can just wait for one of my future blogs which will be on those very subjects.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

Who Will It Be in 2012?

I decided to make a quick list of who might vie for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012 and these are the names of the likely suspects I could come up with off the top of my head:

(in no particular order)

Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Sarah Palin
Paul Ryan
Newt Gingrich
Mike Huckabee
Tim Pawlenty

I intentionally left Scott Brown off this list because I found it ridiculous that some poll actually showed that people were seriously considering him as a presidential nominee just days after his election in Massachusetts. I understand they were excited that he beat out Martha Coakley to break the Democrats supermajority in the Senate and all but what do we really know about this guy? I've got nothing against the man, I just think we should sit back and see how he governs for a while before considering him for the one of the most important positions on planet Earth.

There's also a couple people on this list that I know virtually nothing about (like Romney, Ryan & Pawlenty) and a couple that I know a lot about (Paul, Palin & Huckabee) so I guess that leaves Newt Gingrich stuck somewhere in the middle.

So, here we go:

Even though he's a Congressman from my home state of Wisconsin, I never really heard of Paul Ryan until his brilliant performance at the Health Care Summit last month. I gotta say, the kid's got moxie! Since I've already posted a blog all about his performance at the summit I won't get into it again here but I will say that I'm a pretty big fan of the guy and I would seriously consider giving him my vote if he decided to throw his hat into the ring. Plus my Mom's met him a couple of times and she says he's a good guy. Like Judge Judy, my Mother is a good judge... of character.

Next!

The person I probably know the most about is also the one whom I'm the most of two minds about.That would be Ron Paul. I strongly believe that with his economic and domestic policies the United States would quickly become the economic superpower it once was. He's a pretty libertarian guy which appeals to me but I don't believe his foreign policies would be a good thing for the U.S., or the world at large, in the age we currently live in.

He's an isolationist who would dramatically scale back our great military in a time of war. I can't believe that the terrorists who live for nothing more than to see America destroyed would stop attacking us if we pulled all our troops out of all the different countries around the world and brought them home. He doesn't just want to pull all the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but Germany, South Korea and Japan as well. Does that seem like sound foreign policy in these turbulent times to you? Yeah, me neither.

It's a shame. If only Ron Paul had the foreign policy ideas of someone like Independent Congressman Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He'd be damn near perfect, or at least as perfect as a politician can be.

Fun trivia fact about Lieberman: He came very close to being John McCain's running mate in 2008 but the powers that be in the Republican party were having nothing of it.

Next!

Mike Huckabee is a good guy in my opinion. I'm not crazy about his uber-religiousness but he's a proponent of the Fair Tax which gives him extra points in my book. But on the other hand, when he was the Governor of Arkansas he had a thing about pardoning as many criminals as possible. When one of the men he pardoned ended up killing someone his defense was something along the lines of, "So many pardons came across my desk, it's not like I had time to read them all. So-and-so recommended him to be pardoned so I simply blindly followed the suggestion".

Next!

Tim Pawlenty is a real long shot for the nomination but I seriously doubt he's even going to run. If he does, he'll be out after a couple of primaries. The average person doesn't know who he is or what he's all about. I sure as hell don't and I follow politics like a hawk.

Next!

I don't have much to say about Newt Gingrich either. He's been in the game a long time and most of what I know about him stems from his Clinton-era "Contract With America" days. Your average political layman probably doesn't know who he even is and if they do, just like Pawlenty, they don't know exactly what he's about.

Next!

And now me come to the most decisive person on the list. Quite possibly the most decisive figure in politics today. I can't think of anyone currently in politics, save Barack Obama, who is simultaneously loved and reviled by so many people. Of course, I'm talking about Sarah Palin.

She has said in interviews that she has no intention of running but I'm not 100% sure that will be the case as the 2012 elections loom nearer. I think fears of the left-wing media smear machine that kicks into overdrive every time Saracuda steps out her front door has a lot to do with that.

I just want to say that Saracuda isn't in any way a knock at Palin. In High School when Sarah Palin played basketball her nickname was Sarah Barracuda. I use it as a term of endearment (awww) because on really like Sarah Palin on a personal level. It also doesn't hurt that she's a babe but I digress.

As unlikely a proposition it that that Sara Palin will even vie for the GOP nomination in 2012, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities for her to actually win the nomination. Personally, I think she would be better off to take a VP slot on the ticket and build up her credentials before going for the top stop. But VP under who?

Romney/Palin maybe? That's just about the only way I would vote for Romney in 2012 for any reason other than he's not Barack Obama. How about Ryan/Palin? That would be one good looking ticket and, yes, I do mean that literally. Never before would a Prez/VP combo inspire so many people's masturbatory fantasies. Oh, lordy, have we not gone down a deep, dark tangent in my sick, twisted mind here. Anyway...

I think I'll end it on that creep note.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

The Psychological and Financial Warfare of the Emancipation Proclamation

I'm sick of talking about Health Care and Government corruption so I need something else to talk about.

Let's go with history.

It's a favorite subject of mine (along with theology). The difference is you can usually talk freely about history without upsetting too many people around you.

That is, unless you talk about the Civil War and slavery.

On that note, let's talk about the Civil War and slavery.

More specifically, I want to talk about the Emancipation Proclamation.

It's a common misconception that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. That's not entirely accurate. Had I been alive on January 1, 1863, I could have fit all the slaves it freed in my back pocket. You know why? Because it didn't actually free a single one. It did only technically.

Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation actually consisted of two separate executive orders. One was given on September 22, 1862 and the second on January 1, 1863,

These two proclamations did nothing to address the slaves in the loyalist boarder states of the Union where the Federal Government actually had the authority to set them all free. It simply punted the ball to Congress to do something about that "peculiar institution" at a later date.

While it did indeed proclaim that all slaves in the rebellious southern states were "thence forward and forever" free, the Federal government in Washington had no authority in the South because the south had seceded from the Union and formed it's own government. Because of this, the CSA was considered a nation of its own at the time of the Proclamation and was not under any Governmental control except for it's own recently established Government in Richmond, Virginia under CSA President Jefferson Davis. It certainly wasn't taking it's cues from Washington.

This led to someone, I'm not sure who, to say of Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation, "Where he could free the slaves, Lincoln would not, and where he would free the slaves, he could not".

I just want to be clear at this point that I am not in any way diminishing everything Abraham Lincoln did for this country by preserving the Union and bringing everyone (except maybe women) under the umbrella of the Declaration of Independence where it said that "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". I'm also not saying that it was never Lincoln's intention to free the slaves and that their emancipation was just a happy accident brought about by fighting the preserve the Union.

***A quick side note: Originally the Declaration of Independence was supposed to say something along the lines of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Personal Property" but the framers didn't want to unintentionally give Constitutional legitimacy to slavery. That's right. Those racist, slave-holding Founding Fathers didn't want to perpetuate the institution of slavery indefinitely in their newly found Republic.***

At this point you might ask what was the point of the Emancipation Proclamation if it only freed the slaves in theory? Was it purely a symbolic gesture with no real-world consequences at all? The answer to that one is a big, fat "No".

One of the achievements of the Emancipation Proclamation was to strip away the perception by any foreign nations, that might lend a hand to the fledgling CSA, that this was not a war over slavery but one for independence or constitutional rights. No nation- like England or France- who had already abolished slavery on purely moral grounds could or would do anything for the CSA to help them fight a war whose chief aim was to perpetuate an immoral institution like slavery. With this facade stripped away, any chance the CSA had of outside intervention on their behalf vanished overnight.

The other, and in my opinion the most devastating, effect the Emancipation Proclamation had on the CSA was that it broke their back financially. In the blink of an eye, millions of dollars worth of assets disappeared overnight in the south.

Slaves were no different than land or cattle in the sense that they were physical assets. Suddenly, slaves who were one day considered an asset were the next day considered people. Though this did nothing to their immediate situation, since in the eyes of their southern masters they were still chattel, the effect on the south's financial situation was disastrous.

As far as bank books were concerned, the slaves simply disappeared. Slaves were used in the south, along with the land they worked, to back up the debts that southern plantation owners owed the bank. Not only did the slaves' disappearance, on paper anyway, throw the southern banking industry into chaotic disarray, the land they worked was suddenly depreciated because the slaves were crucial in that they gave extra value to the land they worked that was above and beyond the value of the land itself.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a subtle but supremely effective piece of psychological and financial warfare that eventually led to the fall of the CSA and the freedom of countless slaves who no longer had to toil in the fields in fear of master's whip. Finally, in the eyes of the Federal Government, they became (free)men.

I'm a high school graduate and just learned all of the intricacies of the Emancipation Proclamation earlier today while reading a book titled "A Patriot's History of the United States". If you had asked me yesterday what was the effect of Lincoln's famous proclamation I would have told you that it freed the slaves. What a difference a day makes.

I thank you for you time and apologize for any typos.

Congressman Charlie "Rangel'd" By Ethics Probe

***UPDATE***
On March 3rd, Rangel officially stepped down from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means committee. Eventhough Rep. Rangel said he was only stepping aside temporarily, the likelyhood of a future House vote reinstating him to his former post is unlikely given the circumstances in which he was forced to step aside.
******

"Hey man, I just write the tax code. Are you saying I gotta pay that shit too?"
If you lied on your income taxes and failed to declare the income you received from rental properties you owned, how quickly do you think you would end up in jail or at the very least before a judge? Pretty quick, I'd say.

That is, unless you happen to be a Congressman. And not just any congressman but the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Now what do you suppose the Ways and Means Committee does? That's right, they write our tax codes.

Now either the tax codes are just so complex and convoluted that not even the guys who write them can figure them out or something fishy is going on. Even though the tax codes are complex to the nth degree, I'm putting my money on the later.

Enter Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York's 15th Congressional District.

Rep. Rangel has found himself in hot water, something he's been in pretty consistently since 2008, and is in danger of losing his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee. This according to a recent Politico story that states:

"Republicans plan to force a House floor vote this week on whether to remove Rangel from the chairmanship following last week’s finding that he violated House gift rules by accepting a corporate-sponsored trip to the Caribbean."

You can read the entire story HERE

Read over the ethics investigations into Rep. Rangel's activities between 2008 and 2010 and you will find that they are not only quite extensive but this current ordeal with the Caribbean trip seems to be one of the lighter of his many lapses of ethics and morality.

Take for instance the four apartment units Rep. Rangel himself rents in the same apartment building in New York City. These four apartment were rented to Rangel for a combined price way under the actual market value of the units. One of the rent-stabilized apartments was being (and could very well still be) used as a campaign office despite being in violation of city and state statutes that require all rent-stabilized apartments to be the renters primary residence.

