Well I've been "off the air" for awhile and there's a very good reason for that. I've had a quasi-epiphany when it comes to politics. There is little to no point in me getting all huffy about these issues like I have in the past. Quoting Jeremy Clarkson, arguing politics is "like blowing on an oil rig fire". It does no good for, even before I open my mouth, people already agree with what I'm about to say or they disagree. I sincerely doubt I have even changed someone's mind about an issue. What it boils down to is people either believe that the government should assume all responsibility or they believe the government is an overgrown bully who takes your lunch money (as I and my family and friends believe). The latter already agree with me so my rants do no good there and the former refuse to change their beliefs (or, more typically, don't read my postings at all). It is rare to find any audience member with an open enough mind to be critical of their own views and beliefs (I consider myself to have this ability most of the time). So what good am I doing if I am just supporting already held beliefs and not enlightening anyone?

I have to admit that I do enjoy writing about societal issues. It allows me to think things through better than if I just do it in my own head (it's a scary place, trust me). So, right now, I am considering if I should even continue writing at all. If I do, there will be a drastic change in subject matter. I will write more about entertainment, cars (including British car television shows), issues that my generation face, and random crap that happens to me. So we shall see if anything comes from this. In any event, I feel I am a more informed individual for keeping this site up and running. Thanks for reading and stay tuned next week to see if I'm back.

Cheers

Classless Eco-Mentalists

The caption at the top reads "The Tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11".

Really classy WWF. Whoever made this ad should be fired and then hunted down by an angry mob (led by me)

Tomorrow

The Most Essential Skill of Any President

I think everyone, no matter what political party they aspire to, can agree that the most crucial skill for any President is to surround themselves with intelligent advisers who will guide them to the best decisions. Kennedy did this with McNamara and his own brother (who did deserve the job). Bush "did" this with Rove and Cheney (good choices? probably not). But I see this as Obama's serious downfall. I know I don't agree with any of his policies, but, barring that little detail, he can't seem to appoint an adviser that hasn't evaded taxes or done something extremely reckless politically.

Back in March of last year, Samantha Power (Obama's foreign policy advisor) called Hillary Clinton a "monster" (forget for a minute that she was right, you still can't say that and hope to have a job under the President of the United States). Also, last March, it came to light another foreign policy adviser Rob Mailey, had been meeting continually with the terrorist group Hamas. And then we have Tim Geithner who evaded large amounts of taxes. Then we have Bill Richardson (corruption), Nancy Killefer (payroll tax evasion), Hilda Solis (tax evasion), and Tom Daschle (more tax evasion). You starting to get the picture yet?

The latest in this trend of poorly thought through and piss poorly vetted advisers (or czars if you prefer the Soviet term like Obama does) is that of Van Jones (read about him here and here), the Green Jobs Czar. He came out last week with all guns blazing and called all Republicans "assholes" (they generally are but you can't say that on the record and hope to hold a political office). He also signed the 9/11 Truth petition arguing that the Bush administration either turned a blind eye to 9/11 or perpetrated the attack themselves (which could be the case but you don't want a special adviser to the President holding that belief). He also founded the ColorofChange.org which "addressed black issues" (aka he's a racist).

Now, I am torn over the "assholes" comment. I believe that people should be able to say whatever they want and if that was Jones's only slip up, I would have wanted to keep him around. But he's a racist and a conspiracy theorist, good riddance.

But this highlights a bigger problem. Obama cannot choose staff intelligently (a simple Google or Wikipedia search would have told him all he needed to know about Van Jones). This scares me more than his socialist-leaning policies. I think the ability to choose your comrades is the most important ability a President has to have....... and Boh'Rock ain't got it.

A parting thought: Maybe Obama needs a Czar for Appointments of Czars

The GM Volt Revisited

Awhile back I wrote about GM's new hybrid, The Volt (here's my write up: http://daily-cynic.blogspot.com/2009/08/getting-away-from-politics-for-minute.html)

As those who know me personally know, I am a huge car guy and, more specifically, an avid Audi enthusiast (have been since I was 16 with my first A4 which was followed by my father's S6 and now my new S4). The reason I mention Audi in relation to GM's Volt is that Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen just came out with a prediction that the Volt will "fall flat" and "the federal government, having publicly forced GM to develop electric cars, will subsidize the Volt to save face and boost sales." See the entire article here: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=1247701 .
You know what? He's 100% right. I pointed out in my article on the subject that the Volt had no advantage over existing hybrids like the Prius or Honda Insight. I didn't really go into why hybrids are terrible investments and not the best choice if you are a true environmentalist but de Nysschen goes as far as saying people who buy hybrids over more fuel efficient, practical, and powerful diesels are "the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are" (as Jay Leno says "here in America, we like to make known the good deeds we are doing annonymously"). He hit the nail on the head again. The big draw to hybrids is PR. People value the appearance of being environmentally friendly over actually being environmentally friendly. Hypocrites, all of em.

The question for the Volt is are the faux environmentalists willing to pay up to $15k over the price of Japanese hybrids for an American product? My answer: No. Japanese cars usually have a higher snob appeal than American cars. The hierarchy of snob appeal for cars goes like this: Italian>German>British>Japanese>American, at least in my book. So I sincerely doubt the Volt will take any significant market share away from Toyota or Honda with the Volt. If there were charging a lower price than the Japs, then it might, but definitely not when GM is selling at a premium.

The final question brought up by de Nysschen is that of "the federal government, having publicly forced GM to develop electric cars, will subsidize the Volt to save face and boost sales." I think this will make or break the Volt because it will effectively price the Volt below its Japanese rivals and that is probably enough to shift sales to GM. Judging by our government's recent actions (and the fact that Boh'Rock feels he has the right to run GM), this subsidy is a pretty safe bet so you can expect to see some solid sales numbers as a result.

The Volt is already a failure in my book even if it does sell well as a result of government intervention.

You People Make Me Sick

Remind you of anything?



Anyone that pledges to a single person (outside of marriage) is no more than a drone.

