Sane Political Discourse

Final post

2011-04-28T00:10:00.000-04:00

In the interest of compressing all my content and writing into a single, shiny, streamlined blog, I an shutting this blog down. As with my other blogs, I will be keeping this up for posterity and linking. I will also be clearing out most of the extraneous content. If you have this blog in your blogroll, please feel free to update:

Patrick M Speaks (despite advice to the contrary)

Thanks for visiting.

Preparations for the New Site have Begun

2011-04-25T16:37:00.000-04:00

As you may have noticed, this blog has kind of ground to a halt. So, having gotten bored and not kept up the spectacular traffic I had, I'm in the process of moving to a new blog, which will cover everything I'm bound to want to yap about. I will be leaving this blog and my others up for the sheer archive value, but once I migrate, I'll probably kill my blogroll, sidebar content, and comments (which I see are still coming in).

More info will be posted when I get the migration done.

Especially the new link.

Why I Like Transcripts: Obama's Libya Speech

2011-03-28T22:33:00.000-04:00

So the kids and I were testing the ability of the 3 computers to run videos off the media drive at the same time (because one started watching, and then the other, and I wanted to see if...) when a tweet popped up reminding me that 1. President Obama was speaking at that very moment and 2. I had planned to give him a chance to explain the whole Libya thing (as the Obama doctrine so far seems to be summed up as: WTF) before I excoriated him for having no clue.

So I turned on the speech. A minute and a half later, I turned it off, choosing to read the transcript for both expediency and the retention of my dinner.

So as far as I can tell, we started blowing shit up because ~~Saddam~~ ~~Kim Jong Il~~ ~~Ahmedinejad~~ ~~any repressive dictator~~ Gaddafi decided to start snuffing people that were rising up against him. That and the UN (Unholy Nazidouches) decided to intervene in ~~Iraq~~ ~~Iran~~ ~~N Korea~~ ~~Egypt~~ ~~Syria~~ ~~Bahrain~~ Libya for some pointless humanitarian mission that will end in blue-helmeted rapists showing up to pillage while peacekeeping or something.

Which brings me to the logical points:

1. Obama laid out no actual compelling national interest. Agree or disagree, I can't think of any other president who didn't lay out some compelling national interest. And as I laid out in my post defending Obama's power to launch such an attack as he did, one requirement is that any military action must have a compelling national interest.

2. The mission is to stop the killing? To last for how long? And what are the conditions for victory? Or is this an open-ended non-commitment for no other reason than it was a popular bad guy to bust the balls of? The word for this is nebulous. As many have said, we can't be the world's policemen. Which appears to be our exact mission.

3. As I noted above with excessive use of the strikeout tag, there are plenty of hot zones all over the Middle East where the same problem is playing out. Yet we haven't intervened in any of them. We've barely gotten a strongly-worded (for Obama) teleprompter speech for most of them. A lack of consistency plays here. That, or Gaddafi did something to piss off the UN, which is why they decided to jump into the fray. And I'm not going to pass judgement on why other countries have taken action. I assume they're involved for some compelling national interest. Which brings us back to point number one.

So, having analyzed why Obama took this action, we return to the Obama Doctrine: WTF!

In Defense of Cowboy Diplomacy

2011-03-24T13:41:00.000-04:00

As the international community, led by France (?!?!?!?!?!) takes action to deal with the attacks on protesting civilian and rebels in the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, I've found myself lamenting the fact that we're not at the forefront of leadership in this military action.

Now before I get to the meat of the post, this is not necessarily about whether we should be doing this, because I can (in my own confusing way) see both sides of the issue. Because this is, in a larger sense, about the power of the United states and the Commander-in-Chief. And yes, I'll be taking a cheap shot at the Ron Paulistas as a side issue, since this is the larger issue which should disqualify Rep Paul from even seriously running for President.

Now to be fair (since I'm going to tear Obama a new one), I relented and listened to an entire 9 minutes of Obama talking about our involvement in actions in Libya (9 minutes of my life I wish I had back, especially the requisite use of the words "hope" and "change" in the first minute or two). And there are two aspects I'm going to talk about that are both important: Words and Actions.

Words

There are three things that I expect from a President whenever he commits our armed forces to any conflict: Leadership, Strength, and a Statement of National interest. So far, I've heard none of these from Obama. He goes out of his way to make sure that the world knows it's a UN action, and that we're not in charge (which explains why the EU nations are fighting over the leadership role), he foolishly says we're not going to do certain things like sending in any troops (when that uncertainty could scare the shit out of Gaddafi privately).

And remember, this is not about what we do (so far). It's about what the President says, and the perception around the world as to whether the United States will commit to kill the shit out of an enemy. In this, I'm going to draw a contrast between Presidents (W) Bush and Reagan. And I'll call on the anti-war crowd here: would it be fair to say that the perception of these presidents would be that if they went to war, they'd blow a whole lot of shit up and kill people? Because that's strength is the sight of tyrants. Obama is tapioca.

However, the worst thing of Obama's statements (as this goes to the Constitutional power of the Commander-inChief) is that he has failed to state a national interest in our actions in Libya. I can't agree or disagree, because he's ceded it to the UN as something that's it their (and the World's) best interest. Uh, that's not a justification for committing troops. Supporting the development of democratically elected governments as a catalyst for peace, and therefore less threats of terrorism could be (this was part of the Bush doctrine). But it's a failure to give us a reason we should commit our armed forces that makes this action harder to support.

Actions

I actually have fewer problems with the actions the President has taken than his words on the issue. This is because I can imagine us taking similar action under a Republican POTUS in support of the people of Libya, for the interest I suggested above. And limiting it (so far, and according to statements, permanently) to air superiority and support is generally a safer option, since this gives a window for rebel forces to hopefully get in and use Gaddafi's body for target practice (and maybe more if there's some gay necrophiliacs among the rebels).

I'd even be ok if we were (very quietly) dropping some surplus weapons and ammo in to the rebels, and maybe a few advisers who would promptly hump on out of there as soon as the rebels got the upper hand. The point is that the President and military officers need to define a mission, carry it out, and then get out. This was one of the weaknesses in our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the mission evolved and were not always clearly defined. Thankfully, we've achieved the goals that eventually coalesced, and we're on the way out.

I'm also supportive of the idea that the President can, without running to Congress to listen to endless debate, to commit our forces when he sees a clear national interest that requires military intervention. If we required idiotic debate by a bunch of political hacks that may not have the full picture, and motivation to oppose a President of the other party automatically, we may miss opportunities that require decisiveness (a trait that Obama mostly lacks when it doesn't concern NCAA brackets).

Summation and Ron Paul Shot

There is a reason the Constitution invests the President with the military power of Commander-in-Chief. The military does not function on consensus. And the Founding Fathers knew that the extension of America's power (when it finally had it) had to be invested in a leader, not a Congress. Ultimately, the Congress has the ability to check the President in an ongoing conflict (though the power of the purse), but that, again gives time for the CIC to do what's necessary and explain what he has done.

And for those idiots that are screaming about this being unconstitutional and warmongering (like the Paulistas, who follow an isolationist who couldn't recognize a threat to this country if it bit him in the ass and would then respond by asking or a declaration of war, then starting to move only if he got the Congressional hand job), you're, as I said above, idiots. We have been doing things like this for a couple centuries now. And those actions, conflicts, and occasional wars have almost all had a base in protecting our national interests (agree or disagree on the specifics). And that is a Constitutional duty, backed by precedent, the President does have (as CIC).

In the end, I hope Obama's actions have been reasoned, and despite the mealy-mouthed bullshit he's been spewing in trying to both justify his actions and cover his ass, it's also my hope that what has been set in motion ends in success (and a dead Gaddafi or two).

Sesame Street Will Survive (But Elmo Must DIE!)

2011-03-14T11:36:00.001-04:00

Both sides have missed something in the debate over taxpayers funding National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

It's not about keeping "quality" and/or "educational" or "children's" (or pick your favorite buzzword) programming on broadcast television. With cable and the Internet, there are plenty of options to choose from for programming that qualifies as any buzzword you can think of (my current fav happens to be Netflix). And as for the minority that rely solely on broadcast TV, the PBS option will survive (more on that in a minute). I don't imagine any of them listening to NPR. Really.

And it's not about ideology. I don't give a shit how liberal NPR may be or if Sesame Street is going to create a lead-in to gay families (yes, I've seen the segment). Because the fact is that the show is a successful marketing juggernaut for a reason: because they attract and retain an audience.

In fact, since I've cut the cable networks out, I've had local PBS kids programming on more often, as Nickelodeon and Disney got the boot in the process. And my daughter is on PBSkids.org right now (since it involved teaching her how to type a url to find something online). And as I get used to no drone from the 24/7 news (which I used to turn on when talk radio got me bored), I might find myself using PBS as good white noise programming (because I despise most network TV (and their insipid commercials)).

This brings me to the reason public broadcasting should be defunded. With the current breadth of options to get all of the things that you once could only find on PBS and NPR, there's no need for the government to take taxpayer money and spend it to prop up any broadcaster. And in this time of ungodly debt, the idea we have to finance anything and everything is beyond ridiculous

The result of this will be what you would expect. Stations that don't do a good job fundraising (which they all do) and can't retain corporate sponsorship (which they all also do) will fall by the wayside and shutter themselves. The ones that don't will step it up and improve their programming with the cheaper options now available (like the computer animated shows that litter both PBSkids and their cable rivals), or use the decades of quality programming that is, in many cases, ageless to cut the amount of production costs they have. In addition, there's plenty of independent documentaries that would be inexpensive to acquire.

The point is that there are options. Perhaps a few more sponsors and a few commercials between shows will creep in (as adding commercials every 10-15 minutes is the fastest way to piss off their viewers). It's nothing new.

For example, you'll see all these organizations and companies mentioned at the beginning of Sesame Street (link): The Public Broadcasting Service, the Department of Education, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, McDonalds Corporation, and Beaches Family Resorts. The first three, of course, would be cut, as two are the funding we're talking about cutting, and the Department of Education needs to be killed completely for the simple reason that it's mostly a waste. In fact, sponsoring Sesame Street is the least wasteful thing they do. The others are BIIIIG EEEEEEVIL corporations, including the great fattener of children, McDonalds. And that's not including whatever money Sesame Street pulls in from licensing the insipid image of the little red devil, Elmo, on everything they can print that unholy Muppet spawn onto, as well as all the other Muppets I don't hate with a passion.

Getting back to the point, there are plenty of ways to fund programming like this. And if you want this programming, you'll do what you need to to support and finance it. And as we get away from relying on the government to finance everything and start returning to a system where the people, by their financial choices, decide what survives, then the best will thrive, the good survive. And everybody wins (except the whiners).

Yay Go Nuclear Power Go!

2011-03-14T10:20:00.000-04:00

Before I get to the guts of this post, let's keep this in perspective. The danger at the three nuclear reactors in Japan are a small part of the story of utter devastation that has hit Japan in the wake of one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded. Today's news told of millions of people without food, water or heat (with temperatures cold enough for snow), news that the quake moved the main island of Japan eight feet (that deserves a holy shit by itself), and news reports of thousands of bodies washing up on shore. The Japanese people need our thoughts, prayers, and donations. My choice of links for this would be to the Red Cross.

Now onto the nuclear crises in Japan. News is still coming in, so I won't quote many specifics. But there has been some radiation leaks, hydrogen explosions, and the potential for meltdown. This is mainly because the backups for earthquakes were also hit by a tsunami. And remember, this is one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded (today it was upgraded to a magnitude 9! (yes, another holy shit would be warranted)). And yet, despite the amount of damage, there has been no report up to this point that a Chernobyl-style explosion has occurred, and the people who are in the know have downplayed the probability of this.

So here's the lesson to take away. Building nuclear reactors near major fault lines on the Ring of Fire is not a great idea. We have 46 states that are NOT on the ring of fire, and even at that, there are places even in those states that are not that unsafe. Building next to the San Andreas fault, not a good idea. And putting it a little distance away from large populations is not bad either. But there's lots of farmland across much of this country and it wouldn't take a lot to build nuclear plants across it if we were actually determined to embrace a relatively safe (AND GREEN!) technology.

Furthermore, we learn constantly how to better safeguard reactors from dangers. Even our worst nuclear accident at Three Mile Island caused no real problem. We learned from Chernobyl what could happen if you don't use proper safeguards. And with Japan, we're learning how much damage and failure it takes to create problems, and how hard it is to cause a nuclear disaster.

And based on how little has happened concerning the nuclear plants in Japan in the wake of such horrendous devastation (despite the 24/7 news channel speculation), there is no damned reason for us not to press forward and build some damned nuclear plants!

All F@#$ing Government Unions Must F%&*ing Die!

2011-03-10T07:39:00.000-05:00

Before I get into the meat of this celebratory post, let's get a little mood music, from the classic film Team America: World Police (just because it's such a kickass vulgar song and despite very little relation to the content of the post):

Yesterday, the Republicans in Wisconsin, in response to continued obstruction by the Democrats on a proposal to de-nut the cancer that are government unions, found a parliamentary procedure to bypass the Dems and pass a bill designed to strip power from one of the largest special interest groups in the country.

For more details, here's the story, which let me sleep with a smile on my lips.

Now before you start the howling, let me be clear on one point when I talk about unions. The ability of workers to organize when a private business is abusive is a powerful tool that keeps businesses in check in this country, and the erosion of that power could easily hurt the average person, whether unionized or not. And I stand with any workers who are being screwed over by their company, because companies that don't do the things necessary to attract good people deserve to die a fast death, as they often do.

In fact, the influence of private sector unions has made them a shrinking enterprise, as their numbers continue to decline. In this case, their success has rendered them obsolete.

Now, throw all that shit out when it comes to government sector unions. You'll notice that I called them a special interest group above. This is because they throw big money into the elections every year, mainly on the Democrat side. And in return, they buy the loyalty of candidates who continue to pour more taxpayer money into government workers' pockets; and as a result of that, they pour more money into the union coffers for the next election cycle.

In my fun little world of hyperbole we call that inbreeding. Although, in fact, inbreeding is a little less disgusting than the government union/Democrat double dutch rudder action. (and don't even get into an either/or question on that, because the answer is no way).

And furthermore, this is not an attack on workers, because you chose to ally yourselves with thugs rather than getting a job where you have to prove your worth. So if you want sympathy that your thugs have been neutered, look in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis."

So congratulations are in order, as Governor Scott Walker is deserving of accolades for pulling this off despite cacophonous astroturf protests. Next up is Governor Kasich here in the great state of Ohio to continue this fight. Now if we could just get some of that testicular fortitude in Washington for the budget battle, we might get somewhere.

Budget Bullsh*t

2011-03-08T12:26:00.000-05:00

In the few weeks of hiatus that kind of just happened because I couldn't get around to writing (or much of anything, it turns out), I've been following the budget battle. I had previously voiced some concern that the GOP was coming up short on their intended promises. I had also cited a proposal by Rand Paul that cut half a trillion as a good first step.

Well, after watching the battle and trying to figure out what is happening in DC, I think the best thing that could happen now is a meteor coming down and blowing the entire congress straight to hell. I'm that sick of the joke that is the current budget "cutting" battle.

(disclaimer: that's death by act of God, not assassination. Nothing will be solved by trying to kill our elected representatives.)

First, let me get the bitching about Democrats and liberals reacting to the "immoral" "drastic" "cuts" that the Republicans are proposing. A specific example is this list that MoveOn(left).org shot out, whining how it was going to cut [government] jobs and throw veterans on the street and shit. I've also heard the old arguments about how Republicans want dirty air and water.

Anyone who is saying this with a straight face is a fucking whiny moron. We could fund everything and still cut the budget if we just seriously trimmed where money was being downright wasted and services were duplicated. The GOP budget may cut some specifics (like the profitable Planned Parenthood subsidies), but when the Democrats are coming up with a paltry $6 billion in cuts (when the deficit is in the TRILLIONS), I can't take this whining seriously.

Now as for the GOP, they can't even get a set of cuts that are over the $100 billion mark. Again, we're looking at TRILLIONS in debt, so we're easily in cuts under 10% of our deficit. And this is before they start negotiating. If you're going to cut shit, really cut shit. That way, when you negotiate a middle ground, you might take an actual chunk out of the budget, rather than having to negotiate down to something akin to a 1% cut in the current budget year (my prediction).

And BOTH parties need to knock off the fuzzy math shit. Cutting the amount Obama was planning to increase the budget does not equal actuall cutting a budget. This is baseline budgeting bullshit. That's where you budget a 6% increase, decide to only increase 2% and call that a 4% cut. That's not a cut. That's bullshit. And both parties are using it to claim they are budget cutters, even though the most lofty budget numbers never reach even a 10% cut.

Is this what the Tea Party intended to elect?

I think a big ol' "No Fucking Way!!!!!!!11!!!!1!!" would be appropriate.

The fact is that right now, both parties (with a few exceptions) are covering their assess with the usual rhetoric, cutting only where it won't hurt their chances for reelection and trying to secure as much of the pie for their own use as possible (thus the desire above to see DC reduced to a crater with their entrails lining it).

The only option we have right now is to get serious about cutting things. That means cutting programs, all welfare (both corporate and personal), and even a few departments (like the useless Departmentt of Education). That also means cutting budgets for EVERYTHING ELSE.

For those who want to bring up a whiny "Whaaat abooouuut (x)? You don't want to cut that to please your (y) masters, do you?", all I can say is yes, I'm in favor of cutting the budget there. And don't sound so whiny.

The fact is that even in functions of the government that must be funded (defense, for example), we can find assloads of waste that could be cut even while fully funding new weapons and technologies. And half the things that the feds are doing really need to be moved to the state level, or even more locally. That includes welfare programs and education.

We're not about to grow out of this debt, which we have, thanks to spendthrift idiots on both sides of the aisle over the last decade, exploded from a manageable little problem caused by the obsessive progressive expansion of all levels of government over the past 100 years to an out-out-of-control situation that makes the mess in Greece look like a chump change situation. We could OWN that country with the amount of money we've racked up in debt.

Consider that George W Bush and the GOP racked up record deficits in his first 6 years. Then the Democrats took over Congress, and those deficits got worse. Then Obama took over and those numbers quadrupled.

So here's the challenge: What shouldn't we cut, and why? Because everybody can point out something that should be cut. I dare you to defend your sacred cow right now. I have steak on the menu.

The 2011 CPAC Straw Poll (and Why the GOP is Boned)

2011-02-13T00:07:00.000-05:00

First of all, here's the pdf with the results. I couldn't find a list worth a tinker's damn to paste. The only one I found worthwhile omitted my preferred candidate so far, so screw the bastard that posted it.

Here we go:

Ron Paul - 30% - No surprise here. If people were elected by getting a passel of nutjobs together to create false results, Ron Paul would already be President and we'd seriously be boned (more on that in the next post). There's probably no one on this list that is better domestically and worse in foreign policy. And you'd have a better chance electing a toaster oven. On my list of people that would make me consider re-electing Obama.

Mitt Romney - 23% - RINO! This is what you get when you take someone with no spine, no hard positions, and a great hairdo and talking points. Like voting for four years of Russian roulette, except without the fun head wounds, because he makes Bill Clinton look stalwart on political positions. Essentially McCain without the senility, it would have me scrambling to find a good third party candidate.

Gary Johnson - 6% - Former governor of New Mexico. I don't know a lot about him, and he's not big to the scene yet. However, on the domestic front, I think he'd do just about as good as Ron Paul. I reserve judgment on him until I hear if he's going to follow in Ron Paul's isolationist footsteps before I give him the thumbs up. Plus, the whole marijuana legalization thing will kill him politically, even if he is right.

Chris Christie - 6% - Since he's said he's not running, this is more of a popularity contest vote. I don't know his ideas on foreign relations, but based on what I know, I'd love to see him eating Obama's ass in a debate.

Newt Gingrich - 5% - On some things, Newt is right on the money. On others, he needs his head examined. Newt is great for churning out policy wonkery, but I think he'd do some really stupid consensus shit if he did get to the White House. And we don't need consensus with the establishment GOP and the Democrats. We had that shit in 2008.

Tim Pawlenty - 4% - Another candidate I don't know a lot about, I have a sense he's a party-line Republican. also note he has no problem raising taxes on things he wants to punish. Bad form, bad candidate.

Mitch Daniels - 4% - Seems to pave a middle-of-the-road approach next door in Indiana. But he had no problem raising taxes. That's enough for me to say bye.

Sarah Palin - 4% - Ah, sweet Sarah. The more I hear her sound bite speeches, the more I'm convinced running her is suicide. Although more conservative than the idiot (John McCain) who brought her to the national stage, there were always some questions I had about her conservatism. Plus, Obama would eat her ass in a debate. Easily. So I don't think Tina Fey has to worry about whether she'll have a gig mocking President Palin.

Herman Cain - 2% - My pick. I don't agree with everything, but I do agree with him on what matters. Now I think he's a long shot at best, but I'm with him until he's out. Plus, he'll make things a whole lot more interesting and would also eat Obama's ass in a debate.

Mike Huckabee - 2% - (Obscenities follow) Fuck fucking Huck-a-Duck. He's the reason we got stuck with McCain instead of Romney. And we might not have had either if Romney had lost in 2008. Plus, he's half and half on most issues. So no fucking way. The only thing that keeps him above making me want to vote Obama is his support for the FairTax.

Rick Santorum - 2% - Social Conservative. As in he'd run on abortion, gay marriage, creationism, etc. And he says America "belongs to God." No, and if it does, I've got a deity's ass to eat in a debate. A great candidate if the GOP wants to return to minority status.

John Thune- 2% - Not as bad as Rick Santorum. Also not as exciting as a toaster oven.

Jon Huntsman - 1% - I had to look him up. Wikipedia says RINO, more or less. There are RINO's who people have actually heard of to lose, so why am I bothering?

Haley Barbour - 1% - GOP rank-and-filer from the Deep South. Meh.

So that's the list. Note that the big numbers fall for two terrible candidates. One that's an unelectable isolationist who always wins popularity contests for the most rabid supporters (Paul), and the most milquetoast RINO/political chameleon of the lot. I only see a couple good candidates, one of which is not running, and a few ok candidates.

But if this is the kind of field that's the GOP will be fielding as we come to 2012, we're boned.

A Free Egypt or Death by Democracy

2011-02-11T19:32:00.000-05:00

I've been following the developments of the popular uprising in Egypt for the past few weeks with a mix of satisfaction and trepidation.

The satisfaction comes, of course with the idea that people can rise up and throw off oppression by a "popularly elected" dictator without resorting to widespread violence. These are the results when the ideas of freedom that America has championed for years spread to populations And this base of knowledge has become increasingly accessible to the world through the global means of communication (which is why oppressive regimes keep the Internet locked down). So a part of me found hope in the idea of another free country in the middle east.

However, trepidation has been the watchword as this has developed, as there was always the concern that violence would erupt, or the government would get all repressive and start killing people in the streets. The worst they did was try to black out the Internet and cell communication.

I've also had trepidation about the people pushing the drive to democracy (more on that in a bit). Foremost in this regard among the anti-Mubarak factions is the Muslim Brotherhood. For clarification, this is a group that has all the philosophical agreement with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas (who is a spinoff of the MB), and would likely give Osama Bin Laden a hand job if they could pry him away from his favorite fuck goat. In other words, the kind of people that would have no problem using the Egyptian army to start a war with Israel, close off the Suez Canal, and threaten any peace that exists in the Middle East (which is, at best, a powder keg in a big ring of fire during the dry season).

The tipping point was today, when Hosni Mubarak finally stepped down. Naturally, the crowds outside leapt into celebration mode, from people yearning for freedom to the MB declaring victory. However, while Mubarak is out, the military took control of the country. What that portends I don't know yet.

But the biggest and certainly most foolish thing I have heard today is the celebration of Egypt moving toward democracy. To put it bluntly, pure democracy in Egypt would simply be a prelude to all-out war in the region. And it could become the war that spirals into a third world war.

And here's why: Democracy, the kind where the ultimate rule is that of the majority, is the killer of freedom. After all, if a majority of people voted to enslave a minority, under democracy, you have slavery. Or fundamentalist Christianity. Or a ban on potato chips and hot wings. Or an oppressive, America hating, woman torturing, child brainwashing, barbarous murderous state.

So I'm all for a more representative government in Egypt. But they must remember the lessons of history, and what happens when you give those eager to exercise power over others a free hand to make things "right." Ask those who saw Soviet tyranny, the slaugher in China and the smaller countries of the Far East, and even that enlightened repressive hellhole Iran, which had a "popular" revolution to overthrow a hated dictator.

Democracy should not be the aim of those who wish to see freedom in Egypt. Freedom itself should be the aim. And freedom is found not in the rule of man, which is inherently capricious and self-serving, but in the rule of law, which governs the passions and limits the unfettered exercise of power.

To quote Abigail Adams (wife of 2nd President John Adams, and possibly one of the wisest women of her time) as she corresponded with her husband on the form of government for the future United States: "I am more and more convinced that man is a dangerous creature, and that power whether vested in many or few is ever grasping...."

So the question that must be asked in seeing the end of the Egyptian dictatorship is simple: Have the Egyptians (and the free world to a lesser extent) traded one tyrant we knew and could trust to a point for many tyrants that will make them wish for the days of an autocrat (and us an ally in peace)?

Only the people of Egypt can answer that, and only by not trusting those who seek to fill the vacuum of power.

The Re-Condification Committee

2011-02-10T13:13:00.000-05:00

I was going through my usual morning preparations and thinking about congressional committees. Other than the need to hold hearings and give speeches, these organizational groups have a specific purpose in general: to create laws and regulations on which Congress must then vote.

Furthermore, unlike the Executive branch, which was designed to function as a governor, an administration arm, and leadership on things of national interest; and the Judicial branch, which holds the power to strike down laws that violate the limits of the Constitution; the Legislative branch has a primary function of passing laws. Their success is measured by what laws they pass, and what they bring home to their constituents in the way of pork, and by doing things for the folks back home.

As for the laws, they've been adding to them for almost 225 years.

Even the venerated School House Rock inadvertently sells the idea that is the problem here:

The specific reference is at :48: "Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local congressman and he said 'you're right; there ought to be a law.'"

Now I know, that's the way it's supposed to work. But when the laws keep mounting up, and then don't get repealed, and get upheld in the courts, and continue to expand the size and scope of the government, and then end up becoming antiquated; it leaves us with a massive number of laws by which we can run afoul of the federal government, especially if it involves a bureaucracy that is created, or a politically-motivated witch hunt, or a ruling by activist judicial fiat.

This gave me the fermentings of an idea on par with the idea of the Tenth Amendment Commission, which has the explicit purpose of working to eliminate laws, regulations, and agencies that clearly exceed the original intent of the Constitution (which is a whole other topic).

The second inspiration, and the impetus to get the blog post rolling, was this report from Heritage entitled:
Rolling Back Red Tape: 20 Regulations to Eliminate. Once you get past Obamacare (entries 1-3), Dodd-frank and the Durbin Amendment (4-6), a few other things passed in the last few years, and some regulations handed down by unelected bureaucracies, and the source of the whole housing bubble, the Community Reinvestment Act, you come to; 18. FCC Merger Review Authority.