It just so happens that this apartment building is owned by the Olnick Organization and one of Olnick's owners donated thousands of dollars to Rep. Rangel's campaign. Well, isn't that a strange coincidence? I'm sure Rep. Rangel is in no way beholden to this organization for the sweet hookup on the NYC apartments. I hear apartments in New York are not only very expensive but pretty hard to find as well.

Rep. Rangel, however, paid a mere $3,894 a month for all four units when four similar units in that building would go for roughly $8,125 a month. That's an illegal gift of $4,231 a month that Rep. Rangel is receiving, albeit in a roundabout way, from the Olnick Organization.

$4,231 is well over the $100 members of the House are allowed to accept as a gift, if indeed this is to be treated as such. It should very well be but politicians have a nack for parsing facts and weaseling their way out of trouble so I have doubts that anything will come from these previously stated facts. It's just the way things are done in Washington. Nobody takes responsibility for their own actions.

Even though Rep. Rangel keeps these NYC apartments as his primary residence (well, three out of four of them anyway), that didn't stop him from applying for, and receiving, a "homestead" tax credit on his Washington D.C. home despite not being legally eligible for the credit.

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

A quick side note.

Here's a list of some other Congressmen who are grifting the system by getting "homestead" tax credits they're not legally entitled to:
Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
Rep. Steve King (R-IO)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL)
Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)

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

Rangel has blamed his current tax woes on his wife, on his aides and dismissed them as simple "errors of omission". "I know it's somebody's fault, but that somebody just isn't me", is essentially what Rangel is saying regarding the allegations of tax evasion.

If you're in a masochistic mood and want to read all about Rep. Rangel's lack of ethics you can read them all HERE

More needs to be done about Rep. Rangel's constant flaunting of the rules that every other decent, hard-working taxpayer has to follow besides simply stripping him of his Ways and Means Committee chairmanship. He should be removed from Congress at the very least and be forced to pay back every red cent he weaseled his way out of paying to the IRS.

It's high time that our representatives were not only held to the same standard as the rest of us, but to a slightly higher standard. We all know that they THINK they're better than us. Maybe it's time they start acting like it.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

Lean, Mean Health Care Machine

All signs point to this Wednesday as being the day that the White House will roll out it's latest version of the Health Care Bill. This incarnation is rumored to be not only leaner, but it is said to contain some proposals championed by the Republicans at the Health Care Summit this last Thursday.

The early buzz is indicating that TORT reform will be included from the Republican's idea pool but it seems like interstate commerce of health insurance will be left by the wayside in favor of some brand of Governmental price-fixing. This just seems like typical Washington from where I'm sitting. To quote the Gipper, "Government isn't the solution to our problems, Government IS the problem."

Instead of letting the free market work like it's supposed to without the interference of Mommy Government, more intrusion is the supposed fix all to all our countries health care woes? Letting government meddle in the free market is one of the reasons our economy is in the sorry shape it is today.

That's right. I'm looking at you Fannie and Freddie.

Are we really supposed to believe that more intrusion by the government should clear the problem right up? If you believe that I've got some nice real estate on the Moon you might be interested in.

I have very little hope that whatever is released this Wednesday will be anything less than a disaster unless some major changes take place to H.R. 3200 as it now stands.

TORT reform is a good start (if it is indeed included) but it's going to do very little in the way of controlling costs if nothing is done to increase the competition between existing insurance companies.

The so-called "public option" isn't the answer either. Private insurance companies could never fairly compete with a government subsidized monstrosity. All it would really accomplish is to drive private insurance companies out of business leading to a federal monopoly of the insurance industry.

I'm all for increasing the affordability of insurance so that the 47 million people who are currently uninsured can have access to health insurance, but what, if anything, is being done to increase the number of doctors to see this new group of tens of millions of the newly insured? As far as I can tell: nothing.

Explain to me how this isn't the road to rationed care?

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

And Yet Another Blog About Health Care

Have you read H.R. 3200 yet? No? I can't say I blame you.

Coming in at the length of a Stephen King novel (slightly more than 1,000 pages) and filled with such incoherent passages such as: " The feasibility of modifying the existing Medicare resource-based value scale (RBRVS) by using adjustments (such as multipliers or add-ons) when a patient is LEP.*" this thing is as light a read as Finnegan's Wake.

*(That passage was just one picked at random. I'm sure I could have pulled quotes from the bill that would cause the onset of severe tourettes. On the other hand, there are probably some passages that actually make a lick of sense but those are few and far between.)

I'm no genius but I'm a pretty smart guy. When I try to read this bill my eyes go crossed after a couple of pages. You need a lawyer looking over each of your shoulders translating for you as you attempt to read this indecipherable monstrosity.

I guess that's the point though. These bills are purposefully written in much a manner that, to the layman, it might as well be in Sanskrit or Klingon. If you don't understand the proposal it's hard to find any specifics that are objectionable or possible harmful to you. You're forced to trust that your representatives in Washington are acting with your best interests in mind.

I thought, foolishly some would say, that after the much ballyhooed Health Care Summit this past Thursday that the plan would be laid out in simple, easy to digest terms but, no such luck. I think I'm more confused now.