Now I understand that most of what was said in the first video were things we can agree on about being nicer and all that feel good stuff, but there were quite a few things in there that are political in nature. And that is how this crap starts, make everyone feel good about following a leader (this is EXACTLY what the Nazis did in Germany, got everyone to feel good about being German and following Hitler). After the people are following the leader, the leader starts to make bolder and bolder policies and without anyone to challenge those policies and decisions, he is free to do pretty much whatever he wants (no one really protested Hitler's international belligerence or treatment of the Jews). So the question is, where does Obama want to take this?

Gay Marriage in DC (or anywhere for that matter)

For those of you living in and around the District, you most likely already know a lot about this. Back in late April, DC Council voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions (AKA if you get gay married in Massachusetts, Vermont, NH, Connecticut, Iowa, or Maine, you can move to DC and still be considered married). The April decision said nothing about actual gay marriages being allowed or forbidden in DC.

Now it has come out that a group of various religious figures in the DC area (Bishop Harry Jackson, Rev. Walter Fauntroy, Robert King, and others) organized under "Stand4MarriageDC" to put together a ballot initiative that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. This would strike down the previous ruling that recognized gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Now, being a straight, conservative male, I usually don't side with the gay community on any issue but, this time, I am. The DC Council has already decided to accept marriages from elsewhere and now these religious leaders want to revisit and reverse that choice. What gives these guys the right to impose their subjective beliefs and values onto others? I will grant you that the largest religion in the US is Christianity of one form or another (and that means the rampant homophobia that comes with it), but, even so, that doesn't give the religious right the power to impose their completely and totally subjective beliefs onto an entire city. There is a major difference between voting on a government policy and standardizing a set of religious values and forcing people to adhere to them.

So, if the religious folks have their way, DC residents will be voting on whether or not to take rights away from people that already have them. Anyone who lives in DC and was married elsewhere will have that marriage actively un-recognized (is that a word?). This is the first instance I can remember where a group is in danger of having their rights actively stripped for no good reason. What do I mean by "for no good reason"? I mean that homosexuals have done nothing dangerous or illegal. They have not endangered our national security or flew planes into buildings (if you can't tell, I am unabashedly in favor of profiling in airports but that is a conversation for another day).

So where's the beef? Why are these people so adamant about taking rights away from a group of people who have done nothing wrong except for being themselves (I think there's a term for this...... discrimination if I am not mistaken)? I can only speculate here. Some say that people who exhibit these staunchly homophobic views are secretly homosexual to some extent and want any reminder of that banished from existence (wouldn't surprise me). My guess is that there are some deep seeded insecurities in these "devoutly religious" folks of one kind or another that forces them to take their anger and frustrations out on others. And now they are using the government as their tool.

An afterthought: There is a lot of talk about civil unions vs. marriage. These two terms mean the EXACT SAME THING. I hate it when the religious camps claim that marriage is a religious term and that it is a union under God. You know what? It's not. It is when two loving people commit to each other for a lifetime. Creed, color, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, tax bracket status, or how fast you can run the 40 have no bearing on if you can get married.

Another afterthought: I hate gay pride parades. Its the same thing as a Black Pride parade or a White Pride parade (which will get you branded as a racist). Amounts to the same thing: looks at us because we are who we are. Get over yourselves.

September 1

Today in 1939 Poland was invaded by Germany, jumpstarting what would end up being the largest armed conflict this planet has ever seen. A few details most people don't know about the invasion of Poland:


-It was actually a joint Soviet-Nazi invasion with the Germans invading from the West and the Russians from the East, Poland never stood a chance.
-The ideological inspiration for conquering Poland was Hitler's misguided notion that there was a section of his Reich that laid on the opposite side of Poland and had been cut off from the rest of the Aryans after World War I and the resulting Treaty of Versailles (the Nazis called this the Polish Corridor).
-The event that triggered the invasion was dubbed the "Gleiwitz Incident" in which the Gestapo dressed as Polish soldiers blew up a German radio station near the border with Poland. This has been come to be known as "The Eve of World War II"
-The Polish high command saw the invasion coming and understood they had little chance. They initiated The Peking Plan on August 20th where Polish war ships were evacuated to British controlled ports. Live to fight another day as they say.
-The invasion started with the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) bombing the Polish town of Wielun at 4:40am. Over 75% of the town was destroyed
-Over 20,000 Poles were executed by the German army during September
-The total Polish death toll during the invasion was ~200,000

RIP the 65 million that died in the following years.


















German soldiers executing Poles

Because I Can

Homework Assignment

So a pretty standard tool in the political world is that of the Political Compass. Basically it ranks you on 2 different scales. One scale is Authoritarian vs. Libertarian and the other scale is Right vs. Left. I find this far more effective than being branded a Republican or a Democrat as it actually brings your own personal values into the equation.

Here is my result:

So I would be 2.8 Right, 2.5 Libertarian.

So here is the site www.politicalcompass.org/index and I suggest that everyone takes the test and figures out where they stand. Pretty cool tool and is a neat method for standardizing political views. Makes for interesting conversations over drinks (well at least here in DC it does)

Not Going to Talk About TedK...... How About Profiling Instead?

Trust me, you don't want me to talk about the late Senator Kennedy. No good would come of it.


MOVING ON....... I was riding the metro on the way to work and I noticed a lady next to me reading aloud from the Koran while rocking back and forth. She was decked out in a full burque (I swear it looked like she was working on a bee farm). Now, I don't normally look at someone of middle eastern decent and say "oh they must be a terrorist" but this lady had me downright scared. The situation was an extremely crowded metro car headed towards downtown DC during the AM rush hour, could you pick a better target for a terrorist attack?

Now, before jumping to conclusions, I looked at my fellow "infidel" passengers to see if they were as uncomfortable as I was. It appeared they were indeed. There was one guy between me and the lady in question who was visibly sweating and looked extremely worried (he would be the first to die if the lady suddenly lit the fuse on her shoes). Needless to say, my guard was up. At one point she bent down to get something out of her backpack and you could hear everyone just gasp (I was ready to tackle her or run for dear life at this point). Anyway, I got off at the next stop much to my relief and I haven't heard anything about a terrorist attack in the DC area so I think she probably wasn't a jihadist.

