A Sad State of Affairs

Outrage of the Day

2010-08-31T18:48:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-25T01:27:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-19T23:16:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-30T03:27:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-02T02:16:00.000-07:00

"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?

2010-03-28T23:32:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-26T03:48:00.001-07:00

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

2010-03-26T01:15:00.001-07:00

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

2010-03-22T18:03:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-15T16:52:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-12T03:43:00.000-08:00

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

2010-03-10T23:05:00.000-08:00

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

2010-03-03T00:42:00.000-08:00

***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

2010-03-02T00:27:00.000-08:00

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

2010-03-01T00:11:00.000-08:00

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"?

2010-02-24T00:18:00.000-08:00

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!!

2010-02-16T23:35:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-15T01:28:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-09T22:37:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-25T03:38:00.000-07:00

(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

2009-09-11T23:26:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-21T21:01:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-06T01:10:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-29T00:54:00.001-07:00

Click the picture for a larger version

Hell freezes over as Obama says something that makes sense

2009-07-21T23:49:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-20T01:58:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-07-17T03:46:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-07-17T00:54:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-16T00:56:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-15T01:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Still Alive And Kicking

2009-07-07T03:55:00.000-07:00

After the week and drinking and debauchery that is Summerfest here in Milwaukee, I'm happy to report that rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. I'm still alive and, well, kicking, for the most part.

Michael Jackson's still dead but somebody on television had the balls to call him out for the freak he was and question all the fawning the media has been lavishing on the recently deceased King of Pop(ing little boy's ass cherries).

Acquitted, admittedly, but then again so was O.J.

More to come (and probably too soon as usual).

No, It's not about MJ.

Distraction Game

2009-06-26T17:44:00.000-07:00

While everybody talked about Michael Jackson all day on the news, some important things were actually happening that few people seem to even know about. The Waxman-Markey Bill, also known as Cap and Trade, came up for a vote before the House. I'm sorry to report that it passed by a narrow margin.

There were actually 40 or so Democrats that voted against it.

A scant 9 or so Republicans actually voted for this massive tax that will send countless job overseas because companies will no longer be able to compete in America.

I'd planned on writing more about this, giving the various pros and cons of the Cap and Trade bill but I'm too depressed.

Go look it up yourself if you care to.

Mutual-Assured Destruction (The newly updated & extended edition)

2009-06-22T21:35:00.000-07:00

Oh yeah! Now with 15% more tangents and very low craziness. I'm expanding this already rather long rant into something a little more substantial. What that ultimately means I'm not sure at this point but it's just something that organically happened so I'm just running with it. There's even a longer, slightly schizophrenic version I have on my computer. The Director's Cut. Exciting, huh?
---------------------

For those of you too young to remember the Cold War (and the hiding under your desk at school during the air-raid drills because a small wooden desk would certainly save your life in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons) the concept of mutually-assured destruction may be a foreign one.

The rational was to build up a sizable stockpile of nuclear weapons at the ready so, in the event of a nuclear attack by your enemy, you shoot off your whole load to assure that the red commie bastards who nuked you at least get their comeuppance.

Even though you're an irradiated skeleton in a smoldering pile of bricks that was your home, you'll at least feel good about the fact that your enemy most likely suffered the same fate.

Today I was reading and I saw the concept of Mutual-Assured Destruction (or MAD) used in a new context. It was used in more of a "if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander" way but it seemed like a pretty logical piece of common sense thinking. The question raised was a simple one.

Why does Congress seems to pass laws and regulations on us that they themselves don't want to (or have to) comply with?

Are they just hypocrites?

Do they think they're somehow better than the American people who put them in a position of power in the first place?

Do they think we're a bunch of uneducated degenerates who need to be constantly told what's the best course of action for the "greater good" because we're too ignorant to figure it out on our own?

While it is true that there's a portion of the population that is ignorant beyond all belief and needs to be told to breath every so often less they suffocate, most Americans are reasonably intelligent people. That's becoming less and less true with each successive generation but you get my point.

People don't need to be told how to live their lives for the "greater good" by anybody, let alone the Government.

These are the same people (people like that beacon of financial conservatism George W. Bush) that who told us that EVERYBODY should own their own home and then proceeded to force banks to give out home loans to people who had no means of actually paying back said loans. While this wasn't the reason for the economic collapse, it certainly played it's part.

Another aspect was, and I'm no financial expert here so my terminology may be all kinds of wrong (but you'll get the gist), was these garbage loans with a high probability of default that were given out were then somehow "packaged" together by the bank and sold off as a bond or a security of some sort. Despite the known problem of massive defaults associated with these bonds, and given the fact that the lendee paying back the loan or not directly affects the actual return on the bond when it is later sold off as an investment, they were somehow given a great rating which signals to investors that this is a "safe bet".

So why would the investment banks lie to us by saying these were secure investments? Did they know they were garbage or were they just doing what they were told by a higher authority? Most likely, they simply didn't give a shit about you and yours. As Puff Daddy so eloquently put it, "It's all about the Benjamin's. YEAH!!"

If you had a 401K that took a huge hit in late 2008/early 2009, you may have had some of your money invested in these garbage securities.

It seems that one of two things is possibly happening:

It's some sort of vast, nefarious scheme to bring down the true American Way from the inside.

Or all of our so-called leaders are being fed the same bullshit that we eat every single day.

(Hey. Maybe it's just Marketing (or Mktg if your taking notes at 1000 words a minute) and Maxx Berry is a prophet. That's the greatest realization in the world ever) *

*(References to Max Berry's first two books: Syrup and Jennifer Government. And yes there's only 1 X in Max's name. Read "Syrup" and you'll get it. Funny little story in the author's note. Good book to boot. He 's also releasing a new book called Machine Man 1 page at a time online via e-mail. It's free and you get get them all (and by that I mean the ones that have been released so far) at maxberry.com.

I guess that was a commercial break brought to you by ADD. Do you think if you don't have ADD and you take ADD medication it gives you ADD?

It's kinda sad that these two most logical possibilities (in my humble {possibly warped} opinion) that I suggested before the break both make me sound like a crazy Star Chamber, Shadow Government conspiracy nut job (which I am NOT, despite what actually knowing me might lead you to believe) .

Now these same brain surgeons in Washington (no offense to actual brain surgeons) are telling us things like "Global warming is going to destroy us all unless you pass our "Cap and Trade" legislation". Or is it officially called Climate Change now because the arctic ice that we were told would completely melt in a few years drowning us all, along with the polar bears (oh my!), actually increased it's mass during this last winter?

That's why it's called Climate Change now instead of Global Warming. The vaguer the concept the more money it can suck form the pockets of the tax payers of America. Plus, either way, Al Gore's right. You never technically lose if you put your money both on red AND black.

I think we're actually in Hell now and everyone was killed off years ago, frozen to death in their own homes, by the Global Cooling "scare"/concern of the 70's.

Last year Congress very ceremoniously started buying carbon credits (one of the tenants of a "Cap and Trade" system), replaced twelve thousand incandescent light bulbs with eco-friendly Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (or CLF's) and planted a bunch of trees that had extensive training from Al Gore himself on how to kill CO2.

Once the trees planted by Congress grow to a height of at least four feet, Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore will personally hug each one to facilitate the fight against Global Warming, excuse me . . . Climate Change.

Okay, the parts about the tree hugging and Al Gore training tree to kill CO2 weren't true but this part is:

The carbon credits purchased by Congress are to offset their own carbon footprint. The credits are purchased from another entity that pledges to lower its own CO2 output in the immediate future or do something else that negates the impact of whoever buys their credits (in this case Congress).

Less than a year later, Congress very unceremoniously stopped buying any kind of carbon credits. No reason was ever given.

The credits they bought were from a company that had already lowered it's carbon emissions to current standards over five years ago so Congress buying their credits had no actual impact on the environment. What was the point? All it served to do was to make the members of Congress feel good about themselves and give them an opportunity to show us how much superior they are.

Common sense tells you that if you pay someone as an incentive to do something they would have done anyway, or have already done, you're wasting your money.

Somewhere, Thomas Paine is spinning is his grave.

But why should Congress care about wasteful spending? It's not like it's even their money. It's the Governments money. That's free money anyway. Let's blow it before we find a useful purpose for it or we may have to use it wisely.

It's actually your money since the Government generates no revenue at al,l aside from the collection of taxes dollars. Remember that next time your hear some elected pinhead in a suit tell you how the Government will "pick up the tab" for something. It's a lie to distract you from the ugly truth that they're taking your hard earned money and blowing it as fast as they can. Just Like Cap and Trade, it's all a big con game designed to screw people our of their hard earned money.

"Why is Congress so hot and bothered to pass "Cap and Trade" legislation when they themselves tried the idea and abandoned it?" you ask. Well, it's simple.

Because when and if "Cap and Trade" passes, it won't be Congress who has to adhere to the flood of silly new rules and regulations. It'll be everyone else. They'll just sit back and watch the tax dollars roll in while we get hit with price increases across the board because it now costs every business, large or small, more to operate.

That's the thing about business. They don't really pay taxes or fees directly. They defer them by passing the cost increases down to us, the consumers, through higher prices. Thank you , Congress. May I have another?

Another case of Congressional Hypocrisy is the "Employee Free Choice Act". A devilishly misleading moniker if there ever was one. Most people who don't know what it actually is will look at the title and say: "I'm an employee and I want to be free to choose! I vote yes."

What the so-called "free choice" Act really does is strip the American worker of the right to a secret ballot in the workplace by instituting "Card Check", which would essentially tell the union trying to organize who is against them.

So let's say work at a place that is non-unionized and one day some union rep convinces a couple of your co-workers to unionize. You're against the idea but it gains traction until there's a vote to decide the issue.