The main thing I hope the general public should have taken away from the Summit was that the idea of the GOP as the "party of no" was simply a creation of left-wing spin doctors to undermine the opposition. The Republicans threw out idea after idea only to have most of them simply dismissed out of hand as being "too small" or "tinkering around the edges" by the Democrats.

Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of my home state of Wisconsin verbally trashed this bill and it's budgetary "smoke and mirrors" in such a way as to leave Barack Obama with no rebuttal what-so-ever. He had a rebuttal to every Republican statement except for Ryan's. He simply moved on to the next person because there was no was of refuting Congressman Ryan's claims. For a video of this exchange, click the link at the bottom of the post.

The Democrats say that controlling costs is one of the main concerns of their health care vision but this bill does little or nothing to accomplish that goal. Anybody paying attention the the health care debate over the last year should have realized by now that this isn't really about controlling costs or providing for the uninsured so much as it's about expanding the size and power of the federal government.

If that's not the ultimate goal, then why else does this bill have to be massive in scope and passed as soon as possible?

Paul Ryan owns ObamaCare's "numbers"

A "nation of dodos"?

Stop anybody on the street and ask them what they think about H.R. 3200.

A blank stare followed by "What?" is the most likely response. Is it because America is a "nation of dodos" like some asshole elitist named Joel Klein of Time magazine thinks?

This virulent sentiment is echoed by the likes of Mr. Klein, Bill Maher and pretty much everybody currently writing for the New York Times' editorial page.

Just look at the White House's new communication policy (touched on in an earlier blog of mine) and you'll see that even the President of the United States thinks this of the average American as well.

It seems anybody that has the audacity to criticize the Obama Administration (legitimately or otherwise) is guilty of being either a racist or an idiot. If you don't think this is true just look at the way Sarah Palin or anyone affiliated with the Tea Party movement has been portrayed in the Mainstream media.

Ignorant, racist, tea-bagging rednecks. That's all they are. And they write notes on their hands, that's how stupid they are.

I've been seeing this brand of liberal elitism for as long as I can remember.

Why have a meaningful debate about anything when you can simply discredit the intelligence of the person making the argument? It's easier that way. There's no need for a rebuttal. It's 3rd grade tactics injected into national politics and I find it disgusting.

Person 1: "Hey, this new ObamaCare bill wants to add 47 million new people to the insurance rolls but does nothing to add to the number of doctors to treat all these new patients. Isn't that a problem that's going to lead to long waiting lists to see a doctor?"

Person 2: "You just don't want poor blacks and latinos to get proper health care."

Person 1: "No. What I'm saying is-"

Person 2: "Racist!"

Person 1: "Fuck you!"

End of debate.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

-Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

You just don't get it!!

Oh, joy! The White House has unveiled it's new four point plan for effectively communicating its policy strategies to the American public.

The New White House Communication Strategy

1 - A return to effective backdrops

2 - Less media interaction

3- A return to disciplined messaging

4 - A quicker, more aggressive response to critics

It seems like the White House believes that the percentage of the American public who dares to oppose Obama's policies have simply failed to be properly informed of the benefits of these policies. So in case you missed any of the 4,000 speeches, the two joint sessions of Congress or the President's State of the Union Address, now is the time for the Obama policies to be properly marketed to you so even the dumbest of the dumb can finally realize how beneficial these policies actually are.

Number 1: "A return to effective backdrops" Of course! That's the problem. It's not what's being said that the people don't like. It's the backdrop. Maybe if we made it look like a beer commercial behind the President when he speaks we'll finally get it.

Number 2: "Less media interaction" Dissenting points of view? Who needs that stuff? It'll only confuse the issue. Why have a legitimate debate when we can simply be told what's good for us? Who needs both sides of the story to make up their mind about the issue at hand?

Number 3: "A return to disciplined messaging" It's not the basic message that's the problem but the way it's being presented. Yes, better marketing. That should clear things right up.

Number 4: "A quicker, more aggressive response to critics" How dare anyone criticize Barack Obama or his policies? Don't you know he can walk on water?

Numbers 2 & 4 seem to be aimed at crushing any dissent there may be so we can all be led along like the sheep the White House apparently thinks we are.

So this is the plan as I see it:

1 - Make the production flashy

2 - Make it a one-sided conversation

3 - Pound a couple of nice sounding catch phrases into the heads of the dumb masses

4 - Marginalize and crush any opposition

This is what's going to pass as political discussion in America from now on?

This is not change I can believe in. How about you?

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

I am not dead yet

I know it's been a very, very long time since I've posted anything here. If anyone actually read this blog in the first place, which I seriously doubt, I am sorry.

FEAR NOT!! I shall soon be posting on a semi-regular basis.

I'm sure you're all waiting with bated breath.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

Anne Wortham on the election of Barack Obama

Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association.

She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.

In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of Ideas." The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas.
Dr. Wortham is author of "The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness" which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues.
She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality.

Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004, she was awarded tenure.

This article by her is something.

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a Black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of America .

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America .

Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them.

I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University 's Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest.  I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force.  I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a Black man to the office of the president of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a Black person.

So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, BlackAmerica. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a Black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good.
There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

Tim's Health Care Vision

(NOTE: Originally, my Health Care Vision was a three part plan consisting of: interstate commerce, TORT Reform & Governmental regulation of Insurance companies. After some deliberation I've decided that all the problems associated with health care insurance can be fixed with the simple free-market principle of competition.)