So should I be ashamed/mad at myself that I judged someone like this? The answer is no. It wasn't the skin color that made me sit up and take notice, it was the reading of the Muslim religious text on public transit which has historically been a prime target for Islamic terrorism. In fact, I would say that I was doing my duty as an American. Bear with me on this one ladies and gents..... Let's start back in 2001 when the WTC was brought down by Muslim fundamentalists. These were people of middle eastern decent who were deeply Muslim. I believe that event gave me (and every other American) the right to be cautious of everyone else matching that description. I know I lost some people with that last statement, people call it profiling or making a generalization and, while that all may be true, it is the price we must pay for vigilance. People who fit into that category have carried out numerous (13911 separate attacks according to thereligionofpeace.com) since 9/11. To me that means that people of the Muslim faith have a higher association with terrorist acts than those of any other faith or no faith at all (notice I did NOT say that being Muslim causes terrorist acts, any statistician/economist worth their salt would avoid saying that). So I do believe I have good reason to be wary of anyone reading the Koran and rocking back and forth while riding a crowded subway and wearing a backpack. Call me racist, call me a xenophobe, call me intolerant but at least I'll be alive.

CIA doing something illegal? Gasp!

Obama told Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint someone to investigate whether or not the CIA committed any illegal acts during the interrogations of the past few years (why Holder couldn't be bothered with this himself or why Obama didn't choose anyone himself is beyond me). Now, I can only be brief for I have to run to an all day training, but I know that any agency in charge of foreign intelligence gathering must be giving a whole lot of leeway when it comes to observing domestic law. Need I remind the rest of this country that most of the people interrogated are from third world nations (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) that have a very healthy hatred for everything we stand for. And when it comes to people that hate us til the ends of the earth, we need to play hardball (aka not hold the interrogators to the letter of the law). On a side note, this means that I am agreeing with Cheney.... please don't hold it against me.

Good job Obama, you just significantly handicapped our ability to gather intelligence and defend our nation, good job slick!

because I am not that articulate, I leave others to say what I can't :http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/24/kt-mcfarland-cia-interrogation-intelligence/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r3:c0.101844:b27320092:z0

Madoff, Cancer is Too Good For You

According to Reuters, Burnie Madoff is suffering from advanced pancreatic cancer. His prison "buddies" are quoted as seeing him take "20 pills a day".

You know what I say? Good! This sorry excuse for a human being deserves every second of suffering coming his way (and hopefully it is prolonged and agonizing). This ALMOST makes me believe in the existence of God or a Karma-esque system where evil do-ers get their come-uppins.

This begs the question, do we let him out to die outside of the prison system like the UK did with the Lockerbie bomber? The answer is absolutely not, the American public hates this guy far too much for that. But what does that say? A guy who took money (in the end, money is just money and no more) is hated more than a guy who killed 259 people. Since when did money become more important than lives? I am not arguing to let Madoff out but I am extremely upset that Al Megrahi is back in Libya. The fact that he is out is a giant slap in the face to the US, even Scotland doesn't take us seriously. Imagine what the US would have done to Al Megrahi if he'd been tried here keeping in mind that we sentenced Madoff to 150 years. That's the way it should be done, with a vengeance (cue John McClean and Die Hard theme song). America, f*ck yea.

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2413380120090824

Just a Quote for Today

Here is an excerpt from an old Teddy Roosevelt speech concerning American nationalism. I think everyone, no matter the political leaning, can agree with this:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

If It's Broken, Make it Bigger and Give it More Money

Sorry guys, I have to talk Cash for Clunkers (C4C) again. It came out this morning that dealers and manufacturers are giving up on the program. The problems stem from the Dept of Transportation not paying dealers for the cars traded in under the program (check out my last post on C4C for more details). So the dealers took it on faith that the government would pay them back for the $3,500 or $4,500 discount they have the consumer on the new cars. No the government mullah hasn't materialized and the dealers (who were already desperate for cash in the first place) are stuck with all this fictional cash. So GM has stepped in for some of its dealers and is providing cash advances to the dealers themselves. Let's keep in mind that GM just came out of bankruptcy on July 10th. How good of an idea is to have a company that come out from Chapter 11 protection a little over a month ago lending large sums of money to faltering dealers? It's not a good idea at all but GM has little choice in the matter, the federal government has forced the auto industry into a corner (as if they needed the government's help). Once again, lofty goals from the federal government results in downright dismal policy and implementation.










Ok, now let's move on, the program sucks, let it die. But let's not forget to learn from this (the now infamous "teaching moment", copyright Boh'Rock during the Gates incident). The government can come up with these grandiose plans with extremely noble goals (save the auto industry and decrease emissions for example) but when it comes to writing the policy to "get shit done" so to speak and finally putting that plan into action, the government is lousy, inefficient, and dog shit slow. This often exacerbates whatever problem was trying to be fixed in the first place and everyone ends up worse off.





So take the above lesson and ask yourself "After this exhibition of governmental failure to manage a relatively minor amount of money, $3 billion, do we really want to hand them the keys to the healthcare system worth MUCH more than $3B?"




I was talking to a few people about this today and I came up with an analogy that I know my parents can relate to:

Your kid wrecks a nice car worth a good amount of money that you bought him (like my first car, nice but not that fast). Do you go out and then buy him a $200,000 Lamborghini capable of 200+mph? Absolutely not.



I don't want the government crashing and burning at 200mph because, guess what, all of us are riding shotgun.
























source: http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/companies/clunkers_sales/?postversion=2009082010

Freakin' Favre

Just signed with the Vikings. Seriously dude, make up your damn mind. I used to idolize this guy (even as a Bears fan) but I can't respect him anymore. He was the last real franchise player and he ruined himself.

Should make for an interesting season in the NFC North though.

Lofty Goals, Piss Poor Execution: The Story of Every Government Program

Ok, let's talk Cash for Clunkers again. Let's also put aside the arguments that I've had with countless people about the criteria and goals of said program (these points are moot now). It just came out that 2% of all clunkers claims have been paid out. (source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/auto-dealers-paid-just-percent-clunkers-claims-congressman-says/?test=latestnews) I don't care if you liked the program before, but you cannot argue with this.