Right now the voting system works just like voting for President. It's a secret ballot. If you don't want to tell anyone how you're going to vote, you don;'t have to. It's your business.

With Card Check, the union will know beforehand that you are going to vote against them so they can do whatever is in their power to sway you to their side. I'm not implying a union would ever do anything unethical or even illegal but Jimmy Hoffa told me to watch my back if I get on the bad side of a union.

So if Unions and "Card Check" are so great, how come Congress' own legislative staff is not unionized? Could it be that unions drive wages beyond what they should be for a given job and force business owners to dole out more money that it should cost to run their business? No wonder China is kicking our ass when it comes to manufacturing. If they had to pay their workers what GM and Ford have to pay their assembly line workers, they'd be outsourcing their jobs to the United States instead of the other way around.*

*(I'm not advocating the idea that GM workers should be paid like 3 cents a day or whatever the hell they're pulling down in China to make just about everything we own. It's a semi-skilled labor in the opinion they should be paid accordingly. I'm not an expert so I wouldn't presume to say what they should be making. I'm not the right person for that job. The person who's primary concern is to squeeze as much money as possible out of a business and consequences to the finical stability of that firm be damned (Unions) is probably is even less qualified than I am.

Again, the reason is simple. They don't want a higher operating cost.

Congress believes they deserve higher wages and benefits but we don't unless our workplaces are taken over by unions. It's my opinion that unions breed an attitude of laziness and entitlement. A dangerous combination in any worker.

The only people lazier and with a greater sense of entitlement than union workers? Elected Government Representatives.

Congress consistently voted to give themselves higher wages every year while the minimum wage stayed the same for almost a decade and they preach to us about fairness, leveling the playing field, and spreading the wealth around?

What ever happened to Government SERVICE? Being a Representative was supposed to be a service you preformed because it was your duty as an American to make the world a better place for your fellow man. It's not supposed to be a career you enter into to make a lot of money but that's what it's become unfortunately and they only thing they care about are campaign contributions and, above all, getting reelected.

When the Articles of Confederation were agreed upon on November 15, 1777 and ratified on March 1, 1781, it stated that nobody in the Congress was to be paid because it was a Government Service to serve your country and fellow man.

While the Articles of Confederation were flawed and only lasted about 12 years until they were replaced by the Constitution we (kind of) know today, I think it was spot on in regards to that point. If you pay your Representatives to serve you in office, their main concern will be to stay in office no matter what. It's really not that hard to figure out. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and people like money.

Hell, people LOVE money. Most people would do anything for the right price (myself included) and some people would make sweet, sweet love to their money if it gave them "the look" when the mood struck them. I have and it was amazing.

So, if anyone bothered to real all this meandering dribble, and I thank you for it, you may be asking what any of this has to do with Mutual Assured Destruction?

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'll lay it out for you.

Our esteemed lawmakers should have a adhere to all of their silly little rules and regulations just like the rest of us poor slobs. So if and when we are all brought down to the level of a third world country by our lawmaker's actions, they'll be right in the shit with us.

That's Mutual-assured destruction, baby! They may fuck us but we're gonna take those bastards down with us!

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

An Open Letter To Our Leaders

2009-06-18T00:11:00.000-07:00

This is a letter from a 53 year old Georgia woman named Janet Contreras. The letter was sent in to Glenn Beck where he read it not only on his radio program but also on his Fox News television program.

I'm sorry for the length and I realize the attention span of most Americans is limited to three word slogans like "Yes we can!" and Ow, my balls!" but I encourage you to read the entire thing.

It just may open your eyes.

The letter reads as follows:

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me.

There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

If this letter pretty well sums up your current view towards the Federal Government, like it does for me, I encourage you to go to the web site:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/8/an-open-letter-to-our-nations-leadership
Here you can sign your own name to the letter like it was a petition. I just checked the site a minute ago to sign my name but was greeted by a message that said the following:
This petition, An Open Letter to our Nation's Leadership, is so popular that it is overwhelming our servers, and we have had to temporarily close it. We hope to re-open it soon. Please check back.

It seems like the word has gotten out and there are many people out there like me who are "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!!" to quote the great classic movie Network.
I urge you to keep checking the site from time to time until the server can catch up with the demand so you can do the patriotic thing and sign your name.
Do it now before the government deems activities like these mild terrorist acts. Think I'm kidding. Read my previous blog and tell me we're not on the slippery slope to tyranny.

Defense Department see protests as terrorism

2009-06-17T22:54:00.000-07:00

Yeah, you read that right unfortunately. Here's the report I got off the alternative news website called The Intelligence Daily.
Here's their web address: http://www.inteldaily.com

The story goes as follows:

"Anti-terrorism training materials used by the Department of Defense teach that public protests should be regarded as "low-level terrorism," according to a letter of complaint sent to the department by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California."

"Teaching employees that dissent on issues of public concern is something to be feared, rather than encouraged, is a dangerously counterproductive use of scarce security resources, making us less safe as a democracy," Northern California ACLU staff attorney Ann Brick and ACLU Washington national security policy counsel Michael German wrote in the letter to Gail McGinn, acting undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness."

End of story

So essentially, according to the Department of Defense, I'm actually a terrorist. Albeit a low-level one but a terrorist none the less. You could be one too if you've ever attended a peaceful anti-war rally, gay rights rally, women's equality rally, etc.

For simply exercising your Constitutionally protected right to freely assemble guaranteed by the First Amendment, you may end up on some terror watch list.

In case you're not completely familiar with the First Amendment, I'm going to lay it out for you verbatim.

Amendment 1

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This 4th of July there will be another series of "Tea Parties" across the country (though none in my hometown of Milwaukee that I know of) and on September 12 (I believe) there's a March on Washington that's supposed to take place.

If even a single person is dissuaded from attending or participating in any way because of the Department of Defense's new stance on the American People's Constitutionally protected right to peacefully assemble, then they're managed to take away just a little bit more of our freedoms while shedding the Constitution even further.

I can only hope that this kind of news has the opposite effect intended by the powers that be and even more people realize it's time to make your voice heard, stand up, and begin down the long, and arduous path of taking this country we all love so much back from those who try to take away our rights and enslave us for their own benefit.

There's no time like the present.

I'll leave you with some quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

"Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people."

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

"That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

And Finally:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

I didn't originally plan on using so many but I think it behooves us all, and our elected leaders, to take these words, from a man wiser than us all, to heart

I love my country and I fear for her sovereignty

It's just over a year to the 2010 elections. Let's hope the American people wake up and realize we're on the march down a road few of us believe we're even traveling down. Most of us won't realize it until it's to late.

I pray that's not the case.

The Lights Are On But Nobody's Home

2009-06-10T23:00:00.000-07:00

It seems like not only do bad things come in threes, but whack-job, lone gunmen do as well.

First Dr. Tiller "the baby killer" is shot in church by a right-wing extremist. Then Pvt. Long is shot in front of an Army recruiting center by an American convert to Islam (aka Terrorist asshole). Now this.

Today, James Von Brunn, an elderly, white supremacist, 9/11 "truther" whack-job walked into the Holocaust Museum and opened fire. In 1981, Von Brunn was arrested, serving six years in a Federal Penitentiary, for bringing a gun into a Federal Reserve Building.

James Von Brunn maintained a website where he spewed his racist, anti-Government hate on a regular basis. This same site detailed how when he was arrested in 1981 he was trying to perform a "citizen's arrest" on the evil Jew bankers of the Federal Reserve Board. While I'm no fan myself of the Almighty Fed, they being Jewish has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I also don't think trying to kidnap board members is the solution to the problem of the Federal Reserve either. We need to audit the Fed, abolish the IRS, then institute the Fair Tax but that's another blog for another day.

I just want to say this for the record, violence will not make any of those dreams of mine a reality. When will people learn that the only way to change the system for the better is to do it through the system? Violence is not the catalyst for beneficial change.

Anyway...

So how does a man with a record of crimes against the Government, who maintains a hateful, anti-Government website, manage to walk into the Holocaust Museum with a rifle and start shooting? I joke that the Department of Homeland Security is watching me 24/7 because of some of the things I've said on this blog.

Why was there nobody on this guy? DHS? FBI? Is anybody home?

Hakim Mujahid Muhammad is an American who converted to Islam, went to the Middle East to train in a terrorist training camp, returned to the states and shot an Army recruiter in Arkansas for crimes against Islam.

When he was arrested overseas for using a fake passport, he drew the attention of the FBI. He was "under observation" by the Fed's when he opened fire in a parking lot killing Pvt. Long and wounding another soldier.

He later said he'd have killed more people if only there were more around.

Where was the FBI or DHS then, and where the hell were they today?

Is there anybody out there??

Socialistmayor

2009-06-04T01:16:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I've posted because I've been tied up with other pursuits (well, pursuit actually). I've been developing and scripting a comic book but do plan on getting back to posting my political rants and what not on a fairly regular basis (not that anyone reads/cares what I have to say but it makes me feel better to have an outlet).

I'm going to hit you with a quote from Norman Thomas that pretty well sums up the current state of affairs in this country.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

For those of you who don't know who Norman Thomas is (and I didn't know who he was until a week ago so don't feel bad), he was a writer and six time U.S Presidential nominee on the American Socialist Party ticket.

My reason for bringing him up is twofold. The first reason is explained above.

The second reason is that a quote of his was used by future Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor (yes, I'm predicting that she will be confirmed) in her Princeton yearbook. The quote she used was innocent enough: "I'm not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won."

It's an innocent enough quote until you realize that the "cause not yet won" is turning America into a Socialist country.

It's too bad the Republicans will be too spineless to try and derail her confirmation in any way. The main reason is probably that any who oppose her will be branded a racist . . . or a sexist . . . or both.