Now that I've got my laptop power cord issues taken care of, it's time for my glorious return to ranting.

First of all, I just want to say that I think there is really nothing wrong with America's Health Care System per se. It's top notch. This is just my opinion (and I could be wrong) but I think here- in the good old USofA- we've got the best care around.

I do take into account the fact that, here in America, it's not paid for by Daddy Government with taxpayer money- aka: The Single Payer System.

Under a Single Payer System (like in France, England or Canada) there's usually a protracted period of time in which you slowly work your way up some bureaucrat's waiting list, hoping you don't die, while you wait for your treatment.

While Health Care may be very expensive in this country, it's quick and reliable. Few people are ever denied Health Care, emergency or not, based on their inability to pay*(see note below). I'm not exactly sure, and it may vary from state to state, but I think it's illegal for a hospital to deny a patient treatment.

*NOTE:(I've heard stories about homeless people still in their hospital gowns being dumped on the street by hospital workers after receiving care and I find this practice disgusting, but at least they're treated initially.)*

You may go bankrupt from your hospital bill, but you'll get the treatment you need to stay alive or otherwise lead a productive life.

And that brings us to the main problem with the American Health Care System: Cost.

President Obama says one of the main focuses of his "Health Care Vision" is to reduce cost. This can be done quite simply using the most basic of basic principles of Capitalism (evil, evil Capitalism).

COMPETITION

The more businesses in the market place offering the same product or service will invariably drive down the price as multiple business compete for the consumers business.

Think McDonald's and the Dollar menu. When Micky D's came out with that bad boy, all the other fast food chains soon followed suit. Now Taco Bell has not only a 99 cent menu, but 89 and 79 cent menus as well.

For reasons I don't understand, the Government (using the Commerce Clause as a club) says you can't buy Health Insurance across state lines. Well... why the hell not? This lack of many options for the consumer looking to buy Health Insurance creates a virtual monopoly in some areas and radically drives up costs.

Acording to President Obama, in his big Health Care speech before a joint session of Congress, there's an area of Georgia (or maybe the whole state), where a single Insurance company accounts for 90% of the marketplace

No competition = higher prices

Instead of using the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution to restrict the selling of Health Insurance across state lines, I suggest the Government use it as the framers of the Constitution intended. There's a novel idea.

The clause was intended to promote and "to keep regular" interstate commerce so states could not put huge taxes or tariffs on goods from other states. This was a common practice back in the Articles of Confederation days before the Constitution was ratified.

Now the Commerce Clause is being used to accomplish the exact opposite when it comes to Health Insurance. The reasoning behind this I don't understand. It seems to me like the Fed is intentionally grifting the American people to help out the profit margins of the Insurance Companies. Is this too cynical a line of reasoning even for me?

What other reason could there be? Anybody with a High School diploma would know the only outcome for such regulation would be higher prices. How could they not? Nobody, not even the U.S Government, is that incompetent or short sighted.

The only sensible answer is an intentional screwing over of the American people by our so-called "for the people" Government.

But it's not solely the fault of the U.S Government. Some of the blame needs to be laid at the feet of the Health Insurance lobbyists and also at the feet of the American people themselves- for their years of inaction while this grave injustice stood.

In the spirit of being fair and balanced, here's the other side of the interstate commerce argument:
Source:

Emma Lloyd. "Why Buying Health Insurance across State Lines might Not be a Good Idea" Individual Health Plans. October 20th, 2008.

Another argument not addressed in the above linked rebuttal is the idea that the interstate commerce would force every state to have the same laws regarding health insurance. This goes against the very idea of the Republic and I would never advocate it.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

Obama Confronts Congress

This is a blog I wrote the night of President Obama's health care speech before a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009. You know the one. The one where he was heckled by Joe Wilson. That's all anybody remembers from that speech anyway.

For whatever reason I failed to post it then so on the eve of the bipartisan health care summit I've decided to finally post it for all my loyal fans.

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

President Obama stood in front of a joint session of Congress and did what I think was a masterful thing. His speech, as always, was eloquent and almost inspiring at times. For a few blissful, fleeting moments I was able to suspend my disbelief and feel simply . . .

Ah, I don't wanna say it.

It didn't take too long before my rational thinking (male) mind was able to get my emotional thinking (female) mind back into a little place called reality. I crashed back down to the realization that my Government can't accomplish anything that doesn't involve bickering or character assassination without turning it into an all our war for the very souls of all mankind.

Still, there were moments that I truly felt the United States Government might be able to function within some basic framework of reality and logic (or even the Constitution)- with maybe a little common sense and compromise thrown in for good measure.

It's an awful lot to ask of the cabal of self serving assholes that passes for our "Representation" in Washington. I can only think of three descent people in the whole House and Senate off the top of my head. My man Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich (and his amazing pocket constitution), and Joseph Lieberman. There may be a few more out there but I can only vouch for these three.

Our so called Representation has started to degenerate to the level of school children calling each other names at recess (or they've always been this way and it's simply more apparent now).

Here's an example of these sniveling children up on the Hill.

I give you Rep. Joe Wilson (R) from South Carolina: The man essentially heckled the leader of the free world during his speech when Obama stated emphatically that no illegal immigrants will be able to benefit from the new Health Care Plan.

Everyone I know on the right seemed to get turned on by this child screaming "You Lie!" at Obama during his speech but I found it not only counter productive vis-a-vis the purpose of the joint session but also very inappropriate given the setting.