Why is this you ask? Apparently there are a number of reasons but under-staffing (staff of 225 for 338,659 vehicles) and minor paperwork glitches are cited as the main causes. Isn't this typical of any government program? Hugely impressive goals coming from the mouths of politicians (they want to be remembered for having such a positive program when it comes election time) but, once the program has been met with positive poll results, the wind falls from the sails.





Now this begs the question, where is the collective $3B authorized by our "officials" to come from our pockets? According to my math (338,659 vehicles * $4,500 per vehicle to be nice and then take 2% of that), only $30,479,310 has been released to dealers. $30M out of $3B? What a terrible track record.


Now here's the real kicker. The dealers are not being paid for the cars they "sold" which means they still own the cars. This means they can take back the cars sold under the program that haven't been paid off.

The lesson to be taken from this (well one of them anyway) is that Congress should not act on their knee jerk reactions to popular opinion. For the most part, I would say the public knows best but they do not create and implement policy. It is Congress's job to take popular opinion (like "we can't afford new cars") and research if there can be policy built around it. In this case, the research was lacking in respect to funding and (I'm guessing it will come out later) the environmental impact.

So, big government, let this be a "teaching moment" (since you love that term so much). Research policy before you enact it. Better policy does not mean more policy.

The Newest Political Guru, Chuck Norris?

Believe it folks, Chuck is now writing about the healthcare issue and is making some sense. I didn't know he had half a brain.

It's a good read: http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/08/11/dirty_secret_no_1_in_obamacare

Getting away from Politics for a Minute

Let's talk about GM. No, not the government's role in GM (no matter how misguided it is) but more along the lines of the latest to come out of GM. In the news this morning, it came out that GM's new electric car, the Volt, will receive a rating of 230 mile per gallon rating (how they give a mile per gallon rating to a car without any gallons to speak of is beyond me).

As a headline, I have to admit that my first thought was "Thank god someone is building a real electric car instead of a faux-environmental car like the hybrid". But if you actually read an article about the car, you find the Volt is limited to ~40 miles on a single charge and then a gasoline motor takes over. So this car is being marketed (rather well I may add) as a full blown electric car when it is, in fact, a hybrid. The only difference between the Volt and existing hybrids like the Prius and whatever the Honda rip off is called is the fact that the Volt uses only electricity for the first 40 miles then runs exclusively off gasoline after that (how much that matters depends on each person's driving habits).

In order to really adopt any sort of alternatively fueled vehicle (electric, hydrogen, or even nuclear powered), the performance measures (speed, range, cost, etc) must be on the same level as the petroleum powered cars we already base our lives around. An electric car that only has a 40 mile range will not fulfil our needs as a people. I can't even get from DC to Baltimore on that. Now if I could just pull over after those 40 miles and fill back up like I do with gasoline, that would work but that is not the case. You have to charge the car for hours to get the charge back to maximum. So sorry GM but your "electric car" ain't gonna cut it for (BTW what happened to your real electric car from the early 90s? The EV1 I believe? Bet you are regretting scrapping that about now. If you don't know what I'm talking about please watch Who Killed the Electric Car?)

Now let's shift gears in regards to GM. My next issue with GM comes from the following text from the same Volt article:

Plans also include doubling the current size of Buick's showroom from three vehicles to six within 24 months. In addition to an SUV crossover hybrid announced last week, GM is preparing a small crossover SUV and midsize and compact sedans.

Buick?!?! This is the same brand that sells 36 cars per year per dealer (or 3 cars per month per dealer). The only brands that have lower figures are Rolls Royce, Isuzu, and Ferrari which are MUCH smaller operations). Buick has been a dying/dead brand in the US for quite some time now for their market segment is the AARP crowd who are either losing their driver's licenses or their lives entirely (not exactly an ideal target market).

Now I have to admit that Buick is setting records in China in terms of sales numbers but that doesn't mean diddly here in the US. Buick dealers are dying in this country, why not make Buick a China only brand like with Opel in Europe? Eliminate the costs to keep US dealers going but keep the huge sales numbers in China.

So, let's back up and take a look at the bigger picture. GM is back to making bad choices after coming out of bankruptcy. No matter how rosy of a picture their marketers paint, the company is still making downright stupid choices and producing crap cars, this time with the government's (aka our) money.

Update: It was just published that the Volt will cost ~$40,000. Who is going to pay that for a poorly equipped, semi-electric American car?

I Find It Funny.....

that our illustrious leader maintains his own personal site while being in office.

http://www.barackobama.com/

So this website (also called Organizing for America) is 100% about his own personal agenda while in office. It is in no way affiliated with the United States government. Does anyone else find this strange that a sitting President continues to operate his own campaign site? Shouldn't he be busy with other, more pressing matters?

The Fundamental Problem With Universal Healthcare in America

Lately there has been an ungodly amount of debate regarding Obama's version of universal healthcare (lovingly dubbed "Obamacare"). Most of the hubbub has been over if people will be able to keep their own doctors, what this means for existing insurance, and if this will impact the overall quality of care. Those issues I am not going to address here. There is a more basic, fundamental issue with universal healthcare in our country.

If we lay down the political arms for a few minutes and analyze our own lifestyles and routines, we see that we all make decisions using our own free will every day. Each of these decisions has an impact on a person's overall level of health. For example, Joe chooses to eat at McDonalds for dinner every night, drink ten beers daily, and to smoke a pack every day. Now I don't do any of these things because I have a certain level of respect for myself but, when it comes down to it, Joe has the freedom to make these decisions without anyone telling him otherwise. To be quite honest, this is exactly what I believe makes America great (cliche, yes, true, yes).

Now when Joe's unhealthy decisions catch up to him, he will inevitably have to enter the health care system for some sort of procedure. In days past, Joe either had insurance to cover these costs or he paid out of pocket. The financial responsibility for Joe's poor choices were on him and him alone. Under a universal healthcare system that is funded with taxpayer money, the general public has to bear the cost of Joe's decisions.