The key word in this one is "redundant." As in the law might have served a purpose, but primarily it serves to make sure that competition is maintained, which is what the FTC does already under antitrust laws, which are much clearer and less fraught with political control of the media (which should be a no-no under one of those pesky Amendments). And that, in essence, is what my idea is about: Eliminating the redundancy, doublespeak, and patchwork nature of the thousand layers of laws made over centuries.

And that's why we need a Senate Re-codification Committee.

Now I say it should be a Senate committee for a specific reason. This is not a committee that will be creating new laws for the most part. Their job will be to re-write the entire United States Code. As in every law in this country. The Senate, as the "deliberative body," is best equipped to handle the task, as there would be much more continuity over the years of this gargantuan project.

Some ground rules:

The committee will take one section at a time, looking for things such as redundancy, lack of clarity, and irrelevance. They will also consider things that are wholly a political insertion that serve no actual purpose.
Any provision of the law that cannot be agreed upon (due to controversy) must be left as written. This would require a 3/4 agreement on any changes in the committee.
The actual bill language will be divided into two (or possibly three) sections.
The first Section will begin with language along the lines of "Sections x through y (with specific sections inserted) shall be wholly replaced with the following:". The purpose of this is to avoid the patchwork nature of most bills in changing pieces of language, and to help make sure the contents are clear.
The second Section will detail those laws that, due to the rewrite, will be eliminated, in detail, and why they are being eliminated.
The third section, if necessary, will indicate any new law that is contained as a result of the rewrite. Any new law should be based on the need to clarify something that has been settled in courts, or due to shaky language that already existed. The specific goal, of course, is to reduce the number of laws, but one new law may be necessary to replace two unwieldy ones.
The bill will be brought up under special rules to minimize any debate or amendment, as that would be specifically counterproductive.

Now to be clear, this is to be a true bipartisan effort. And it's not for showboating, scoring points, or getting shit for the folks back home. That's the tendency we've been under since the country was formed. And to get the monolith of government under control, this would be a simple (in theory, as it'll be a bitch in practice) way to begin paring away the layers of government that have collected like cobwebs on the periphery of American life.

And any senator that would embrace this and follow the spirit of the committee, regardless of party, would deserve support, and probably re-election.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Glorious accolades (for my ridiculously swollen ego)?

Why Republicans were Elected (a Budget Post)

2011-02-09T12:15:00.000-05:00

I've been watching the last week as the GOP (elected with the promise of cutting $100 billion from the budget to offset the trillion dollar deficits(hello, trillion with a T) has been unveiling their budget plans. Aside from their first step in repealing the budget-raping obscenity known as Obamacare (H.R. 2), and their continuing need to forget they were elected on economic issues by firing off a bill about abortion (H.R. 3), which is why I went with the above title.

The net result of the budget work out of the Republican run House Appropriations Committee is a measly $35 billion.

You have got to be shitting in my ears.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should give up or that I'm ready to chuck their dumb asses and let the Dems go on another spending orgy (not that the GOP was the model of budgetary restraint last time they had the unfettered reigns). But when you're well under 1/2% of the total deficit, it looks like you're not even trying.

To contrast this, Senator Rand Paul came out with his own proposal. Now I don't know for certain if this is The Answer! to our budget mess (for all you Paulistas, this shit will have to get past Democrats to pass, so expect some compromise), but it's definitely a clear step in the right direction, as it proposes $500 billion in cuts. This is the kind of cutting that will lead to surpluses once the economy can get going again.

So this goes out to all Republican and fiscally conservative Democrat Congressmen (Especially my rep, RSC Chairman Jim Jordan): You need to stop the budget jerking and make some substantive cuts. Even if the Democrats in the Senate and/or President Obama vetoes the shit. Just keep sending the shrunken spending bills. At this point, it's time to let them become the party of "No to Fiscal Responsibility." And when they claim that cutting government will hurt the economic recovery (they've already begun this), laugh at the joke. Literally. Big fake laughs.

Because in the end, both parties have their hands dirty in the process of running our country into the financial ground. And it's time to put on the brakes.

Why Herman Cain Needs to Run (Instead of Sarah Palin)

2011-01-28T11:53:00.000-05:00

Ok, point of honesty, I'm mainly including Sarah Palin because it's a surefire way to stir up the shit, on both sides. But I will be mentioning why #CitizenCain (@THEHermanCain on Twitter) would be a better choice to put up against Obamamania that sweet Sarah (although i would consider voting for her nonetheless). So let's get to it, as I have even more important things to write.

First of all, for those of you who don't know, here's the 1-paragraph back story on Herman Cain (from Wikipedia):

Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American newspaper columnist, businessman, politician, and radio talk-show host from Georgia. He is best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Cain's newspaper column is distributed by North Star Writers Group. He currently lives in the Atlanta suburbs.

He does now have his Presidential Exploratory Committee started, although he has not formally thrown his hat in the ring (as doing so would put him out of work, as he is a radio talk host).

I know I've talked about him as a candidate before (this old link is the best story on him), but with the exploration committee up, his candidacy is more of a reality now. So, to the exclusion of all other candidates, I have my pick for the 2012 race.

And then, I came across this article, "Top Ten Reasons to Support Herman Cain for President." In short (to tease you into reading the article), they are as follow:

10. The "race card"
9. Been there, done that
8. Not forgettable
7. Will break every rule set for him by "strategists"
6. Will really get under the skin of the Washingtonian class
5. Will not get in way of the 2010 Congress' momentum
4. Never held office before
3. Ann Coulter's second-favorite pick
2. Will not be cowed by the new speech police
1. It opens the door to a ticket of Cain and Haley Barbour in some order.

I can't argue with a single point on this list, and I wholeheartedly agree with most.

Now, since I promised contrasting Herman and Sarah:

There are two reasons that I want Herman Cain to run and NOT have Sarah Palin run.

First, Sarah Palin lacks the polish of Herman Cain. If you've heard Herman speak, it's clear, articulate, and full of passion, with a refreshing use of homespun phrasing and a hint of ebonics. Sarah, on the other hand, has too much of a tendency to rely on the homespun phrases, sound bites, and comes off less intelligent than she really is far too often (when I agree and cringe, it's a good example). And that leads us to our second reason.

The second reason is similar. In this case, it's more of public perception. Herman Cain is, outside of the Tea Party circles and his listeners in Atlanta, largely unknown. And therefore, he has the ability to define himself as he moves through the process of becoming a candidate. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is partially defined by Tina Fey. In other words, she is, to a degree, damaged goods outside of Tea party circles. For her, the effort is going to be rebuilding her image. And I don't think she has the ability to do it, at least not by 2012.

So I have my choice come the primaries. I'll reevaluate if the Hermanator decides to bow out, or as the slate of candidates solidifies, Cain shows up in the "not fucking likely" bracket.

The State of the Union Letdown

2011-01-26T13:49:00.001-05:00

After pasting my tweets for a post last night, I hung up my blogger keyboard and settled in rather rapidly, leaving Rep Paul Ryan to drone on intelligently but boringly (which is the norm for the response). So as I start this, I have 2 1/2 hours to get this done before lunchtime (and the inevitable media of Rush). Luckily, I have lots of links and things to share.

First of all, if you took the wise choice and rock cable or Netflix or something entertaining (like test patters), here's the text of the address and the GOP response. Obviously, I'm going to talk about the former. And if those aren't enough to readh, here's Rep Michele Bachmann's Tea Party response. And even better, the man I want to see replace Barack Obama in two years, Herman Cain, put out a very short response.

First, let's get some statistics out of the way:

Applause and Standing O's (via ABC News, as I gave up). One thing to note is that the applause and standing O's were more muted than in prior years. Partly, this was because of the whole State Date idea, Democrats and Republicans sitting together rather than the traditional seating by party It also helped not having Nancy "Pogo" Pelosi bouncing up after every sentence:
President is interrupted by applause: 79
Bi-Partisan applause: 45
Total Standing Ovations: 25
Bi-Partisan Standing O’s:16
Laughs: 4

Our "democracy" - Dropped the dirty D twice, inaccurately as always. Let me restate this, because it cannot be restated enough: WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! NEVER HAVE BEEN! IF WE BECOME A DEMOCRACY, THIS FREE COUNTRY WILL DIE BY IDIOT MOB RULE!

Blaming Bush - I only counted 3 shots across that bow. Only one merits a real response, below.

There were several fun tweets from the House floor (from USA Today): Their count is 8. Mostly "FGI" tweeter (love that tweet) Rep Keith Ellison. By my favorite, from Rep Jeff Miller, was : "Want to simplify the tax code? How about the Fair Tax?" in response to Obama's call to simplify the tax code.

Also, from the above article, lots of the "State Dates" where Democrat and Republican congressmen sat together. Bucket of meh on that one.

Significance was given to Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was conspicuously absent. The President spoke on her in the beginning, Congressmen were all wearing black and white ribbons in solidarity, and a seat was left open for her.

Also conspicuous by their absence, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (cabinet member sequestered in case of disaster, as well as SCOTUS justices Alito (due to a speaking engagement, Thomas, and Scalia. After last year's lecture, I'm surprised the other six showed up.

Ok, bored with the stats. And due to the fact that I work, it's noon (yeah, the above was written over a 2 1/2-hour period, which explains the lack of posts from me on a regular basis). Let's see if I can crunch out an analysis really fast (as I reach over to mute Rush so I don't get interrupted in thought):

Several things jumped out in the speech. First was this line:

Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known [thanks to Bush], the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again. But we have never measured progress by these yardsticks alone. We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children. [emphasis added]

Uh, I think he forgot about the sucktastic jobs figures. Where he's failed to deliver anything despite assloads of stimulus spending on road projects and signs touting them (the pic at the left is for the "stimulus" project around Lake Loramie State Park (FGI), essentially a tiny mudhole for fishing compared to things that matter (although I like its quaintness, personally)).

Then came the calls for spending. On education (in government schools, which continue to suck (overall) even after both the monolithic No Child Left Behind and the new monolitic Race to the Top programs. On infrastructure as a jobs creator, even though this is both simply a New Deal-style make-work project, and NOT a job creator. And on renewable energy, which has been a budget drain with little measurable results.

This last one led to the biggest pipe dream statement of the whole speech: "With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015." Yah, right. Not that it's a bad idea. It's just that it won't happen.until people can buy good electric cars cheap. And we're not there yet.

Then came the point where we approached lying and bullshit: Reducing the debt.

First of all, Obama blames out of control spending that began nearly 10 years ago (thanks to Bush, of course). Fair enough. But, as bad as that was, Obama quadrupled down on that during his first two years, compared to the 8 (with two active combat theaters opened up to boot) under Bush. Now the fault lies on both sides of the aisle here, but it is patent disingenuousness to decry overspending when you are the worst offender of the lot.

Then there was the whole bit on reforming and simplifying the tax code. Liked that part. Especially the idea that reducing corporate taxes and cutting out loopholes for specific businesses. It's somethign that comes right out of the conservative playbook. But if I may reiterate a suggestion I, and Rep Jeff Miller, tweeted last night:

The FairTax, you fools!!!!!!!11!!!1! !

Of course, the idea that lowering taxes will spur economic growth didn't mean Obama wasn't going to take a swipe at the filthy, evil, disgusting, mangy, diseased, pus-ridden "rich." Never mind that many of the "rich" are small business owners, the very group that he wants to create the jobs that his Newest-Newer-Newish-New-New Deal make-work infrastructure projects won't create.

Now if I were the GOP, I'd immediately seize on what he proposed in tax cuts last night and have a bill on the way to the Senate before Feburary. And dare Harry Reid and the Democrats to kill it. And dare Obama to veto the bastard.

Then there's the whole Obamacare myth. I won't go into the myriad of mistakes of Obamacare (which cannot be "fixed" only repealed). But he continues to rely on the CBO numbers, which could not take into account environmental factors, or spending cuts to Medicare (that got immediately erased in companion legislation), or market forces that would affect the price. So he continued using the fallacious claim that Obamacare would cut the budget, and that repeal would mean increasing the budget. I'm saying flat out he's lying his ass off knowing the facts on this. It would have been easy to defend Joe Wilson if he decided to repeat his performance and shout "You Lie!" during that crap.

Now I'm leaving some stuff out, but that's because much of this speech was written specifically to play to independent and conservative-leaning people (who listen to "just words" and ignore actions). Because it was a middle-of-the-road speech. It's the speech you give when the voters look at your first two years of achievements and knock your party's collective dick in the dirt.

Now if Obama gets in the bipartisan spirit and carries out half the conservative themes he hit on, then we might actually make some progress over the next two years (and consequently see a 2-term Obama).

However, I seriously doubt it. As in Carter-style doubt it.

(ok, done writing, can turn Rush on now...)

#SOTU Tweet Roundup

2011-01-25T22:31:00.000-05:00

For those of you who don't read my Twitter feed as part of your tweeting routine, ore even the feed on the lefthand side, here's the tweets I shot out as I was watching the "fun' of the address. This is also so I can take time to get my proper post sorted out (as well as decompress from the suck):

Ah, the excerpts from the Screw Over The Union speech have hit the Internet like shit on a teflon wall. Someone has to clean that shit up.

RT @TheOnion: If you have an HDTV, we recommend going to 'Menu' and lowering your set's 'Saturation' values 15% to compensate for Boehner

@wilw There is no TV setting that will work for Boehner, Biden, and Obama. Maybe B&W, maybe sepia.

RT @cwhiatt: Wonders what the hell "reforming our government" means.

Simplify the tax code, Mr President? I think you might need to look at the Fairtax.

There is no compromise on Obamacare. There is only repeal.

RT @jamiedupree: From the House floor, Rep Jeff Miller R-FL: "Want to simplify the tax code? How about the Fair Tax?"

If I didn't want to waste ink and paper, I'd print out the SOTU address and wipe my ass with it.

RT @Heritage: RT @cullystimson: #SOTU: I thought it was OUR government. BHO keeps saying "we should give" as if the govt owns the power....

Why does the #SOTU camera keep ending up on McCain? I still blame the bastard for Obama. Why not upcoming Reps like @Jim_Jordan?

An hour of #SOTU shit and I'm ready to decompress with something completely different. At least for a few minutes. but blogging comes first

Yay, the GOP response from Rep paul Ryan. Will probably fall asleep and read it later: http://digs.by/grDDvq

Ok, enoufh #SOTU tweets, can make this a post on my blog anyway. It's cut, paste and publish. Damn, I'm lazy... http://digs.by/ccCfRd

The Glorious Post-Midterm Pre-SOTU Post

2011-01-25T12:49:00.001-05:00

Ah, we've come to another State of the Union Address. Leave it to the modern USA to take a Constitutional requirement for the POTUS to submit a report to Congress nce a year on the state of the country, and turn it into a goofalicious circus full of politics and bullshit.

So I'm going to treat it with the same irreverence it deserves.

Mainly, this is because President Obama will fire out his talking points (which will sound very much like the soaring speeches he belted out on the campaign trail (and then mostly ignored the contents thereof)), the GOP will fire off a not-so-exciting response, and we'll get treated to a show and learn almost nothing other than pointless minutia. So taunting and teasing is almost required.

So here's my list of things I'll be watching for (to keep wake while Obama emotes on):

The Count of applause points and standing O's (because these O's, like in porn, are faked).
Congressmen caught sleeping (or listening in Snooze-O-Vision).
Congressmen caught tweeting (or playing with something in their lap (go there if you must)).
TOTUS malfunctions, at which the um counter will activate.
Status of the pogo stick in Nancy Pelosi's ass (as she won't be seated behind Obama and bouncing up after every sentence.
Pissed-off Republicans mouthing bad things.

And as an added bonus I'll also enumerate the number of times PrezBO drops the following:

The word "Jobs" (from which will come drinking games).
The personal pronoun "I" and variants, as Obama uses it like I use obscenities and shit. And ass.
Blaming Bush (when he is responsible or continuing Bush policies).
Verifiable falsehoods (And I'll document the big'n's).

And in the end, I may say something cogent. Assuming I make it through without falling asleep.

And if I missed anything I should include in the list above, there's still 8 hours to go and I'll check my comments just before.

Back to Work

2011-01-20T10:40:00.000-05:00

As I was getting geared up after a long weekend (and school cancellations, bitch headaches, etc.), the GOP-dominated House of Representatives has begun its actual work. After the first week of ceremonial circle jerks and the second week dealing with the tragedy of the shooting in Tucson, the GOP returned to Washington and passed the aptly-named "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" yesterday, with unanimous GOP support and 3 Democrats along for the ride.

While it is more of a symbolic vote than practical (as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been declaring it dead since the GOP first mentioned it), it was a step in the right direction. Other business included laying groundwork for cutting the size of government. More to come as I don't have details yet.

The Democrats, specifically Democrat Rep. Steve Cohen, shooting for that more civil tone that liberals were screaming for last week, decried GOP rhetoric concerning Obamacare akin to Nazi propaganda against the Jews.

Yeah that lasted all of not at all. In hindsight, when the Dems were bitching about the name of the Obamacare repeal bill, the GOP should have at least suggested changing it to the "Repealing the Health Care Law That Treats Jobs Like Gabby Giffords at a Safeway Act." A little incendiary, yes, but you get the point.

Ok, obviously not all of you get it, based on people still carrying on the "right wing hate radio and the tea party kills people" meme. If you want to incite violence, you find a nut and tell him to kill. You don't make speeches with heated rhetoric and expect the nutjobs to figure it out themselves. Figure it out and stop deflecting blame onto people you disagree with. It proves you can't win on the merits of your argument.

Of course, The GOP's next DOA bill is to dick around with the damned abortion issue. Because it's just not a GOP Congress if you're ignoring the problem facing all of us (the incessant growth of the Imperial Federal Government) to dick with the damned social issues (where you want government to grow for some damned reason) again. Seriously?

In case you missed it, the Tea Party was not about abortion. There were people from the pro-choice and pro-life camps in there. The whole point is to shrink the size of the federal government. Do that first. If you must, throw the pro-lifers a bone later on, when you are slashing and burning loads of spending, then you can cut federal abortion funding (which I have no objections to cutting, personally). But to make it a centerpiece bill? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

It's still early, and we have yet to have the budget showdown with the White House though. Until then, I reserve my judgment on the GOP's resolve.

As for Obama (the 2009 Nobel Attendance Award "winner"), he's showing his commitment to "peace" and with fellow Nobel Attendance Award winners by holding a state dinner for the jailer of the 2010 recipient. And our national lender. Here's a clip:

Which Democrat Should We (Indirectly) Order Be Shot Next?

2011-01-12T10:14:00.001-05:00

[IMMEDIATE DISCLAIMER: The title of this post is intentionally provocative and is not meant to be taken literally. I do not favor or endorse shooting any politician, period.]

The reason I've gone with the above title is twofold. First, it's based on the meme that some fools on the left continue to perpetuate: The level of rancor in political discourse (specifically from the right) is unprecedented and is the reason that people are getting shot. And second, I know it will elicit some comment from some idiot who will read the title and respond to that, not even reading the disclaimer or paragraph; it makes me giggle a bit thinking abut the stupidity.

Obviously we're going to talk about the first reason (as the second is self explanatory and every other subject is tabled in Washington).

First, let's put the things on the table we agree on, or have clear facts:

The murderer is a kookburger, with no clearly defined ideology. While he lists left-leaning books as his favorites, he's mostly a set of disjointed paranoia and delusion, which has been festering a while.

We are all hoping and praying for a recovery for Rep Giffords and the other still-living victims of the shooting. And for Giffords, the news is good so far.

The bipartisan support for a funeral protection zone to keep the Phelps freaks out is a good thing. Because turning a tragedy into an idiotic reason to ram home a political agenda is a bad thing.

Wait, we don't all agree on that last point. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been hearing, before the bodies of the victims were cold, that it must have been Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, talk radio, the Tea Party Movement, and so on (which I guess would include me), that led to this shooting. And the fact that this is still being debated days later is appalling.

To build on what i said on my Saturday post, in the wake of the shooting (and began reading the shit coming from some parts of the Left):

WE SHOULD BE BETTER THAN THIS!

Winging Politicians and The Left-Wing Blame Game

2011-01-10T15:52:00.000-05:00

Let's start with the statistics from Saturday's brutal attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and others, as this is the most important thing to keep in mind:

Rep Giffords is still severely injured, but is has as positive an outlook as can be inspected. She was one of 20 people shot. Among the 6 dead are Judge John Roll, as well as a 9-year-old girl, , who was born on 9/11/2001. President Obama ordered flags to half-staff and held a moment of silence at 11am today. Congress has tabled this week's planned legislative slate to deal with the tragedy. And people on the left and right have come together on this attack on Americans and America.

If there was any "good' news that has emerged since the dust settled and we got the body count from the attack in Tucson, it would be that the murderous piece of shit, Jared Lee Loughner, appears to be sincerely nuts. As in put him in a rubber room for a couple decades nuts. As in tinfoil hat-wearing rambling insanity nuts. So I hope that if he's truly mentally ill, they put him away for a long time, maybe with a bit of shock therapy, and if not, may there be some sweet police brutality, followed by some good sweet jailhouse luuuuuuuv.

Which means the "good" news is that he wasn't a defined right-wing nutjob. And that, as my last post highlighted, was what I feared.

However, that didn't stop some people on the left from blaming Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, and all of the "hate speech" on the right for this nutscrew opening fire.

Some specific examples of this (source for italics):

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz warns that while "we cannot allow incidences like this intimidate" we still must remember that "words matter."

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik used a nationally televised press conference to condemn the tone of political discourse in his state. He charged that public debate is now "vitriolic rhetoric," which has rendered Arizona "the mecca for prejudice and bigotry." Dupnik suggested that such rhetoric can have deadly consequences.

Then there's the American Traitor Bitch, Hanoi Jane Fond, who tweeted this bullshit:
Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site. Inciting to violence.

And followed that with more bullshit:

@glenbeck guilty too. Shame. It must stop!
And:
Violence against 1 woman is violence against every woman. So let all women commit 2 stopping this radical violence. NOW #VAW #tucsonshooting
And:
It isn't enough that Palin just removed the map of Giffords district with gun crosshairs off her website. She holds responsibility
And:
@SarahPalinUSA holds responsibility. As does the violence-provoking rhetoric of the Tea Party
And:
Here's the danger: once a society starts killing its politicians and judges, only the corrupt and brutal can or are willing to rule.

The upshot of all this, and the Daily Kos kooks rambling senselessly, and some of my lib blogger buddies on Facebook venting mindlessly (who just dropped in my opinion of them), and others on my Twitter feed retweeting crap (although I can credit, not all the libs I follow jumped on this idiot bandwagon), is that it's all the right-wing "hate" rhetoric that drives these nutjobs to start killing. This despite the lack of evidence. In many of these cases, the nutjobs turn out to actually like cuddling up to the Communist Manifesto (or at least keeping it in their library next to their copy of Helter Skelter and Catcher in the Rye). Which, applying the blithering lack of logic that I've been hearing from the moonbats of the Left, means that they are to blame, since they churn out just as much "hateful' vitriol....

No. The fact is that nutjobs are nutjobs. Whatever they hear, they have to transform into insanity. And we can't start sacrificing our freedom of speech when 99.9999999999999999999% of the people aren't going to hear it and decide to fucking shoot somebody. So let's drop this dumb-assed idea that we can blame anyone who says anything heated for anything some assblock who isn't following the explicit directions or clear intentions of said person. Because we'd all be guilty as fuck.

So tell me where the line is? Tell me what no one can say? And then, when I give you assloads of examples of the left saying the same kinds of shit, as well as perfect examples of just as heated vitriol directed at the Washington, Adams, and Jefferson administrations (with no resulting attacks, deaths and only one unconstitutional attempt to squash free speech), then you can shove the whole idea that this is unprecedented hate by the Tea Party that caused the tragedy up your ass. Where your head obviously rests.

The fact is, we have always had heated, angry, divisive, and borderline threatening (but not clearly threatening) rhetoric. We have always had one side calling the other side everything but lemony fresh, wishing death, dismemberment, and occasional forays with farm animals. And we have always had a few people, some nuts, some ideological, trying to snuff politicians, and occasionally borrowing from the otherwise sane rhetoric of the day. Nothing about this has really changed in our history, except the names and the specifics.

So, for you cowardly partisan hacks who have to take a tragedy and immediately turn it into a reason to tell us on the right to shut the fuck up because our speech is evil, I dare you spineless fucks to comment. Tell me that anyone's rhetoric (short of explicitly advocating violence (ex: "someone should shoot that bastard")) is inciting violence. I guarantee that if I combed through every angry thing you said, I could find all kinds of "hateful speech" that could "incite violence." I triple-fucking-dog-dare you to display your hypocrisy and zeal for censorship for everyone to ridicule. Bring it!

Because when we start forbidding speech, then ideas aren't far behind. And then comes forbidding people. And boy, can I come up with some juicy examples there....

Representative Gabrielle Giffords

2011-01-08T15:46:00.000-05:00

I was working today, with the radio on, when the reports started filling in that a gunman had opened fire on Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. Being busy with calls, I was limited in the information I received. apparently, the murdering piece of shit struck during her first “Congress on Your Corner” in Tucson AZ. Between 4 and 12 people were shot, including the Rep Giffords herself. There were reports that one of her aides was killed. At some point, it was reported she was dead as well. Thankfully, that proved not to be true. As I write this, we are still waiting final information on her condition, as she is in surgery for a gunshot to the head.

A statement from Speaker Boehner conveys the common sentiment:

“I am horrified by the senseless attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and members of her staff. An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured, and their families. This is a sad day for our country."

I will add that, as the facts began to filter in, I was both horrified and filled with anger. This is not about politics. This is about attacks on the people we have elected to represent us. To justify or give credence to the attack and/or murder of our elected representatives for any reason is unacceptable, and for those of you who may want to make light of it and use it to score political cheap shots in my comment section, be prepared to be deleted.

And I have no mercy for the bastard that did this, no matter the reason. If we're lucky, it will be a delusional madman who needs to be medicated and locked away in a padded room for decades. Or maybe someone who had a personal grudge against the Giffords family for something non-political.

However, it's likely this pile of human debris (who hopefully was injured by the people who jumped him and stopped his murderous rampage) pulled this shit to make some stupid political statement. So I took a look at Rep. Giffords, as I had not heard of her before today. The following are facts, without any political commentary on them.

She is a Democrat, on her third term serving Arizona.

She introduced a bill this week to cut the pay of Congress by 5%.

For the reading of the Constitution earlier this week, she read the First Amendment.

From Wikipedia:

In her inaugural speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, Giffords advocated a comprehensive immigration reform package, including modern technology to secure the border, more border patrol agents, tough employer sanctions for businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and a guest-worker program. In her first month in office, Giffords voted in favor of increased federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, raising the minimum wage, endorsing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, new rules for the House of Representatives targeting ethical issues, and the repeal of $14 billion of subsidies to big oil companies, in favor of renewable energy subsidies and the founding of the Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve.

Also, as she was a victim of a shooting, I checked into her positions on gun rights. Again, from Wikipedia:

Giffords supports gun rights.^[19] She opposed the Washington DC gun ban, signing an Amicus curiae brief with the US Supreme Court to support its overturn. ^[19]^[20] She has a D+ rating from the NRA^[21] and a D- from the GOA.