I agree that Obama was blowing smoke up the collective asses of the American people but you don't heckle the President of the United States during a nationally televised joint session of Congress. That's not a level you want to publicly sink to when you're a fully functioning adult in a position of power. You hold your tongue, collect your facts, then state your case at the appropriate time and place. That's what any ADULT would do but that's too much to ask from an elected official.

I don't like Obama but, like any real patriotic American, I respect the office.

The whole purpose of this speech before Congress was to bring both parties together to work collectively on a plan to improve our Health Care system without completely tearing it down and starting from scratch. Well, actually it was to give the APPEARANCE that that's what they're trying to do but that's a topic for another post altogether.

But in the end, even the President couldn't resist the temptation to get a jab in at the Republicans for being lie spreading obstructionists and the party of "no". He essentially told the GOP that all they're doing is getting in the way of true reform despite the fact that they've introduced Health Care Reform legislation of their own that was summarily dismissed by the Democrats because it didn't create new bureaucratic agencies to control the American people or consist of a governmental takeover of the health care industry.

This is the true aim of Obama's health care reform in my opinion. It's not aimed at simply controlling cost or providing coverage for those who are currently uninsured but again... I'll save that for another post.

If it wasn't for the reality of the situation and the motives of those involved I'd say the speech was very inspiring. But alas, I know better so it was not.

It was just business as usual. Just another smoke and mirrors, dog and pony show to distract the ill-informed from the truth of the matter.

Bottom line: Give us more power so we can make your life better because we believe you're incapable of doing anything for yourself.

Business as usual in Washington.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

It's now called Health Insurance Reform

First, a quick note about the title:

Remember when it was called Health Care Reform? One day everyone was calling it that and then suddenly the next day it was Health INSURANCE reform. Just like that it changed. It was like everyone got an e-mail monday night that said starting tuesday Health Care Reform will be henceforth known as Health Insurance Reform.

It just seemed a little strange to me. It's more like a Health Care overhaul but the Obama Administration and all the left-wing pundits are trying to make it seem like a trifling little matter of simply making Health Insurance fair.

It's all about leveling the playing field, so they say.

Incidently, all the right-wing pundits still called it Health Care Reform. I guess they didn't get the memo.

But anyways . . . on to the point.

The main problem that I and most others who oppose the Government's current attempt to reform the health care system is so glaringly obvious that proponents of Health Care Reform fail to see what the problem is.

We must be crazy, racist Obama haters. Case closed. There's no other conceivable reason why anyone would oppose cheap, abundant health care for all.

My main gripe with health care reform (or health INSURANCE reform as it has now morphed into) is this- I don't trust the Government.

The Government can be described as a loose conglomerate of individuals whose soul purpose in life is to make their constituents believe they are looking out for them when in reality they are looking out for their big campaign contributors and more importantly themselves and their next election.

There is a large trust disconnect between a politician and the average citizen.

"Read my lips, no new taxes." -George H. W. Bush - He then raised taxes.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." -Bill Clinton - He certainly did.

"Mission Accomplished." George W. Bush - Last time I checked it wasn't

Okay, George W. Bush didn't really say that but, he stood in front of a banner that declared the mission in Iraq done. Close enough.

The battery on my laptop is dying and I've got power cord issues at the moment so I'm going to have to cut this one short and continue it in my next post.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

The Second Bill Of Rights

On January 11, 1944 President Roosevelt addressed Congress on the state of the union and put forth the idea of a second, or economic, Bill of Rights.

Here are his ideas for leveling the playing field:

1 The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation

2 The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation

3 The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living

4 The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad

5 The right of every family to a decent home

6 The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health

7 The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment

8 The right to a good education

The reason I even bring this up is that the idea of a second Bill of Right is being kicked around the Obama White House by various advisers and it is poised to make a come back of sorts.

This all seems well and good until you really think about it and then you start to realize some of these things are not rights at all but privileges.

A decent job and especially owning your own home are not rights to be arbitrarily handed out to anyone with a heartbeat. These are things you earn through hard work and personal responsibility. If you spend all your money on whiskey and PCP you freeze every night under the freeway (or your Mom's basement), not live in a nice house furnished by the U.S taxpayers.

This country was built on the the concept of sink or swim. You're responsible for making something out of yourself or not. If you fail, you have nobody to blame but yourself. In this day and age (with an African-American in the White House) everybody has the same opportunities to make it as the next guy. The playing field is already level.

If you're a useless schmuck is it the Government's responsibility to not only give you a job but a house as well? Hell no in my opinion. It's not to Government's responsibility to take care of everybody. That's what friends and families are for. They're the only ones truly looking out for you.

The real question is this: if everyone is entitled to own their own home, who's going to put up the money to buy your friendly neighborhood heroin addict his own home?

Answer: YOU ARE.

I thank you for your time and apologize for any typos.

Seriously

Click the picture for a larger version

Hell freezes over as Obama says something that makes sense

When asked by CBS' Katie Couric whether or not illegal immigrants would be covered by the new health care plan, Obama responded with a simple "No". Well, actually it was more like "No, but..." and we went on to say that there could possibly be exceptions for the children of illegal immigrants who illegal immigrants themselves.