Nothing about what I've said thus far is groundbreaking but here is the paradox. A person that is free to make their own choices their entire life but doesn't have to bear any of the responsibility for the consequences of those actions does not have much incentive to act responsibly. If we take that logic and build upon it, we find that the next course of action should be to regulate the actions one can take during their lifetime to minimize the cost of healthcare (aka cost to the government and taxpayers) later in life. In Joe's case, this means regulating his caloric intake, requiring him to exercise, mitigating his drinking, and prohibiting him smoking. This would result in Joe being less of burden on the healthcare system.

How would you feel if the government told you what to eat, when to exercise, and what to do in your spare time? How American is that?

What I fear is that, if we implement Obama's proposed healthcare plan, we, as a nation, take one of three paths: (1 like described above) we continue to regulate what a person can and cannot do based on what impact that will have on the person's health or (2) we draw the line in the sand, refuse to regulate an individual's activities, and abandon the universal healthcare system or (3) refuse to regulate an individual's activities, keep the universal system in place and it bankrupts the country.

The results of those three paths respectively are: (1) a distopian future where everything is heavily regulated (for an example of what I'm talking about read A Brave New World or 1984), (2) we end up back where we are now but after burning through a whole lot of taxpayer dollars, or (3) the unthinkable.

So if we pull ourselves away from this partisan battle over the minutia of Obama's plan and look at what the real issue is here and how it can impact our entire nation, we can see there is no positive outcome.

In a fundamentally free country, a universal healthcare system is bound for failure so you need to get rid of one or the other. So choose: a free country or a universal healthcare system. Which will it be America?

A thought.....

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." Edward Abbey

This Could Be A Full Time Job For Me

So on this fine DC morning I was planning on writing about Congress voting to buy themselves three private jets after bashing the leaders of the Big Three for taking private transport to ask for bailout money. Instead, however, there is a much more sinister issue that has come to light in the past 48 hours and that is of the White House asking citizens to forward "fishy" information concerning health care to the administration at the email address: flag@whitehouse.gov

The whole article published by the White House can be read in its entirely here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

This should be a huge cause for concern. The White House is going to develop a database on who people are that disagree with ObamaCare. The Administration will have access to e-mail addresses, IP addresses, and identities of those who have differing opinions. I hope you find this as unconstitutional as I do. Who decides what is considered disinformation and, therefore, "fishy"? I certainly don't trust Obama's judgement for that!

When citizens know that if they express an opinion that is against that of the administration they will be tracked, they will hesitate to express that opinion. That, right there, is undemocratic. The whole point of our government is to give everyone a voice. So what is the point of having a say if you are scared to use it? Webster's defines Democracy as "a government by the people" so why, in a democracy, is one person allowed to corrupt the voice of the people?

What if Bush had done this? I am NOT a fan of Bush in the least but there would have been a MAJOR uproar had he proposed something similar. So why the love for Obama? Why the double standard? Just because he's black? Just because he's a Dem? Just because he is fashionable? Whatever the excuse, it is a truth that must be stopped. You can't argue the fact that Obama has been given a easy ride so far and has taken advantage of it 100%. Let's wake up and challenge the "Hope" and "Change" that is going to destroy our liberties.

So everyone that reads this, I ask that you please e-mail flag@whitehouse.gov and tell them how you feel, I already have several times. Tell them how un-American it is that they are monitoring private citizens. Do not be afraid. Take a stand. "People should not fear their governments, the governments should fear the people" -T Jefferson, as American as they come ladies and gentlemen.

This tactic wreaks of Joe McCarthy, Joesph Stalin, Richard Nixon, and Adolf Hitler (and we all know how history judged them). What makes it different when Obama does it? Think about it PLEASE!

I'm Getting Old

Disclaimer: If you don't understand what I'm talking about here, you are too old.

I stopped by Starbucks this morning as I do a few times per week. As I am waiting for my fru-fru, sugar and cocaine infused "coffee", Nirvana's In Bloom comes up on my iPod. I couldn't help but thinking "Kurt would kick my ass if he knew how mainstream I have gotten in the last few years" (Yes, SBux and Nirvana are both products of Seattle but that's about all they have in common).

It has been a LONG time since I have listened to Nirvana with any regularity (6 years at least) but in the last few months, I have re-discovered my love for grunge rock (it might have something to do with me feeling like "the man" is getting me down, thanks Boh'Rock). This has got me to thinking...... where has the in-your-face, kiss-my-ass mentality gone that I knew so well as a kid? Maybe it's just me getting older but I do feel as if we are just too accepting of everything. When did the counter-culture attitude of the Fight Club and Black Flag persuasion die out?

Let's look at Green Day as an example (not one of my favorites but a great example of my point). Who remembers Dookie and Kerplunk? Those were albums I could listen to the entire way through. There were messages of hatred and angst captured there that had not been mitigated by mainsteam culture. Compare this to the "Green Day" of today. Every song is moaning and whining about Bush this, anti-war that. Where did the heart go? Where are the balls? The Green Day I grew up with didn't give a damn about the political process, all it cared about was destruction and telling the man to get off their back (I did most of my growing up in California so the effects could have been more pronounced for me). I am using Green Day as a mirror for what seems to be happening to society as a whole. We have accepted that this is the way things are and we think we need to conform (I am just as guilty as anyone here).

Would Nirvana have gone the same way as Green Day? I certainly hope not (Sorry but thank god Kurt died. Always go out on top of your game).

I guess what I'm saying here (this hasn't been my most articulate posting, I know) is let's think a bit more outside the box. Let's ask "why?" a little more often. Question authority (but please don't go home and die your hair blue, I did that once and it turned out pretty poorly). Let's bring back the Rape Me and Lithium attitude and crack some skulls (so to speak). So go home, put on Nevermind, and crack open a Zima for old times sake (my spell check doesn't like Zima, such a sign of the times).

Sorry for the departure from my usual Libertarian tirade although for some of you, this was probably a welcome occurrence.

Cash for Clunkers Rant

Now I know I haven't written about the CARS program (aka Cash for Clunkers) before today because I was hoping I would be wrong and it would do some good. Of course I don't agree with the government giving money to individuals to turn in their cars and buy more fuel efficient ones but I was desperately hoping something positive would come from it and I would be wrong....... too bad I wasn't.