Suffice it to say, I would probably find myself disagreeing with her politically more than I would agree. But, as I said, this is not about politics.

Now, to clarify . If the gunman wanted to make a statement, he made the wrong one. If he wanted to kill her because she was a liberal nut, he just showed she was sane and reasonable and he was the murderous wingnut. If it was something over the size of government, he only highlighted the extremes and the stupidity of the opposition. If it was over gun rights, he gave the anti-gun people ammunition to ban them. This is the root of my anger. Because if he was a "conservative" (his politics being his excuse and not his justification), he has just hurt the very course he purports to believe in. And he attacks what is good in this country (a congressman meeting with her constituents) in an act of mindless savagery.

We are better than this.

Reading the Constitution (or Porn for the PC Crowd)

2011-01-06T16:36:00.000-05:00

The GOP marked Thursday with a reading of the full Constitution of the United States. Now, this can be viewed as political theater by the GOP (and it is), as well as a big sloppy hand job to the Tea Party (yeah, there's a visual for ya). But it is political theater wit ha purpose, despite what the anti-Constitution scoffers may say.

First of all, let's look at the oath that the 435 members of Congress took yesterday:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. [emphasis added]

That came from the original oath, which was much simpler:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States. [emhasis added, although i really don't need it since it's more than half the oath]

You'll note that both versions of the oath requires supporting the very document that they read today. In full. Unlike all the shit that passed in the past couple years that didn't get read. This is a no-brainer, yet there are people whining about this.

Like this idiot, Ezra Klein (the blather starts around 1:30):

Oh, and skip to 2:05, since Speaker Boehner appears to need to read the Constitution (rather than misattribute his quote).

The fact is that there are far too many people that simply don't know what the Constitution actually says, actually does, and what it was not meant to do. And thanks to the Heritage Foundation (and my ability to READ!!!), I'll go ahead and enlighten.

First of all, there's a good reason the PC pukes decided to rename the Founding Fathers the "Framers" (the bad reason being that they are pukes that can't leave well enough alone): It's because they gave us a framework upon which to build the government, not a government in the box. It was assumed (and specifically referred in the Constitution and Amendments (ex. "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.)) that the Constitution could not do more than provide a general direction, and limits on the unbridled retardation of Man that is democracy. So that's what was created.

Article I defines what the Legislative Branch does (as in, specifically, what it can legislate on), and how it is constituted and elected. Article II does the same for the Executive Branch, and Article III for the Supreme Court (and lesser courts). Article IV establishes the basics of Federal-State and State-State relations, Article V defines the Amendment process, Article VI covers Federal sovereignty, and Article VII covers the ratification of the Constitution.

As for the Amendments, 1-8 address the rights of individual, specifically limiting the power of the government in passing laws restricting certain rights. The Ninth Amendment states that the people may have rights that are not enumerated prior and the Tenth reserves any powers not enumerated to the federal government or prohibited to the states, as reserved for the states or the people (i.e. states' rights). Some other significant ones:
12 - Changes the electoral process for the Presidency to our current system.
13-15, 24 - Outlaws slavery, redefines citizenship, and bars racial discrimination in elections (post-slavery). And a ban on poll taxes, etc, as a condition of voting (civil rights movement).
16 - Lets them tax us. Must be repealed, for FairTax supporters.
17 - Popular election of senators. Effectively, state gave up their voice in Washington.
18 - Banned alcohol, and 21 - corrected that stupid mistake.
19 - Women's suffrage. Biggest mistake we ever made (yeah, I had to...).
20 - Changes the term of office. It meant we didn't have to wait until March to get rid of Nancy.
22 - Term limits for the Prez.
25 - Presidential succession changes.
26 - Establishes age to vote as 18. Subsequent voter apathy means you can vote at 18, go to war at 18, but you can't buy a fucking beer. Go figure.

Now onto a simple point. There was not a complete set of rules. But there was a plan that was specific to limiting the powers and role of the government. And we lost sight of that, starting with the grandfather of big government, Woodrow Wilson, the father of big government, FDR, then continuing with the creepy uncle, LBJ, the retarded brother, Jimmy Carter, the horny son, Bill Clinton and the bastard grandchild, Barack Obama. As well as many other presidents and congressmen and senators and Supreme Court justices over the years, who forgot that the imperative of protecting a free people is to protect them from an ever-expanding government.

And trying to force the monolith that rules from Washington back down into something resembling the house that was built on the frame of the Constitution (which is an appendage of a 5000-car garage at this point), is the only way.

Followup to the Gavel Pass

2011-01-06T10:08:00.000-05:00

In yesterday's post, I opined on Speaker Boehner glonking FORMER Speaker Pelosi in the head with the big honkin' gavel. And late night TV made my dreams come true:

Hope for America (with Imagined Cartoon Violence)

2011-01-05T21:33:00.000-05:00

Let's start with the news of the day. Representative John Bo(eh)ner (of the Great State of Ohio) was formally elected as Speaker of the House. Now, I'm not a fan of Rep Boehner, especially after his record over the Bush years, but he has at least been leaning toward the right course for the past two years. So I'll give him the benefit as long as he keeps the GOP working to undo the damage of the last 20 years (Bush (Sr), Clinton, Bush, and Obama). And primarily, it's because it's either invest hope in the man who will lead the opposition to Obama, or assume he's going to screw us. In that case, we're boned.

But I come back to the pic to the right.

I imagine the new speaker, flush with power, and holding that big honkin' gavel, and giving ol' Nancy pelosi a spectacular cartoon bonk on the head (with appropriate laugh track and tweeting bird halo for the outgoing speaker).

Admit it, if there was a cartoon speech balloon that said, "It's MIIIIIIINNNNNEEEEEE!!!!!!, followed by something that would make Bugs Bunny proud , you'd laugh.

But enough about the political theater. This is about why, even in the darkest hour, I have hope for us all. And two videos to prove it.

First of all, if we were ever worried that things are getting worse, here's a really cool video with cool statistics that show where we're headed as a society, and as a planet:

And even for those of us who hit bottom, there is always hope. If you haven't seen this video (also from the Great State of Ohio), watch and be surprised:

The man in the video, Ted Williams, now has a job. not because of some government program, not because of another tax cut, not because of an Obama stimulus, but because he had a skill that people wanted. And because the Internet can give anyone a chance for success. May he fare well.

The First Post of 2011

2011-01-04T10:53:00.001-05:00

Welcome to the new year! The pic to the right was one I snapped as we stepped outside on January 1. The day was warm, it was sunny, and a light rain was falling. It was a good way to begin the new year.

So I'm kind of treating this post as a new beginning. This is especially since I pretty much crapped out in December, and was lucky to get a post or two a week up. I'm going to shoot for something better starting now (as in at least 2-3 posts). I may, over the next few weeks, also start re-tweaking the site, because, after a few years, I think it's in need of an overhaul.

Speaking of overhauls, the overhaul of Washington has begun. The GOP has already begun this with their (pretty much symbolic) rejection of earmarks, as well as introducing a bill, beautifully entitled as the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." It's 2 pages (although a couple pages reforming health insurance in a good way would be a good addition). Compare that with the 2000 plus pages that made up the Obamacare monstrosity. Alas, it's also a largely symbolic move, as it faces certain death in the Senate, and the White House if it somehow squeaked through the Senate.

The real battle of health care will be fought with funding and regulation. As in the administration will continue to push forward with setting up the monolith of Obamacare, and the GOP in the House hold the purse strings, and can choke off much of the bill's provisions by not funding them. And since the key to fixing the debt disaster is cutting spending, it's a two-fer here.

And then there's the reading of the Constitution. This is symbolism with a purpose. Because the very job description of the 435 Representatives gathered there is contained in Article I, as well as the stated limits on their power. The purpose comes if the GOP follows the Constitution in proposing laws, and more importantly, choosing how they spend the money that comes pouring into Washington.

We've been politically kicked in the teeth enough that I'm not jumping up and down and ready to hand over the reigns to the GOP though.

So this brings us to the plans of the Obama administration. And that, with the GOP cock-blocking his agenda, is to use the power of unelected bureaucrats to continue advancing his agenda. The EPA for environmental things, including cap-and-tax regulation and hawking the religion of MMGWH (that's Man-Made Global Warming Hysteria). The FCC to get control of the Internet (or turn it into an oligopoly with the big ISPs in control). And so on and so forth, with each chunk of the regulatory alphabet soup grabbing some more power and adding to its regulation. I'm sure there will be more examples that I can find (just not now, because I'm feeling lazy (yeah, I can hear the collective (sarcastic) gasp)).

Ok, enough about the politics, back to me:

I'm also finding I'm spending more time producing the weekly 3x2cast than I expected. And we're going to touch on politics there as well (just with less depth) there as well, so come on over. new posts should be going up every Saturday (although last week's post went up just before it was Sunday, and the actual podcast was not done uploading until after that).

So with that, I'm going to close out this first post of 2011 with the hope that we can have some fun discussing some things in a good political off year. And that the country begins its crawl out of the financial and employment crapper.

The Death of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

2010-12-20T14:12:00.000-05:00

Sometimes this week, President Obama will sign the repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy barring openly gay individuals from serving in the military. As I've been listening I've noted that most of the voices I listen to (both on the left and right) are missing the important points on the historical significance of this act.

There have been some fun things to come out of this (let's be honest, gay jokes are still funny). My fav so far is new ranks and existing ranks with new meaning. Not surprisingly, the Navy fares worst with both the Rear Admiral and the perennial failure in nomenclature that is Seamen. I'd look up more, but that means work, and it's too cold to do any work that doesn't involve moving. So let's get back to the point.

First of all, there is no "historical significance" to this act. It is significant to any homosexuals currently serving or considering service, because now they don't have to keep their orientation a closely guarded secret (as opposed to having to hide it intensely prior to DADT). But as for far-reaching consequences, it will be simply that this will be one less thing for the military to wonder about. This is a good thing, because the more time the military has to spend on the personal lives of soldiers, the less effective they will be at blowing up people and shit, which is the primary purpose of our military: Making shit into rubble and people into corpses.

And if anything, not worrying about who soldiers have sex with on their own time is a good step.

Also, I do want to clarify that this was an inevitable step. As in we were going to toss the antiquated rules out the window once the soldiers coming in were more tolerant than the prior generation. So the obsessive fear mongering on some parts of the right about having to cover your ass (in another way) in the trenches is outdated and stupid. After all, we are talking about professional soldiers who can separate between times to use their rifles and using their "guns" (Full Metal Jacket-style).

Now as for those on the left that are hailing this as something akin to integration in the Army. When did skin color and who you choose to fuck become equal? Now to clarify, I'm not talking about orientation, because you're born wired a certain way. Because there is a difference between being a guy attracted to guys (involuntary) and having nuts on your chin (and not in the eating dessert sense). Thankfully, this should no longer be an issue in the United States Armed Forces.

And it shouldn't change the behavior of gay servicemen (and women). While you may no longer have to worry about getting the boot if someone figures out you're batting for the other team, sexually, it doesn't change your purpose, your training, and your mission. So my simple advice (and advice I suspect most will follow) is to keep being who you are, serve your country, and don't make this into a political thing anymore. I really don't care. Most Americans don't as long as you are serving honorably and our military is primed to kick ass.

As for flaming agenda-queers (as opposed to a gay soldier), we don't need you in the military. The military is about honor and duty, not political agendas. So with the exception of Klinger from M.A.S.H., we don't want to see it. Besides, it can't get you thrown out anymore anyway.

So, now that this is passed, and the discussion is over, let's drop the celebration and lament and actually pay attention to stuff that matters a whole lot to the future of America.

Lazy Video Post (Yuletide Friday)

2010-12-17T18:20:00.000-05:00

In my never-ending quest to fail to post anything because, between Christmas (I got my presents wrapped), and work (I got my presents wrapped... wait), and the kids (the reason I got my presents wrapped). I managed to forget to comment on the Christmas present the MOST USELESS CONGRESS EVER gave us: two more years of the current tax rates (mostly) and no massive spending bill (unless the GOP bones us next year). Thankfully, the damage they've inflicted over the last ten years (yeah, I'm counting the 6 years the GOP spent like drunken sailors before the Dems came around and quadrupled down) may finally come to an end.

Yeah, all I want for Christmas is Washington Gridlock.

But for this week's Yuletide Friday, we make with the videos.

First of all, the Barbie my daughter is not getting, but not for the asinine reason laid out in this montage form the Fear Media (after a damned annoying commercial):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The More Pedophiles Know

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Creepy. Now, let's look at something completely different (complete with a post-song ad for something much more worthy). I know I used this a couple weeks ago, but since this is an all-video and content lite post:

And while we're doing Christmas music, let's break out the beauty of flash mobs unleashing random acts of culture:

Well, enjoyed that so much, here's a link to the search that made me have to pick one out of many. The above one is simply the most flash mob-y one I could pick.

Which brings me to some squirrely wrath ((which would have fit with my music post a couple weeks past:

And to cap it off, some Christmas lights and TSO:

And with that, I'll see if I can get enough steam to post some actual political stuff next week.

A Charlie Brown Yuletide Friday (One Day Seriously Removed)

2010-12-11T23:46:00.000-05:00

Shit, it's already Saturday.

I was laid up with a phenomenal headache Thursday, then busy shopping Friday, then trying to edit the latest 3x2cast (which saw my editing software crash a few times). Finally, I squeezed that out.

Then, after a couple hours of vegging out (since I also had to work and I don't have kids this weekend), I finally got down to this.

And this week, I want to visit the symbol of everything that is right about the Charlie Brown Christmas special. Note of history: there are several jumbles of shorts of the Peanuts gang thrown together to make specials, and several of these fall under the Christmas heading. The one I'm talking about, however, is the original, the first special, the one made before all others and before I was born. The one with the crappy production values, the ending cut to remove the original sponsor, and everything that a Christmas special should have. Allow me to enumerate.

First, there's the innocence. he movie is all kids, only kids, voiced by kids. Of course, this makes shit a bit choppy in the dialogue department. However, as I've learned from my own editing, you can make sunshine out of shit. And if there is a way to look at Christmas (again, getting more experience at that), it's through the eyes of children.

Second, there's the idea that the obsession with commercialism drains what makes Christmas Christmas. Not that I don't see the value in the glory of commercialization (especially when we need it to kick the economy in the ass). However, since I got old enough to not obsess over the goodies under the tree (which my kids are beginning to do, FINALLY), it's never been about commercialism. It's been about the spirit the season brings.

Third, there's the speech by Linus. Regardless of your faith, it's best heard, not described:

Then there's the free-range issue. Yeah, I'm dragging that into this as well. Here's kids going out to skate, throw snowballs, dispense psychiatric help (even though Lucy sucks at it), putting on a play, dancing repetitively (it IS rough animation, after all), buying and decorating a Christmas tree, and figuring out the value in someone they generally ridiculed the shit out of for the whole show.

Which brings us to the final lesson. There is an inherent goodness in Man that transcends politics, race, class, age, philosophy, psychology, and the like. And Christmas, above all other holidays, is the personification of this. And in the children that inhabit the world of Peanuts, we see this clearly, and most of all in this special.

So if you missed it (don't know when it's on) and don't have it on DVD or downloaded, get it and watch it. And if you lack the desire or find it a gargantuan meh, then obviously, you suck most supremely.

(Wow, 15 minutes left before Sunday. Got it posted.)

Why I Play Lots of Christmas Music (Yuletide Friday)

2010-12-03T09:04:00.000-05:00

Since I just did a rehash last week to assuage my bit of guilt at not posting, and because I then wussed out on posting some things this week (being a lazy bastard that still has to edit the 3x2cast), I decided to address something that always needs addressing, because it always amazes people, even at Christmas:

Why would you listen to THAT stuff/shit?!?!?! (Half the people that ask wouldn't put the word "shit" in print, so this is a whole sensitivity thing, or something.)

This definitely applies with my Christmas playlist. While my home collection (which is currently at 20 CDs, not counting the Nutcracker and the 2-disc of Handel's Messiah (of which I can sing a goodly portion)) is mostly more classical and choral (the noted exceptions including the Trans-Siberian Orchestra), my list above is an eclectic mix of fun musics, including:

Choral standards. Again, I make with the Messiah, and anything with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir does, as they tend to be loud. And I like loud. And divergent choral parts. And anything that is a challenge to sing.
Standards. There's a reason you see names like Judy Garland, Brenda Lee and the Glenn Miller Orchestra. It's because their music defines eras, styles, and the like. It's like coming home after talking a long walk. And part of Christmas is coming home.
Modern classics. If you know how I feel about A Charlie Brown Christmas, then you know why you can find 3 songs from it in the list above. And others, like Sarah McLaughlin and Mannheim Steamroller, are in the process of defining the current musical era.
ROCK! Yes, I have to semi-yell that. Because between TSO and my other little finds (the Street Drum Corp's rendition of the John Lennon Happy Christmas (War is Over) is a particulary good one), it's proof that even people who thrash can get into the spirit.
The funny and fucked up. Yeah, I have shit from South Park and Weird Al in the list above. Mainly songs that have not been overplayed (no death my reindeer for grandma), because if you can't laugh a little about the holiday, then you're a mopey soulless bastard and will probably snuff yourself over the holidays anyway.
Adam Sandler's Hanukkah Song, and anything that's not necessarily Christmas but holiday-y. Because not all of us rock the tree and such on December 25. But those are few, since it is a Christmas playlist.

But that's what I have. And to answer the above question (*pausing for goosebumps because I'm listening to the playlist as I type and Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring just came on*), the world itself functions on wondrous variety. And it is in that divergence of ideas around one holiday (from the sacred to the profane and all miscellaneous stops in between) that we can best appreciate the joy that the Christmas season brings to so many. So if not every song in the list is to your liking, give it a minute, or at worst, hit the skip button and find out what is next. Because, like the debate over the holiday we have every year (the "War on Christmas") we argue about what should be kept and what should be thrown out. I'm not the type of person to throw it out unless it really sucks.

And in that task, I again ask for suggestions. Just drop a song title and artist, and if I can find it (which is not a 100% guarantee) and it doesn't suck Kenny G's balls (and is in no way Kenny G (who must have his lips removed for the good of music)), then I may just add it.

That's pretty much it. I'm now going to clean up the mess that the kids have made with my decorations. Yeah, we put up the tree last weekend, and I still have buckets of decorations laying about. Go ahead. I'm waiting for the "what a lazy bastard" chorus. It is me, after all.

So to leave you, reach up, pause the playlist, and enjoy another song (nod to @Repsac3 for this one):

The Woods and WikiLeaks

2010-11-29T22:15:00.000-05:00

It's days like this that I wish I was in the woods instead of in front of the computers....

Gun season for deer came in today, and, due to the combination of my finances and those adorable children of mine, I'm not sitting on the side of a hill shivering my ass off, a thermos of coffee and some hand warmers the only sources of heat other than the filtered and weak sunlight of the morning. But as I stepped out this morning, the cold but clear air didn't feel all that cold (despite the fact it was around freezing).

I was watching for deer and deer hunters as I ran to drop the youngest off to the babysitter. I saw a vehicle or two sitting out where a hunter would put it. But that was all. However, even as I drove on, the realization that a primal struggle was begun all over the state of Ohio filled me with both a sense of excitement and loss (primarily my own). Because one constant in hunting is that it's simple, it's clear, and it is very final. In other words, the opposite of the tangle that is our politics and our government.

Which brings me to the Wikileaks mess:

Now what I'm going to say, except where I note specifics, is decidedly non-partisan, as this affects whoever is in control of the White House or Congress. It's specifically about the good and the bad of the government secret machinery.

Now first of all, there are two things I like that the threat to government a site like Wikileaks provides: forcing transparency and the revelation of corruption. For the most part, any government prefers to not have to be held accountable for its actions and statements. Especially when being held accountable would mean losing their position. This is human nature to seek self-preservation. But when you grow a government, you begin to grow its secrets. And keeping everything secret is not a good thing.

One failing we all possess is that, depending on our own morality, we tend to be willing to get away with not doing the right thing when we're not held accountable, whether it may be something as innocuous as discovering you didn't pay for a can of beans at the grocery store and not going back to correct it, or kidnapping, raping killing, raping, and eating children, then violating the leftovers. And politicians are often less lovable than murderous cannibalistic pedophiles (yeah, I might be exaggerating). So the idea of having someone holding the politicians accountable if they're trying to hide shit.

However, we get to the bad and that's where the Wikileaks people cross the line.

The fact is that our government keeps some secrets from the rest of the world because some things in the wrong hands would be hella-bad, and that means keeping them from us as a consequence. Whether that be truly dangerous security shit, like cool uber-bombs of oblivion (you know, the kinds that kill people twice), to military secrets that could risk our troops in the field, to bits of information that our enemies (Islamic terrorists) will use as concrete examples as to why the great infidel the United States must be scrubbed from existence by the fiery truth of Islam (and in exchange for copious afterlife pussy (hmmmmm.... (really, kidding))).

The fact is that sometimes, controlling information is what keeps us safe. Sometimes it separates a victory from a defeat. Sometimes it's key to discovering what the enemy is up to before they even attack (and we end up getting groped or scanned even more by the TSA-holes). And in any case, there's been plenty of precedent where controlling the information at times of importance (as in wars against Islamic terror just as a wholly random example) can be the key to defeating an enemy.

This is probably why both Republicans and the White House are taking aim. Now, whether this is bipartisan recognition of a threat to national security by informational terrorism, or a reaction of the establishment against a crazed whisleblower that's also taken aim at oppressive regimes around the world, I can't say for certain. I will say that anything that gets such bipartisan support (especially from the hardcore is either really good or unfailingly bad. In this case, though, I defer to the fact that organizations I trust see the danger in releasing anything that the Wiki-freaks can get their grubby mitts on.

To be honest, throughout our history of wars and peace, we've justifiably shot people for less.

Merchandising! Merchandising! Merchandising! (Yuletide Friday) repost

2010-11-26T10:54:00.000-05:00

In lieu of actually posting anything today (due to the need to update pages and edit the 3x2cast, I'm just going to pull last year's post and reboot the one and only Yuletide Friday! And if I'm feeling generous, I'll get some new stuff up for the next one.

In lieu of actually writing a whole post, I'm going to dedicate Fridays through Christmas just collecting some Christmas-y fun. Plus the combination of beauty, peace, love, and sadistic humor calls for me to set aside some politics. So, let's begin this Black Friday with an appropriate subject:

Merchandising! Merchandising! Merchandising!

Most of my Black Friday recollections, of course were from behind the counter at 6AM, or whenever the hell we opened the store. Because I was there, running my ass raged selling shit left, right, center, and from various orifici. It's usually a rush for the doorbusters followed by inconsistent flow of people that may or may not buy something.

Personally, my best holiday days for sales were the last few days prior to Christmas, when the sale went this way:

Customer: "I need to buy stuff. Here's my money. Here's my credit card."

*cha ching*

But on the plus, if we all chip in and get out there and buy stuff, we might stimulate the economy enough that the retail sector doesn't come screaming for a bailout in January. That would be bad. I'm sure some companies will tank this year. On the plus, the sales will carry over into January, which means you don't have to max the credit cards until February.

Which means you can get teat-squeezing fun at a discount....

And even better (and newer):

I know, some of you are screaming about the obsessive commercial aspects that make Christmas suck a dick. But that's why I'm trying to get that cleared out early so we can get to the rest of the season with minimal commercial intrusion. And since I couldn't come up with the appropriate Charlie Brown Christmas clip (I'll have some later), that's all I have to say about that.

And if you don't want to head out into the maelstrom, there's always online shopping: However....

Okay, now that I've got that out of the way, be sure to check out the Christmas music above (assuming I've found and updated the page with it...).

Obama Meets a Businessman

2010-11-22T09:35:00.000-05:00

Had this video come in over the weekend over the Twitter feed. If there was one way to most accurately describe the disconnect between the actions of the Obama administration and the tendencies of the private sector, it's in this video. It may not be 100% accurate, but it's funny as shit.

The TSA - the Gate Rape Perpetrators

2010-11-19T21:40:00.000-05:00

As I have never flown and have no plans to in the foreseeable future, this particular mess doesn't impact me directly. However, when a relatively non-partisan and perfect illustration of the ineptitude of the Imperial Federal Government comes along, there's no way I'm not going to comment.

The situation with the Transport Security Administration is that perfect example. And as an added bonus, has lots of fun to poke at, since it did make "don't touch my junk" part of the national discourse.

Co-ed Naked Scanners

The current joke/mess/problem begins with the total body (or titty/booty) scanner. Essentially, it's an x-ray style machine that can see anything hidden on the body, the size (or lack thereof in my case) of a guy's junk, clit piercings, and all manner of other fun shapes and objects. And, as an added bonus, the paranoia bunch are adding fun with photoshop, making the images look more naked (and occasionally faking it).

Here's a full-on image search of these pics. My conclusion here is that, while the pics are clearly revealing, we're not going to see the pics on jerk-off sites any time soon (unless there are some pervs out there turned on by x-ray boobs), except for maybe the fraudulent photoshopped ones on the Alex Jones site. But that isn't going to stop the hyper-privacy and evil radiation crowd from crowing. And since the scanner can't tell everything, that brings us to the bad stuff....

"Enhanced" Patdowns, AKA Foreplay, AKA Third Base, AKA Gate Rape

I don't need to go on much here, other than if this was done to my daughter, the bitch doing so would get punched in the mouth, and if it were done to me, I'd expect to have dinner, a movie, and get off (damn, i need laid). Essentially, it's a patdown that involves feeling the boobs, the ass crack, and around whatever parts you may have on the front. Essentially, everything but sticking fingers in orifici (woo hoo!).

Now if you're doing this to a drug mule, or a suspected nutjob, or an actual terrorist suspect, fine. Police do these kids of searches whenever necessary, for obvious safety reasons. They don't, without arresting them, grope old ladies with worn-out body parts, they don't molest children (check the vid below), and they don't sexually assault flight attendants who are breast cancer survivors, then make them take out their prosthetic breast!

It makes the "don't touch my junk" guy look boring by comparison. But let's talk about him. On the way to a hunting trip, he opted out of the semi-porn scanner. So the TSA gropies made with the feeling up. He had the wherewithal to record what happened next, as he uttered that immortal viral line. So, having not complied like the other molested sheeple, a supervisor was called, and he was ultimately ejected, then told he would be fined $11,000 for leaving the airport without going through security.

It makes the reports of pilots allowed to carry guns but NOT those dreaded nail clippers all the more normal. Because all of this is thanks to the touchy feely crowd commonly known as the TSA

The TSA ♥s Terrorists!!!

It's why the Drudge report the other day led with the headline "THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON" In essence, we've surrendered our rights, our freedoms, our dignity, and our common fucking sense to an idea that randomly scanning/groping people, banning shit like nail clippers, and doing everything but PROFILING FOR FUCKING TERRORISTS!!!!! is ever going to keep us safe.

And some people, amazingly, are ok with this, rationalizing that we all have to sacrifice (freedom, dignity, rights, common f'ing sense) because otherwise we'll offend the very group that, in sufficient numbers, either tolerates or supports terrorism against this country. That would be Muslims.