He rationalized it by saying: "The one exception that I think has to be discussed is how are we treating children. Partly because if you've got children who may be here illegally but are still in playgrounds or at schools, and potentially are passing on illnesses and communicable diseases, that aren't getting vaccinated, that I think is a situation where you may have to make an exception."

I agree with the President on this one because I don't believe that children should be punished for the transgressions of their parents.

But, can you believe what Obama says about health care reform? Remember when he said you can keep your insurance provider if you're happy with them?

A Simple Plan

Click picture to enlarge

Here's a little flow chart for those of you who think that a Government run health care system would be a convoluted mess. I hope this clears up any lingering doubts or fears you may still have.

My favorite part of the chart, if you can find it, is the "Low-Income Subsidies" for families that are making 4 times more than what is considered the poverty level. Even if you can afford your own insurance the Government will force theirs down your throat. Nice, huh?

But if the Saviour In Chief says it's in your best interest it must be true. A politician would never lie.

When has the Government NOT been a model of efficiency in the past?

And for those of you worried that we can't afford the 1 trillion dollar price tag for this new system. Relax. The trillion bucks will only cover 1/3 of the uninsured in this country so it'll actually cost 3 trillion.

Yippee! It's time to fire up that printing press. We need more money!

I can't wait to take a wheel barrow full of money to the grocery store to buy a loaf a bread because the U.S. dollar is practically worthless because of hyper-inflation. It'll be just like Russia right before the Cold War ended.

The best part is we get to call each other "Comerade".

Rule No. 1: Never let a pesky thing like the facts get in the way of politics.

A mere day after the Senate Health Committee passed a version of the Democrat's health care reform plan, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Chairman Doug Elmendorf warned Democratic proponents of the bill which is aimed at reducing the high cost of health care that the bill would actually raise the already skyrocketing cost of health care.

"Subsidies to help uninsured people would raise federal health care spending, which is already growing at an unsustainable rate. The Medicare and Medicaid cuts that lawmakers have offered to pay for the coverage expansion aren't big enough to offset the cost trend, particularly in the long term." Says the CBO Chairman.

The Democrat's plan would essentially speed up the already out of control train that is the United States right now so we will not only, in my humble opinion, reach the station called bankruptcy earlier than expected but we will likely crash into said station in a fiery explosion of unemployment and homelessness.

The next step to rustle up some revenue will likely be the old liberal standby called taxing the rich. Punishing success while rewarding failure is the new American Way. Didn't you get the memo?

All this seems oddly familiar to me somehow. What does it remind me of? Oh yeah. That's right!

Wasn't it about a day after the Cap & Trade bill passed the House that it was finally leaked by the Competitive Enterprise Institute that the EPA suppressed an internal study on climate change and silenced the author of the report because, once again, those pesky facts got in the way of the Obama Administrations agenda?

The leaked EPA study found that when it comes to climate change, the EPA is ignoring new developments like declining global temperatures and relying on outdated research to mislead the public and further the green (hell) agenda.

The study also found that ocean and solar cycles were the main causes of global temperature fluctuations and not greenhouse gases like we were told by such brilliant scientific minds such as the inventor of the Internet, Al Gore.

Quick fact about Al Gore. His 20 room 8 bathroom mansion in Nashville consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year! This according the the Nashville Electric Service. Now THAT'S an inconvenient truth.

Stupid facts! Stupid truth! Always getting in the way of politicians as they force regulations down our throats and strip away as many of our God given rights as they possibly can. Why can't we just sit back, turn on the boob-tube and watch our rights spiral down the drain while we watch America's Got Talent (or American Idol if you want to be classy)?

I'll leave you with a quote by Economist and Commentator Walter Williams from the July 15, 2009 edition of The State Journal-Register:

"Cap & Trade is first a massive indirect tax on the American people and hence another source of revenue for Congress. More importantly Cap & Trade is just about the most effective tool for controlling most economic activity short of openly declaring ourselves a Communist nation and it's a radical environmentalist's dream come true."

No shit, but well said.

I thank you for your time and I apologize for nothing.

Obamacare: Going Down Like A Drunken Prom Date?

Government run health care . . . seriously?

Is there really anyone out there who thinks this is a good idea? The latest Rasmussen Poll shows support for Obamacare waning, even among those who identify themselves as Democrats.

While it's expected that somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% of Republicans oppose a Government run health care system, the most telling sign that public support is dropping, just like Obama's job approval rating, is that the number of Independents who strongly oppose Obamacare has risen from 39 to 51 percent in the last two weeks alone.

Of course you have to take into account the relative intelligence of the people polled. I heard Mr. Rasmussen himself say that a lot of people polled regarding Cap & Trade think it's some kind of Governmental regulation of Wall Street. Who knows? Maybe they think Obamacare means Barack Obama will be their wife's OB-GYN and they're simply jealous. Probably not, but never underestimate the stupidity of others.

On the other hand, what the public wants is rarely taken into account when the Government decides to do anything lately so the slipping poll numbers may be a moot point anyway. We'll get what Big Brother decides is best for us whether we want it or not.

However, I still find it really hard to believe that anyone thinks the Government can run a lemonade stand let alone health care. Anyone who thinks this has obviously never been to the Post Office or rode Amtrak. They can't even properly run the country (the sole purpose for their being), what makes you think anyone on Capitol Hill is competent at anything besides doing what it takes to be reelected.

While there are certainly a few good men and women up on the Hill (Only two spring readily to mind: Ron Paul [R-TX] and Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]), for the most part they're as useful to me as an asshole on my elbow. Maybe even less so.

I dare anyone to name a single successful government-run business. Go ahead. Name a successful unionized business while you're at it.

Oh, and if you think Amtrak can't possibly be as bad as people say. Read this:
Amtrak Sucks

Thank you for your time and I apologize for any typos.

Change Of Heart

Beliefs, like everything else in the Universe, are subject to a constant flux and sometimes even entropy. Whether tangible or not, the same rules seem to apply to everything from ideas and friendships to laptop computers and desk lamps. Even the human body.

While some beliefs may change only slightly, others may do a complete 180 when new facts or context are injected into them. Other times, beliefs or ideas may simply fade away from the forefront of priorities like a dying cigarette butt in a gutter.

It's not that you don't care anymore. You've either been simply worn out or maybe something else just got in the way. Out with the old, in with the new. The only constant in the universe is change.

Which brings me to the point:

I have recently changed my official stance on abortion. Where I was once Pro-Choice, I am now Pro-Life.

No, I didn't recently find Jesus.
(I wasn't even aware he was missing)

It's not that I think abortion is morally wrong either. Even if I did, it's not my place to tell other people how they should live their lives or what they should do with their bodies.

My business is mine and your business is yours.

Do I think abortion should be banned outright? Of course not. I'm just saying that if it was my decision to make, I would never choose to abort a fetus unless it posed a life-threatening risk to the health of the mother or it was some kind of incest situation.

While I realize that it would be difficult for a woman to carry a child for nine months and then give it up after delivery, adoption is the correct way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy in my book.

Hell, with the gay marriage legalization sweeping from state to state it's only a matter of time before these couples decide to settle down and start a family. No matter how hard they try, I don't think they'll be naturally producing any children of their own. More power to 'em if they want to try but I don't see it happening any time soon.

In case you're wondering, same sex couple are allowed to adopt children and I'm perfectly alright with that. I also support same sex marriages (just so there's no confusion about where I stand).

But anyway, back to abortion and my sudden change of heart.

Anyone who really knows me knows that I'm quite the fan of the Constitution of the United States (It's my favorite Constitution of them all), also of the Declaration of Independence and their little known precursor The Articles of Confederation.

A while back I found myself thinking about the inalienable, God-given rights everyone in this country enjoys (until further notice) and especially the core rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

At first, I was thinking about how it was originally phrased Life, liberty and the right to private property" or something along those lines but the Founding Fathers didn't want slave owners to use this phrasing to guarantee their rights to own slaves as their "personal property".

Then my mind segued into the whole right to life part as it pertained to abortion. Something clicked in my brain, the wheel caught and I started to think about the whole issue in a new light.

Everyone has the right to life and who are we to determine when life begins? Fourteen days after conception a heartbeat can be detected. After thirty days there's measurable brain activity.

Potential people are people none the less and they have the same guarantees as I do to all the rights bestowed to us as citizens of the United States by our founding documents.

Well actually, if you've ever read our founding documents our rights actually come down to us from God and not the Government or even to documents themselves. That was the point. That's why we have the phrase "God given rights".

Rights bestowed by man or government can be arbitrarily taken away but nobody fucks with God's will.

So my change of stance has no moral, ethical or religious basis per se, it's simply my personal belief that, for me, it's simply wrong to deny someone, yet to be born or not, every right guaranteed to everyone else in this great country of ours.

I'm not going to force my position or beliefs on anyone else. That's not my style. I like a healthy debate as much as the next guy but I don't think Roe v Wade should be overturned or any new laws or regulations enacted.

It simply boils down to personal responsibility and doing the right thing.

These are two things that are sorely lacking in this society we all live in.

Thank you for your time and I apologize for any typos.

As Long As I Can See The Light

I think I'm staring to become completely numb to all the crazy shit that's been going on lately. I hear about things that would have in previous weeks sent me into a sputtering rage and simply shrug. That's just the way of the world now, I say, What are you going to do about it?

I guess that's the point. Everything just becomes so overwhelming that eventually you resign yourself to apathetic acceptance. Comfortably numb to the world. A distant ship, smoke on the horizon.

All you can really do at this point is try to follow the whole sordid mess, rise above it and bide your time until 2010. Another year of this crap and hopefully people will start to open their eyes to what their beloved country has become.

America has become a country that rewards failure while punishing success. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor isn't noble whether you're wearing green tights or not.

As nation wide unemployment rises to almost 10%, our great leaders plan on raising taxes on the small businesses that produce around 70% of our new jobs and pass asinine tax and regulation bills (like Cap & Trade) that will send countless more jobs overseas by making businesses in America cower under draconian regulations in the name of saving the environment.

Right now India and China are laughing at us and rubbing their collective hands together as they wait for the flood of American businesses that will jump ship in the next 10 years resulting in countless millions (or even billions) of dollars in tax revenue and thousands of new jobs to add to their economy.

Unless something is done in the next few years to pull this country out of it's tailspin towards complete Government control, Private business will become a thing of the past. If you're thinking of opening up your own business, I'd consider moving to a different country. That is unless you plan on running your business the way Uncle Sam tells you that you should.

On the other hand, Al Gore said the other day that the Cap & Trade bill passed by Congress was just the first step towards "Global Governance".

Leaving the country may only be prolonging the inevitable.

You can run but you can't hide.