Anyway, what everyone is talking about today is how wildly successful this program has been seeing that funds ($1 billion) were expended in 4 days (more or less). If the goal was to use that money as fast as possible, then yes it was a resounding success (too bad this is the way most people think). But really the goal was to provide a financial incentive to people who are driving older cars to turn that car in and buy a new, more fuel efficient car. An additional hope for this program was to help GM, Chrysler, and Ford move their inventory (a neat marketing trick from GM's management aka Obama).

There are two major issues with these goals the first problem being with getting the old cars off the road. It takes a lot of energy and effort to dismantle and crush a vehicle. You have to dispose of all the plastics, recycle every possible component, and dump the rest in a landfill. This entire process uses massively more energy than can be saved by a marginal increase in gas mileage. Also, let's not forget that a huge amount of energy also went into building the new car that person is going to buy (an even higher amount if it is a hybrid, the production process for hybrid batteries is grossly environmentally degrading which is why I have no respect for any hybrid driver for it shows their utter lack of intelligence or willingness to research a major investment. A real environmentalist does not drive a hybrid). So there are two huge energy usages in the creation and destruction of the cars and the trade off is a small (like 5mpg) increase in gas mileage. That does not make sense to me and what I would really like to know (and trust me, the government did not research this before they initiated this half cocked program) is how long you would have to drive a vehicle that gets 5 mpg more in order to balance out the energy costs associated with the destruction of the old vehicle and the creation of the new one?

Second major issue: helping domestic auto makers. It makes sense to me that the US government (which has a vested interest with GM) would like to keep domestic manufacturers afloat, they would like some return on investment like any investor with a pulse would. So we would expect that the numbers would show that the cars bought with money from the CARS program would mostly be made by GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Well the numbers are in!!!! But guess what, O! won't share them with us. They would rather us commit to giving them another $2 billion for a Round 2 of the program before releasing the figures (what happened to transparency?). WHO ARE YOU KIDDING? No one in their right mind would buy a car from any of those companies when their respective futures are so uncertain? Who would buy a car with a ten year warranty if the company can't promise it won't go under in the next 6 months? And let's not forget that American cars are generally sh*t anyway (some of my friends own American, sorry guys but your cars rank somewhere between gum on the bottom of my shoe and my flaking skin as a result of my latest sunburn).

This is like telling your parents that your grades are low because they don't let you stay out late enough on school nights and if they would just let you stay out until 2am instead of midnight, your grades would go up (I use metaphors because most people are too dumb to understand what I'm actually saying..... and I think I'm really clever).

So let's let this program die. The money is going to foreign companies when the intention was to keep to here. It is probably going to be detrimental to the environment in the long run. And it uses our money for it all. So please just stop.

^ Credit Nate Beeler for this cartoon. Nate, you often brighten my morning. Thanks so much.

(This was reproduced without his written or implied permission, please don't sue)

Update!!!

Here is a list of the top ten cars turned in to the government under the CARS program and it proves my point about American cars being absolute crap (I have to admit, I did love my first car to death and that was a 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee. I still miss it today)

1. 1998 Ford Explorer
2. 1997 Ford Explorer
3. 1996 Ford Explorer
4. 1999 Ford Explorer
5. Jeep Grand Cherokee
6. Jeep Cherokee
7. 1995 Ford Explorer
8. 1994 Ford Explorer
9. 1997 Ford Windstar
10. 1999 Dodge Caravan

Here is a list of the cars bought under the CARS program. Honestly, it isn't as bad as I would have thought but it still ain't pretty.

1. Ford Focus
2. Honda Civic
3. Toyota Corolla
4. Toyota Prius
5. Ford Escape
6. Toyota Camry
7. Dodge Caliber
8. Hyundai Elantra
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevy Cobalt

The Sh*t Keeps Piling Up

Sorry for my hiatus everybody, I was at a conference up in Maryland for work. But now I am back and more upset than ever.


God Bless Canada! The Canadian Free Press anyway. They are reporting on the staff hired to manage Michelle Obama's agenda and activities. If that last sentence doesn't automatically make you sit up and get you a little verclempt, let's remember that she holds no official government post, no elected position, and makes zero decisions what-so-ever. So you say, "Okay, she can have a secretary to handle her public appearances" and I might agree with that but that is not the case in the least. Below is a list of everyone that works for her directly and how much they make per year:


-$172,2000 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)
-$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
-$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
-$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
-Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
-$90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
-$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
-$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
-$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)
-$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
-$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
-$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)
-Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
-$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)
-$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)
-$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)
-Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,SOCIAL OFFICE)
-$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)
-$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)
-Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)
-Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)




I just did the math and that adds up to $831,500 and some of those people don't even have salaries attached! So let's call it around a cool million. What do all these people do? How many events can she POSSIBLY have? Why does she get ANY of these people working for her? She is not making any decisions or policy in the name of the United States so what is the point of all this? Give her a cell phone and a calendar and let her earn her own keep.




Flash back to the election, Palin got slammed for spending campaign funds on clothes for her and her husband. While I'm not a fan of Palin or her nutjob beliefs, I see her spending of this money as in better faith than paying the salaries of Michelle's entourage. At least Palin had a goal in mind, get her and McCain elected (after all, isn't that what campaign funds are for?) while Michelle is just passing the time she's in the White House (hopefully only 4 years or even less). I'm going to refrain from going into the whole "the media will crucify the conservative for the lesser evil while letting the liberal skate" tirade that I hear almost daily.




I'm going to be brutally honest here. I have a passionate hatred for Michelle. I hate her guts. She is about as un-American as you can get (where's Joesph McCarthy when you need him?). I hate that everyone likes her. I hate how she thinks she is a fashionista. And now I hate her for taking my taxes and hiring a staff of over-glorified secretaries.













































But really, what can be done? What recourse is there? She doesn't hold an elected position so we can't vote her out of office. We could try tarring and feathering but that is so 200 years ago (there would be an ironic historical accuracy for her crime however). Here is the crux of the issue, there is no way for us citizens to have any real impact or give any meaningful feedback as to where our tax dollars are really going. The federal government has gotten so bloated that it is absolutely impossible to have any real oversight. Essentially the government is seen as a bottomless piggy bank and the spending skyrockets accordingly. But, guess what, the money comes from two places: our pockets and foreign investment and both sources are being maxed out.

