Now let me clarify, when I say profiling, I don't mean automatically patting down every bastard named Mohammad (or various spelling). I mean having trained people looking people in the eye, talking, asking questions,trying to figure out if the person in front of them has something to hide.

And if you have a nervous Middle Eastern man named Muhammad Burka-laka-daka Jihad with a one-way ticket, no luggage, and an ~~Obama~~ Osama Rules t-shirt on, standing next to a frazzled woman pushing her ancient legless veteran grandfather in a wheelchair while trying to hold onto a spastic autistic son, why the hell would you even waste time patting her, groping the old man (and finding he has no junk to touch), and molesting the child (who screams for half an hour afterward)?

The fact is that when you have a government monolith that is guided by political idiocy, a reliance on technology and mandates rather than psychology, and agents that couldn't make the cut as Wal-Mart drones, you get no real security, Constitutional rights violation by the assload (ask the ACLU), long pointless lines, and a waste of resources. And since we need to cut the budget in many ways, let's make the TSA the first agency wiped out of utter existence.

And yes, the Obama reference a couple paragraphs ago is simply because it'll piss some of you off, not because I'm equating him with terrorists. Lighten up. Which is what the last section is all about:

What does TSA really Mean?

Some of these are original, some I saw on other sites. Feel free to add your own in the comments section.

Touching Sensitive Areas
Touching and Squeezing Authority
Titty (or Testicle) Stroking (or Squeezing) Asshats
Tits, Snatch and Ass - for women
Testicles, Sack, and Ass - for men
Those Stupid Assgrabbers
Thought-free Sleazy Assmatics

And here's a vid to enjoy:

Finally, check out 3x2cast.com for more on the TSA mess (because we're sounding off in grand style). The newest 3x2cast should be up in a few hours, as my next task is to edit it together (and it's already getting late. Shit).

F'ing With Taxes Won't Fix Anything

2010-11-17T23:16:00.000-05:00

As I clarified in my last post, spending is one side of the federal deficit equation. This post will cover the other half: taxes and tax reform. Normally when I mention fixing taxes, or anything remotely mentioning taxes, I get on my soapbox and hype the FairTax. The prior link is where this ends....

It's something that, as I wrote my prior post about spending being the problem with the ballooning deficit. I was sure that I'd need to write this post explaining why even passing the FairTax would not fix the problem. In fact, I mentioned as much (and was promptly ignored).

What crystallized this most specifically over the last week was an interactive from the New York Times. What I did with it was go through the list and look what I could cut in spending first. Not surprisingly, most of the savings in the long term (most of the trillion) came when cutting Medicare and Social Security. And since 1. the cuts in spending came before the tax increases and 2. the FairTax was not mentioned, I ended up going with only spending cuts. And it "solved" the problem.

Here's my solution.

Now, to be fair, I did run through the tax cuts, and found I could also "solve" the problem by taxing the shit out of everyone.

Note the quotes on the word "solve" in both cases. This is because, in the case of the taxes, raising taxes simply feeds more money to the government, and on the spending front, very few in the federal government have the will to cut all the things on the list. And since raising taxes to levels that would theoretically wipe out the deficit would also cripple businesses, people, investments, and the whole damned economy.

That brings us to the current tax dilemma: the Bush-era tax cuts. I think I can be clear on what needs to be done. Since the Democrats still control much of Washington, tax cuts to stimulate the economy and maybe pull us out of the post-recession slump are out. And real tax reform is still out. I can live with that for now, because the real problem to address is spending.

But the financial suicide of raising taxes (and letting the tax cuts expire is raising taxes) on anyone when we're all crunched for cash sure as shit won't help the economy, and will be an even more symbolic measure than the earmark moratorium (and stupid as well).

Oh, and one other point, it is NOT a tax cut when you don't change the existing rate. And it's not a spending cut when you decrease the amount of the increase. And anybody that says otherwise doesn't know what math is and/or reads and believes too much MoveOn bullshit.

It's called tax neutrality, and that's the only reasonable compromise.

We Can't Afford It

2010-11-10T17:42:00.000-05:00

One thing has become clear since the mandate (and yes, it is a mandate) came down that the people want a smaller (and consequently less expensive) government, as seen by the historic results of last week's election.

And that thing is that if we don't pay attention, nothign will change and the government will spend assloads more.

Which brings me to the fun of my stream-of-conscious analysis (which is how I think about things):

The Obama $200 million a day India trip - I don't need to necessarily cite a link, because this has exploded across the airwaves and blogosphere since we got weary of incessant election coverage. The problem is that there are no hard numbers (as the White House, by tradition, won't release them). The original story was some unnamed source in India. And CNN has apparently debunked it. I had been thinking about posting on this as a perfect example of out-of-touch extravagance that comes with an ever-growing imperial federal government. But with big questions on numeric accuracy, no way I'm going to go off about it.

Which makes me wonder why the story is so easy to believe? The simple answer: it fits the template of a government that dumps money into a giant hole. To exaggerate:

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

Which brings us to the fun of recession-proof jobs. Here's a hint: They're not in the private sector.

"More federal workers' pay tops $150,000" - It's pretty self-explanatory. If you want to do the least amount of work for the maximum profit, and you excel at not giving a fuck, then working for the government is for you. The government is legendary for inefficiency, as it continues to pile on jobs, then shit for them to do, then more jobs. All with the ability to pay whatever some bureaucrat or politician thinks is a good salary (despite the actual wages involved). Then you add government unions, who have the power to vote out their management through elections, and you can see why even such big-government, pro-union presidents such as FDR knew they were a bad thing (and this is without me levying the additional damage that government teachers unions do to out children):

"Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

Of course, the growth of government in every way begins to add the costs:

"Red Tape Rising: Obama’s Torrent of New Regulation" -Now I'm not going to hold Obama 100% responsible for every regulation in this story, because without Democrats and Republicans and prior presidents all adding to the framework, no one person would have so much power over us. It's bad enough today that some liberals have gone so far as to urge the President to pursue his agenda without Congress (can you say "unconstitutional?"). But if you want to nickel and dime America to death, there's nothing like a massive quilt of regulations to smother it. Now not all regulations are bad, and some will have a positive impact. But when the answer to every problem is to have the government add a regulation, you're bound to end up with a pile of shit on the diamond.

Like I said in the above paragraph, Obama's not 100% responsible. Which is why I've committed myself to be a pain in the establishment GOP's ass.

Mitch McConnell fights GOP earmark ban - Now in all of the things Washington wastes money on, one of the least significant but most symbolic is pork, aka vote buying, aka earmarks. One thing that the freshman class of the House has been big on is putting a stop to earmarks. Now to think that they will disappear, not likely. But at least tackling the concept is thinking that is in the right direction. Enter establishment douche and minority leader Mitch "the bitch" McConnell, who is in the process of back-room maneuvers to quietly kill an agreement among the GOP senators (led by Jim deMint) to abandon earmarks in the current fiscal mess. Of course, this is not an open fight, yet. But it is a reminder that, given the choice between embracing tea party ideals and lapsing into that thing which, if I were an Obamadrone, would be them, "last 8 years," the old timers of the GOP would work the tits on the government pig until it squealed in delight.

Now of course, this doesn't address the big 3 money-suckers in the federal government (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), the defense budget (in which there has to be some fat as well), and the new entitlement bitch on the block, the beast known as Obamacare. And while we on the homefront are tightening our belts, the states are either cutting like hell (New Jersey) or collapsing (California), and even more "progressive" countries are either slashing their entitlement budgets (Great Britain) or collapsing (Greece), our government is still fighting over expanding the very things that bring other, lesser governments down.

I'll address the tax situation in another post. This is about throwing money at problems. Washington still has the desire to do so, despite the election. Let's not let them forget why the GOP did so well.

A Pause for More Shameless Self-Promotion

2010-11-06T00:30:00.000-04:00

As I have been in and out on this blog for a while now (burnout being what it is), I have had a little time to explore. I had also talked about getting either some YouTube action going or rocking a podcast over the last several months. That day is here.

Introducing 3x2, a joint project between the Illustrious One (that would be me) and my buddy from the island that's a zit on the ass of Australia (couldn't help myself), Lars the Pseudo-Kiwi.

I had to hunt a bit for a player and after the pink one, I found a relatively good looking one that works. And since I do cover some politics in this post, enjoy. Further 3x2casts (when we smack some more out) shall be celebrated with a shiny link or two.

Here's the link-a-palooza:

3x2cast.com The site itself, where the podcasts will be popping up like flies.
@3x2cast For us Twitter nuts. Because we're nuts. Hairy ones.
Our Facebook page. Better than Farmville. So is dog shit, though.
PatrickM@3x2cast.com Holy shit, this makes 6 emails for me.

So give it a listen, and give us some feedback, and we'll attempt to make it suck less.

And keep the good times flowing.

Red Dawn (not the 80's movie)

2010-11-03T12:48:00.000-04:00

Why the title? These maps of the House, Senate, and Governor races explain why (nod to Mike's America for lots of links)

As I predicted, the GOP swept up control of the House in a historic 60+ win in terms of seats, the largest gain for either party since 1938, and trumping the 53-seat gain of the 1994 Republican revolution. And in the Senate, despite the gains, the Democrats (including the surviving Majority Leader Harry Reid) still retain a slight margin, although far enough now fro the 60-vote filibuster-proof majority that the RINO's (like McCain) can't screw us. And that wave carried forth into Ohio, carrying most of the state races into GOP control. On the Governor's race, I was wrong on my prediction. But my error meant that the GOP has total control of the state again. In short, it was a Grand Old Day for the Grand Old Party.

More or less.

To his credit, likely Speaker John Boehner recognized this in his speech last night. Because rather than an affirmation of the GOP and their *cough* rightness, this election was driven nationally by two things: the repudiation of Obama and the Democrats' policies over the last four years (two of which the GOP was complicit in perpetrating) which can be represented and summed up in the monolith of Obamacare, and the principles of the Tea Party movement, which is in short: less government, lower taxes, and increased freedom. Had they gone, in large part, along the third party route rather than trying to steer the GOP toward some actual principles, there would not have been such a wave as there was yesterday.

Even where the Tea Party candidates lost, it was closer and harder for the Democrats to win. Ask Harry Reid, as well as many other traditionally safe politicians who found themselves having to run harder than they expected.

And where the politicians were unabashedly liberal (such as the idiot Alan Grayson), they got their ass handed to them. Okay, Grayson's not the average unabashed liberal. But I just wanted to mention him so I can laugh. I'll miss having him as a punchline, but not enough to not rejoice on his hopefully political death. On the plus, I guess he'd make a good zombie.

But *clearing throat for trite phrasing* the election was not the end. It wasn't even the beginning of the end. It was, of course, the end of the beginning.

I've written on what the GOP must do to set things right. And much will be said over the next few weeks by people who spend inordinate amounts of time on these subjects (and probably get paid for doing it, the bastards). And as long as they remember that the Tea Party is still pissed off enough to vote them out in two years, then they might remember that opposing the Democrat agenda (still alive in the Senate and White House), then perhaps we'll see the first steps of really decreasing the size and scope of the government for the first time since Woodrow Wilson. It may not be during the remaining years of Obama. But as long as there is a clear difference, then perhaps we'll see some actual change we can believe in.

Things on My To-Do List.

2010-11-02T10:03:00.000-04:00

Nod to Mike's America for the tweet with the link to the post with the pic:

Now I'm not going to suggest who you should be voting for, because I assume everyone reading this has already made up their own mind). I'll just suggest that if you know of anyone trying to vote that has a list of names in their head of politicians they're voting for that begins and end with "Obama", because they're too damned stupid to vote without a sheet of paper to tell them who they're supposed to vote for, they suggest they go somewhere other than the polls, read up on the races, and come back when they fucking know who they're voting for.

In other words, vote if you're intelligent. I will be doing so (and tweeting all the way) this morning. All idiots may wait until Wednesday.

The Illustrious One's 2010 Predictions

2010-11-01T12:34:00.000-04:00

Okay, it's Monday, lunchtime, and I have narrowed it down and have looked into the future that is tomorrow's election (and asked my mom, who is a political barometer). And now, finally, I can publish, in shiny detail, my predictions for tomorrow's election, with a little Ohio-centric focus (being the resident of said Great State that I am).

First of all, let me just talk about how I'm voting in the state and federal races.

If you were to look at the candidates I'm voting for and attribute a letter of the alphabet that most reflects my choices tomorrow, it's going to be a L! Because in many of the races, contested or otherwise, there are Libertarian party candidates. And where I can, I will be voting that way, because where it matters (the congressional races), there's no question who's going to win. And since the GOP is doing lots of things that make me certain they haven't learned the lessons of 2006 and 2008, they don't deserve shit, including my vote. Now that doesn't mean I'm not voting for any Republicans, but there doesn't appear to be any reason for me to be loyal to them anymore. This time, it will be reflected in my ballot.

So onto the predictions:

The House

I've been checking the RCP polls and maps for the last few days. And even if all the tossups go to the Democrats, the GOP will be getting control of the House this year. It's just a matter of whether it will be in the historic range or not. Based on the generic ballot, and a general unrest with the current direction of the country, I'm predicting the GOP will get that historic win, primarily through the efforts of the Tea Party movement (and not the inbred soul of the GOP). That includes the reelection of my congressman, Jim Jordan (R) (who's in a safe seat). However, while I'm generally satisfied with Rep Jordan's voting record, I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate, Donald Kissick, simply because Jim Jordan has never really had a challenge since he was elected.

The Senate

The Senate will be closer. And while they will gain seats, I'm going to predict that the GOP will not gain control of the Senate. At best, they will get 50 seats, which means Democrat control due to Vice President Biden (who breaks those pesky ties). Locally, Rob Portman, the Republican candidate will easily win, succeeding the worthlessness of a RINO that is George Voinovitch. And as there isn't a Libertarian candidate, he will probably get my vote as well.

The Governor of Ohio

This is the one that I couldn't predict until today. Democrat incumbent Ted Strickland is facing Republican challenger John Kasich. I had been predicting that, due to Strickland's association with Obama and the general tide for Republicans, the nail-bitingly close race was going to swing to Kasich. However, I believe that the anger of the gun vote with Kasich over the last few days is a game-changer. And based on that, I predict that Ted Strickland will be reelected to his second term as governor. As for my vote, I've been following these things as well, and while my vote was wavering for Kasich, it is now moving to Libertarian candidate Ken Matesz. This one was actually hard for me to decide, because the results of this election may benefit Obama in 2012. And if I had to vote in a heads-up election, I probably would vote for Kasich, primarily because I think more might get done.

Ohio Attorney General

Now outside of Ohio, this one has no particular interest. Democrat Richard Cordray is likely to be reelected. What is important is who the GOP candidate is, which will explain my vote. For a candidate, the GOP has dragged up the carcass of a politician that is Mike DeWine. DeWhiner is a RINO. He is the product of political inbreeding. He's also such a failure that he lost his Senate seat to the soon-to-be senior Senator from Ohio, Sherrod "the color of shit" Brown. And he is the reason I'm voting for the Democrat Cordray.

In short, this particular race is emblematic of the reason the GOP can't win unless the Democrats have pissed the voters off enough that they'll vote for someone else. Especially when that person will talk a good conservative game. The problem is that, with many of the GOP candidates above, they tend to be conservative until they have power. Then they become Democrat Lite.

Until they learn this lesson, they'll simply be the lesser of two evils.

The Pro-Life Ballot

2010-10-23T20:56:00.000-04:00

I had finished sugaring the kids up with the cinnamon roll breakfast (because a healthy breakfast every morning sucks) and was enduring multiple episodes of Scooby Doo (third season DVD (birthday present for the boy) of the original ones, not the updated shit) when I could see, out the front window, someone loitering. As is my wont, I sent my daughter to stick her head out. Being sufficiently clothed (not always the case in the morning, but it was this morning), I followed when it was apparently not my landlord or a neighbor. Instead, it was a shiny, cute teenie bopper and her cute teenie bopper friend/associate. They were delivering the "Ohio Right to Life PAC PRO-LIFE BALLOT" to every house like the sweet little lemmings they were.

Too bad it was far too early for me to think; otherwise, there would have been the questions that popped in my head later as I actually made headway cleaning (REALLY, I DID IT!!!!!!11!!!1!).

Now before I get to those questions, I can report that all the people that I know on the ballot happen to be Republicans. And most of the ones I'll vote for (but not all) happen to also be there, but for clearly different reasons.

And seriously more important ones than fucking abortion.

Now, before all of you on the pro-life kick start screaming about how it's an important issue, let me explain why it's NOT THE LEAST BIT IMPORTANT in this election.

This election is all about stopping the incessant creep of government into our lives. To that end, there are two things that need to be done: Remove the Democrats from absolute power, and elect conservatives and libertarians who will not vote to increase the size of government in any way.

Because the reason you have taxpayer-funded abortions to whine about is because the government is in the business of supplying health care to people. Eliminate that bullshit and one thing I can agree with you is off the shelf.

The second one is a little harder for you to hear and swallow. And that's the limitation of government, especially in issues directly affecting individuals. Like, say, women who find out they got knocked up because the rubber broke. Or the one whose birth control failed. Or the oft quoted 1-2% of abortions that result from rape, incest, etc. At a point, the unborn baby gets some rights. But when your obsessions is from 5 minutes after the cumshot does its job (like the morning-after pill), and there is no wiggle room to discuss things, you lose people that agree with you on the general principle but are also unwilling to give the government the ability to jail the desperate. And women who seek abortions are too often just that.

So drop the obsession with voting "pro-life" and start looking at the kind of people you are empowering. Because many of the pro-life candidates you vote for are RINOs. And if you keep electing them, then the government gets more control over us. And if you want to see the results of that, look at having babies in China.

So yeah, I'm wiping my ass with the pro-life ballot. Because there are more important things than a little topic that won't be solved in the next decade, especially if we lose the country in the process.

After the Stomping of Said Mudhole in Dem Ass

2010-10-21T12:05:00.002-04:00

Yeah, I'm rubbing it in a little bit for those of you who are clinging (probably bitterly) to the hope that the Democrats will hold the line against the GOP this year. But the facts and trends and polls are clearly favoring anyone with an R attached to their name. And in under two weeks, we're likely to see GOP gains in governors' races, the Senate, and a GOP majority in the House. If it's any consolation, Obama could take his cue from Bill Clinton, shift to the center, and survive (politically) to a second term.

But this is not about the stomping of that mudhole in the ass of the Democrat Party (I just like the title). It's about what the GOP faithful, the Tea Party movement, and the people who elect them do with our newly-elected representatives. Because if we just pull the lever for the GOP, we're not electing a representative, we're enabling rulers to empower themselves.

So the first things to do is to make those who we're re-electing and those we're electing with shaky records, as well as the new crop of Tea Party candidates, understand that we will be watching them hella-close and be ready to vote them out in 2,4, or 6 years as their term comes up if they don't stay the course on what they promised. And if that means giving the liberals another crack at the hopey changey shit, so be it.

But, on the assumption that the House goes GOP, here's the expectations I have:

1. Boot Boehner - As I've mentioned, I've had an ax to grind with the Boner of a minority leader who's district extends north of Dayton and a few miles west of me. Primarily this is because, in the name of bipartisanship" he enabled Bush and the Democrats, in the last two years, to start the orgy of spending that has only been exceeded by the Obama agenda (which, to his credit, he strapped on the porta-spine and opposed). So he needs to NOT be Speaker. I'll tolerate him hanging on in the leadership a bit, because there's always been some inbreeding in both parties. But the new Speaker of the House (being third in line for the White House) needs to be someone who's tried to move the country to a more limited government when he did have power. The name I've heard floated is Paul Ryan. I could live with that. As long as the leadership gets changed.

2. Kill Obamacare - There's been talk about not doing so. Ask RINO Scott Brown about how much people don't like the law. He was elected, in part, to stop that burgeoning piece of shit. How you fight to get rid of it is up to you. Even if it can't be done, the legislation to repeal it needs to be passed. By March. I'm not kidding there. It may die in the Senate, and if not, Obama will veto it, but at least we'll be able to ID Republicans that don't need to return to Washington after the next election and put everyone on record as to which direction they want the country to go. Now as to actually stopping the next entitlement of the damned, there are messy procedural ways to effectively kill it. It may piss some people off, but gridlock is better than intrusive government.

3. Stop Spending - At the End of the Clinton administration, the GOP congress was able to work with the President to stop the bleeding, at least in the short term. It needs to become more permanent. As in freeze spending. Cuts will come as time goes on. But we need to stop spending at, say, 2008 levels. No automatic increases. No budget tricks. No extra spending (short of something akin to 9/11). Remember that "party of No" thing? It's a good thing.

4. Toss Obama a Bone - Now if you have an urge to get sucked into the stupidity of "bipartisanship," pick something that won't expand government. A perfect example would be the "don't ask, don't tell" policy (because it will happen sooner or later (and it should be sooner)). If the Dems don't get it done in the lame duck session, go ahead and pass it sometime next year. Or overturn something small that makes libs get wet and makes the CHRISTIAN!!! conservatives foam. Nothing that adds to the size and/or scope of the government. There are plenty of moral issues that don't need government laws to enforce them that can be cleared out. You don't have to agree with the behavior. You just have to stand on the principle of limited government.

Now you'll notice I left out things like cutting taxes and such? This is because the priority is to make an effort to balance the budget. I understand cutting taxes does have a benefit, and the tax increase that will come with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will hurt. But in the spirit of "bipartisanship, don't push the taxes. Obstruct the spending first. And when we show we can do that, then sell tax cuts with more spending cuts.

In the end, the principle that has to be observed with a victory is that we are electing people to reduce the size and scope of government. Bills and laws and proposals that forward that are what will earn you reelection. If you get to Washington and start getting a taste for power and pork, don't unpack (unless you're in the Senate, in which case it's your ass in six years).

Now I bring this up before the election because there are RINOs running in various locations. If it means fewer Republicans elected because we stay home for their races, or vote third party or Democrat to just get rid of them (and I know of one state level race in Ohio I face that choice), so be it. If I'm going to be screwed, I'd prefer the screwing come form a Democrat (or a really hot chick that doesn't want to stay around after (yeah, I went there)). Plus, it saves us having to run you out of town later.

The Politics of Desperation

2010-10-13T13:41:00.000-04:00

I've been kind of sitting back for the recent election, mainly because it's become less about ideas I an many others have fleshed out and more a referendum on the first two years of Obama. And I'm not going to go into what the GOP is saying, because that's expected. It's what the Democrats and democrat candidates are saying that really matters.

And there are a few things they aren't saying. With the exception of the perpetually safe true believers, they're not talking about the virtues of Obamacare, the effectiveness of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the genius of the cap-and trade legislation that the leadership is pushing, and an avoidance of anything related to jobs, the size of government, etc. In other words, anything subject that gets the Tea Party movement pissed is being avoided by swing Democrats.

Here's a perfect example of a Democrat running in 2010 who wants to win:

Let's enumerate the points in the ad:

NRA and the Second Amendment.
Fight Washington and the Obama administration.
Get the Fed off our backs and Out of our pockets
Cut federal spending
Repeal (the bad parts of) Obamacare
I Sued the EPA
And taking dead aim at the cap and trade legislation (as he puts a round through it).

Hm. I had to double check to see he was a Democrat. Really.

So with no issues that their candidates can run in favor of and no convenient scandal to de-nut the GOP, the Dems are relegated to Bush-bashing?

That's so damned 2008. Here's the desperation:

This, of course, is more fallout from the landmark Citizens United v FEC decision, which said corporations do have free speech rights, and spending money in an election is free speech.

Never mind there is no evidence that the US Chamber has done anything improper, or that Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove are behind it all, or anything involving "Steeeeeeaaaaaallllllinggggg Deeemoooocracy!" Ooooooooooh!!!!!!!!11!!!!!1!

If the POTUS repeats a lie, does it make it the truth? Let's break out the Ouija board and and ask Nixon. Or even see liberal-leaning reporters like CBS's Bob Scheiffer get incredulous at the audacity of this:

CBS’ Schieffer, Oct. 10: But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?
Axelrod: Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?

It's on par with asking me if I have evidence that I didn't molest my daughter. As in, no, but our system sure as fuck doesn't assume guilty until proven innocent. Although if someone did ask me that question, they'd be getting punched in the mouth.

In short, the evidence (and yes, what I cite above is evidence, for those of you who slavishly nod and salivate at the idiotic "stealing democracy" ad) shows some obvious thing. That the DNC is continuing to push the unsubstantiated claims in this ad is simply an attempt to start a witch hunt where there are probably not witches. It's an attempt to sidestep the intellectual argument by attacking the messenger. It's yet another attempt to limit free speech through an uninformed public opinion.

And it smacks of desperation.

Words of Wisdom on the Current Tax Rates

2010-10-06T10:03:00.000-04:00

I don't really have anything to add to the following rant (which I missed in its initial airing), but I'll do so anyway.

We're nearing the end of the year where the tax cuts put into place by President Bush a decade or so ago will expire, raising tax rates on everyone. The GOP's current idea is to simply maintain the tax status quo. President Obama, of course, wants to only save the tax cuts on the people who have enough to live comfortably, but not those who have the money to actually pour into the economy (instead of Washington). For some inane reason, Obama refers to maintaining the current tax levels as a "tax cut,' which defies common sense, and gives anyone with any income higher than Obama's chosen envy line a tax increase because they're the evil, filthy, putrid rich vomit bastards or something equally designed to call them the source of all problems when not punishing people who aren't broke is the ONLY way out of the mess we;re in.

Thus, I leave it to Rush to explain our disgust with Obama's tax manipulation:

Best Congressional Hearing Ever!

2010-09-24T11:56:00.000-04:00

I have maintained that, for the most part, congressional hearings are mostly a waste of time, designed not to find out information, but to give pompous asses more speech time.

Occasionally, however, someone will give proper testimony before Congress. By that, I mean treat it like the joke that it is.

Stephen Colbert did so. For that alone, he should be honored. In fact, he should be held in contempt of Congress, a high honor.

I don't really care what side he had on the issue (migrant farm labor). The point was that it was actually something worth watching:

Contract 2.0: The GOP Pledge

2010-09-23T21:42:00.000-04:00

Today, the GOP put out their blueprint for un-transforming America should we be ~~foolish~~ willing to give them power again this November. As a fan of what came about from the Newt Gingrich-era Contract with America, and with a keen memory about the sickening turn toward the growth of the Imperial Federal Government under Bush, I'm approaching this document with obvious skepticism.

The full text can be found at pledge.gop.gov. Go ahead and peruse it and we'll continue.

*Pausing to read (and do a whole bunch of other shit too)*

First of all (and I cannot stress this enough without making the blog unreadable), W3 AR3 N0T A D3M0CRACY!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!1! Can you tell this might be a point I stress because it's part of the wrongheadedness that led the GOP down the same path as the Dems? Same for the lame "will of the people" bullshit, which, like democracy, is too often the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. But let me continue....

*reading some more, because I got distracted.... (http://www.pumpkinnook.com/giants/pumpkinpierecord.htm and, more cutely http://twitpic.com/2r9xrf)*

Now, before I get into the substance, the pics are not really a whole lot of help.... It's either standard patriotic shots or snaps that, if I didn't know it was GOP legislators trying to look like they give a shit, could be stock photos for a generic website. Plus, in reading a PDF file, it means scrolling through them and maybe seeing a face or two I recognize. Mostly, it adds no value to anyone looking for substance.