Although I'm convinced that her confirmation hearings will go off without a hitch, I'm still hoping that someone will have the balls to stand up and oppose this woman with an argument a little more intellectual than calling her a racist. Yes, Newt, I'm looking at you. Nice try . . . and lay off the Twitter or even fewer people will be able to take you seriously.

Taxation without representation

2009-05-19T22:46:00.000-07:00

At the Tax Day Tea Party up in Madison last month I saw a gentleman with a sign that read: "No taxation without representation." When I saw this I just shook my head and laughed at the ignorance of this particular individual. If my state taxes me that's taxation WITH representation. Same goes for the Fed taxing me.

Now if I were to be taxed by, let's say, California. That would be taxation without representation. I have no say in what goes on in California. I can't vote for representatives or politicians of any kind there. So if they were to take my tax dollars I would get absolutely nothing in return. Taxation WITHOUT representation.

I said that so I can say this:

California is in big financial trouble right now. They're something like $20 billion in debt. They're selling everything that's not nailed down to try and raise some money. The prisons? Sell 'em! Stadiums? Sell 'em! Maybe the Governator should have starred in the new Terminator movie. That would've raised some cash.

With California failing, it's only a matter of time before the Fed steps in and bails them out. That seems to be the Fed's solution to everything lately. Taking your hard earned money and pouring it into a giant black hole.

"But they're too big to fail."

Fuck 'em. If they were too big to fail they wouldn't be failing.

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that of the three failing automakers it's the one who didn't take a Government bailout that is doing the best.

Bailing out the banks didn't work . . . twice. Bush AND Obama both tried that one. You know what? They tried a TARP program during the Great Depression as well and . . . it didn't work. As a matter of fact, it made things worse. You can't inject Government money into a free market and expect the result to be stability. Why? Because there's no such thing as a free lunch. There's always strings. Just ask GM.

But anyway, I digress. My point is this. If the Government is going to take my tax dollars use them to bailout California, that's taxation without representation. The last time a Government tried that shit on the American people we went FUCKING APESHIT!

We dressed up like Indians and threw their Goddamn tea in the harbor. After that it was . . . war.

DO NOT FUCK WITH US.

Ménage à trois

2009-05-16T23:39:00.001-07:00

It's been a while since I've been bitching, er I mean posting about anything so there are a few things I want to cover. So what's been going on?

DON'T FORGET TO C.Y.A

Ah, Nancy Nancy Nancy. Pelosi that is. Oh what a wicked web we weave. Listen to me Nancy. No matter how carefully you parse your words, no matter how many emphatic gestures you make while doing so, when you cover one lie with another you're simply digging yourself into some deeper shit. The CIA says she was briefed on waterboarding as far back as 2002. Nancy says the CIA "misled" her and the rest of congress. Who do you believe? Is it really so hard to believe that even some bleeding heart liberals didn't give two shits about the waterboarding of some terrorist assholes less than a year after 911? She now wants Bush administration officials who knew about or allowed the "torture" to take place investigated. Ah, the hypocrisy

BARACK OBAMA GIVES THE ACLU THE FINGER

Well, not exactly. The ACLU was trying to get pictures released detailing the abuse of detainees. Obama flip-flopped for a while re: whether or not to release the photos before finally deciding against it. Since everybody associated with the abuses related to these particular pictures has already been punished, what purpose does the release of the photos serve? The answer is simple. The ACLU wants to tear America down. Why? I mean, come on. We've obviously evil. We were kicked off the UN Human Rights Commission. We were replaced by Sudan. Darfur is in Sudan by the way. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

ALAN KEYES ARRESTED

Former GOP Presidental hopeful Alan Keyes was arrested, along with 17 other people, who were protesting Barack "Barry" Obama's speech at Notre Dame. The reason for the protest was that Obama's pro-choice stance clashes with the ideology of the Catholic University. Obviously Alan Keyes is simply a racist who can't stand the idea of a black man being in the white house. Oh, wait. Alan Keyes is black. Then certainly they must have been causing some kind of trouble aside from the simple act of protesting, right? No, you say? They were peacefully protesting. So is this what happens now when you publicly voice your objections to the Saviour in Chief? Violation of the First Amendment anyone? Freedom to peacefully assemble? Ringing any bells? Why isn't the country outraged about this? To top off the whole affair, Dr. Keyes is being denied any kind of bail.

Does anyone remember when we still lived in a free country?

Obey your master

2009-05-06T23:37:00.000-07:00

Rep. David Obey (D-WI)
Than man who dared to say "no" to Obama
As part of a larger war spending bill, President Obama requested $80 million to fund the closing of Guantanamo Bay. For once, the Democrats told him to basically take a hike when it came to appropriating funds for Gitmo. The Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep David Obey (D-WI) criticized the Obama Administration's lack of an kind of plan as to what's to become of the detainees.

Congressman Obey was quoted as saying, "When they have a plan, they're welcome to come back and talk to us about it."

In case you were wondering, Obey's name is pronounced like obie.

Lately, it seems like the Government is that friend or relative of yours who is constantly bumming cigarettes from everyone around him while never buying so much as a single pack for himself. The moocher who always wants just a little bit more but will never pay you back in any way, shape, or form.

I'm glad that someone finally had the courage to stand up and say enough. If you don't have a plan as to how you're going to use the money, you don't get the money. Jack Nicholson summed it up best, "No tickie, no laundry!"

If a friend or relative came up to you and asked to borrow $100, your first question would probably be: "Why?" Would you lend them the money if their answer was: "Oh, I don't know really. I'll . . . buy something I guess. Maybe not though." I sure wouldn't. Any relatively sane person would do the same, I hope.

My first thought upon hearing this was that it had to be a Republican who was responsible for the $80 million being cut out of the spending bill, but no. It was not only a Democrat, but a Democrat from Wisconsin. Wisconsin isn't exactly known for being a conservative state when it comes to . . . well anything.

Wisconsin has one of the highest tax rates in the country. Milwaukee, incidently, has one of the highest unemployment rates amongst all the major cities in the U.S. We're third, I believe, just behind Detroit and somewhere else; I don't know right now.

I've read more than one article that has described our Senator, Russ Feingold, as an Uber-liberal. I guess than means he has the relative strength of ten ordinary liberals and can justify a hundred earmarks in a single lie.

The House version of the bill came to a total of $94.2 billion dollars after picking up an extra $9 billion on it's rounds through Congress. That being said, the $80 million that was stripped out doesn't seem like much more than a drop in the bucket and, from the purely fiscal standpoint, that's very true.

The main crux of why this denial is so important is that it seems like the honeymoon is over and any funds asked for by the Obama Administration will have to be *GASP* justified before appropriation. No more blank checks for Obama from Congress (I hope). Cry me a fucking river.

The party of "No"

2009-05-06T00:59:00.000-07:00

Can someone please tell me what the GOP has been up to since Barack Obama was elected? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a member of the Republican party that could tell you. They can sure tell you what it is they're not doing. Whatever it is that Obama is doing, that's what they're not doing. They lack even a cohesive message let alone anything resembling a plan of any kind.

Here's an idea: stop trying to be more like the Democrats.

When's the last time you even ran a real conservative in the Presidential election? You're supposed to be the party of smaller Government and fiscal responsibility. Now, after eight years of the "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush, you give us John McCain? The "Maverick"?

Maverick=liberal

George W. Bush ran as a fiscal conservative and turned a trillion dollar surplus into a trillion dollar debt. That's what happens when you cut taxes while fighting a war on two fronts. I shudder to think what our debt is now under Obama's "let's just print some more" economic policies.

After 9/11 when it was found that interdepartmental bureaucracy hampered communication between our various intelligence agencies, Bush decided that the solution was more bureaucracy. Bigger government. That'll fix all of our problems.

"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." -Ronald Reagan

The latest outrage of the GOP is the big stink about Obama's pick for the Supreme Court now that Justice Souter is retiring. They're criticising the pick, which hasn't even been made yet, for being too liberal. A liberal judge is stepping down. A liberal President is in the White House. Is anyone expecting an uber-conservative pick?

Why not just appoint only conservatives to the Supreme Court? Who needs checks and balances? They can repeal Roe v Wade while they're at it and take away a little more of our freedom.

Ah, Ron Paul. If only you were pro-choice you'd be the perfect candidate.

How can you tell if a politician is lying?

2009-05-01T03:21:00.000-07:00

"When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them. It gets rushed through without any clear deliberations or debate then these kind of things happen. And I think that this is, in some ways, what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean, you remember there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that is was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration."

Barack Obama on the Randi Rhodes Show

November 22, 2004

Obama was not only talking about the Patriot Act but George W. Bush's 2004 budget proposal as well. Some unchecked regulations were slipped into the budget bill at the last second. I'm not defending either of these things; I'm simply pointing out the fact that Obama is doing the same kind of stuff he was speaking out against before being elected. (He also filled his administration with lobbyists after pledging to keep "special interests" out of Washington but that's another topic for another post.)

Obama bashed Bush for using intimidation to pass a piece of legislature? Legislature that nobody has even bothered to read let alone debate its need? Wow. That one sounds real familiar.

Wasn't it Obama that said we needed to pass the Stimulus Bill immediately otherwise the country might not survive. "Quickly! We need to do it right this second. No time for debate. We need action! So vote yes on this massive spending bill and THEN you can see it." That's right. Our leaders weren't even allowed to see the bill until after they voted on it.

Barack Obama said while he was campaigning that he would wait five days before signing a bill into law to allow time for public comment. He was also supposed to post bills on a website so the American people had a chance to look at them before he signs them. Another one of Obama's empty promises. More transparency in Washington my ass.

I know that this was all said a REAL long time ago to the MTV Generation (5 months) but I still remember. Why are politicians allowed to wantonly renege on promises made to the American people? Do you think their major campaign contributors are treated in such a manner? This is a problem with all politicians. They all say one things while doing something completely different. When they're campaigning they have all the solutions. After they get elected they ARE the problem.