The public is being fleeced, our pockets are being picked, we are being robbed blind......

When Did Big Brother Become Our Friend?

During my trip into work in the morning, I usually watch a movie on iPod. My movie du jour is that of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine (I try to expose myself to both sides of the spectrum, the left wing commies and the right wing zealots, as they say "know thine enemy"). Aside from the fact that I, as a red blooded American, detest Moore as a person, I was struck as to how he actually WANTS a enormously powerful, Big Brother sort of centralized government and I feel this kind of idea is turning into a political movement today.

If we look at the tactics he uses we can see how he feels about American gun ownership. He demonizes the Michigan Militia (militia kicked the British out of here, remember?), he makes fun of Charleton Heston to his face for owning loaded firearms, highlights a bank's free gun program, and shames K Mart into ceasing to sell ammunition. Now, while I'm all for Moore being able to say what he wants, I am just baffled as to how our society has come full circle and we are now producing people like this that are just bashing the freedoms that were the battle cry of the late 1700s.

The whole point of the American Revolution was to allow every American citizen the freedom to live their lives the way they saw fit. They can own guns if they want, they can drink themselves stupid, they can build a fallout shelter in their backyard if they want. The beauty of this country (or at least it was at one point) was that every individual chose how to live their own life and that was all there was to it. The government didn't tell you what you could or could not do, where you could or could not do it, or insist on you paying for another citizen's health care. You make stupid choices with your life, you had to live with it and the government wouldn't bail your moronic ass out.

Sorry, I got side tracked, back to Moore. So, now, instead of having the government tell us that gun ownership should be restricted, we have actual American citizens shouting the same message as their government. This is what really scares me. This shows an inherent trust of the federal government (remember that one of the tenets of the American nation was that of a weaker central government with the real power residing with the states). So as a nation that grew out of anti-government unrest we now have returned to giving up own personal freedoms and we're happy about it (whoever works PR for the US government should be paid really well).

This situation is downright scary. Its not that the government is insisting on us giving up our freedoms that is scary (I'm used to that from Bush/Cheney) but the the fact that we, the citizens, are insisting the government take them from us! The American public is more-or-less saying "I would much rather have government make my decisions for me than have to be responsible for my own choices". I understand that making big ticket decisions can be hard, but do you really want politicians and bureaucrats in DC making those choices for you? Who knows your situation better, you or them? People are just uneasy about having to live with the results if they choose poorly. Well..... that's part of life, get over it.

The solution to this problem of ignorance of the American citizenry? I don't know but what I do know is that the first thing that has to go is this trust most people have for the US government (no, I'm not some crack pot that is going to pull an Oklahoma City but the point remains, how do we get rid of this unearned trust?).

Our relationship to the US government is like this: you have a wife and she convinces you to move overseas to make more money for you and her, then when you're there she keeps insisting on more and more and more money and won't take no for an answer, you divorce her and the legal battle lasts for years, you stay overseas and meet someone else. Are you going to rush into another marriage and give all your money away again? Of course not, so why are we doing just that here?

Parting thought: Do you want to have to pay for the medical care of Michael Moore?

Neither do I, I don't have enough money to cover that many bypass surgeries.

Racism is an equal opportunity employer

His Illustriousness B Obama spoke out against the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. This came at the tail end of Obama's speech about healthcare (more like advertisement for it) when a Chicago Sun Times correspondent asked Obama's opinion on the matter and what it said about race relations in the US. This means we got to hear Obama's opinion more or less unfiltered by speech writers and his advisers (AKA they didn't have time to make sure everything he said offended absolutely no one).



So what came out of O!'s mouth was that the police had "acted stupidly". While disregarding the fact that Obama knows little to nothing about the incident, I must say that two black men breaking into the home in a predominately white neighborhood should, without a doubt, create a stir. And the fact of the matter is that a citizen called the complaint in! It isn't like the police just saw two black men randomly sitting on the front porch of this house, they were responding to a call from a concerned citizen (funny no one is saying that citizen is racist here..... they aren't at all, I'm just making a point that people rush to demonize police). If the police hadn't acted on the tip and it turned out to actually be two thieves and the police let the home get broken into, the community would be livid!





So here is what it looked like from the police side of the story (and you can't tell me you wouldn't have acted the same way):


-Call comes in from a neighbor saying that two men were breaking into a home
-Police respond to that residence
-Police question the man (Gates but not yet identified to police) inside the house
-Man refuses to provide proof of who he is
-Man verbally abuses officers
-Officers ask man to come outside
-Man continues to yell
-Police arrest man for disorderly conduct
-Police verify his identity after arresting him
-Police release him




That, right there, is text book police work. You see something fishy going on, you err on the side of caution and make sure everything is copacetic (because *gasp* sometimes criminals lie about who they are). Had they not followed procedure and it turned out the house was actually being broken in to, there would have been hell to pay (for one, I'd rather be in jail for an hour for breaking into my own house than let someone who claimed to be me steal all my stuff).



So now, let's turn to Gates. He is crying racism over the entire incident. You know what that says to me? The first thing to come into his mind is "I'm being arrested for being black", not "I'm being arrested for breaking into a home". Doesn't this show who the racist really is?



And let's look at the officer in question here, Sgt. James Crowley. Here is a guy that taught classes in how to avoid racial profiling to other officers (BTW a black police commissioner picked him for that job). Don't you think he might know a thing or two about how to avoid racial profiling? And I also have a feeling that if Crowley were black, we wouldn't be hearing a peep about racism but the event would have gone down the EXACT same way.


So now Obama answers a few questions about this incident at his health care press conference and ends up saying that the officers 'acted stupidly'. There are a few problems here: (1) Obama has no first hand knowledge of what went on, (2) he doesn't defer to the judgment of law enforcement who were actually there, (3) he actually questions the law enforcement process of public safety by saying that officers following procedure were acting stupidly, (4) he implied that race had a role in this at all because it was a black man being arrested.