Thankfully, with few exceptions, the substance is there.

I won't go through and nitpick every point. I'll simply say that if the GOP can adhere to EVERYTHING they put in here, then the country will be on the right track. To clarify:

We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.
...
We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.
We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.

If you read the source, you'll notice that the part I've cut is the toss-in paragraph for the social conservatives. The reason why I do this is because trying to impose laws to enforce the social codes won't lead to a limited government, in the spirit of the aforementioned Tenth Amendment. I'm not saying that they are not important or that I don't agree with any of it (I don't agree with some). What I am saying is that limiting the control of Washington over our lives and our dollars will solve many of the social issues we face, and return the remainder to the states (like marriage, a------n (no, I'm not saying it, and summarily deleting any comment using the word), etc).

It's very simple what mandate the GOP could take away from the election this November. This document is the best blueprint of that mandate they've come up with. But, if they prevail in November, they they need to live what they preach here.

Why I Hate Republicans

2010-09-13T15:18:00.000-04:00

It's no mystery why I'm apt to never support Democrats. Primarily, it's because they take a worldview that looks for solutions to problems with big chunks of government, as well as a little (or a lot) of income redistribution on the side. It varies from candidate to candidate, but it's because I generally don't agree with them on most of the politics of the day. Fair enough. There are all kinds of ideas and all kinds of people out there, and I can't imagine agreeing with all of them (especially the deluded and nuts).

But we're in a two-party system, and those two parties generally shouldn't agree even on the color of shit. And that means that while I will generally disagree with the Dems, I should generally find agreement with the GOP.

Therein lies the problem. Far too many Republicans of power and stature give lip service to policies in opposition to the Dems, but are big government bitches at heart too.

Now I'm not talking RINOs the likes of Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Scott Brown. We know them, we know that they are regularly going to screw the GOP over when it counts. And since they don't represent me, or my family, I'll leave it to their constituents to boot them or keep them. Sadly, 2/3 of these RINOs have gotten the re-elect., and Brown is likely to get it (being "conservative" compared to the bunch of lib-tards in Taxachusetts (yeah, cheap shot I know, but if I didn't mock you, you'd think I didn't care.

Oh, and I won't even get into the details on John "Assface" McCain, lest the cursing reach a fever pitch, although he was the prime example of a useless and worthless excuse for Republican.

No, today my refined loathing is for two prominent Republicans. Lets start with the GOP Senator from my great state of Ohio, the soon-to-retire (but not soon enough) George Voinovitch.

The latest thing Voinobitch has done to piss me off was signing up with the White House on Obama's "small business" "stimulus" bill. I add all the quites because gimmicks and bullshit don't stimulate small business. And Voinobitch should have known better. But he has a record of pissing on principle to make a deal, expanding the imperial federal government every damned time. To be honest, if he were running again, I'd vote Democrat JUST to get rid of his dumb ass.

Speaking of dumbasses to get rid of, there's House Majority Leader John Bo(eh)ner (take out the letters in parentheses when pronouncing his name, it's fun), also of Ohio. He's not my congressman, but he is my sister's because his district snakes up from the Dayton area to the west of me, where said sister lives. It would almost be worth it to move to run against him, because I think a good Tea Party candidate might put a scare into him.

He's playing the waffle game on keeping the Bush tax cuts (also known as RAISING TAXES IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION (which requires yelling, because it's a tax increase, period)). With the Dems lining up to run commercials about Bo(eh)ner "opposing" "cutting taxes for the middle class" or whatever bullshit pseudo-truth blather they were going to pull from their ass, he came out Sunday saying if it came down to voting to keep only the middle class cuts of the Bush tax cut or letting taxes go up on everyone, he's vote to let the rich be soaked (not an exact quote).

On the political hand, I can understand stating a sad truth, that screwing only a few people over directly (and the rest indirectly) is better than screwing almost all taxpayers directly. Fair enough.

But it's in finding these "compromises" that the Generally Obtuse Party leadership fails miserably. Because coming out and saying you'll accept turning the tax code into more of a Communist redistribution scheme (from each/to each...), ESPECIALLY when you're not down to the vote, and you're coming up on an election where those Republicans without principle are dying politically (thanks to the efforts of the Tea Parties), and YOU'RE THE LEADER OF THE GO-F'ing-P!!!!!!!!11!!!1! Hello, Boner, do you know what the hell leadership is? It means having a spine. It means drawing a line and not crossing it ahead of the idiots in your party (the RINOs, Voinobitch, McDouche).

In short, the waffling makes me want to move to your district (totally doable) just to get rid of your dumb ass. And if you're going to stay, at least let someone with testicles step up as the leader.

Which reminds me of what the GOP establishment has been doing, and how their candidates generally get their ass handed to them by Tea Party candidates.

And all the government growth and bullshit that marred the Bush administration (much thanks to Bo(eh)ner) and led to the takeover of 2008 and the election of Obama in 2008.

If the GOP was actually leading the way toward a principle rather than massaging Democrat nuts until they lose power, I'd be enthusiastic. If they didn't lean toward political inbreeding, I'd be excited. And if I didn't end up getting kicked in the teeth by the idiots I vote for (including Voinobitch and Bush), I would probably still count myself as a Republican.

Deed, not words, will determine whether the GOP will ever earn my respect again.

9/11/2010

2010-09-11T11:51:00.000-04:00

Perspective on the War in Iraq

2010-08-31T19:28:00.000-04:00

First of all, a little mood music. Just hit play, then continue the read:

I've been bouncing this post around in my head for a while. But, with the official end to combat operations in Iraq and a presidential address about something that, while important, hasn't been in the national spotlight for over a year and a half, I'm not getting upstaged by a POTUS speech that will most likely take credit for ending the war.

Just a note, I'm going at this from the perspective of the average person, not the political fanatics that too many of us in the blogosphere are. So I'm also going to cover much of this from memory. Thankfully, this is an area where my memory is not as faulty as a government program.

First of all, for quick history checks, here's the Wiki link.

Snacky Smores presents... The March to War
(wish I could have found an accompanying pic)

The prelude to the invasion of Saddam's Iraq was in the rush to strike back in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. We had already moved to take out Al Qaeda and their Taliban enablers in Afghanistan. We were in the process of expanding the government with a new cabinet position and department. And with the optimism that we weren't going to end up in another Vietnam (especially after the 1990 Gulf War), the Bush administration set their sights on Iraq as part of the "Axis of Evil," which included Iran and south Korea as well.

(I do note that it has never included the source of more Islamic terrorists than any other country, our "friends" in Saudi Arabia, but I guess they act nicer.)

The evidence was presented to Congress and to us that 1. Saddam had WMDs, 2. he would use them (because he had) and 3. he might also give them to terrorists, making it easy to kill a city instead of just a couple of buildings. This was bolstered by two things. First, Saddam was gathering stockpiles of things that could build nuclear weapons. And second, he was toying with UN inspectors over what WMDs he did have.
Plus, there was that shit from 1990, so we knew he was a bad mofo.

Obviously, some of the intel proved unreliable after we were already in there and were committed. First of all, the WMDs were nowhere to be found. There were traces, pieces, and remnants, but no massive stockpiles (which some had said was the case, but were dismissed because we had already started steering toward war. And the Al Qaeda link proved to be tenuous at best, coincidental at worst. So that brings me to the first questions: Why did President Bush attack, and was he either mistaken or a liar?

First, I think he was convinced it was the right thing to do. He didn't expect personal gain by doing this. But he saw a threat that also dovetailed with a personal dislike, had enough evidence to justify the attack, enough assurances that it would be Gulf War II, and a good amount of popular support. In most of this, he erred. Severely. It was the same mentality that got us into the mess that became Vietnam: An inability to back down, to keep pushing the war machine forward. And the cost has been significant.

But for those of you who like to fling out the label of "War Criminal," I doubt you'd find a president that didn't suffer as he watched our soldiers come back in body bags, or hear the reports of fields littered with bodies, or watch them bleed and die. I can't think of a single one that was cavalier with lives, even as he took actions that ended many. In this, Bush (and even Obama) is no exception.

Liberation/Occupation

So having committed to a fight that would prove to have been a waste had we known beforehand, we marched in and kicked ass. No surprise there. Unfortunately, the advantage of a dictatorship like Saddam had is that you suppress all opposition and internal politics by a good mix of killing, torture, rape, and paranoia. We don't do that. As a result, we popped the cork on a bottle of bad champagne that was strapped into a paint mixer. Once we swept away the check that was Saddam's Ba'ath party, all the sectarian violence, the worst of human nature, and the anger of a country with foreign soldiers in the street could produce unleashed in what was part an attack on invaders, part civil war, and part riot. And then the foreign terrorists, who were also few and far between due to Saddam, came pouring in. So we had wiped out everything bad that maintaining order.

Of course, this didn't go over well, especially after the ill-conceived "mission accomplished speech. But we did achieve our first goal of eliminating Saddam and Co. We shot his sons, rounded up his command bitches, found his dumb ass in a hole, turned him over to the Iraqis, and watched him swing.

Ok, since we're now to the part where we've gotten rid of Saddam, let's give him a final tribute (and some more background music) courtesy of Gwar:

(yeah, totally unnecessary, but when else would I get to add that vid?)

So that left us with roughly three options in Iraq, because we were already ass-deep by this time. First, we could have cut and run. Obviously, this would have meant a power struggle and a dictator who blamed all the problems on America. Genocide would have ensued (especially if the new dictator was a big fan of the peaceful and serene religion of Islam). The second, and other extreme would have been to reduce the country to a sheet of glass. We have never done this. The only time we've gone for big civilian casualties was in Japan, and ONLY to save a million American lives that would have been lost in the invasion. So the only practical option, sadly, would cost billions of dollars and thousands of American lives (in addition to the inevitable civilian casualties (still less than the genocide options). And that option was to help rebuild the political infrastructure and police, as well as a good chunk of the physical infrastructure that we blew up. The goal of this was to give Iraq the time to create a democratically elected constitutional republic.

So the only question was how to proceed. And Bush chose poorly, initially. We went with the idea of just enough forces to maintain some degree of stability. In other words, the country was being held together with barbed wire and duct tape. And the democratic process, being the mess that it always is, led to little progress. for three years.

Surge Baby Surge!

Finally, with no end in sight in Iraq, the Bush administration finally changed its course and went with the surge strategy. The plan was to flood enough troops in to give the local populations time to clean up their messes, establish governments, push out the terrorists, and get enough forces trained to take over so we could get the fuck out of Dodge (or, more accurately, Baghdad).

I'll admit that even I was becoming disillusioned with the chances we could get out of Iraq with some degree of honor. It didn't help that I had begun blogging and had to listen to a lot of crazed rantings about how evil Bush and Cheney were. Plus, nothing had worked there yet, so I was preparing for a Cronkite-style "the war is lost" moment.

Thankfully, with the surge came an uprising of the people who were sick of constant fighting. With the increased troops and the will of the Iraqi people, the violence fell off greatly. And our evolved strategic goal (a stable, relatively free republic) was finally achieved. So by the end of 2008, we were set to leave. For managing to bring us to the point we could prepare to leave, President Bush gets credit, as well as his general in charge, David Petraeus, the architect of the surge. And that brings us to this month, and the end of combat operations in Iraq.

In short, we achieved most of our mission goals and will likely leave behind a shaky but real ally in the Middle East. Even shorter, we won.

What Barry Did

This brings us to the speech, which as I write this, is hours away. A good leader would realize that he was wrong when he opposed the surge, that despite some of the mistakes, the strategy did work in the end,

Of course, Mr Obama opposed the war, Senator (and candidate) Obama opposed the surge, and he kept saying we should pull out, originally immediately, then in 18 months. Which brings me to a point of fact. Giving the same timeframe over and over until it becomes true doesn't make you "right." It just means you finally got your shit to stick to the wall. It was probably best that Bush ignored your ignorance.

But I'm magnamninousous (Yes I intentionally misspelled that. Try pronouncing it and find out.) enough to give President Obama a little credit. Despite his political blather, he's had enough sense to NOT mess with the strategy in place and let the war wind down properly. And he did have sense to try to rectify the Afghanistan mess with the same man President Bush tapped to bring victory in Iraq.

Of course, a real leader would know that you give credit where credit is due. We'll see if the speech avoids the ridiculous use of the word "I"

Ok, end of my gallows humor, because while making jokes about Saddam's dead ass and Obama's dumb ass is fun, war has costs.

The Costs

We have yet to see whether the seed of freedom we have planted will continue to flourish. Until that is recorded, we will not know whether the costs we have paid were worth it.

Those costs include:

$700 billion to fight the war (according to the Congressional Budget Office, plus benefits for those who served, those who were injured, and the families of those killed.
Over 4,000 American soldiers killed.
Over 15,000 American soldiers wounded.
An approximate 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the war.

Taken as a whole, when we have fought for freedom (ours or others'), and for the preservation of our Constitution, our wars have been justified. When we have not, may have died with honor, but for a flawed cause. And while our history says this may have been worth it, it was only a part of the greater war against Islamic terror, and that goes on....

Let me then conclude with a reminder of why we should always hesitate before we call upon our brave young men and women to go off and offer their lives in exchange for anything:

The Mosque

2010-08-16T23:02:00.000-04:00

I've been pretty hands off on issuing an opinion on the construction of a mosque on the edge of Ground Zero. This is mainly for a couple reasons. First, this is more of a New York issue than a national issue, and second, I wanted to hear more about the reasons and the people behind it.

The stated goal of building the mosque is to help heal and bring understanding in the wake of 9/11. My initial reaction was that if this is really the case, cool beans, but I'll let NYC decide.

However, the other theory as to why to build the mosque in this location is that it will, to the Islamic world, stand as a monument to the conquest of the center of American imperialism and capitalism. And based on the imam at the center of the mosque effort, I'm suspecting this is the case.

The blithering idiot Mayor Michael Bloomberg has come out in favor of the mosque, as have various others on the left.

The right's default reaction is based on the idea that this is an attempt to signal said conquest.

Many of the 9/11 families oppose it as a slap in the face, which to any Islamic figure trying to heal deep wounds with the people of America, should be a damned good reason not to build it there.

And President Obama, unsurprisingly, acknowledged the right of these Muslims to build their Mosque. Then, when pressed for his opinion on the appropriateness of the Mosque, voted PRESENT, with incessant revisions.

So the question is, what should be done?

First of all, there is no legal basis to deny a religion the right to build a place of worship. In fact, there's an amendment specifically there for that purpose. So unless there's some kind of zoning issue that halts its construction, there is no legal means that can stop this. It sucks, but the price of our freedom is that the government is specifically forbidden from legislating the mosque away on religious grounds, even such a peaceful and tolerant religion as Islam (warning, very graphic irony).

Obviously, any criminal activity to "stop them" is out, because that, very simply because that's the kind of narrow bullshit that extremist religions and certifiable nutjobs do.

As for legal grounds that could be used to stop this, the only hope lies in investigating the funds and people involved and finding a legitimate terror link. I suspect there's enough evidence out there to continue investigating, but not enough to stop the cash yet. Of course, that requires the feds to do it.

And that would require leadership. From the Obama White House.

And leadership (ha) from (ha) Barack (HA) Obama....

(okay, I know that was a cruel joke, but....)

So here's the two question of the day:

Can we really trust this imam, and a group, and a religion that has no problem ignoring public opinion when their stated goal was peaceful coexistence and a healing of wounds?

And if you say you can trust them, why?

Me, not so much. To clarify, I think there are peaceful Muslims, and where they exist, they need to be embraced. But as for trusting the religion, their recent history says we should do otherwise.

The Will of the People

2010-08-12T23:34:00.001-04:00

As I listen to radio through the day, I hear both Rush and Hannity (most glaringly) complaining about Obama governing against "the WILL of the PEOPLE!!!!!!!" (as well as the whole California Prop 8 thing, and the Arizona Immigration law). Then of course they go on to talk about our "democracy." (And if you know my thoughts on democracy, you know what's coming....)

So while I agree with much of what they say on both sides of that trite damned phrase, I have a simple, reasoned, rational response to such continued reliance on that justification to argue the foolishness of the above subjects.

FUCK the Will of the People!

The will of the people is far too often less about upholding a principle and more about an angry mob with torches and pitchforks getting whatever the hell they want.

Should I list what "the will of the people" has supported and given us over the years?

Obama and the Demorats - It was majorities that put the Democrats under PrezBO in charge of the whole shebang. And if you think this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, the "will of the people" also gave us Bush and the Neocon Shuffle.

Prohibition and the Income Tax - Both of them stem from amendments. The 16th Amendment gave birth to the IRS and the reams of paper we have to fill out every year, while punishing us for every second we work. And it took another amendment to erase the 18th Amendment, which banned alcohol from the United States, leading to increased crime, violence, lawbreaking, and utter boredom at baseball (because it's a snoozefest if you ain't drunk) .

Slavery, and institutionalized sexism, racism, etc-ism - Without a doubt, all these things were considered fine in society over the life of our country. Did that make them right? A majority of them were fine. A majority in Germany were fine with Hitler and his Nazi party, too, at least until they began to see the monster they had unleashed. Oh, and those Native Americans that were sorely outnumbered might also have something to say.

Fealty to England and her King - Hate to break it to those of you in la-la land (or Obam-la-land.), but the majority of colonists in 1776 were NOT for independence. It was somewhat of a civil war in the sense that the loyalists were fighting to keep their country too. They lost, and eventually the rebels we know today as patriots outnumbered them, wore them down, and won. If we'd have waited for a majority, we may not have thrown off the yoke of the Imperial Federal Government of England. Of course, maybe we'd have been better off, based on the mess we have now.

And if the above isn't enough....

Nazi Germany - While the majority of Germans were not in favor of genocide and the sickness that the Third Reich is infamous for, the majority did hand the reigns of power to them under a banner of national pride and a return from the crippling of the depression and the pain of WWI. It's also what gives most dictators ultimate power: A majority handing power to people who promise a lot then use their power for oppression.

The point is that sometimes, the rule of law (most specifically that of the Constitution) is designed to ignore the will of the people to protect the individual from the mob.

Now that's not to say that the people shouldn't have a say in their governance. That, in fact, is a check on the power of the government. But, as we continue to see the "will of the people" continuing to abdicate responsibility for themselves by apathy, political inbreeding, and a willingness to be provided for, there is no question that "will of the people," when untempered by a principle of limited government, is a short path to the very worst the country has ever produced.

So the next time you hear someone blathering mindlessly about the "will of the people" without citing a consideration of the legal reasons, please slap them in the mouth. Unless of course they'll kick your ass, in which a verbal slap may be the only safe option.

Principle vs Practicality

2010-08-10T11:37:00.000-04:00

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a depressing post entitled "2010/2012 Election Warmup" which detailed my thoughts on voting this year. It shouldn't be wholly depressing, since things are looking up for the GOP (AKA the Generally Obtuse Party) this year. But I realized that we were looking at settling for Republicans this year if only to stop the Democrat monolith. And that was even if a Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe slipped through.

Naturally, the reaction was either "welcome back" from the usual suspects to some frustrated, vomit-tinged comments from the Soapster. So then I open my email and the Libertarian candidate in the Ohio governor's race (I'll probably be voting for John Kasich myself, but here's his site: http://www.mateszforohio.com/) is in the list. Naturally, it's a scathing indictment of the idea of settling for one of the two parties. And that was sort of what I had suggested in that prior post.

So let me clarify some points.

The battle of principle vs practicality is one we fight every day. If we all lived solely by principle (and the creeds, mottoes, etc. that accompany it), a lot of us wouldn't work, others would do some really stupid shit, and most of us would hurt for cash (thus enabling the nanny state). I know I'd dedicate my life to not working, just writing and playing music, and creating stuff of questionable financial value (and then end up vegging and partially abandoning my kids to someone who wanted to spend time with kids).

But as a practical matter, I have a responsibility to take care of them, and financially support both them and myself. And I understand that society doesn't function without some compromises of that nature, i.e. we compromise to deal with the practicalities in surviving in this world.

And there is where we find ourselves again this year. We have to choose where to compromise to keep the federal government from becoming a monolith. if this means electing someone whom we agree with 60% of the time (on the important thing) to keep out someone who is the very antithesis of our political philosophy while ignoring the third party candidate who is our political soulmate, so be it.

Now there are exceptions. If it's a politician who has perpetually screwed us (my idiot Senator Voinobitch), or a Scott Brown Republican, or my perennial favorite bitchfist, John McCain, there's no way I'd ever vote for a bastard like that again. Better to burn out than to fade away. But I'm willing to give anyone who doesn't have a track record of sucking a chance. Even if they're not perfect. As long as they appear to be leaning the right direction for their position, then I'm willing to consider them. Then they have to earn my vote again.

So I'm not likely I'll ever "waste" votes. But I will send a message with every ballot I cast. And that message is that I will give you a chance, but you can never take me for granted.

Yeah, I'm Posting About Abortion Again

2010-08-02T18:52:00.000-04:00

I'm minding my own business Sunday, feeling mighty good, when up pops an IM and a link. An hour or two later, I find myself reading the comments section on Z-Man's Blog. The subject? Abortion.

My heartfelt response (as opposed to the inanely long comment I wrote)?

FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!

(yeah, that's how tired of the argument that I am. And the number of f-bombs was precisely chosen for its rhythmic feel.)

I've seriously tried to have eloquent conversations about this subject. I've tried to frame it in reasonable terms, considering the points that each side makes, the deeply held beliefs, and the need to find some accommodation on a subject that people are intensely passionate about.

Then the discussion devolves into a sadistic joke on people who think there might be an answer that most people can live with. So let me restate said obvious crap.

1. Abortion involves snuffing babies.

2. The argument is at what point does the life of the baby outweigh the rights of the mother.

3. No one is ever going to define when life begins because we all believe differently, and what we end up with is a guess.

4. The law over the centuries as been as consistent as my bowels. With similar odors.

5. Arguing about it with anyone who is entrenched is like a coat hanger abortion. It's messy, and may do some serious damage.

So my advice is that if you're going to try to come up with a new angle on a subject that has been beaten to death like a fetus that won't die.

Oh, and just because it's a serious subject doesn't mean you can't make jokes. It's called gallows humor, and it's what makes war, working in slaughterhouses, and human atrocities tolerable by the sane. Otherwise we'd all snap. So here's a page full of abortion jokes.

Finally, since I have no interest in discussing the futility of this subject, I've killed the comment section for this post. Because either you're going to vent at me, or start spouting the same damned positions and assuming you know mine.

The Power of No

2010-07-30T14:11:00.000-04:00

Back in March, when First Lady Michelle Obama decided on childhood obesity as her "cause" (a generally good prerogative of all the first ladies), I gave her credit for tackling something of importance (before going off on my own tangent).

Of course my expectation was that the way you approach this is through education, and parental responsibility. However, in the helicopter parent era, as well as the health Nazi era, we've abandoned responsibility for demands that our various governments "do something" to stop these terrible risks.

Some examples:

California towns ban toys in Crappy Meals. In short, the idea is that by banning the toys in McDonalds Happy Meals, parents won't feel compelled to take their kids to eat shit food to get the cheap-assed toy.

Cartoon characters make foods "taste better." Apparently, kids taste buds are affected by the packaging. The obvious government solution? Probably some kind of ban or giant label to tell parents they shouldn't buy this.

And as the all-encompassing monolith of Obamascare begins to dig its claws into our lives, I'm sure that, in an effort to save money going into the new burgeoning new entitlement (to pay for boob jobs for congressional secretaries?), the government will have every reason and justification to deal with the worst foods, either through bans or taxes.

Doubt me? Take a look at the history of taxing and banning cigarettes and trans fat, and plans to tax soda pop and limit fast food restaurants in poorer areas.

Whatever happened to the use of the word NO?

Strangely I've never had a problem with that. Walking by the fruit snacks with my kids, the ones with all the characters on them, I've never been forced to buy something because I answer with "No, we're not buying that shit." And when we are passing by McDonalds, I never feel the compulsion to give in to unrelenting mass marketing. Instead, I respond firmly, "I don't want ass-flavored food, we're eating somewhere else." As you notice, I simply tell my kids no. Okay, not so simply, but you get the idea.

Seriously, I could probably make a fortune selling porta-spines to these parents who can't exercise the simple ability to tell their children no.

It applies to everything in life, really. We increasingly live in a society based on people not being capable of being responsible, whether that be the helicopter parent or the paternalistic government. Some people can't take care of themselves, so we need a government program. And since the more obedient subjects they have, the more powerful politicians become, politicians who want to make "public 'service'" *gagging sound* a career have no reason to say no the the spoiled children that vote them into office.

So sadly, we'll continue to see government intrude to make the right decisions for us and our children rather that having the sense to exercise moderation, or in the absence of that ability, take steps to force limits upon ourselves.

As for my kids, they'll continue to hear, "You can want in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first." Then we'll go out for fast food, with all the toys and trimmings. Just not too much.

I swear, trying to explain this common sense is almost pointless. So let's make a comedian do it:

2010/2012 Election Warmup

2010-07-22T14:20:00.000-04:00

The real challenge after an unplanned hiatus from blogging is getting the rust out and figuring out where to begin.

And since we're about 100 days from the 2010 election, I'll start there. And segue to a little 2012 and get your thoughts.

State of the Congress

My own congressional elections are lackluster. My rep, Jim Jordan, has earned a reelection based on his fiscal conservatism. I would consider a third party candidate, though, because he's been there a decade, except for the need to break the Democrat stranglehold on DC. I would like to see him moving up to the Senate. Preferably to replace the idiot senator, George Voinovitch. Thankfully, this bastard is not running for reelection, so I can cast a default GOP vote. I don't really care who.

I don't really care who at this time, because the point is to split the government so they can't keep doing damage (do I really need to list it all?). Even if that means a few Scott Browns squeeze past common sense and get in. Because right now, a deadlocked government would be preferential over 1-party rule. And that includes either party, because 2006 was caused by the GOP and their inability to stand on principle when they have a chance to throw cash around unabated. In my life, the best things have happened during the later Reagan and Clinton years, when the only way to get shit done was to find things that could be agreed on. And if not, the government got shut down (the best thing ever). So, long story short, if you don't want your country fundamentally changed into something that it was never meant to be, the only place to fight the milktoast Republicans was/is in the primaries this year. We can boot them in 2012 if they suck.

I really hate this, but there it is.

State of the State

This brings me to the great state of Ohio, which has been struggling under the weight of its own business burdens to survive the recession. Without researching deeply (because I'm still rusty), the states that seem to not have income taxes, heavy union populations, and conservative Republican governors seem to be doing better than states of the opposite bent (yet another reason Michigan sucks).

This year, we get the chance to get a conservative Republican governor (I bold that, because our last GOP gov was a big government douche). That would be John Kasich.

Some quick background. He rose to prominence in the 1994 Republican revolution, worked as a fiscal conservative in Washington until 2000, when he left Congress. Then he decided to go the route of show host on Fox news (sorry, he sucked at that). And now he's running for governor of my home state.