Does this mean that Barack Obama is a flat out liar or a hypocrite? No. He's just now beholden, like every other President has been, to the people who put him in office. I'll let you in on a little secret. It wasn't the voters of America.

All I'm seeing up on Capitol Hill is business as usual. We've changed the face of the clock but it's gears remain the same. No change is certainly the kind of change Washington can believe in.

Oh, and the answer to the question in the title is "his lips are moving."

"Swine Flu" invades the Beer City

2009-04-30T00:34:00.000-07:00

"It was once said that a black man would be President "when pigs fly" indeed. 100 days into Obama's Presidency. "Swine Flu"

-Text message forwarded to me today

I just want to apologize right off the bat for not using the accepted, politically correct term for this new form of influenza but H1N1 just doesn't have the same ring to it. I don't care if it's kosher or not but I'm going to stick to calling it Swine Flu for the time being. H1N1 doesn't roll off the tongue at all.

Four schools in Milwaukee, the city I live in, have been closed due to at least four possible cases of Swine Flu in area students. One of these schools is barely a mile, "as the crow flies", from my house. There's been about 60 or so confirmed cases in the U.S and only a single confirmed death so far. A 22 month old infant died in a Texas hospital after she was brought here from Mexico by family for treatment. I don't know if they came here legally or not but that's beside the point, I guess.

Actually, I take that back. If they came here legally, why weren't they detained at the border? If the child was already sick, why was he/she even let into this country in the first place? If this form of Influenza came from Mexico, shouldn't people coming up here from Mexico be subject to a little extra scrutiny? If not, why is that so? Is it racist? I'm not saying we should close to boarder because of this outbreak but a little extra screening couldn't hurt.

I'm not too terribly worried at this point. I think the media, and the population in general, is making more out of this than it actually is. If I was living in Mexico right now I probably wouldn't be so calm about it though. I'd be one of those people you keep seeing on the news rocking the blue surgical masks. On second thought, no. I'd wear a black one. Most of Mexico is so dirty I'd wear a biohazard suit at all times Swine Flu or not.

Here's a little update on the Swine Flu hysteria. Air Tran flight 82 out of Cancun thought they had two cases of Swine Flu on their hands when two Mexican men on board became ill during the flight. They both became nauseous and were running fevers. The pilots radioed ahead to whatever air port they were landing at here in the states and notified the tower of their situation. All 117 passengers were quarantined on board the aircraft while doctors, more people in blue surgical masks, checked out the two men. The cause of their symptoms? They were drunk. No Swine Flu but tomorrow they may have a case of the Irish Flu.

We've got overreaction on one side and on the other we've got ruthless profiteering. This according to "America's Newsroom" on FNC: On amazon.com a day before the Swine Flu story broke, a case of surgical masks went for around $30. The day after the story broke the price more than doubled to $74. Amazon contends the price increase was due to a simple "error".

Speaking of "America's Newsroom", you'd think when watching a show hosted by a smoking hot blonde and a clean cut, all-American looking guy in a suit the idiot would be the blonde, but no. Bill Hemmer is a complete idiot while Megyn Kelly is not only way more intelligent but, I can't stress this enough, smoking hot.

So anyways. . . what was I talking about? All I can think about right now is Megyn Kelly's legs and Bill Hemmer's stupidity. Oh yeah, Swine Flu and why I'm not really worried about it. I think that was my overall point I was trying to make. I mean, how many people have actually died from this virus worldwide since it first reared it's head in early February? Less than 100. That's it. 30 to 40 thousand people die EVERY YEAR from the common form of influenza. That's an average of about 3000 people every day! In the month or two swine flu has been around it's barely killed a hundred people and most of them have been under 24 months. The very young and very old are just prone to dying from relatively simple infections.

Until people start dropping off like flies, I won't be worrying too much about it. When the cryptosporidim outbreak contaminated Milwaukee's water supply a few years back I didn't worry too much. I avoided tap water only to be infected by eating a salad at a hospital. That's right. I was infected by hospital staff workers who used contaminated tap water to wash the lettuce. It didn't kill me just like Epiglottitis didn't kill me in the second grade. You know why? I have a functioning immune system because I don't run to the doctor every year for a flu shot. My body has to fend for itself and is much better off because of it.

A quick note: There was a Swine Flu scare in the 70's and people were urged to get vaccinated or face certain death. We don't have a vaccination now because not only did the vaccinations the Government pushed on people back then not work, it's been linked to neurological disorders developed by those who were vaccinated.

Happy Birthday Roxana Saberi

2009-04-27T00:25:00.000-07:00

Coming a month after Iranian blogger Omid-Reza Mir-Sayafi takes his own life in Tehran's infamous Evin Prison, euphemistically referred to as Evin University, while serving a two year sentence for allegedly "insulting Imam Khomeini and the Supreme Leader Khamenei" and posting "seditious" materials on his blog, we have the story of Roxana Saberi.

Originally arrested in January of 2009, Roxana Saberi, an American educated journalist working in Iran and former Ms. North Dakota, was charged with buying a bottle of wine. Apparently that's a crime in Iran. These charges morphed into working without a valid press pass. On April 8th, Saberi was finally charged with spying for the United States.

After a five day trial, held behind closed doors, Roxana Saberi was convicted and sentenced to eight years in Evin Prison. I'm not the least bit surprised to report that Ms. Saberi was denied legal counsel.

Today is not only her birthday, but day five of her hunger strike. What are our leaders doing about Iran holding an AMERICAN CITIZEN on a trumped up charge in an Iranian hell hole? Besides some disapproving talk, not a whole hell of a lot. By Barack Obama's own admission these charges are "baseless".

We've got a plethora of highly trained, covert operatives working on our side. Can't we just sneak in there under cover of darkness and spring this poor woman? Why not free a couple other of the political prisoners being held in Evin. It's an Iranian gulag and judging by it's nickname, Evin University, also a center for reeducation.

Maybe if we did this earlier Omid-Reza Mir-Sayafi would still be alive. Instead he took his own life rather than live in the horrid conditions of the prison while his own doctor, who was not allowed to see him while his health steadily declined leading up to the suicide, remains a prisoner there himself for "propagating against the state".

I do have a question about Roxana Sebari though. I've read from several different sources that her press credentials were revoked in 2006. But why, and by whom? Was this woman actually spying for the U.S like the Iranian's claim? If so, who exactly was she working for? If she was in fact a spy, some Government agency, like the CIA or NSA, is responsible to go in and get her. We don't just leave our prisoners rotting in jail cells in foreign countries if we know exactly where they are, do we?

I'm not saying we should invade Iran outright. But we should defiantly send in a small covert op team to do the job as discretely as possible. They could make it look like a mass prison break where a bunch of wrongfully jailed political prisoners just happen to escape.

The following (and the blue ribbon on the top right of my page) comes from anesthesioboist.blogspot.com:

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

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."

Journalist Roxana Saberi has been incarcerated in Tehran's Evin Prison, where she is spending her birthday on a hunger strike. Around the world, people continue to face similar violations of their rights to freedom of expression, free speech, and a free press. Let's show the international community that we won't be silenced by intimidation and tyranny - that we won't stop believing in and fighting for these rights.

Freedom of the press is not a luxury. It lies at the heart of making this world healthier and more just. People without a voice and without a clear line of sight into the things that would threaten or corrupt their societies cannot hope for equitable growth and meaningful change.

A group of bloggers is holding a blog rally in support of journalists, bloggers, students, and writers who have dared to express their thoughts freely only to be imprisoned, abused, or killed.

Please consider "wearing" a blue ribbon online this week on your blogs, websites, and facebook / myspace / twitter pages, and invite others to do the same. Get the discussion going, and keep it going!

The CIA "torture" memos and the ensuing witch hunt

2009-04-26T00:25:00.000-07:00

This is what torture looks like.

First of all, I just want to clarify why torture is in quotations. I personally believe that water boarding and the various other enhanced interrogation techniques described in the CIA memos are not torture. Sawing off a man's (or woman's) head and then posting it on the Internet? That's torture. Pulling out teeth or fingernails with a pair of pliers? Torture. Being strapped up a la Alex in A Clockwork Orange and being forced to watch American Idol for any length of time? Torture of the most reprehensible sort. Making someone stand in an uncomfortable position, keeping them awake for days at a time, and even dunking their head repeatedly in the water so they think they may drown do not seem like torture to me especially when you take into account these two key factors: They were done under the supervision of a physician at all times and they were done to a bunch terrorist douche bags!

So why all the outrage from certain members of our Government? Aren't they there to represent the interests of their constituents? If about 50% of American are against even investigating the CIA's behavior, let alone the prosecution of those involved, why are they pushing the issue? Could this be just a way to "get back" at the Bush administration by proxy? There's no shortage of Bush haters in the media or the Government.

While we're at it, why don't we just rewrite a few history books to declare that Harry S. Truman, General George S. Patton and Abraham S. Lincoln were war criminals who just happened to slip through the judiciary cracks. (There's not supposed to be an S initial in Lincoln's name but it just seemed right at the time. He actually didn't have a middle name in case you were wondering . . . or did he?)

This issue seems to have a pretty partisan split for the most part. If I had to guess I'd say the half in favor of an investigation were Democrats and the half opposed were Republicans. This whole sordid mess could have been avoided if the top secret memos had just stayed top secret in the first place. We're still safe and that's the point. It's similar to sitting down at a restaurant and enjoying a tasty burger. You just enjoy your meal; you don't want to know how it got to your plate. To quote Karl Rove, "The release of these memos amount to a significant psychological victory" for those whose sole purpose in life is to maim and kill those who don't share their whacked-out religious beliefs. If these people were to see you walking down the street in any Middle Eastern country, they wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet between your eyes, if you were lucky, or saw your head of with a machete if you weren't. Just ask Nick Berg if he thinks the United State's interrogation techniques are inhumane? Oh, wait. You can't. He's dead.

Just a quick side note: Berg was beheaded by Al-Qaeda in retaliation to pictures released by the media of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. As his head was being slowly sawed off, the terrorists, who weren't currently preoccupied with the beheading of non-combatant American civilian, were shouting "Allahu Akbar!" which is Arabic for "God is great." If there is a God, I'm sure he's got a special place in Hell, between Adolf Hitler and Chairman Mao Tse Tung, just waiting for them.

Why should we have to follow the Geneva Convention or any mandates put forth by the U.N. when our enemy does not? It seems to me that we're acting in a very restrained manner when you take into account the actions and tactics of our enemy.

Even though the President of the United States has said that he doesn't favor an investigation, (At least as of me writing this. He's flip-flopped at least once on this issue and who's to say he won't again.) Nancy Pelosi is all up in arms crying out for a need to investigate and persecute, ah-hem, excuse me. Freudian slip. I mean prosecute the guilty parties. She even had the audacity to say this: "We (congress) were never told that water boarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."

You get them Nancy! How could they not even tell you what they were going to do? Oh, wait. They did. Nancy Pelosi sat in on about 30 briefings given to members of Congress from 2002 to 2006 detailing the CIA methods of interrogation. They were fully briefed on all the the CIA's methods of interrogation up to and including water boarding. Where were Nancy Pelosi's cries out outrage then? Where were anybodies back then? I don't know how many people were given these full CIA briefings between 2002 and 2006 but why is it only now that people are standing up and voicing their displeasure? It's just like Tim Geithner and Chris Dodd being all kinds of outraged when the AIG bonus scandal hit the news a while back when not only did they both know about it as far back as the previous November, but Chris Dodd himself drafted the legislation to enable the payout of said bonuses.

Am I the only one who sees a sort of trend here? Our Government doesn't become outraged when THEY learn about something viewed as an unethical transgression or outright crime, but when WE learn about they're practically tripping over each other to denounce it.

Nothing good can come of the investigation and prosecution of Americans stemming from the "torture" of about 35 terrorist assholes. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11. Does this prove that the "torture" was directly responsible for this? Of course not. But the only terrorist plots in the U.S. I can remember hearing about are the foiled ones so we certainly seem to be doing something right on that front. I hope that President not only sticks to his guns about not wanting an investigation but actually prevents an investigation from taking place. An investigation would only embolden our enemies and further divide our already divided country. We're at a place in history where we all need to come together. It's like we're all on fire and our leaders' solution is to pour gasoline on us. It's time for all of us to MOVE ON.

Have we all forgotten that in WWII we carpet bombed German cities, put Japanese Americans in internment camps after Pearl Harbor, and dropped not one but two atomic bombs on Japan? During the Civil War Abraham (S.) Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus allowing people to be held without due process. He did this not once or twice, but on three separate occasions! War is hell and shit goes down.

Is it possible that the CIA inflated the importance of the prisoners "tortured" and the information they received may not have been that worthwhile? Absolutely. Did all the actions taken by the CIA have only the best interest in regards to the safety of the citizens of the United States in mind? Without a doubt. They weren't "torturing" people for shits and giggles.

"There's nothing good on tv. What should we do?"

"You wanna make Khalid Sheikh Mohammed stand in an uncomfortable position for a couple hours then dunk him in some water?"

"Sounds like fun. Let's do it. American Idol's not on til 7."

War is a tough time where tough decisions need to be made very quickly. Looking back, were some bad decisions made in the war in Iraq? Certainly. While I don't think what the CIA did while interrogating prisoners falls into the category of bad decisions, even if I did, they should not be investigated let alone prosecuted. The ones who ordered the interrogation techniques all the way down to the ones who carried them out should be able to live without fear of prosecution because they acted with the sole intention of keeping us safe and succeeded. Some of these people no doubt did things they themselves deemed to be morally wrong yet did them anyway because it was what needed to be done at the time. That makes them patriots, in my opinion, not criminals.

I, for one, thank every last one of them for doing what needed to be done at the time. It's a shame that our hands will now be tied behind our backs when dealing with the interrogation of prisoners in the future. If another attack happens on U.S. soil, which I hope never happens, the lives of every American who dies that day will be on the hands of our leaders.

It's never a good idea for the President to restrict the CIA's current intelligence gathering capabilities. In 1996 Bill Clinton, at the urging of then Representative Bob Torricelli, passed the Torricelli Principle which prohibited the CIA from employing any informants with a criminal record. Without the criminals/terrorists informing on the other criminals/terrorists, the CIA's intelligence gathering ability was essentially crippled. A couple high level CIA officials quit because the Government tied their hands behind their back. They couldn't even do their jobs anymore.

What happened in the wake of the Torricelli Principle? Among other things, not one but two U.S. Embassies were bombed (we did nothing), the USS Cole was bombed (we did nothing), and everyone knows what happened on 9/11 (we finally woke the fuck up). Only then was the ridiculous mandate repealed.

In 2007, Torricelli, now a Senator, decides not to run for reelection in the middle of a highly competitive race after the public disclosure of illegal campaign contributions from David Chang, a businessman with connection to interests in North Korea. He pulled out of the race, forcing a change of ballot long after the deadline for any such changes are allowed to be made, after the first poll released post-scandal which showed his chances of reelection had been completely trashed. He then took off with the money left over from campaign contributions (that's money given to him to run for the office he's no longer running for) and became a lobbyist; he took the controbutions given to him to support his campaign and made some campaign contributions of his own. He made donations to political candidates with ties to his own business interests. Stories like these are not really that uncommon in Governmental lore. Are these the kind of people I'm supposed to trust to look out for me?

Finally, where did all this prosecuting the interrogators of prisoners of war start? It started with Spain and it's talk of inditing some of Bush's top advisers for war crimes linked to "torture". That's right. Not the people who carried out the so called "torture" or even the ones who ordered it. The advisers. The reason why? That was the closest to "getting" Bush that Spain could conceivably come. These guys actually talked directly to Bush. They were in the same room with him. Once, they might have even smelt just like Bush. Those evil bastards! Should we really be taking our cues from a country that rolled over for the terrorists after the 3/11 commuter train attacks? Didn't think so.

Modern day Noah

2009-04-24T05:28:00.000-07:00

I don't know who wrote this but it sure wasn't me. There's a few different versions of this floating around in the series of tubes that is the Internet; this is the first version to come to my attention. It was inter cut with a series of very beautiful nature pictures of thunderstorms and things of the like. Ironically enough, it came to my attention because it was being circulated via e-mail by various Government workers. For the record no, I am not now nor have I ever been an employee of the Government. Enjoy!

In the year 2009, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said: "Once again, the Earth has become wicked and overpopulated, and I see the end of all flesh before me. Build another ark and save two of every living thing along with a few good humans."

He gave Noah blueprints, saying: "You have six months to build the ark before I will start the rain for forty days and forty nights."

Six months later, fierce storms clouds covered the Earth and all the seas went into a tumult. The Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard- but no ark.

"Noah!" He roared. "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the ark?"

"Forgive me, Lord" begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed a building permit but your plans did not meet the codes. I had to hire an engineering firms to redraw the plans."

"I've been arguing with OSHA about the need for a sprinkler system and flotation devices. My neighbors claim that I've violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. I had to get a variance from the City Planning Commission; then I had to go to the Developmental Appeal Board for a decision."

"Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future cost of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions to clear the passage for the ark's move to sea. I told them the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it."

"Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the Spotted Owl. I finally convinced the U.S. Forest Service that I needed the wood to save the owls, however the Fish and Wildlife Service won't let me catch any of the owls. So, no owls."

"When I started gathering the animals, PETA sued me. They insisted I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodations were too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space; I had to release all the animals I had caught so far."

"Then the EPA ruled that I couldn't build the ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood. They didn't take very kindly to the idea that they have no jurisdiction over the conduct of the Creator of the Universe."

"Then the Army Engineers demanded a map of the new flood plain; I sent them a map."

"Right now, I'm trying to resolve a complaint filed by the Equal Opportunity Commission that I am practicing discrimination by not taking Godless, unbelieving people aboard."

"I'm also trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew. Immigration and Naturalization are checking the Green-Card status of most of the people who want to work."

"The Trade Unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with ark-building experience. Then the Carpenters Union went on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Relations board before anyone would pick up a hammer or a saw. Now I have sixteen carpenters, but no animals."

"To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I'm building the ark in preparation to flee the country to avoid paying taxes."

"I just got a notice from the state that i owe them some kind of user tax and failed to register the ark as a recreational vehicle."

"Finally, the ACLU got the courts to issue an injunction against the construction of the ark, saying the since God is flooding the Earth, it is a religious event and therefore unconstitutional."

"So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least ten years for me to finish this ark."

Suddenly, the skies began to clear, the sun began to shine, and the sea began to calm.

A beautiful rainbow stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked: "You mean you're not going to destroy the world?"

"No," said the Lord. "I don't have to. The Government beat me to it."

If I were President

2009-04-22T22:44:00.000-07:00

If I was president,

I'd get elected on Friday, Assassinated on Saturday,

Buried on Sunday

Being the President of the United States is arguably the toughest job on the planet so I'm in no way making light of the office or saying it's a cakewalk. This is just a hypothetical exercise and I'm in no way announcing my candidacy for the 2012 election (unless you actually plan on voting for me in which case I'm serious and I want your vote).

It would, obviously, be a rough job and there would be so many issues to take into account. I don't know where I'd start exactly but here's what I would do in no particular order in regard to importance.

Let's start off with my inauguration speech. I would simply read the Bill of Rights. Then I would explain to the citizens of the United States that these are their God given rights and, even if they don't believe in God like myself, these rights will never under any circumstances be taken away from them regardless of the current crisis we as a people happen to be facing at the time. There will be no limiting of rights on my watch even if it's for the greater good (cough cough Patriot Act).

If I were President the powers of the Federal Government would be seriously scaled back. The Fed's essential role would be foreign policy and defense. It would be outside the role of the Government to pass laws restricting the citizens in any way. The passing of laws would be done on a state by state basis.

The individual states would become more autonomous and would pass laws as they see fit by their individual populations. Laws would be drafted by the state's representatives (Congressmen and Senators) and voted on by the people of the states. A two thirds majority would be needed for the laws to be enacted. The Federal Government would not supersede the states power to pass their respective laws e.g. legalizing marijuana, same sex marriage, conceal and carry, etc. The only way the Fed would be able to step in is if an unconstitutional law was somehow passed like reinstating slavery or outlawing religion.

The IRS would possibly be abolished altogether. There would be no income tax but instead sales tax would be increased to around the 20-25% range. There would be no tax on essential goods for anyone living below the poverty line. The individual states would propose what their sales tax percentages would be based on their budget estimates and they would keep all but a certain percentage of the revenue. Around 10-15% of the sales tax revenue would go the the Federal Government for defense and other federal duties.

If the IRS were not to be abolished, the tax code would be completely overhauled and a flat income tax of some sort would be instated. Successful companies and citizens would no longer be punished for being too successful by being hit with a higher tax rate. There would be no tax brackets to speak of. Everyone would pay the same percentage of income tax unless they fall under the poverty line. If this were the case, the sales taxes of the individual states would stay the same. If the State Government wanted to raise the sales tax because of the need for extra revenue, the citizens would have to vote on it or vote to cut Government programs equal to the estimated amount to be generated by the sales tax increase.

Waterboarding would not be considered torture and since this falls under foreign policy and defense this issue would be at the Presidents discretion and a vote would not be necessary. Although, under no circumstances would an American Citizen be tortured for any reason unless he was arrested and charged with being a domestic terrorist and it was clear that he was withholding information that could be used to prevent further attacks. If that were the case, the state in which he (or she) was charged in would have to make the call.

The U.S would sever all ties with the United Nations. If we can't even get their Security Council to pass a binding resolution against North Korea for their rocket tests, what the hell good are they? I'm sure the fact that China and Russia are on the Security Council has nothing to do with that one. The U.S. would still adhere to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but not because the U.N. says we have to. We'd do it because it's the right thing to do and we'd still make sure that other countries, whether they're part of the U.N. or not, followed suit.

I'm sure you've heard about the CIA torture documents that were recently declassified and released?That kind of shit would never happen during my administration and nobody involved would even have to worry about talk of their being prosecuted. Anything related to our intelligence gathering methods would remain classified and anyone who would leak said information would be tracked down, charged with treason, and, if convicted, sent away to rot in prison for a very long time.

The power of the Unions would be scaled back if not abolished all together. People have to right to a livable wage but things are getting out of hand. I believe the Unions are to blame for the way that the big three in Detroit are essentially dying right now. Since the Unions keep on pushing for higher wages and more benefits, they've essentially crippled our ability to compete in the market place. China and Japan are kicking our asses as far as the Auto Industry in concerned.

The Federal Reserve would be subjected to stiffer regulations and oversight. I know this is a pretty radical concept but I believe there should be a little bit of transparency in their operations. The United States would go back to the gold standard and possibly a silver standard as well. President Kennedy signed executive order 11110 to do just this but after he was assassinated our Government just pretended like it never happened. Pretty convenient, huh? The days of this country printing money to it's hearts content would be over. No more printing money unless we have the gold or silver to back it up. This would mean that there would be less currency in circulation but that the money that is in circulation would be worth substantially more. This would keep the rapid deflation of the dollar in check.

Government spending (possibly only on any non-essential programs or anything that exceeds a certain dollar amount) will have to voted on by the state (or states) doing the spending. If the spending is being done by the Federal Government, like military spending, a two-thirds majority in at least two-thirds of the states would be needed.

A Federal Carbon Tax or Cap & Trade program would be effectively taken off the table because I personally think they're bullshit. If the individual states want to pass their own versions of either of these programs, more power to them. Environmental standards would be left up to the individual states as well because, once again, it won't be the Fed's place to regulate the states unless they get wildly out of control or ask for the Fed's help.

The public School system (K-12) would possibly be restructured so that a teacher's pay would be based on the scholastic performance of their students. The literacy rate, number of dropouts, standardized test scores, and number of college bound students would all be taken into account when determining pay. Teachers who have sex with their students will be given a bonus if they use a condom for teaching safe sex practices. Kidding. The bonus will be based on their proficiency in the sack.

My motto will be: "Anything the Government can do private industry can do better." This will apply to most things except for war. This country doesn't need war-mongering mercenaries.

I would look into the privatization of the entire eduction system but I don't see how this could be turned into a money making operation without making it very expensive for Americans to send their children to school for a basic education. If it could be done cheaply somehow it would be beneficial to the students since every school would make being the best education facility possibly it's highest priority. Competition between the schools would mean better educated students, in theory.

A border fence would be put up along the entire length of the Mexican/American border and the Nation Guard would patrol the fence to deter anyone crossing illegally. The National Guard guarding the nation. What a novel idea. I'm sure the Texas Rangers (not the baseball team) and the Minutemen would be more than happy to help out there as well.

Our immigration laws would actually be enforced on my watch. ICE's top priority would be to track down each and every illegal immigrant and send them back to their country of origin regardless of their reason for being in this country. Their children would also be sent back along with them whether they were born here or not. Birthright citizenship would come to an end and all first generation birthright citizens would be deported. If your Grandparents snuck in the country illegally, it's your lucky day because you can stay. If it was your parents who came here illegally cause they knew they could give birth to a legal U.S. citizen, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here. I'm sorry if this comes across as racist or protectionist but in this terrible job market we have now it's hard enough for a legal U.S. citizen to get a job without 15 millions illegal running around as well. Is it really so hard to come to this country legally? My ancestors did it and you can too. I'm not saying we should stop legal immigration. The country still needs cooks and janitors (joking). America is the melting pot of the world and I would intend to keep it that way.

That's all that springs readily to mind right now. To be continued . . .

Atlas Shrugged

2009-04-21T23:41:00.000-07:00

I've been meaning to get around to posting this for a while but I've been a little busy lately so here goes it.

Also this post seems to be a little more ADD riddled than my usual posts so I apologize for that. Maybe once the Government takes over the health care industry I'll be able to get some Ritalin.

Anyway, one week ago today I get home from work (earlier in the day I attended the Tea Party Rally in Madison) and fire up the DVR to catch up on all the news programs I'd recorded that day. The first show I pop on is Countdown with Keith Olbermann. While I thought I was simply exercising my constitutionally protected right to free assembly earlier that day; the truth of the matter was, according to Olbermann, that I was simply a "sheep" and a "disingenuous shill for the rich and big business". Damn. Sucks to be me. Oh yeah. I'm also a "GOP stooge". Big O went on to say that it made no sense that Americans would protest Government waste (among other things) when it was us, the citizens, who were left to pick up the bill for all the revenue lost to the Fed because American corporations hid their money tax free in places like the Cayman Islands, etc etc.

If we had a fair tax system (not necessarily THE Fair Tax system) in this country, successful companies wouldn't need to hide their money from the wasteful tendrils of the Federal Government. Nobody can waste money like the Fed can. If you ever wondered how Government spending worked, this video will enlighten you. Money hole indeed.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX-D4kkPOq&feature=channel

(sorry, don't know how to link so you're going to have to cut and paste the above addy)

But anyway, back to the point. Anyone who attended one of these Tea Party rallies was basically made out be a crazy, racist, right-wing extremist desperately clinging to their God and their guns. I hope the DHS (That's the Department of Homeland Security if you're not up on your acronyms) is keeping an eye on dangerous people like me and my fellow citizens who attended such rallies. We were also called "tea baggers". I'm not offended by such vulgar terms being thrown around ever so lightly by the media but I am certainly surprised at the viciousness of it all. You could see their eyes light up with child-like glee every time the phrase was uttered. Edward R. Murrow is spinning in his grave somewhere. What ever happened to journalistic integrity?

What's wrong with the media when any event can be reported on in such a malicious and condescending manner? What would have happened if Fox news would have came up with a derogatory nickname for the anti war protesters in 2003? Or had called the Million Man March the Million Nigger march? Code Pink? More like Code Pussies. No, they were all universally treated with respect by all the major networks.

As long as you're not a conservative you'll be treated with respect in the left-wing media (CNN and MSNBC). Instead, I get labeled a racist by Jeanne Garafalo (once again on Countdown). Who gives a fuck what Jeanne Garafalo thinks. As an actress I actually like her and at one time thought she was pretty hot but I wouldn't want to hang out with her. The mouthy little bitch would probably just get on my nerves. By the way, I'm well aware I've misspelt her name every time but I don't care enough to fix it. She's a hypocrite to boot.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZaR19xDDUk

(sorry, again, don't know how to link so you're going to have to cut and paste the above addy)

Let's see. I'm a disingenuous shill for the rich and big business, a sheep (or zombie if you prefer), a GOP stooge, and a racist. All this coming from MSNBC.

I can only recall, off the top of my head, being called one name by the Fox Network and that's "a patriot".

For me, the whole point of the Tea Party protest wasn't about Barack Obama or the Democrats. It's all of them for the most part. Both sides of the aisle. Do I think the GOP would be doing a better job if they were in power right now? Probably not. It was Bush, after all, who started all this bailout nonsense. Obama just seems to have graduated from the University of Bushenomics. The whole point of these protests were, the way I see it, an outlet for my disillusionment regarding a great many things I believe are wrong with this country right now. We've got out of control Government spending and an equally out of control tax system that punishes Americans for being successful while rewarding ineptitude. The dollar is being completely shit on intentionally, I believe, leading to rapid deflation. And finally our liberties are being slowly taken away in the name of security. It started with the Patriot Act and this economic recession is just the latest crisis to use as leverage to relieve us of some more liberties.

I'll leave you with some quotes:

"Never let a crisis go to waste." Rahm Emmanuel - Current White House Chief of Staff

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin (That dude on the $100 bill)

"If your Reps vote 'tax and spend' kick them out in 2010." That freak on channel 12 with the sign aka Tim (Me)

Thank you, Mr. President

2009-04-18T23:33:00.000-07:00

Captain Richard Phillips returned home today after his five day ordeal at the hands of Somali pirates.

I am really impressed with the way the whole Somali pirate (sea terrorist?) situation was handled. I was expecting this to drag on day after day with little to no progress as soon as I saw that a hostage negotiator was being brought in. Why would we even talk to these loons in the first place? Last time I checked the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists. (Can we start calling terrorists land pirates now, please?) So thank you, Obama, from the bottom of my heart. No, I'm not being the least bit sarcastic (seriously, I'm not). Man, I wish I could have been there to see all three of those motherfuckers go down at the same time. It must have been a beautiful sight. Between this and being scared off by a Navy destroyer the next day, maybe these pirates will learn that America is still a country you don't want to fuck with.

On a side note, what does this say about the state of this country that after 200 years of not touching our ships these pirates now decide that they can? Is this country now seen as weak and powerless? Should the heads of dead pirates be run up the flagpoles of U.S flagged ships as a warning to others?

p.s. I have a blog all written out regarding the Tea Party protest and it's ready to post (I write my blogs in a notebook the old fashioned way and then later type them out here). I just haven't gotten around to getting it on here. I've been a little busy conspiring with all my right-wing extremist cohorts to overthrow the Government, I mean . . . working. Yeah. That's it. Working.

I'm so going to get nabbed by the FBI. If I disappear, somebody get out to Gitmo and spring me please.

Thievery by any other name . .

2009-04-15T00:48:00.000-07:00

Seeing as tomorrow is tax day and I'll be attending the tax day tea party up in Madison, I've decided that I'd take this opportunity to throw in my two cents regarding tax reform. First of all, I know next to nothing about the current tax code. Hell, I don't even do my taxes. (Disclaimer: By that I mean that I don't do my own taxes. I do pay taxes. Please don't audit me. I love the IRS.) I'm just a poor slob like the majority of Americans. I'm Joe Blow. That being said, it's always seemed strange that the Government takes a big chunk out of my paycheck, before I even get a chance to look at it, and then continues to tax me, via sales tax, on what they've been gracious enough to let me keep. It just seems a little like double jeopardy to me. And no, not the Alex Trebek kind or the movie with Ashley Judd. They're essentially taxing us on money that they've already taxed. Doesn't that seem a little, well, unfair?

Unfair? Yes. Surprising? Not at all. The current tax code is, like everything else the government has it's greasy little hands in, convoluted at best. I'd suggest you go read it for a better understanding but unless you have an extra month or so to just sit on your couch and read, I doubt you'd be able to get through the whole thing. It's massive. Is it even bigger than the Stimulus Bill? Yep. And just like the Stimulus Bill, I doubt anyone in Washington has ever bothered to read the thing.

And so, this is where the Fair Tax comes into play. It's got a great name, doesn't it? It just sounds so . . . fair. Fair is good, right? I'm not going to say that I outright support the Fair Tax idea but it has gotten my attention. I've looked into it a little bit and it seems like a good idea but I'm not completely sold on it yet. If you don't know how the Fair Tax is supposed to work I suggest you go look it up for yourself. (And look up the Flax Tax while you're at it.)

The main draw of the Fair Tax is that income tax would be abolished. I would be quite happy to pay a much higher sales tax if the Government would stop taking such a large chunk out of my paycheck every other week. I've read that under the Fair Tax system the state sales tax would be somewhere between 27 and 35%. It seems like a pretty bad deal at first. Wisconsin sales tax right now is only 5.6% or something around that so that's a pretty big increase. But apparently all the sales tax we pay on necessities like food and clothing are to be reimbursed to us, either before or after the fact. That's not so bad, right? No income tax. You're paying higher sales tax on nonessential things like cars and big screen tvs but you get to keep all the wages you're paid by your employer so you're going to have more money out of the gate.

I wonder if money will still be taken out of our checks for Social Security? I'll have to look into that. Personally, I think it's bullshit that money for social security has been taken out of every paycheck I've ever received in my entire life but when it comes time for me to retire and collect social security I'm going to be told that's there's no money left for me.

I personally don't really know what's better. Our current tax system? The Fair Tax? The Flat Tax? Someone knows but it sure as hell ain't me. All I have is an idea. I'm leaning towards the Fair Tax but it could end up just fucking us over like the old system. It may even be worse. Maybe it's just the name. Fair Tax. It's got quite a ring to it, huh? It's better name than the Overseas Contingency Operation, but that's something else entirely.

Pennies (not) from heaven

2009-04-12T21:05:00.000-07:00

This isn't really a political matter per se, but I've decided to pontificate on the issue none the less. Before I get to the point I believe a little back story is in order. I work at a Milwaukee area movie theatre and it's not in the greatest neighborhood. From working at said theatre, I've befriended a middle-aged couple who frequent the area. These very nice people happen to be homeless and are affectionately referred to by myself and coworkers as "The Bum Couple" (The guy's name is Steve but the woman's name escapes me right now). This couple often visit the theatre and they never cause any kind of problems so I help them out as much as I can. I frequently give them spare change, cigarettes and one time a $25 Applebee's gift certificate I had won through work because I give a couple of bucks from each paycheck to UPAF and United Way.

I happen to run into the couple today as I'm walking through the parking lot on my way back to work after buying a pack of smokes at the local Walgreens. I had a couple of minutes before I had to start the 12:00 show of Hannah Montana so I stopped for a few to talk to them. After giving them a cigarette and about a buck in assorted change they tell me a story that's both heartbreaking and maddening.

The other day, Steve and his wife had gone to a nearby dollar store to purchase a food item of some sort with the change they've managed to scrounge/panhandle or whatever (they never actually said from where the money came but it's beside the point). Knowing that the cost plus sales tax is going to be $1.06 (I think) they have their change already counted out and ready to give to the clerk when they reach the checkout. When they try and give the money to the clerk they are told that he can't accept their money because it's all pennies. I guess they just went hungry a little while longer.

What is the world coming to when an American citizen, homeless or not, can't walk into a store with legal tender, pennies or not, and purchase the essential foodstuff they need for survival? I don't know if this was a policy that that came down from management to dissuade the homeless from patronizing their establishment (because the dollar store has a reputation to uphold you know) or the clerk was just lazy and didn't want to count out a hundred and six pennies but either way I think this is a fucking travesty.

Where does it end? If I were to walk into a grocery store and try to pay for $106 worth of groceries with a hundred and six singles will I be told my money's no good there? Whether this was a policy handed down by management or not, that clerk should be fucking ashamed of himself. If I were him I wouldn't be able to live with myself and the fact that I denied a hungry person (two of them in fact!) food that they had the money to pay for would haunt my dreams. If there is a Hell I hope the Devil has a special place reserved for this cretin. Burn, baby, burn!

And for the record, the dollar something in change I gave them was not all pennies.

A Convenient Lie (Global Warming Pt. 2)

2009-04-12T00:09:00.000-07:00

So if global warming being blamed on Mankind (or anthopogenic global warming for you science nerds) is a scam, why are we being lied to? What could anyone possibly have to gain by perpetuating such lies? Well, Al Gore scored an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. An Inconvenient Truth? More like A Hypocritical Man. The guy flies all around the world in his private plane while telling all of us we need to conserve. But surely personal fame and accolades can't be the reason for such lies, right? So why, then? My high school sociology/law teacher once gave me some great advice. "Follow the money." Thanks, Mr. Neill.

Could all this just be a scam to sell us more energy efficient windows and gas efficient/hybrid cars? Not really though it may be part of the reason, but we need those kinds of things and more (America is a very wasteful nation and we need to curb our tendencies). Although I can do without hybrid cars. I think they're a short term solution to a long term problem. What's going to happen to all those batteries, which cannot be recharged, when they reach the end of their life in 10-15 years? Most likely they'll end up in a landfill somewhere only to further exacerbate our environmental problems on the whole.

If cars play such a significant role in global warming, where's all the solar powered cars? Solar power is a great idea . . . in theory. In practice, right now, not so much. The main problem is the cost. Right now the technology is just way too expensive to make it a viable alternative to gas powered cars. Ten years down the road I can see the cost coming down significantly, but we need a solution and we needed it last week.

What about nuclear power? Oooh, scary. I know. 3 Mile Island? Chernobyl? Do we really need 16 year old girls driving around in nuclear reactors while they do their makeup and check their Facebook (or Myspace) on their Blackberries? Probably not a good idea if an accident results in a mushroom cloud. But what if it could be made not only safe, but cheap? I saw a nuclear powered car on, I think, the National Geographic Channel once and do you want to know what the car's exhaust was? Just a bit of hydrogen and oxygen. Two hydrogen one oxygen to be exact. That's right. H2o, baby! The guy driving this car actually drank the exhaust after driving around for a bit. Did he later turn into some sort of irradiated monstrosity straight out of a 50's Sci-fi movie? Unfortunately, he did not. Unless the government covered it up, but that's not likely. Have you ever tried to cover up the existence of a 50 foot tall ant-man? No easy task and definitely out of the realm of things the Government can do without totally screwing the pooch.

Essentially, because of unfounded public fear, nuclear power has been taken off the table. But why? It's relatively clean and abundant. There are nuclear power plants all over the country and there hasn't been any kind of recent meltdowns or accidents that spring readily to mind (despite the fact that none of these facilities have been technologically updated since the 70's or 80's). Plus, the technology is readily available. I think all those atomic age B-horror movies are to blame. The fear of nuclear power is an irrational fear akin to being afraid of a shark attack at your local YMCA.

So why, with these and other alternative sources of energy, are we still using coal and natural gas to run our cars and heat our homes? The answer once again comes back to what Mr. Neill told me in 1997. "Follow the money." So what could anyone have to gain monetarily to perpetuate the use of fossil fuels for all our energy needs? Besides the oil companies, obviously. I'll over simplify the issue with two simple words: Carbon Tax. (The Government doesn't want to break us of our nasty habits. It wants to profit from them.)

Carbon Tax? That's just what we need, right? More taxes. That'll solve all our problems lickity-split. More money taken out of the pockets of hard working Americans and put into the pockets of the Federal Government. It's for the greater good, Comrade. And who knows how to spend your money better than you do? Our leaders in Washington, of course. Nobody can spend money like they do and, like the church, they always seem to need a little more. Unlike the church, however, the money you give to the Government is mandatory. Whether it disappears into the black hole of bank bailouts with little to no oversight or goes into the SCHIP program to pay for illegal immigrants, among others, health care, I'm sure it'll be money well spent (wasted). And I can bitch about SCHIP all I want because I'm a smoker so I'm floating the bill for that shit. Thanks, Obama.

Why is a carbon tax such a bad idea in my opinion? Like most things the Government does, it's convoluted. How exactly does one go about taxing the carbon output of another? If someone knows how that works I would really like it explained to me. "But Tim, isn't this carbon tax, like Cap and trade, only going to affect the big businesses who are, after all, the devil?" Well, yes and no. Even if the carbon tax is only imposed on the businesses, which is unlikely, the monetary effect will trickle on down to us, the consumer. It costs them more to produce so they charge us more to consume. It's economics 101. But what makes you think the legislation will stop at businesses? If it can be forced onto them, what's to stop the powers that be from forcing it on all of us? It's the proverbial slippery slope.

This so-called Carbon Tax is just another attempt by the Government to control, and horde, the wealth of this country. Whether it's called taxation or regulation, the goons in Washington just love to bend over the American people and jam it up their- well, you get the idea.

The War of Solar Aggression

2009-04-09T02:45:00.000-07:00

It's become obvious that President Obama reads my blog. Or at least his advisors do and give him briefs every time I post. Less than twenty four hours after my global call to arms against our common enemy, the Sun, Obama's science advisor John Holdren said this about the options available to us to curb global warming:

"One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort."

Take that Sun! The gauntlet has been thrown. Your move.

Unite against the common enemy (Global warming Pt. 1)

2009-04-07T23:08:00.000-07:00

I don't know about you, but I think global warming is a huge crock of shit. Well, let me rephrase that. I think global warming is really happening. The average temperature of the planet has gone up 0.74C in the last hundred years or so and that's probably not a good thing in the long run. So how can I say global warming is a crock of shit while agreeing that the average temperature of the planet has indeed gone up over the years? It's simple really. It is happening. The crock of shit aspect comes into play when the blame is laid on the human race. It's not my fault and it certainly isn't yours.

Well it's got to be somebody's fault, right? I believe that we can lay the blame on a single entity. "Really?" you say. "Let's go get that fucker right now." Now before you go get your torches and pitchforks I think you need to understand who you're out to get. First of all, the culprit is about 94 million miles away. Secondly, it's the fucking sun. (I just want to take this opportunity to apologize for all the naughty language in this post but it is a tirade after all.) Obviously there is only one course of action left. The U.N Security Council should impose economic sanctions on the sun. I mean, it got Sodamn Insane out of Kuwait . . . oh yeah, I mean it kept North Korea from launching their little "satellite" . . . wait, I got it this time . . . ah shit. Fuck it. It's time for all of mankind to unite against our common enemy. The sun.

So why all this sun bashing? Isn't it possible that people are to blame for global warming? If there's any conclusive evidence to support that I haven't seen it. What I have seen is an article that states that the temperature on Mars has risen 0.5C since the 1970's. Surely all the Martians riding around in their gas-guzzling SUV's are to blame. But it's not their fault because they really need an off-road sport utility vehicle there. I mean, have you ever been to Mars? No roads to speak of. It's like Afghanistan a thousand years ago. Or last week too I guess. The only real difference is they have Kalashnikovs now. Anyway, I guess my point is this: I can't picture anyone driving a Prius Hybrid on Mars. It's way too rocky. You know, after we blow up the sun we should use the profits on some martian infrastructure.

Cocaine Blues

2009-04-06T16:24:00.000-07:00

I know this is kind of old news, but I just read a report on the so-called Ashley Biden cocaine video on Radaronline.com and I though I'd throw my two cents in. The story gives a description of the contents of the video and says, at least twice, something to the effect of "a woman looking identical to Biden's daughter" so if this woman is actually Ashley Biden seems to be open to debate.

The video purporting to show Vice President Biden's daughter tooting a couple lines of cocaine has yet to find a buyer and I hope it never does. The video is going for the low price of $250,000. Apparently Ashley Biden was set up by a "friend" of hers who was looking to make a quick buck (or 250,000 of them) by selling the tape to the media. This "friend", who's remaining anonymous, bought the cocaine and brought it to a party where he offered it to Biden's daughter. He then recorded the ensuing partying via a hidden camera.

Do I think this is a big deal? No. The private lives of private citizens is none of my business. What I do think is a little strange is that I read one story that said the tooting was done with a red straw while another said it was a rolled up dollar bill. This whole story seems fishy and I'm glad it didn't get a whole lot of attention in the media but here's my question. What if it had been Meghan McCain or Bristol Palin? It would have been on the covers of every single gossip rag you see while waiting in line at the supermarket. USWeekly and National Enquirer editors would have been orgasiming all over themselves at the idea. If the daughter, or son, of a conservative politician had been videotaped doing cocaine, or smoking marijuana, there would have been a media feeding frenzy. Liberal politician, barely a blip. Why the double standard?

Is it that the people expect this kind of behavior from the left or is the right just held to a higher standard? Just look at what's happening right now with Bristol Palin's ex-boyfriend going on the Tyra Banks Show and talking about his former sexual relations with Bristol. I'm not seeing the same dismissive reports that I saw with the Ashley Biden "scandal". My main problem is the media's intrusion into the private lives of American Citizens. I believe that the family members of politician should be treated with a certain level of tact and discretion in the media. Just because their mothers or fathers are public figures doesn't make them public figures as well.

Opening Statement

2009-04-04T23:57:00.000-07:00

I just want to start off by saying that this isn't an anti-Obama deal. Although I tend to vote Republican more often than not, I don't necessarily consider myself one. Yes, I voted for McCain in the last election and Bush, twice, before that but I don't blindly prescribe to one political ideology or the other. I don't think either major political party really represents me and I have major issues with them both. I think Obama is screwing us over the way Bush screwed us over the way Clinton screwed us over etc, etc, you get the idea. The left and the right have been screwing us over for years and I don't know if it's just me but it seems, I hope, like the situation is coming to a head. The American people, again I hope, are beginning to tire of the whole sordid mess. Anyone I talk to lately who's really following the goings-on in Washington right now is growing more and more disillusioned with the whole mess. We realize that nobody's looking out for us (except maybe Bill O'Reilly, he he)and we're very, very upset. "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore" pretty well sums it up.

All over the country people are realizing it's time to rise up and fight back. I'm not talking about anything violent either, of course. It hasn't come to that and I pray it never does. Well, I hope it never does anyway. I don't really pray for anything because I don't go in for the whole religion thing. If you do that's cool with me. I won't hate on your for believing in God if you don't hate on me for being skeptical. I don't necessarily not believe in God but I digress. I guess the point of this whole thing here is to just let you know where I stand for the most part. I'm more of a Libertarian than anything, though that doesn't perfectly describe me either. There is a word that perfectly describes me, oh what's the word I'm looking for? . . . oh yeah, American. That's it.

I'd just like to set the record straight on a few things lest someone try and pigeon-hole me into a category I don't belong (like right-wing nut-job or anti-government wacko). Here's where I stand on on a couple of issues:

I'm pro-choice. What other people do with their bodies is no business of mine and it certainly isn't the business of the government. Late-term abortions, however, I am against to an extent.

I'm pro-gun. If the government wants to take away my guns they can pry them out of my cold dead hands. I believe a well armed populace is the best defense against tyranny. For the record, I don't own a gun (let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack) but if I did, well . . . you know.

I'm for gay marriage and I'm not talking about some bs civil union situation either. I believe gays should be able to get married, and be miserable, just like anybody else. I think the constitution should be legally amended to allow for this. Why is same sex marriage unconstitutional anyway? Doesn't the constitution say all men are created equal? It really irks me when the government steps in and tells a certain group of people, "Oh, you? Yeah, I'm sorry. YOU can't do that. Only those people over there can." It's not the government's place to step in and tell people how to live their private lives. I'm big on that. You may have noticed that keeping the government out of mine and other people's business is kind of a running theme in my line of thinking.

Alright, one more. I'm against the legalization of marijuana (and all other drugs for that matter) on a federal level. The reasons for this are probably not the reasons most people are against it but I'm not going to get into it right now. Maybe a later post. I'm ambivalent at best about what's going on in California re: the weed situation because I think it's a complete joke. If 10% of the people walking around in California with a Canibus Club card in their pocket actually had a real medicinal need for the stuff I'd be very surprised.

So, I guess that's it for now. If anybody actually takes the time to read this, I thank you.