Now I hate to jump to conclusions here (who am I kidding, I LOVE jumping to conclusions!), but in any situation like this I say "would this be an issue if both people were white, black, yellow, green, etc?" The answer is HELL NO, there would have been no shout from Gates about this being a race issue, Jesse and Al wouldn't be back up on their respective soap boxes, and Obama wouldn't be questioning the integrity of a highly respected law enforcement officer.





So Gates, Al, Jesse, and Obama, to save yourself from appearing racist (even though anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows you are), just shut up.

Update: Obama and Gates were friends before the incident (SHOCKING!), more about Crowley is coming out about him being an upstanding citizen and family man.

Read about it here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4S-r9G0m8HEq4JAFUw7_epFRb9QD99KQSJ80

Another update: Obama calls Crowley to semi-apologize (still not good enough!)

Here: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1723683

The Road to Hell.....

How to Speak Washingtonian

Today we learn how to see through the utter crap that comes out of the political offices in DC today..... here is a case study.

"Washington, DC—Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore) today introduced bipartisan legislation to establish a Water Trust Fund for investing in America’s broken drinking water and sewage treatment systems. The “Water Protection and Reinvestment Act,” H.R.3202, establishes a $10 billion annual fund for repairing America’s corroded pipes and overburdened sewer systems, which pose serious health, environmental, and security consequences." (Please refrane from making fun of him based on appearance alone. I assure you there is more reason to hate him than just his bicycle pin and awful fashion sense.)

The above passage is directly from Rep. Blumenauer's website: http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1524&Itemid=1

Upon first reading of the above passage, most people think "Oh, that sounds noble and worthwhile." (sounds like how O! got elected). I agree it may sound benign enough but let's look a little deeper (something most Americans clearly fail to do so regularly or this guy would be out of a job). We need to ask the question "Where will this $10 billion come from every year?"

Here's the answer: "The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act will be financed broadly by small fees on such things as bottled beverages, products disposed of in waste water, corporate profits, and the pharmaceutical industry. This will provide a long-term, sustainable source of revenue to ensure economic prosperity and protect the health of people and the environment."

Translation: Taxes will be put on bottled beverages (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, bottled water, etc), products disposed of in waste water (toothpaste, toilet paper, mouthwash, dish soaps, etc..... yes, I double checked this), corporate profits (the overall profits that companies make that are already doubly taxed), and the pharmaceutical industry (why single them out? They already have to compete with generic drugs). So what this boils down to is that all the items we buy because we need are going to go up in price (the companies cannot afford to eat these costs and there is no reason they should have to). So this means less money in YOUR pocket.

Next question we need to ask, "Where is this money to go?"

Answer: "The $10 billion annual fund will create more than 250,000 jobs."

Translation: All the money taken from you (through the increased prices of the taxed consumer goods) will go to creating and paying the operating costs of a brand new governmental agency that will oversee the entire process of taxing and enforcing this new Act. In the past, when this type of agency has been created, it turns out to be a bureaucratic nightmare (the money all goes into paying people to create the organization and the ultimate task (upgrading sewer systems in this case) never gets done). The phrasing here about creating jobs has the unmistakable stench of a PR house about it (guess who paid for the PR work for Rep. Blumenauer?). Job creation is a buzz term that is used in cases just like this to make one thing seem like something completely different.

There are numerous stories like this that run almost hourly. People read them and say 'Oh that sounds noble, why not?' when, in fact, they should be saying 'Stop trying to trick me into giving you more money!' And let's not make this a partisan issue either because Republicans have their hand just as deep in the cookie jar as the Dems do (who am I kidding....much deeper in the cookie jar, that's how they all got so damn fat).

So don't let yourself be sweet talked by politicians. We elected them, they should be doing exactly what we want. Let's cut through their crockery and take a stand.

Yes, he bikes around the capital. I'll knock him off of it if I ever see him (BTW he is breaking the law by going the wrong way down the street, can I have a cut of the tax dollars generated from the ticket?)

To Put Things In Perspective

According to Neil Barofsky (Inspector General for TARP), the overall cost of the 'bailout' could be as high as $23.7 trillion (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY0tX8UysIaM)

Now we've all heard a lot of numbers tossed around lately and they tend to lose their meaning without something to scale them by. Let's remedy that, shall we? The GDP of the US last year was a touch over $14 trillion. China's was $7.8 trillion last year (talking about purchasing power parity here, not nominal). So that's saying that if you take our GDP from last year and combine it with China's (the two largest economies in the world), we STILL haven't paid off the bailout. Think about that..... where do we expect this money to come from? *Cue Jeopardy theme song*

History Lesson

It seems in this day and age, many of us have acquired a false sense of US infallibility. This belief that we, as a nation, can't do anything wrong is a very dangerous mindset to have. Let's rewind about a century to see what I mean.....



The year is 1907 and the State of Indiana (don't poke fun at Indiana, it happens to be my favorite state) has just passed the Compulsory Sterilization Law which states that 'confirmed criminals', 'idiots', 'imbeciles', and 'rapists' are to be forcibly sterilized. This means that the state will sterilize criminals and mentally retarded people. The sad thing is that Indiana was a trend setter in this case (rarely happens now-a-days) and 29 other states adopted similar laws (as well as Nazi Germany). California moved into the "forefront" of eugenics as it really embraced the program (now you know why California liberals scare me quite badly) and they forcibly sterilized about 20,000 people (out of about 60,000 sterilized total in the country)(source: http://www.toolan.com/hitler/append1.html).



























This is about as arrogant as a society can get, telling someone they aren't of high enough value to control their own reproductive function (not to mention being completely and totally unconstitutional). Would society be better off if certain elements were not allowed to procreate? Who knows (by what standard are we measuring 'better'? who is setting the direction of society? It's a dangerous game). But what I do know is that taking away the freedom to have your own offspring unequivocally violates someone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And we (as citizens of the Land of the Free) let this go on openly and did little to nothing to prevent it.


Bottom line (other than the fact that Hitler used California's forced sterilization program as a framework for the Third Reich's eugenics program) is that we may think we are hot stuff because we have the most technologically advanced military or the strongest economy (or had rather), but we are just like everyone else, prone to making mistakes and missteps. So let's not get carried away and think we can't F it all up.