To be honest, I wanted him to run for President. But I'll take him as governor. And the one additional reason: according to his opponent, Ohio governor Ted Strickland:

The Hermanator

If you notice below, I killed my list of potential candidates for President in 2012. Mainly because I found my candidate (assuming he runs).

I first heard Herman Cain as a guest radio host. Needless to say, what he was saying is mostly what I believe and know. So I'm not going to go into a lot of detail as to why I'm a fan and supporter. I'll let you peruse the links and video and comment afterward:

WorldNut Daily (good article to start with)
Wikipedia
Hermancain.org
The Herminator PAC
And of course, Draftcain.org

Thoughts?

Nationalism, War, and Terror

2010-06-29T16:49:00.000-04:00

In an ideal world, we'd be able to go into a country that harbors terrorists, kill the terrorists deader than hell, knock down the petty dictator that's using them to boost his thug cred, and the people would rejoice (Side note: that was the Pollyanna view of the attack on Saddam's Iraq). Reality is that in the shitholes of the world, good and evil are not black and white, but so many shade of gray that you'd think you were in the pre-Technicolor days. It's a world where the enemy of my enemy is my friend unless there's money enough involved for me to upgrade my mud hut of get me a gun so I can feed my family or earn some respect from someone. And it's a world where principle consists of "he who has the gun rules."

Which brings us to Afghanistan, AKA the asshole of the world. I refer to it as such because all it seems to give us is a lot of shit whenever we go there. I'll save the rest of the anal jokes for later....

I was reading this opinion piece from a guy who advocates dialogue with everybody's favorite ragheaded totalitarian group, the Taliban. And it got me to thinking, as I always do.

It also got me thinking about Iran, a country oppressed by terrorist-loving Islamic religious zealots that is hell-bent on getting a nuke add talks freely about wiping our ally Israel off the map. Quick answer is to go in and kill the sons of bitches. However, were we to go in to take them out, we would be met with a stiffened resistance from the people, and a bloodbath would ensue, despite our best intentions, that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like cuddly hug party by comparison. The big reason, and a reason that anything short of a total war can carry the day in most countries is the concept of nationalism (my apologies for the weakness of the Wikipedia article, but I'll try to clarify).

Essentially, its the defense of your home area, state, country, etc, that makes a war on foreign soil so damned hard to win, whether you go with the US COIN strategy in Afghanistan or the old Soviet method of just shooting people. And whether it's used to turn a pissant nation into a word-dominating power for a while, like WWII Germany (and thankfully, they're still a pissant nation), or the motivation for a lot of guys who didn't own or benefit from slaves in the Civil War-era South, or modern intellectuals defending their home alongside the Islamic nutjobs in Iran. And in parts of Afghanistan, where the only things there is a market for are rock chisels, guns, and bonable goats, the nation is a mess of tribes and societies where outsiders are welcome enough to bring you RPGs, but that's about it.

Now that's not to say we can't win. But as it was pointed out in the article I referenced above, it's going to be at a significant cost of time, money, and lives. And with our fascination of it all being resolved at the end of the show, season, or series (unless you were one of the fools trying to make sense of Lost), most people aren't equipped with the resolve to see this through.

We proved that in the bungle of bungles known as Vietnam, where we could kill the shit out of the enemy and still lose in shame.

Now the current strategy lends itself to success where stacking bodies like cordwood does not. Unless, of course, we possessed the balls to wipe out all life in parts of the country with some happy tactical nukes (because if you kill everybody, you win (sort of)), which may get the rest to back off (assuming that we'd nuke them next if they piss us off).

But in the end, we have to be ready to embrace even those we might have called our enemy, including the less nutty elements of the Taliban (because not all terrorists are equally evil). Because it is never an all or nothing situation, and the difference between insurgents and patriots sometimes depends on who wins. And if it's your country on the firing line, the line between liberator and enemy is fine.

Generals with Balls

2010-06-23T09:19:00.000-04:00

I'll make it short today, as I have 10 minutes of video below.

First of all, as a matter of form, it's never good when you have soldiers publicly complaining about those above in the chain of command General Stanley McChrystal should have known this, and that any article which stated or even implied a dissatisfaction with the failings of the Obama administration in the war in Afghanistan was going to lead to ass reaming. I don't know his motivation in letting Rolling Stone in to write the article. And in the end, it may cost him his position, and the ability to continue the fight. And as a result of that, it may mean some halfwit politician general who isn't fit to pour piss out of a boot with instructions written under the heel will be the go-to(-hell) guy in ~~Vietnam~~ Afghanistan. More on that in a bit.

If you haven't read the whole article, start clicking. It's worth reading cover to cover.

While the picture it paints of Afghanistan is bleak (it is Rolling Stone magazine), it also paints a portrait of a profane, balls-to-the-wall general who doesn't necessarily give a damn about the rules as long as he can get the job done. The biggest problem is that the strategy he's employing requires rules of engagement so insane that they can't win. Not that Afghanistan was a place we thought we could win anyway (unless you forgot the history of the place).

The fact is that General McChrystal has been doing what it takes to win for years. And Obama, to his credit, put the General where he is today, which gave us the best possible kind of leader to try to win that mess. Now, as I finish this post, McChrystal is arriving in Washington to meet with Obama. My hope is that he schools Obama in what he is fighting and Obama understands (and lets him get back to work). Because this is not about politics. It's really about finding a way to win and get out without having to have spent lives in vain.

But politics often eats the best soldiers that don't play well with politicians. To a degree, General McChrystal does remind me of another great general of history:

(I had to go with the first vid when I heard who the commentator was.)

Oh, and what would a Patton reference be without the speech (from the movie):

Free Video Hosting

Economic Terrorism (the New (anti)American Way)

2010-06-21T17:04:00.000-04:00

This is a followup to my last post, where I was pointing out that BP, with all their mistakes and gaffes, is not necessarily evil for doing so (as it also is not in their own self-interest), where the capacity for the government, led by a capitalism-loathing administration, has a great capacity for evil in serving their own self-interest.

Naturally, the response from some quarters has been that I'm not only excusing BP (which I wasn't of course), but that I'm giving them the political equivalent of a hand job (my colorful words, because I like to lighten up in the face of demagoguery). The view expressed was that since BP made bad decisions that caused an accident, cost lives, and led to a disaster, anything done to them in retaliation is okay, whether it be restitution they pay, a legal process, a political shakedown, or terrorism. And it's all because they're a BIG EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL CORPORATION.

Of course the solution are to pile on regulation, make them pay for everything imaginable (including shit that's not their responsibility, like people who are out of work due to the government moratorium on drilling), and use them as the example/scapegoat/symbol of every reason capitalism is an utter failure. And it's all because of one of the most asinine, short-sighted, and ideologically motivated theory on capitalism:

"The reason BIG EEEEEVIL CORPORATIONS exist is to bend over and fuck the ass of the average person (without lube), eat their babies, and kill them after putting sugar in their gas tank, all in pursuit of every penny they can steal from real people who actually work for a living rather than sitting in ivory towers mounted on yachts and pissing champagne down on all the small people who they view as simply pawns to sell poison and death to...[and so on]."

I could go on there, but I think I've been ridiculous enough. And yet, that exaggeration is based on the fact that I can never find a kind word for a company that makes more than a few bucks here and there from the people who profess to be intelligent, yet seem to also fail to grasp even the most basic concepts of a market economy (which is what you get when pure capitalism is tempered by the rule of law) And as a result, I get to "defend" people who will be paying out the nose to defend themselves anyway, because the rule of law is how you define right and wrong in this country, not any particular ideology.

So we get plenty of people whose goal is to terrorize corporations in the pursuit of killing them, even though it has been corporations, and their little brothers in small businesses (which spawn the corporations if they are successful enough) that have given us the prosperity and freedom we now enjoy (and some condemn in an act to sheer self-loathing).

Now I'm not going to say that capitalism is pure and perfect as the yellow driven snow. But it's the best system that can be managed when your principles dictate freedom for all. It must be tempered by the rule of law, with the courts and legislature acting as a check when the corporation begins to infringe on the freedom of others. Of course, government being government, dereliction of duty has been the watchword for a century or so.

Corporatism - I had to Wikipedia this one, because it's usually wielded as a perjorative (also noted in the Wiki). In essence, it's any situation where business and/or government, and/or religion start the inbreeding, leading to less-than-free markets. Whether that's through some kind of partnership (as opposed to a simple commercial transaction) where the company exists as semi-government entity (Fannie and Freddie), or is supported by government welfare (too many to list, although both my employer and my father's company are looking to do just that), or through market-killing measures designed to benefit the company that gives the most cash (which is why government must be limited), it's a situation that pervert the market, giving police power to corporations through the government. This is a bad thing.

Economic Fascism - This is the mirror of corporatism. It's where the government, through legislation, taxes, and (under Obama) thug takeovers creates elements of a quasi-command economy. In this, corporations (in pursuit of their profits and survival) seek to be the favored of the government, ultimately being an arm of the government against their will. This is just as bad, worse since it can lead to the obliteration of the last vestiges of the free market (socialism/communism/Marxism/etc). In short, goodbye freedom.

Now you'll notice that I avoided the inaccurate cliches of "less regulation" and "smaller government" in discussing the above. Because that is not always the answer in the free market. In the end, if you get the regulations necessary to protect every individual's freedom, the quantity (which will be logically less) does not matter). And limiting what government can do to a corporation is important in two ways.

First, it protects the maximum amount of freedom for individuals to buy what they want, protecting corporations from litigation that tugs at the heartstrings but requires an abandonment of sense (the McDonalds coffee incident), and providing for a system by which opportunity is maximized and intrusion is limited. And second, it eliminates the ability of a corporation, group, or the government from distorting the market to their financial or political advantage.

So for those of you who think that giving more power to the government will magically fix the EEEEVILS of the Big Corporations, it's the power of government to dictate things that they were never meant to that has led to where we are now. After all, wasn't it the government who gave the safety awards to BP?

Just sayin'.

Lesser of Two Evils

2010-06-21T14:20:00.000-04:00

Whenever I write any post concerning the gulf oil spill, the beginning of that post always includes a disclaimer that anything that follows is not an approval of BP, or a mitigation of fault, or a plea to understand. This post, of course, will be no different.

But the reality (unlike the pic to the right) is that I shouldn't even have to be writing these posts in the first place. In fact, the sheer number of people out there that see BP as an obscenity right now is way too damned large for a thinking population. Which tells me that either too many people are not using their brains (which explains the 2008 election), or too many people have been inculcated with the idea that corporations are inherently evil and in control of everything (thus, the pic at the right).

So I'm going to talk corporations in general. This does not preclude some evil bastards who really don't give a shit and would sell broken glass with chipping lead paint on it as a fill-in substance for toddler playgrounds if it would increase their profits. But those are the exceptions. And BP, like every other corporation, is made up of people who, in general, care about getting this oil spill mess cleaned up as quickly as reasonably possible. And that's both for PR/profit reasons (because a big hole gushing oil all over birds and killing jobs really has no benefits), and because people generally don't like to watch people and animals suffering (except maybe people who regularly watch network pseudo-reality).

The fact is that most corporations rely on voluntary transactions to earn profits (unlike the above pic). That means a big enough PR disaster can result in bankruptcy, and possibly the death of that corporation itself. And if that happens due to lawsuits over this mess, it'll suck for thousands of employees and shareholders (the majority being people who might end up on the government dole if their retirement collapses). But that's the down side of capitalism.

So unless you can cite how BP will benefit from the continuation of this oil spill, harping on them as the big bad in this situation is both pointless and stupid. And inaccurate.

(On a semi-related side note, to find the above picture, I Googled "bp oil spill evil" and did an image search. Of the first 8 pictures, 2 were of Dick Cheney? WTF?!?!?!?! Seriously. )

So if the Wildlife of the Gulf, the people of the Gulf, and the corporations drilling in the Gulf don't benefit in the least from this disaster, can we think of anyone who does.

If someone took advantage of the situation to blame the people responsible for the accident for everything that happened after (even when it was out of their control) to deflect any of their failings, would that be the greater evil?

If they took advantage of ecological damage to push through something that is, at best, marginally related to the disaster because the only way to cram it through would be to bullshit the population into supporting it, would that be the greater evil.

If they also used the justifiable anger of the people and the threats of even worse legislation and PR attacks (with the police power of the gun) to extort money, would that be the greater evil?

And (speculatively) if they let the disaster unfold because they knew they could blame someone else, pass crap legislation, and extort cash, would there be no question which of the two (BP or the Imperial Federal Government) which is the greater evil?

Now I do label the last paragraph as speculative because it is. I can't say that Obama administration let things become a disaster for political gain. But we are dealing with an administration who has open hostility toward corporate America and the capitalist system, as well as stated intentions to cripple fossil fuels and the tendency to try to control every faced of the economy he can get his claws on. And government has police power to take whatever the hell they want. While that is a necessary evil, in the hands of the unscrupulous, it becomes a threat to our freedom.

So between a corporation who can be run out of business by the people through the rule of law, and the government who can adjust that law to serve their own ends, their own power, and can force or coerce us to their way of thinking by the carrot or by the stick, I'll always trust the corporation, whose survival is never certain.

A Speech Too Far

2010-06-16T02:13:00.000-04:00

(too far from the point, and from timeliness, to be specific)

It took 2 hours of after-comment, a World Cup match (Ivory coast vs Portugal) inundated with those less-annoying-than-an-Obama-speech vuvuzelas, and a little crab fishing (Deadliest Catch), to wash the bad taste out of my mouth from the anger that I was forced to vomit out as I listened to a speech that was 10 minutes longer than necessary, and most certainly a speech that would have made sense had it been given IN APRIL when there was a need for the leader of this country to mobilize everything we could scrape up to combat this mess.

So rather than piecemeal the POS speech, I'll grab a few snippets that hit the most important points:

That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge....

From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation's history....

The first thing is this "from day one" bullshit, when the evidence is to the contrary. He didn't address it in the first day, or the first week. The Dutch offered some ships we haven't taken. There is some collection equipment still sitting in (I think) Maine. There was a plan to burn the oil that was authorized in advance but never implemented. Requests for support and authorizations to build breaks are still being ignored. (Note to Bobby Jindall: You should have made a call, and then said screw the feds and started building up the sand after a week.)

Simply put: it's BP's responsibility to "plug the damned hole," but only the federal government is big enough, powerful enough, and loaded with enough resources to combat a massive oil spill threatening several states. And waiting two months to make a speech mostly about what you're GOING TO DO for an oil spill is wretched incompetence at best.

And in the snide comment bin: If the government has been in charge of the cleanup, that explains why the beach is covered.

We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused.

Now I will be clear that BP is most certainly financially responsible for this mess. No one is arguing that point. But there was a whole section in this speech about how the Obama's Imperial Federal government was going to punish those filthy, disgusting, evil bastards at BP while they're working to cap the well and there's still assloads of oil to clean up.

*smacking the President of the United States upside his head*

Seriously? You're worried about punishing a company before the investigation is complete? Your concern is to make them hand over billions of dollars for you (or your handpicked cronies) to hand out?

There's a time for BP to pay for the mess. But turning them into the ultimate evil of the week to make an enemy to "fight" in this "crisis" does nothing to help the damned situation. If I had a grease fire in my kitchen because a child turned on a burner, I'd take care of the fire, then the smoke. Only then, after the damage was contained and there was nothing that required my immediate attention, would I be looking for who's "ass needs kicked." In the grease fire situation, it would be scrubbing soot off walls and ceilings (which sucks so very much). In the oil spill, that's after the well is contained and the spill is cleaned or dispersed from the ocean for the most part.

Oh, and if BP is collapsed from all the demonizing (and the boycot bullshit, and so on), how the hell will they be able to pay for all of this? They're not the government; they can't just print and borrow it. And if I were BP's CEO, after hearing that speech I'd call the White House and tell him I'm not coming and to go to hell.

The third part of our response plan is the steps we're taking to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again.

First of all, this is the first major accident in 40 years. We already know that there were things done wrong that led to the accident. So "to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again," we don't do what they did.

Wow, that was easy, wasn't it? Can I get the money that was going to be wasted on some commission of eggheads that will come up with the one good piece of regulation and a gazillion stupid ones to fix the problem? I wouldn't need another thing from the government after that.

So that makes me wonder how banning all drilling for 6 months will help? Not only are we talking just idling an industry that could investigate the accident while they continue a necessary process, but it's also doing more damage to the economy of a state already damaged by Katrina, and by an oil spill.

And while I'm thinking about Katrina, I want to apologize for calling this mess "Obama's Katrina." Specifically, I want to apologize to the Bush administration. Their response was slow, but they got it cranked up and dealt with it. They learned, they improved. And they led. They didn't spend two months spinning and blaming and waiting until their own party started turning on them before they ~~took bold action~~ made a bold speech.

Which brings us to the political crap:

Clean energy, clean energy, clean energy, clean energy, clean energy, clean energy, clean energy, clean energy, clean energy, clean energy, clean energy, clean energy....

Now why do I say this is crap? It's not because I don't think that oil is the future of energy. It's because we don't even know what the technology that will replace oil is going to be. It's not ethanol. It's not solar and wind. And there's nothing out there with enough research to even be close yet. When we find it, oil will die, as did steam engines and horses.

Of the things we do have, oil has become harder because of all the places we've decided we "can't" drill. Natural gas could be a better alternative, but again, it's a fight against the enviro-douches and the NIMBY brigades (the latter also don't like wind turbines). And then there's nuclear. Clean as hell, but no one is building anything (thanks, e-douches, NIMBYs, and the red tape brigades). Oh well, maybe we can go back to horses, and make fuel out of the horseshit too.

In the end, energy independence and this clean energy pipe dream bullshit are mutually exclusive. And it will be paid for by taxes on top of taxes. AND WHY ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR FUCKING AGENDA WHEN THERE'S A MESS TO CLAN UP?!?! I shouldn't even have to have written these last three paragraphs.

*banging head against wall, then going to bed*

(Wow, it's 2:15. Sleep good.)

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

2010-06-04T17:59:00.000-04:00

Yes, it's ironic as all shit out to hear thisfrom someone who is primarily known for blogging relentlessly (using many, many words (and those (ridiculously overused) parentheses)). But there's a difference between someone who registers an opinion and someone who actually possesses the power to order assloads of resources to a problem, throw red tape out the window, and actually do something big.

Yep, it's time to mock President Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm).

The pic to the right doesn't really relate to the post, but it was funny, so laugh, you unhumorous pricks.

Okay, let's get to the rat killing (I'm quoting John Wayne, not describing Obama). The big news today was the job numbers. In may, we gained a whole, whopping 431,000 jobs. 411,000 of those jobs, of course came from temporary Census workers, which means when the inquisition ends in a couple of months, expect the loss of 411,000 jobs.

This leaves a measly 20,000 jobs. With 15,000,000 people still unemployed. Actual private gains were around 41,000 jobs, primarily in manufacturing (which is dying due to union labor demands), temporary workers (more in a minute) and mining (that filthy stuff Obama wants to run out of business). Sadly, the temp labor is the best of the three because it means demand is up, and companies are producing more stuff, which requires more labor (yay). But employers don't want to commit to the monstrous costs to hire a person right now (with minimum wage, paid leave, health care, Social inSecurity matching, and an expectation of more shit piled on (cap and tax on the tail end of the oil spill in the Gulf (RE: crisis as opportunity))).

And so, out comes this Pollyanna-on-crack assessment from the White House. Not that I blame them for trying to staple some rose-colored glasses on the situation (I sure as hell would if it were an election year. Here's the beginning of the spin:

Today’s employment situation report shows continued signs of labor market recovery. Payroll employment rose for the fifth month in a row, and the unemployment rate fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 9.7 percent. While these are encouraging developments, we clearly have a very long way to go until the labor market is fully recovered. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and generate steady, strong job gains and continuing declines in unemployment.

The problem with this is that Obama's sum total of action and words has been an assload of speeches, an idiotic giveaway "stimulus" program that mainly was designed to grow (intrinsically unproductive) government jobs and keep unemployment below 8.5 % (that number may not be right (as I'm quoting from memory), but it was wrong nonetheless), and that unholy, immoral, unconstitutional, piece-of-shit monstrosity unpopularly known as Obamacare, which (among it's myriad flaws) makes employing people more expensive (by mandating health insurance). In short, he's spoken about the value of small business, the need togrow jobs, the urgency of the matter. And his actouns have been to grow government and hobble (like Kathy Bates in Misery) businesses as they look at the price of labor.

Oh, there's a couple more things that he's done for jobs. There's the whole oil spill debacle. Inactivity there has helped put fishermen and shrimpers out of work. It's destroyed beaches, thus killing jobs in hotels and beachfront businesses. And then there's the whole ban on drilling, which puts the thousands doing the jobs out of work.

So explain how Obama is trying to create jobs? Self-sustaining, productive jobs? I'm really stumped here.

And finally, to pile on to the fun of a President who was "involved" "from day one" and just made his third speech ("just words") at the oil spill in Louisiana today, enjoy his first month of fighting the oil spill in the Gulf:

Tuesday Lite****()*

2010-06-01T19:20:00.000-04:00

********(****)***** I have no idea why I added all the asterisks, except it seemed to make sense. Read the rest of the post, and you'll understand why. Unless you don't.

It's actually been two whole weeks since I posted anything here. It's probably because we can't seem to get past the partisan blithering. Of course, it's also marked my inability to check out my blogroll, because I can't seem to find anything I could add in the comments except non sequiturs and the standard requisite dick and fart jokes.

So this post is going to be light on deep thought, just a snapshot of where we're at.

Oil in the Gulf

So according to Obama, in his presser last week, the federal government has been running the show since day one. That explains why the shit is flowing a month and a half later. Or is it actually BP's fault that their attempts to seal the leak haven't worked. Strangely, I think when it all comes down to it, it will be a hurricane that solves the oil slick, Obama will take credit for it, as well as BP sealing the leak, and until then, it's BP's fault?

Chris Christie 2012

I doubt he's going to actually do it because he's busy fixing his state (unlike some governors). And he's doing it with balls. Sheer balls, and a simple principle: NOT GROWING GOVERNMENT. Here's a perfect example of a no-bullshit approach:

And while we're on the subject of replacing politicians that suck,

The Day(s) the Incumbent(s) Died (figuratively)

It's not an absolute rule here, but incumbents and incumbent parties are feeling the pressure. Incumbents are getting challenged. The party in power is getting the boot. And best of all, the moderate milktoasts (Dem and GOP) are being bumped out. It's why Scott Brown, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, and others all won their respective races/primaries, people like Charlie Crist find themselves out of the party and people like Blanche Lincoln are fighting for political survival. It indicates there is hope, and it also convinces me the people will get it right eventually when they go to the polls.

Do Ask, Do Tell

I liked the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy when it was enacted, because it really was a compromise between those who were uncomfortable with homosexuality, and those who were gay second and soldiers first. It's 15 years later, and we've gotten a whole lot more tolerant, especially in the enlisted ranks, where young people are more inclined to respond to homosexuality with a resounding "meh" (except for hot lesbo action (yum)). Sadly, this is mostly going down party lines to suck up to the senile citizens and mind-numbed morons who vote in overwhelming numbers for the same old shite.

Satyavati's Surgery

Okay, this is on the more personal side. One of our fellow bloggers is going in for bariatric surgery in nine days. And she's documenting in video on her blog. If you want an interesting break from politics, check it out (and comment so I don't have to hear about the lack of comments every time I talk at her). And when she goes in, thoughts and prayers (because you all give a shit about people, even if you hate 'em).

Finally, here's a video that's quite well done (not to @talkmaster). So shelve the politics, enjoy the artistry, then pull the politics back off the damn shelf and let me have it. Enjoy.

"WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR CHILDREN!!!!!"

2010-05-17T12:02:00.000-04:00

The above hysteria comes form (no surprise) some actress testifying about something that sounded trendy to argue against in front of (even less surprise) a congressional committee. The problem is that when it comes to OUR CHILDREN!!!!, some of us really don't have any damned sense. And since these are all things that hit me personally, here we go.

First of all, there's the discipline front. Specifically, the parents/teachers/caregivers who don't/can't discipline children. As in spanking is bad. Making a child cry is bad. And forcing them to sit in a corner as punishment is bad (I found this out from my babysitter, who can only "talk to them" if they're misbehaving, which is as effective with my boy as making a chihuahua a guard dog (trust me, he needs the ass whipped as freely as I did). I'll be blunt. There is no punishment (except when it ranges into clear abuse, like bruising or psychological torture) that is bad. All of them work to varying degrees, need to be applied in different situations, and are lessons the kids need to learn (as in "if you touch that, I'll whip your ass. *touch* *Wham!*).

It's one thing that I've learned: I can be free and easy as I want with my children and have them love me to death. But there are also times where I need them to hate my guts because I'm a complete bastard. It's the whole carrot and stick thing, and it means that I have (relatively) well-behaved and respectful children (because if not, their ass will be red).

Now I'm not going to go off and condemn any particular punishment technique or philosophy (except government-mandated bullshit that makes discipline impossible (and the likely reason we had to change childcare a few months back)). But I will clarify that there is no one-size-fits-all approach in dealing with children, as they all learn differently, and one just needs explained to tears while the other needs his hide tanned to get the same message (and I'll probably have to do so again before I can finish this post...).

This one-size-fits-all approach, however, is how most of us also deal with educating our children. That would be the curse on today's youth known as government schools. And the incompetent hands of the legion that is teachers' unions.

It got so bad in one Rhode Island town that the school system fired all the teachers in a perpetually failing school after the union thugs wouldn't concede shit (yay), then buckled and let the union lackeys come back after some "deal" was struck (link). And the solution includes making the kids spend more time in the government school, where all kids are (made) "equal." While some kids will excel in such an asinine environment, others *raising hand* who really don't learn in groupthink situations will naturally languish, getting by on sheer intelligence (while less intelligent kids will crash and burn and become government leeches).

And meanwhile, the solutions that seem to get the most traction are either "more money" and/or "more testing" (which the Brits are rejecting) neither of which does shit in the hands of government school union teachers who have every motivation to not rock the damned boat (which is also one way to get kids to give a shit), and school administrators who's hands, feet, and balls are tied. And always, the solution that gets the political traction is to grow the Department of Education, while playing lip service to parental involvement.

(I'm just being general here, because every thing I list could get its own post.)

Now obviously, I'm not happy with government education. However, due to economic circumstances (as in I couldn't afford it), location (rural Ohio), and limited choices (Catholic School? NFW!), my kids are government school bound. On the plus, they do have an alternative class for kids with issues (as in my oldest), and I plan to spend some time and energy 1. teaching my children important shit (practical lessons, debate, and critical thinking), and 2. pissing off their teachers over dumb state and federally mandated shit, as well as dumb shit they learned (staring with the dumbass bullshit phrase "mistaken behavior", which has already pissed me off because it's a dumbass bullshit phrase (and I sent a note back on that...)).

I don't have a complete answer as to how to fix this other than radical moves like disbanding the department of education, all teachers unions, most state regulations, and maybe half the damned schools, then start over. As that's really not practical, I guess I'll just have to fight the battles as they come over the next 14 years (my youngest will hit kindergarten after another year of preschool). Somehow, if you know me, it will give me a REASON TO BE.

*insert evil maniacal laugh*

Of course, it might be better just to drive them to the park and ditch them there for the day. Conveniently, there's plans to do just that:

MAY 22: “TAKE OUR CHILDREN TO THE PARK…AND LEAVE THEM THERE DAY”

I've already laid down a little more on this, as well as why I support this on my personal blog. If you're doubting my sanity in dropping the link above, then hop over and read why.

As for the day itself, it's simple. You already know your child's capabilities. And as long as they are comfortable with doing it, are of a decent age (7-8 an ideal minimum), and you have a group of kids doing it (or even parents with younger children who will go there and sit on a distant bench and ignore them for the most part (which is what I'd do, mine being 4 and 5), and you're not in a neighborhood where crack dealers hang out in the park, then there's no sane reason not to get with other parents and drop a group of kids off and tell them to cover each others asses. And since at least one or two kids will probably already have their own cell phone, no problems if something goes bad. In other words, it's about preparation and using common damn sense.

In short, responsibility for our children really falls to us, and to fight this insane environment of parenting by bureaucracy. As this is intensely personal for me, expect the same passion that I give to my push for the FairTax (I couldn't resist). In other words, I don't stop until we get it right.

Intellectual Honesty - Arizona.

2010-05-14T11:00:00.001-04:00

After changing my brake pads this morning (with a requisite post if I get around to it), I came home and decided to settle the matter of what was in the Arizona immigration bill. So as I begin, my first question to you is: Have you read the bill?

If not, here it is. Be sure you've read it before continuing and/or making a comment or you're either intellectually dishonest or a douchebag. Seriously, it's not that long and you can skim over half of the legalese. It took me longer to write the post than to read the bill.

(for even more of the actual law, click here)

SB_1070_Signed

Ok, now that you've read the actual text, rather than what has been reported in your preferred media outlet and blogs that really have no clue what the hell they're talking about, here's the questions:

1. In what way does this empower local law enforcement that either contravenes, or supersedes Federal immigration law?

2. What burden does this place on any individual (citizen, legal foreign resident, or illegal alien) that did not already exist?

3. What provision authorizes actually stopping people and demanding papers?

I'll wait for your responses as to how a state's steps to bolster federal law when the feds are dropping the ball on something that is a Constitutional duty is unconstitutional. I didn't find anything.

The reason I didn't find anything is because there isn't. There is the potential for abuse, but that's where laws against that activity come in, as well as some sensible watchdog work from groups like the ACLU, as well as the scrutiny of courts, come in. I welcome that. Because this bill, as written, passes the tests.

So if you read this bill, and you still want to scream about boycotting Arizona after you've read the facts, you're an asshat. And intellectually dishonest.

Original Intent

2010-05-12T19:48:00.001-04:00

Damn you, Sarah Palin, for making me have to argue with you.

To clarify: I like Sarah Palin. I'd have liked to see her as VP (with the only problem being the half-ass that would have been Prez). I'd have liked to see her reinvent herself, lead the conservative governors against the insanity of Obamacare, prove herself to have much more depth than the half-ass media (that slavishly marches to the same liberal drum) has portrayed her having. And I'd have liked to see her hand Obama his nuts in 2012.

(It wouldn't ruin the fun of the Caribou Barbie jokes....)

But then she says stuff like this (quote is at 2:45 in this clip):

"Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments."

Um..., nooooo, ho, ho, ho, hoooo. No.

I really blame the inadequacies of the government schools here, for teaching either a saccharine view of the founding of America (what I got (although I'm not blaming School House Rock)) or a distorted and half-assed view based on whatever agenda the particular teachers have (which I also got because of the damage of 8 years in ~~hell~~ Catholic school). For me, it's been a study of the actual men who formed this country over many years that has dispelled the myths, the legends, and the bullshit that we tend to build up so we can idolize a bunch of guys who were really a snapshot of America, circa 1776. And it is both in their writings, and the writings of people who knew them, that we can actually look at the original intent of the men (and their women) who created the government of this country.

Inspiration

First of all, let's get God on the table and examine His influence over the Founding Fathers (FFs). The FFs were men of many faiths. The majority subscribed to some form of Christianity. There were Jews, a few Deists, and some who's faith was not necessarily clear. However, what could be agreed upon by all were the following:

1. There was a Deity that created and ordered all of Creation.
2. The form of government of the United States was ordained by Him (indirectly, of course).
3. The Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) is a codification of rights that exist, therefore are the Provence of God, not man, to give.

And clearly, there is a requirement that morality, most commonly found in faith, is a necessary component of the continuing function of our government. This is the extent that Christianity can actually be "found" in the founding documents. Mostly, it inspired them to create the most just and fair form of government they could at the time (which meant leaving some big messes (slavery) for succeeding generations to fight over). Which means they didn't include a single Commandment anywhere in the actual Constitution. They got most of the things you might find in Exodus from:

English Common Law

As it has been through much of history, a significant portion of the FFs were of the now-loathed brotherhood of lawyers. In this case, they were lawyers who worked the bar in the English courts, working through the tort system and the English Common Law. And for the most part, it worked. So who in their right mind would scrap what worked? Not our FFs. And the British, as they expanded drew from earlier civilizations, such as pre-imperial Rome and pre-government tit anarchy Greece , who drew from more primitive and earlier cultures back to the days when debate over whether the word "snorg" was a proper word. In other words, like those that came before, they drew upon the successful forms of representative governance throughout history, trying to avoid those things that destroyed the great societies of the past from within. So that means:

Reading Assignments

The Library of Congress, in the wake of the British burning of Washington in the War of 1812, looked to Thomas Jefferson for salvation, as he sold them his entire library. (This was also because he needed cash for his debts, but then proceeded to assemble another library anyway (imagine what TJ could do in the credit market of the las decade!!!!). But his library was the library of many of the leading minds of the Revolution. Such as John Adams. In addition to the Bible (because he read a LOT), you could find works that spanned written history, in multiple languages, covering poetry, literature, history, philosophy and religion. I'd list it all, but there were were 3500 books. That would make the Bible .002% of his total reading material. While that's one of the lowest percentages, it was common for those of learning (or like Washington, those who were mostly self-taught) to tackle reading from a wide range of philosophies and thoughts. In matter of fact, the days of the FFs were an age of enlightenment, something that Christianity, throughout most of its history, has not been known for. As for the Bible, most of it runs along the lines of kings and divinely mandated authoritarian government. Which is why the FFs were big on:

Checks and Balances

The FFs understood the duality of Man, and his tendency to go bad when given power without limit. A single leader, invested with too much power, would become a king. A single assembled group would be an oligarchy. The majority would degenerate into a mob. Any part of the government, if allowed to gain power over another, could tear it asunder. And any group that can claim divine mandate to command the hearts of Men (organized religion) could wipe away freedom by ignoring the free.

In short, they knew enough about people to know not to trust ANYONE with too much power. So their documents were crafted to protect the individual from the mob, to draw lines around specific territories that were appropriate for a federal government and cut them off from the rest, to give the executive the power to tell the congress no, the congress the power to throw out his refusal (and in the worst case, his ass), and the power of the judiciary to throw anything out. In addition, the two houses were set up (until the damned 17th Amendment) to represent different constituencies, balancing their wishes and needs against each other. And they left the option of an amendment process, which had enough checks to make it damned near impossible to amend the Constitution (and I kind of wish they had made it harder). But it all pointed to one general concept, which has been lost in the modern era of the Imperial Federal government:

Limited Government

While many of the early debates (continuing to this day, in fact) were about what were the details of the limits placed on the federal government, one thing was clear. And that was that they only wanted a federal government strong enough to defend the country and hold the union of states together. And that was it. As it was, most of them viewed their state as their country, even more than the United States. And that psychology carried us through our first century, even after a war that split us in two. This is because they understood that the less a distant government (like their former mother country of England) could interfere in their lives, the better they would be. And not one of them believed that government was an entitlement; rather, they viewed it as service that must be paid by them for a free country to exist. And they pledged their fortunes, their lives, and their sacred honor to that.

"Are you done yet?"

I know that's what some of you are thinking. Pretty much. After all, I'm trying to synthesize the thoughts, feelings, and writings of many men of many walks of life into a tiny little blog and mostly from memory.
And much of it is a reaction to the fact that conservatism can't win if we forget what the FFs actually meant, and we start imprinting the agendas of those that envision a Christian theocracy onto people who would be leading the revolt against it if they were still alive. Of course, they'd have revolted over most of the things the Imperial federal Government has done as well.

And despite the idea of a "living document" that magically evolves new rights, their intent was very clear: investing too much of anything in a distant and foreign power (foreign being anything inside the beltway) is dangerous, and generally will end badly. Because they've already covered the basics. A simple example of this would be the Internet. If you think they could have never foreseen this, you are right and wrong. The technology is something they could not conceive. But the questions that it creates (freedom of speech, interstate commerce, personal property rights) have already been addressed. So the document is dead, done, set in stone, subject to a chisel only rarely, unless we are foolish enough to forget what it means and we strap some C4 to it.

Finally, (because I can't go out without a joke), one has to make sure that if you base something on the Ten Commandments and the Bible, you have to make sure the source material is good. Can we be sure they even got the ~~Fifteen~~ Ten Commandments right?

Congressional Hearings

2010-05-11T10:19:00.000-04:00

I got out to the theaters this weekend to see, on its first night, Iron Man 2. In short, it kicked ass. I'm not going to go further or drop spoilers, as this is a political blog and not a Iron Man/Tony Stark/Robert Downey Jr lovefest (although if I was gay...). But the first 30 seconds of the trailer below is a taste of the true joy of watching someone treat Congress as they should be treated:

Needless to say, the CSPAN broadcast ends up bleeping the senator in the scene (I didn't think they did that, after the "shitty" hearing a couple of weeks ago). And there's a payoff for that scene in the end.

But it does highlight the pompous ass show that is the ridiculous joke of congressional hearings. Today, BP America, Transocean, and (the EEEVIL) Halliburton (who, interestingly, just got a no-bid contract from the Obama administration) are due on Capitol Hill to be ridiculed, excoriated, and grilled so that our elected representatives can 1. make pompous speeches, 2. gratify their own egos, and 3. predend they're "doing something" about a problem they haven' done shit to fix (or made worse with dumbass legislation and bureaucracy). Last week was the Bear Stearns "shitty" situation. They've also taken to ripping into every private business that's ever crossed the political radar.

And that's including Major League Baseball and the National Football League, as well as professional wrestling.

I bring up two of the largest sports organizations and the premier form of sports entertainment for a simple reason. Why the hell are a bunch of elected political hacks investigating a sport? Is it because the Constitution enumerates specific powers to Congress to regulate, promote, and lord over jock straps and steroid ass needles? Is it because, despite it not being an enumerated power, there is a compelling national interest in making sure a private businesses are being "fair" in the product they present (which people are free to ignore if they become too ridiculous (or boring as baseball really is))? Does their dragging of athletes or pro wrestlers or CEOs or anyone with an IQ above that of a toaster oven before their raised (ego) platforms actually solve or reveal anything that is a game changer?

Or is it essentially political theater, designed to make the post pompous ass on the panel the most powerful douche in the country for the next few days?

At worst, you get something like the Army-McCarthy hearings, where a single senator, with a list, conducts an inquisition, burns the witches, and only when the public sees how ridiculous and vile the tactics are does the madness stop.

I don't have a real solution here, as Congress has the power to pull this shit and waste time and resources putting on shows rather than acting like representatives and passing actual laws. I'm guessing some major turnover of incumbents (both in the primaries if it's your party and the general election) with a message that constant hearings are an example of how useless Congress is might get through to the newly elected. Then again, that would require people to think for themselves, not prop up idiots to do their thinking (and plunder, and legislation of morality, etc).

In short, congressional harings are a joke (which means it's time for one of the many South Park clips I could use):

Any thoughts or stories of stupid hearings I missed (of which there are many)?

And can someone get me before Congress? I really want to be held in contempt by them. It would be a badge of honor.

The "Christian Nation" Fallacy and the National Day of Prayer

2010-05-10T00:43:00.004-04:00

Sometimes a subject comes along that really didn't interest me at first, but got me some momentum to write, starting on a Saturday night, because a side that I might generally agree with is wrong as gay porn starring Jesus and Muhammad.

(pic included of their Prophet to piss off raghead terrorists sons of bitches)

It started when I was prodded over to read Satyavati's latest post entitled National Day of Prayer. Offline, she's been pestering me about the Christian Dominionist threat. Naturally, as I assume there are counter movements to every cabal out there and some conspiracy theorist looking for the conspiracy, I don't worry too damn much about any one group getting control of everything (except maybe the government, because we are collectively dumb enough to let them in exchange for "free" stuff).

Here's the gist of her post:

It's an ongoing trend, this. Any advance in freedoms: for gay folk, for minorities (read Jerry Falwell's old sermons from the civil rights days), for atheists, for non-Christian religious folk; anything that even smells of inclusiveness is 'an attack on Christianity'.

She also indirectly defended the asshat judge that determined the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. In my brilliant comment, I did point out that President Obama signed the proclamation and is appealing the ruling of the idiot judge. And to support that, I came to this link here. But it was the first two comments that really set me off. Dolt One spake thus:

This is a Christian nation. Anyone who can not accept that should leave this country.

Followed by Dolt Two:

I agree with [Dolt One]. This nation was founded by our Christian founders using 3 things: An axe, a torch, and a BIBLE. If you don’t like it, leave.

It set me off enough that I added my own comment (which took a day to post due to moderation). In there, I posit: "Can you actually define what you mean by a "Christian Nation?" Because I thought there was an Amendment or something that strictly forbid the government from establishing a religion."

Oh, let's look at that Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

In other words, to be a "Christian Nation" (similar to an Islamic Republic), you'd have to chuck that part of the Amendment.And since these are God-given rights, aren't you pissing on Him by doing so?

So yeah, I have to agree with *gag* President Obama on this: WE ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!

(damn, agreeing with Barry sucks)

Now let me clarify. The faith of the Founding Fathers, as well as the faith of the American people over all of our history, has helped to shape the morality that has defined us, led to the elimination of prejudices and inequalities that have stained parts of our history, and has, in return, led us to leadership in the world. The overwhelming majority of that faith was founded in the various flavors of Christianity. But those same Founding Fathers who regularly looked to their God for guidance and wisdom also knew enough to not trust those who would use their religion, with the police power of government, to enforce their narrow worldview.

Because while faith is a powerful motivator, a guide to bettering yourself, and a way to examine things which are beyond the conceptual reach of mortal men, it is when you try to legislate your faith (just like your morality) that it is doomed to fail, and worse, rob others of their freedom.

For those of you who'd like to listen to some more debate on the idea that America is not a Christian nation, here's an hour and a half (1) (2) of radio on the subject (since their embed code sucks ass).

Which brings me back to the Christian Dominionists, who I have known informally in years past as the faith fascists.

I really don't know why I didn't make this link earlier. The faith fascists are essentially people who see no distinction between their faith, their religion, and their politics, and have no problem legislating all of them. The Dominionists are the Christian bunch of the faith fascists. In Islam, we call them raghead terrorists sons-of-bitches (well, I call them that). But the mindset is the same. But these are people for whom the government is a tool to gather more people and to strike down the heathen enemy.

To give you my personal history on this, it began when I was dating a girl who was drawn toward some of the Pentecostal stuff. It was in associating with them and hearing the shit they said about my Catholic church (I was already surfing the Lake of Fire according to them) that I decided that if these were the types of people that defined themselves as Christians, I sure as shit wasn't. And yet I was still Catholic at the time (I know it's a leap in logic, but work with me here.) In fact, it was the vehemence and ludicrousity of the faith fascists (along with that examination of my faith) that led to my continuing disillusionment with organized religion and Christianity.

Which means that, according to Dolt One and Dolt Two, I'm now not welcome (as I cannot subscribe to any form of Christianity now). Nor are any of these guys (or the blogger that posted them), many of whom are well-respected in various ways (Mark Twain, Voltaire, George Bernard Shaw, James Madison, Thomas Edison, Susan B. Anthony, Sigmund Freud, Mike Fuhrman, Isaac Asimov, Douglas Adams, Gene Roddenberry (yeah, I'm still a Trekkie)). And shall we go with the thoughts of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson when he was asked to call for a national day of fasting and prayer?

But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the US an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

Boy, the ~~CHRISTIANS!!!~~ can't like him. After all, he was against proclaiming a "National Day of... Prayer" in a "Christian Nation."

Have you gotten the point yet? I absolutely believe in the value of theism in daily life. And how you practice it (as well as how well) will determine in many ways, how your will comport yourself and succeed in the richness of America that is defined and shaped by a free and diverse religious landscape. But when you can't see past your own narrow ass interpretation of a book that you seek to enslave others to your dogma, then perhaps it would be just as well to strap a bomb to your dumb ass and try blowing up the infidels. At least then we die free. And we know you are the false prophets we've been warned of. And no better that the raghead terrorist sons of bitches in your black, unfeeling hearts.

Yeah, Still, it's Drill Baby Drill!

2010-05-07T17:11:00.000-04:00

(note: I almost didn't post this week, but then I'd feel almost naked. No pics forthcoming, thankfully.)

I've been following the news of the mess in the Gulf of Mexico for the past couple of weeks, and now, as they are close to capping off and stopping most of the oil from pouring out into the Gulf and washing up on the shorelines of several states, I think it's time to make with the perspective. First of all, we all know the basics of the story. The oil rig exploded, collapsed, and that opened this bag-ass mess. The oil slick has been spreading, and has been reaching some shorelines.

Enviro-douches have been screaming that this is THE REASON we should never drill anywhere for oil again, and the administrations has halted drilling while the cause of the accident is investigated. As well, calls for BP, who owned the rig and is the responsible party, to pay for all the cleanup, which, according to federal law, they are already responsible for, continue to echo as though they're going to try to skip on the bill (as that would be SOOOOOOO good for the PR mess they already have..

And President Obama has made lots of speeches, some excoriating the evils of BP (and promising to make them pay big), who must pay for everything, and, to his credit, actually said we shouldn't stop drilling. And probably some directly at the oil slick which then was parted Moses-style to make a path for unicorns towing buckets of Rainbow Fish. That, and eventually the feds awoke to the seriousness and got fully mobilized. Which led to an interesting comparison:

Obama's Katrina

I like this comparison for a couple of reasons. First of all, the screams for the feds to "do something" are just as deafening as when people were stranded on rooftops in New Orleans looking sad and helpless, and stuck in the Superdome, looking even worse. And just as in the Bush Administration's response, the nature of the federal bureaucracy meant that it took time to get things there, in place, and working. So as much as I'd like to say Obama dropped the ball on this, I'm pretty certain that rescue, recovery, and response efforts that begin locally will always be better than the lethargic efforts of a government that has to juggle a gazillion things. For an example of this, take a look at Tennessee, which is recovering from a 1000-year flood.

In short, if you think Bush screwed up with Katrina, then Obama screwed up here. No matter what his myriad speeches about oil slicks say. I'm not going to cast any stones here.

The Risks of Drilling for Oil

Before I go any further, yes, a big-ass oil slick washing ashore in a wildlife area or tourist beach is a very bad thing. And the economic impact of fishing industries paralyzed by the fact that there's oil on the seas is also bad. I haven't forgotten that. But if you're going to look at this from a standpoint of politics, policy, and cold, hard facts, you have to balance the potential and actual devastation against the benefits of taking risks.

So let me compare this to something I know more about: parenting. (Yeah, time for some Free-Range comparisons.)

Life itself is a risk. And one of the worst-case scenarios (thanks to 24/7 cable, a "common" risk) is your children getting snatched from the yard by Stranger Danger, the perv that then rapes, kills, and eats your child, while you make the rounds of cable and entertainment shows, weeping and pleading for their safe return (and not in pieces). The actual stats? Around 100 kids out of millions (less than 0.0001%) get the stereotypical kidnapping treatment, and not all of them end up dead screw dolls. And yet, I'm pretty sure there would be some people that would panic if they saw my children (ages 4 and 5) playing on the sidewalk in front of my house alone, while I am inside working. For the record, there is a big yard in front, there's a parking lot across the street, and the end of our block is a state highway. Although it's also a rural small town and we only have 3 registered sex offenders, none of which show a tendency toward raping/killing/eating children.

So the panic parent would say that a 0.0001% chance is too high, and not let the children roam free outside, when the chances of them being in a car wreck as I drive them somewhere is way higher. But the benefit is that they get to play rather than sit in front of the PS3, playing a game or watching the same 30 seconds of a video clip over and over (ah, autism). And play is how kids learn almost everything that matters.

It's the same with drilling for oil. There are significant but small risks in doing so. Here's the list of spills. The las big one for us was the Exxon Valdez, in 1989. The last one in the Gulf? 1980 (30 years ago). The benefits are domestically-produced oil, which can make it cheaper, safer (compared to 3rd world countries that don't give a shit about the environment), and make us less dependent on countries that hate us.

But the DAMAGE!!!! Well, let's look at this:

Oil is a NATURAL Resource

Just because we refine it into lots of stuff and it can be toxic as shit when in large quantities (as is mercury, lead, radon gas, Mountain Dew, hot wings, and sunlight) doesn't mean it didn't come from nature. And remember, we're dealing with the natural product here: crude oil, which was created by a geologic process long before we came up with the Model T, or steam power, or fire (ok, we discovered that, but...). And nature has ways of dealing with crude oil. Especially in the Gulf of Mexico.

It's called seepage:

Assuming the seep scales are proportional to the surface area, a reasonable seep rate for the entire Gulf is about double the northern Gulf estimate, giving a total Gulf of Mexico seep rate of about 140,000 tonnes per year (ranging from 80,000 to 200,000 tonnes per year).
Now if you want to compare that to, say, the Exxon Valdez, that was 37,000 tonnes. Our current mess is at 8,000+ tonnes so far, although that's already an old number. So nature does have to deal with a whole lot of oil already. That also means that an oil spill is not the permanent death of the Gulf Coast.

Now this doesn't mean we can say, "oh well, it's just oil," and let it coat the coast. Because as I said, it's a bad thing in large quantities. And we have a lot of oil over a relatively small area in a short span of time. So before you think I'm about to take a swig of Pollyanna-juice and make it to be some rosy "natural" thing, go look up the definition of "perspective" in an unabridged paper dictionary. Then have someone hit you with said dictionary (which is heavier than your computer and will still work fine afterward).

We're going to have some real environmental damage out of this. We'll have significant economic loss for some people as well that will not get replaced. But we have things like this happen all the time. Whether it's some asshat leaving something to blow up in NYC, a 1000-year flood, or a drill hole a mile down in the Gulf spewing oil, things happen that cause damage and loss. The best we can do is cope with the situation, do what we can to minimize the effect, and look at how to fix them. In this sense, the oil spill is no different. Except that this one can be mostly solved with dish soap and fire.

And On To the Kookburgers....

I need a paragraph or two just for you asswits. First of all, if I have to choose between the risks of drilling domestically, which means less dependence on foreign oil, there is no question that we need to do it (see the rational examination above). Even with every green technology out there now, we're decades at best from completely weaning off oil. They haven't even come up with the tube tech yet (right) so we can travel all over by big plastic tubes (which would be sweet). Or the flying car, which will probably run off a Mr Fusion (left, the perfect complement to a functional flux capacitor) The fact is that there will always be tradeoffs, and if you want to eliminate oil, invent the technology that lets us do so and make it cheaper than oil. Or quit whining about the cost of your granola because the price of gas got so high that the truckers bringing the granola to market just added some surcharges.

And if you're going on about the "ultimate evil" known as Haliburton because they were involved in some way, grow the fuck up and live in the now. Bush and Cheney didn't do it. Damn....

Conclusions (w/ Less Sarcasm than the Preceding Section)

So let's wrap this post up since I'm 1. working, and 2. it's almost suppertime. While a large oil spill or release does present some significant challenges and heart-wrenching imagery of oily birds and wasteland beaches, it's something we continue to find ways to deal with, clean up, and recover from. And oil drilling will become safer as a result. And cleanup tech will improve as a result. And people with brains and the ability to understand that the person who gets us off the oil will be as famous and revered as the people who got us on the oil (and yes, oil was a good thing) will take this and other incidents as motivation to find the next power source, which will also threaten us in some terrible way in a rare accident.

Finally, it's through tragedy and loss that we become stronger and better as a society. Because we always overcome.

Wall Street vs Main Street

2010-04-27T18:35:00.101-04:00

or Wall Street is Not EEEVIL!

Look on the bright side, at least I didn't work the word "shitty" anywhere in the title or subtitle. And out of kindness (and the fact that it became less funny and more shitty), I'm going to skip the shit filled shit with the shitty references every shitty sentence in a shitty attempt to beat South Park's spanking of Congress in using the word "shit" on television (162 shitty times). And shit. But it does give me reason to throw up a shitty clip:

Long story short, yesterday was another run at Congressmen attempting to demagogue the shit out of a company for political gain, including incessant use of the aforementioned overused expletive which appeared in a Goldman Sachs memo. This practice, of course, is standard procedure at any Congressional hearing, and is shitty, to boot. (Yeah, I'm done. And shit.)

The concept however, is to affix the blame for the Great Recession on the EEEEEEEVIL Big Wall Street, who is guilty in classist circles of destroying the economy, sucking the taxpayers dry, GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!, and probably raping little children, eating babies, and pissing on old people, who they then rape, kill, and eat (not necessarily in that order). They treat the Big Wall Street CEO as someone lower than a chicken molester (which reminds me of another South Park clip).

By the way, when I cite two South Park clips in pursuit of a logical point, you can tell that ridiculousness abounds.

And here's the point. We've been fed for years a line that corporations are this monolithic evil, run by old rich white guys that make Satan (and his spawn, Elmo) look cuddly, and that their only purpose is to rape, pillage, buy expensive property, and anally rape the average American while pouring sugar in their gas tank. However, if that were true, life would suck for almost all of us and I'd at least be getting some.

But corporations are made of people (but not in the bad and yummy Soylent Green way). That includes people from the lowliest occupations, like janitors and tech support, to the CEOs, who themselves range from half the workforce at the company (not including their tech-savvy sons) to people who's walking around money equals my yearly wages. And like the rest of America, it includes a mix of altruistic guys (Bill Gates, for example) to a lot of guys who just want to be at the top and try not to break the law, to a small percentage who are, as the Redundant Democrats would have you believe, shitty at heart.

So this supposed "war" between "Wall Street" and "Main Street" is an exercise in distraction, confusion, dilution, and illusion perpetuated by people who use the all-too-human tendency for envy as a wedge to turn American against American and distract from whoever is giving them the money-stuffed Fleshlight (note: adult link) this week.

And the reason this is such a big deal is that this incessant demonization is how the politicians get the approval to screw their business choice with legislation. Whether it be Wall Street, FILTHY rich anyone, or Big Whatever, it's a smoke screen. And it means that the law doesn't get applied equally.

Now anyone sane does NOT cheer for the idea of a completely unfettered free market, with no regulation. That leads to anarchy, because Wild West rules means that the fastest and most guns win. Civilized society protects the people packing old pistols, smoothbore rifles, and nothing but a knife (pretty lame in a gunfight) from the guy who can roll a wagon with a Gatling gun on the back into town.

It's the same with what we need to do with regulations on Wall Street (as the shifting, conflicting, and counterproductive regs were a contributing factor to the mess). You put in regulations that promote transparency, limit abuse, protect against fraud, and then you hang the bastards that violate them. Or take them to court and make them pay in blood.

As for Goldman Sachs, if they did knowingly screw their customers, then painful amounts of compensatory damages would be a good thing. I'm not going to render a verdict as to whether they deserve it though (unlike their shitty day before Congress). And attacking them because they are of an "EEEVIL" group known as Wall Street is the dehumanization of people in a group that is the stuff of Holocausts past.

Finally, consider that a rising tide lifts all boats (unless you're selling short). In that case, to attack one of us is to attack all of us. And with the economy as limp as I (due to the price of things like the aforementioned Fleshlight), that doesn't make sense.

Addressing the Malcontent(s)

2010-04-27T18:10:00.000-04:00

This post has been getting moved back for at least a week, giving me lots of things to add to it. My original idea was to address the more strident elements of the right (as indicated by the blogger referenced in the title) in a combined conciliatory/challenging letter. And my intent was to address all bloggers of this particular bent.

But as a result of other's reliance on his absolute wisdom, I'm going to have to give a little more bitch slapping to someone who I very much agree with that is also pissing me off by his omnipresence as the single absolute source of "entertainment and enlightenment" (yes, I have listened to a few shows), the wise and wacky Glenn Beck.

So when I start referring with a little derision to what I shall call the "Beck-o-lytes" (please quote and credit me for such an entertaining term), with as many derivatives as possible just for a laugh (and an underlying point), it's because, as a longer running radio host says (and this is from his book, which is in my hand):

"My success is not determined by who wins elections, my success is determined by how many listeners I have."

I'd quote more, but I'm having to type it in. In short, radio (and TV) is about attracting and retaining an audience FIRST, not the political activism.

Which brings me to another radio host, who's advice to his listeners is even more sagelike. From his site:

Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."

So with those thoughts in mind:

I address this letter (with an elaborately worded first sentence) to all my conservative brethren that consider me, at best, a flirter with the fires of leftist damnation, and at worst, a collaborator with the soulless enemy, one step removed from the vile treason of Hanoi Jane, the ever-reviled American Traitor Bitch (got that from a gun show bumper sticker:

I have been posting my broad opinions, brutally honest analyses, and often ridiculously entertaining bullshit for a couple of years now. And I have figured out that, like many of those I've listened to over the years, I can tell if I'm being successful if people on both extremes are getting royally pissed and declaring me as either an incompetent, a drone, or an utter evil. More importantly, this means that if people I fundamentally agree with like what I say and people I fundamentally disagree with think i'm full of crap, it's bog-standard; if the people I fundamentally agree with are getting pissed and the people who's worldview is diametrically opposed are agreeing, then EVERYONE is thinking. Or almost everyone.

This brings me to those of you with whom I fundamentally agree with on the matter of worldview. Let me clarify some things. First of all, you might try reading what I write and figure out what I am telling you. Because even if I am critical, I'm often trying to make sure that what you're saying puts the best logical foot forward in arguing with people who are fundamentally wrong, but damn accurate in quoting facts and statistics. Stupid liberals are easy to tear apart. The smart ones (and I have a few that comment here) will take a Beck-ing point and shred it if you can't cite the logical source. And that's even when I agree with it. So if you're going to bring the argument, have something to back it up. Because if you can't (and I can't because you're just spouting), then I don't have a problem calling you on it.

Which brings me to the matter of sources. No one source is always right. Usually, most of the stuff is second hand, and thirdhand by the time it hits the blogs. Wikipedia, one source I cite regularly, is secondhand in everything. And then, when you get to the firsthand sources, you get to figure out their slant. If it's hard numbers, that's great. But also, how those numbers are created matters as well.

But what's my point, you ask? If the source is good, there's no argument against it. So give it up, and find a better argument.

Most importantly, if every post you make has the phrase "Obama is a Socialist" in it, you've already lost the argument with everyone but the Beck-o-lytes, who rely on whatever Beck-alysis of the Beck-onomics and Beck-ology of the matter clearly says. I may agree. But how do you have a rational discussion with people who believe in their misguided hearts that Barack Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread (which really isn't that good if you want to be technical) when you lead with "your guy sucks ass?"

In short, if we're reduced to nothing but blasting the opposition with the the preferred buzzword, while they work to rationally explain their freedom-killing agenda in a way that the dumb masses (also known as the average voters) won't figure out until it's too late, then who's going to win that argument? However, if we can articulate why freedom-choking government "security" is bad and force them to shrill namecalling, then we have a chance at winning, electing actual conservatives (and not right-wing talking points spewing big government Republicans), and beginning to undo the damage that 80 years of the entitlement culture and a century of government education has wrought.

So here's the challenge (and if you're interested, find me off the comment section): If you have a liberal that's throwing buckets of facts at you, and your only impulse is to break out the expletives ("shitty" being popular on Capitol Hill today), then let me know what ammo you need. I want the Obamagenda crushed like my hopes at getting laid. Badly.

And as for my liberal readers, I'm wondering if you can handle it if we all get smarter than you (as I alone frustrate you enough).

Arizona and the Invasion

2010-04-26T16:43:00.000-04:00

As I have watched many of the actions of the Imperial Federal Government over the years slowly strip states of their rights (through either restrictive legislation, or more likely, the carrot/stick approach on funding), one thing the feds have consistently pissed away, and is actually a role the federal government, is dealing with the issue of illegal immigration.

Enter the border state of Arizona. Last week, they passed legislation that, in essence, takes a federal responsibility and makes it a state one.

Now, the Obama administration and the Imperial Congress, in an attempt to get the control they just lost back and gain more control of one of those "minority voter blocs" that gets them reelected, have not only condemned the state law, but are making a push for immigration "reform" (read as "amnesty").

Now I'm not going to go into too much detail on the law, as everyone is either praising it as the only answer ever or condemning it as the return of the Soviet Union. Like most things, the answer is probably somewhere in between, like the horribly vilified, but mostly intact (under Obama now) Patriot Act. More on that in a minute.

The fact is that this law (like the aforementioned Patriot Act) is a reaction to a problem. So let's start with defining the problem. And that problem is that we have a porous, chaotic, and violent southern border, no clear enforcement on immigration policy, a border country that encourages border jumping (and has assloads of corrupt police), a vibrant (and increasingly violent) illegal drug trade, a better lifestyle for the poor here than the average person there, and a history of inconsistency, lax regulation, and periodic amnesty.

In short, the federal government really hasn't done anything to solve the problems, and has actually made them worse. So what do you do when the feds consistently fail to do what they're supposed to do. You take on the responsibility your damn self. And that's what Arizona did, making it a state law and a local law enforcement duty to find out if suspected illegals were illegal.

Now as to the law, I haven't studied the exact language, so I'm not going to render an absolutist opinion. I think it was most certainly a necessary law to pass. But, like the Patriot Act, there might be provisions that are open to abuse, and there may be things that are unconstitutional. I'll leave that to the courts to sort out. As for the feds not cooperating? That's why they passed the law in the first place.

And as for the race whores (including the thoroughly non-Hispanic Al Sharpton) as well as the amnesty crowd, you halfwits are a joke. You wouldn't even have a law to vent over in Arizona if it wasn't that race crap that prevented Washington, in its never ending pursuit of votes and cash, from failing to ignore dumb shit and actually apply the laws as written.

Of course, the biggest victims are in Arizona. It's the people who have seen the destruction and chaos in their own towns that this joke of an immigration policy has wrought. It's all the legal immigrants, who bring wonderful cultures (and kickass food) into this melting pot of a country. And it's even a large number of the illegals, who are right in wanting to come to America for opportunities they'd never get in their shithole countries, but horribly wrong in how they go about it, and live with a constantly changing social and political landscape.

In the end, this situation is the doing of people that have no will to be hard but fair. And it's the continued obstruction of those asshats that will make getting this law cleaned up and applied fairly a nearly impossible task. So when it falls short, or some court tosses out the baby with the bath water, we'll be back where we started, facing a continued invasion. Oh well, at least they'll probably get health care at some point....

Burning Styrofoam or My Earth Day Post

2010-04-22T18:31:00.000-04:00

As the days have ticked down to the ridiculous celebration of failed predictions that is Earth Day, I have spent a significant time in my yard, mowing, trimming, edging the sidewalks, cleaning up some crap and getting the flower beds finished.I even sent the kids up a giant pile of mulch. So before I start in with the derision of a day that is so misguided and driven by politics and collective central planning (including ways to keep the human cockroach from overrunning the pristine beauty of the Earth (except Haiti, which was lost long before the earthquake)), let's look at this in perspective.

I don't know anyone on either side of the political debate that wants dirt in the air, shit in the water, and the land scoured of all that green stuff. So let's recognize that there's almost no one that doesn't value having a better and cleaner world.

But when it goes from finding ways to better our world (like cleaning up the messes around us) to trying to change our way of life for a half-ass theory, you can bet that we "Earth-hating" conservatives are going to fight. Because it's the American way of life that, despite creating some real messes, has led to more attempts than any other major country to make our land better and cleaner.

Besides, with their track record, why are we EVER going to believe the global doomsday prophets (including Internet-creator and tree, Algore) when their record has sucked ass. Doubt it? Here's a handy list of predicitions from Earth Day crazies past....

So I'll make with the fire tonight, and the burning of styrofoam, and some lining from an old box spring that probably has asbestos in the bastard (which makes for a challenge in burning it. And as the Earth Day goof do almost nothing to really help the planet, my piss in the ocean will have similar lacking negative effects. But it does make for some good blog fodder.

Finally, I did break my first compact fluorescent bulb the other day. After taking the glass that hit the floor away from my son (lest he stick it in his mouth to lick the mercury off), I chucked that puppy in the trash, and it will be on its way to the landfill baby, death-bringing metal and all. This does dispel the idea that I'd ever chuck them bad boys in to save the planet. Here's a hint: If you want sell the Earth-friendly shit, make it worth our while. In other words, CHEAPER!!!!!!

The Death of America in Graphs

2010-04-20T20:55:00.000-04:00

Often, when looking for clear facts to back up my always-brilliant assertions (and grandiose inflation of a psychotic ego), I turn to the (smart bastards) broad and deep expertise that the Heritage Foundation brings to the table on matters of policy. This is especially important in analyzing the mess that is the budget of the largest formally freest country in the world.

I received an email from them four days ago (and finally opened it today) entitled "Big Government in Pictures." The link included gave a picture of how bleak the future is. And it paints a picture of how wrong the direction of this country has been since before I was born, with both flavors of political party having their way with it. Here are some of the best (or worst) charts that illustrate this. I suggest checking out the whole.

Questions? Comments? Complete dismissal of hard numbers?

March of the Big Lie

2010-04-19T18:27:00.000-04:00

The Big Lie is a time-tested technique used the world over to sell unpopular and insane political and religious dogmas. And while the phrase was coined by the man who used it most effectively, the ingenious (and horrifically insanely evil) Adolf Hitler, it is an idea and philosophy that spans almost all political persuasions. Sometimes, it's been the only way to shove shit down the throats of people.

But it's when it veers from being a technique to pass garbage to being a tool to denigrate an entire segment of the population that it becomes something insidiously evil (Hitler? Jews? 'Nuff said.).
So let's begin examining the Big Lie about the Tea Party movement.

As I was not ready to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon from the outset, I got to question and look at their motives. What I gathered was that it was conservative at its core, because there were lots of people who saw a castrated GOP fail to do a damned thing, fail to deliver on what they campaigned on, grow the government, and allow the Democrats to get free reign in Washington to grow the government even faster while coming up with every new way to tax us they could imagine (next year includes rolling back the bush tax cuts, the health care taxes, and maybe the VAT if they can cram it in early enough, not to mention the various pushes to "fix" the tax code to "properly" redistribute the wealth. The early groups included a fair amount of the crazies, but crazies are usually some of the first to jump on the "our government sucks" bandwagon.

However, as we moved from the aftermath of big government "conservatism" of Bush to full-on Obama "change" (which was merely massive escalation of government growth), the Tea Party, alongside the people who increasingly see the problems with our bastard tax code, began to grow. And merge. And diversify. And now we (yes, that includes me) are a collection of people of various political, financial, racial, social, and religious stripes (including the requisite few loony fringe kooks) who can agree that government is getting way too large, the tax system is fundamentally flawed and freedom-sucking, and both of the political parties are contributing to the problem.

But since the first two points are the basic principles of fiscal conservatism, and diametrically opposed to the agenda of big government liberals, pseudo-conservative Republicans, and the Democrat party leadership (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, specifically), it's time to unleash the Big Lie:

You start with some basics. Call them teabaggers, since, to liberals, their ideas suck balls, so they must, in fact, suck balls. Good for a giggle if you like to imagine Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin engaged in the aforementioned activity. Their leaders are morons. There's ~~Sarah Palin~~ ~~Tina Fey~~ Sarah Palin, who spouts dumb-ass catch phrases like a fourth rate Cheech and Chong, or Bill and Ted (or second rate Jay and Silent Bob). She even has to write shit on her and. And Glenn Beck, who is just nuts (he actually reminds me of me, just not as cute an ass). And the gasbag Rush Limbaugh, who has been (fill in your slur) for decades, centuries even.
And it's all a BIG CORPORATE interest astroturf campaign run by same guys who propped up the retard Bush (even though most of the people really haven't gotten out to protest for more relief for BIG WHATEVER before) that lacks any genuine emotion or thought.

But those are just the memes that don't require articulate talking heads to vomit forth opinions.

Former president Bill Clinton weighed in, saying that the Tea Party rhetoric mimicked the crap that came from terrorist Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which was 15 years ago today. Never mind the fact that no respectable leader of the Tea Party has EVER encouraged the violent overthrow of the government. We're about LESS government. NO government is an anarchist thing. And the only reason you take up armed revolt is when the ballot box stops working, even in theory. In practice, it barely works, although in theory we could replace 466 people this year if we all ganged up and voted the incumbents out.

From the White House comes cracks that the Tea Party should be thanking Obama for lowering taxes (through gimmicks and behavior-manipulating credits) (even though that's before the tax for health care comes in, other tax cuts are repealed, etc.). After all, they're too stupid to know that their taxes went down. And the media accomplices riff off the astroturf meme as they gleefully report this condescension.

I could fill pages with more examples. I've seen videos craftily (and well) edited that shows only the worst the Tea Party has to offer. I've seen post after post of pissed off rantings at average Americans who's crime against Obama is attendance of one of these events, including many fouling up otherwise intelligent liberal blogs (including many of the ones on the left). And it's been getting more shrill and ridiculous since the movement began to pick up steam.

The final straw for me was Time columnist Joe Klein, with this gem:

"I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious."

New York magazine's John Heilemann added Rush Limbaugh to the list, then suggested this group of people are the type that cause incidents like at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and said the only thing that had happened in the last 15 months was the election of Barack Hussein Obama. To which Klein added:

"I think there are two things going on here. One is certainly that, not just that he is African-American, but that his name is Barack Hussein Obama. The other thing is that... we've had a very scary economic crisis, and when people get scared, they get defensive, and they get a little crazy."

If you have doubt as to the accuracy of the above idiotic quote, here's the clip (it's crappy, so I'm not embedding it). So with that quote in mind, as well as the endless mischaracterizations, let me strip the political niceties and doublespeak and politically correct phrasing and see what the Big Lie about the tea party movement is all about:

"The teabaggers (inbred hicks who like sucking sweaty balls) are hateful crazy pissed idiots who want to hang the 'ragheaded Kenyan terrorist nigger' in the White House and erect a oppressive theocracy based on feeding selfish Big Corporate interests and angry white guys."

With all the varnish taken off, the Big Lie is pretty damned harsh. It's also bullshit. And being that this is a group that I would consider myself a part of, I think a response in kind:

Fuck you, you ignorant sluts. You know you can't win the intellectual argument, so you've fallen back on the classic tactic of dismissing your opposition as fucking morons who aren't deserving of life. Anybody who sees what you cowardly shits are trying to pull should know better than to descend to the puerile lather you've descended to. Not that this will stop you, but I'd advise not saying the above to my face.

For those of you who have tried engaging the Tea Party intellectually, thank you. You're wrong as a family circle jerk, but at least you're standup individuals, and do America proud while trying to destroy it. And for those of you who stand with me as a no-longer-silent majority, don't let the idiots get you down. And when an idiot gets in your face with the crap outlined above, feel free to respond in kind.

Sometimes, you just have to punch someone in the mouth when they keep saying stupid shit.

The Case for Radical Tax Reform

2010-04-15T16:56:00.000-04:00

As I sit here (at work, of course) today, I've been monitoring the copious protests over the obscenity that we have allowed to come into existence through a combination of selfishness, apathy, and a failure to see the bullshit in the propaganda: the United States Tax Code.

Now before I launch into this, let me clarify that this is bigger than just one party or one leader. Because this is a trend that has been going on since the passage of the odious 16th Amendment, the one that allowed the government to punish people for making money. And it has been highlighted as ridiculous as the taxes have risen, but not as quickly as our debt. And while spending is the evil that will ultimately destroy us from within, the first step is getting it clear on paper as to how much it cost us when the government bends us over and goes in hard and lube-free.

First, a minute and a half from Heritage that I found just before I began the writing of this post that explains it very simply:

The Tax Code Explained (without all the requisite obscenities)

I really need to ad the obscenity disclaimer, because I can't usually discuss what is wrong with the tax code without a few choice words. So I'll condense it down to three key problems: Special Interests, Taxing Behavior, and Lying Bastards (told you).

Special Interests - I generally don't have a problem with the idea of a special interest group. After all, they run the gamut from corporate interests to labor groups, rabid right-wingers to loony leftists, broad-based movements to single issue groups, think tanks to grassroots. A special interest is simply a group that advocates for a certain position on any issue, marshaling resources that individuals can't.

Where it goes wrong in the tax code is that most every special interest wants to use the tax code to benefit them, either directly through a non-profit status, give them exemptions or credits for their , or to fund their pet project/cause/fund/etc. Two examples that jump out right now would be the green tech-pushing groups and the ethanol producers. But that's just the first that pops up. Whether it's a welfare-for-votes scheme (government run health care), something that sounds good on the outside but is insidious as shit (No Child Left Behind), or a corporate/union welfare situation (all the bailouts), it comes out of tax coffers. And then there's the laundry list of deductions and credits and insanity that have some people actually getting money from the government after filling out their taxes (not just refunds). And it's all for specific groups for votes in the future.

Taxing Behavior - It used to be that if the government wanted to stop an activity, they made it illegal, and turned it into a law enforcement nightmare (Prohibition, the war on drugs). But the government got enlightened one day and said, "why not just tax their asses?" And so the soft tyranny of taxing behavior began. Smoking is bad; tax cigarettes. People aren't using the nifty mass transit; tax the gas some more. The poor are eating too much fast food; tax McDonalds. And so it continues. And while you can come up with a rationalization why taxing a behavior is a good idea (and the anti-tobacco zealots are ready to scream), it's still the government profiting off of a behavior they have decided is "bad" but not bad enough to ban. Another example would be the pot legalization movement. The selling point that seems to be carrying the day in near-bankrupt California? The politicians can TAX IT!

And it's just as bad with the credits and deductions. Add solar panels; get a credit. Squeeze out babies; get a credit. Enslave yourselves in marriage; get a credit. Buy a car (preferably from a government-owned company); get a credit. And in corporate America, EVERY SINGLE DECISION has to go through an examination of the tax implications of doing it. The government health care mandate, for example, may be something that determines whether it's better to automate, outsource, or go with temps rather than hiring that one person that means you have to start paying for your employees' health care.

Lying Bastards - This one should be self-explanatory. Every election, we get to hear how each candidate is going to lower your taxes, or how another group will pay their "fair share" or how they're going to close loopholes (while opening others). It's all a giant Washington shell game. It ties back into pleasing the special interests that each candidate is trying to handjob into votes. And it goes back into using taxes to manipulate behavior. But it's all about obscuring exactly how much everyone pays in taxes, from the embedded costs of corporate taxes, to tax forms that require paying other people to fill them out, unless your taxes are that simple and/or you are that good with filling out online forms.

Either way, understanding how your taxes work to subvert you is an exercise in running shit through a sieve. Except actual excrement is more pleasant to work with.

What is Radical Tax Reform?

Radical tax reform, in short, is the repeal and replacement of the entire current tax code with an essentially new system. As I have seen the attempts at "reform" of the tax code fail miserably, mainly due to the reasons I listed above, it has become apparent that a careful, conservative approach at bringing sanity to the tax system will never succeed, because it requires eliminating entire layers of bureaucracy, snubbing all people who were getting a special break in the current code, and relying on politicians to willingly give up an incredible power that they possess and use to their benefit in every election.

Because unlike spending programs, which could theoretically be starved and killed depending on the ferocity of the people in power (ask NASA), the tax code simply shifts to accommodate those in power. And there are very few statesmen left in Washington that could really push through a solution that would last.

So our tax system is unfixable. And if you can't fix it, then the only option is to tear it completely down, and come up with a radically different solution.

Solutions

I can't think of a single reason we should keep our current system (although if you like pain, you can make the case for continuing the soft tyranny). And what I'd like is to see what radical ideas are out there. Requirements for the plan to be radical include:

Wholesale replacement of the existing tax code.
Repeal or modification of the 16th amendment to limit the government's control over the new tax code.
Significant attrition or elimination of the IRS.
Elimination of the ability of the federal government to target taxes to a narrow group.

Obviously (FairTax haters, prepare to roll them eyes), the solution I advocate is the FairTax, a national retail sales tax designed to replace all existing taxes with a single rate, untax the bare necessities of life, eliminate the ability of politicians to [pit class against class, and eliminate all embedded taxes and the IRS, and through companion legislation, repeal the 16th Amendment.

But I want to hear the other ideas for radical tax reform (because otherwise, we're just going to retread the arguments against FairTax and not get anywhere). So let's get the ideas on the table, because we can't rely on the political class to willingly let go of the reigns until they know that the only way they get to stay in power is to give up the power to manipulate us.

Thoughts Prior to the Big Obligatory Tax Day Post

2010-04-14T16:16:00.000-04:00

As I begin the process of composing the case for radical tax reform, I'm pausing to consider one of the reason for it: to create a sense of accountability for how much money the federal government sucks out of us. Right now, that number (source) is $18,276 per household.

However, their spending is $31,406 per household. That's spending $1.50 for every buck they suck!

Think about it in these terms. Occasionally, we have to borrow money in crisis situation, then have to pay that back with interest. So has the feds in times of war, or in emergencies, or to address a problem which will be resolved. However, would anyone sane consider borrowing if it was for an expense that would always be there? A monthly expense? You might, if it was a down year and you know it's a matter of getting things stabilized and then being able to pay that down.

However, this country hasn't really done that since the 70's. we technically came close at the end of the Clinton/GOP congress, where we did manage some balance. Se stopped the bleeding, but didn't fix the greater problem. Then the orgy of spending began, accelerating after 9/11, then then reach grand Roman citywide orgy status as we piled war debt and entitlement debt and bailout debt, then added more entitlement debt and bailout debt.

I honestly don't know how to stop the financial sucking chest wound at this point. Maybe voting against anyone who seeks to expand the government. This would include ALL Democrats and most of the GOP. Obviously, throwing Democrats out right now is a little more important, as that will shut down the Obama agenda until that problem can (theoretically, if the GOP can produce an actual good candidate) be rectified in 2012.

So as I go on about taxes in the Tax Day post (and I'll save the obligatory links until tomorrow), remember that there are far too many people in Washington ready to hand out checks from our money to get elected.

Peace Through Surrender?

2010-04-13T13:47:00.000-04:00

While our best endeavors for the preservation of harmony with all nations will continue to be used, the experience of the world and our own experience admonish us of the insecurity of trusting too confidently to their success. We cannot, without committing a dangerous imprudence, abandon those measures of self-protection which are adapted to our situation, and to which, notwithstanding our pacific policy, the violence of injustice of others may again compel us to resort.

John Adams said this in an address to Congress near the end of his term, when he was in the home stretch of establishing peace with Napoleonic France and ending the Quasi-War. In essence, he was continuing the call for an navy, a "wooden wall" to protect us from our enemies.

(Side note, I was actually reading about this over the past few days, thus the need to quote.)

Ronald Reagan was a wee bit more pithy: "Peace through Strength."

In his case, it was the nuclear arsenal, and the willingness to look across the ocean to the USSR and dangle a finger over the button which, if pressed, would make seeing in the dark easier due to the glow, if your eyes didn't get burned out of your head first. Ah, the fun days of mutually assured destruction and the fun absurdity of duck and cover.

The point I'm getting to here in my nostalgia is that we, as a country, have always found peace in the world by having the biggest guns out there. Often, it has taken us a few years of struggle to catch up and build the army we need (WWII). The fact is that someone will ALWAYS have the biggest guns out there. And even with the problems I have with the Imperial Federal Government, their goal is to retain power, and that includes not being overrun by other countries. So begrudgingly, this is something

(Another side note (because I'm all about them (and parentheses)), that reminds me of the 80's movie Red Dawn, because this was a story whose backdrop was a WWIII where America's allies were wiped out, and allowed a weakened USA to be invaded (and it was on TV recently, giving me some nostalgia). But that's just superfluous, although it takes me to some fun Second Amendment discussion.)

This is an issue today as President Obama hosts an(other historic (because he likes everything historic, I guess)) ally-free discussion of nuclear weapons today. First of all, some agreement. The President does state correctly that the largest threat is not from fun with mutually assured destruction, but from little (ISLAMIC, though he won't say it) terrorist groups suicide-nuking a city or two.

However, I have been concerned with his approach in dealing with many of the hostile countries he's invited to Washington to talk at (no, that's not a typo). It also concerns me when he takes things off the table preemptively, or enters into nuclear reduction treaties that the other party indicates they won't necessarily honor (although that action, thankfully, has to have 67 votes in the Senate). And it makes me wonder when he intentionally snubs traditional allies in favor of countries that like that "death to America" chant a little too much.

To clarify, I don't think that President Obama seeks to destroy the country. But I think he does come from the approach that a humbled and conciliatory America is the way to go for a foreign policy in a world heavily populated with dictators, thugs, and loony generals who lead countries because they "took care of" the last administration. The evidence so far is that we were better off with the wild warmongering of "cowboy diplomacy," if only because it meant that, even if other countries didn't show us respect, at least they weren't so contemptuous as to fear us bombing us back into the stone age. Or starting the bombing in five minutes. Or warmongering, as John Adams was accused of doing just before he achieved peace.

While we must consider the changing complexion of the enemies that threaten this country, and adjust our response to the smaller and harder-to-find threats that are most likely to continue to threaten us, it can never be at the expense of the old formula, which hasn't changed since someone figured out that the sharpened stick made it easier to kill the other guy who just had a big rock with which to bludgeon the shit out of someone else. And the sharpened stick in the hands of someone reluctant but willing to use it is a tradition that we hold, despite the number of times we end up pulling out a smaller one.

Finally, just because a little global thermonuclear war makes for fun movies with lots of dirt and even better games, a look into an improved Washington. Because war, war never changes: