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.

Food for Thought

Just a few quotes today.....

With guns, we are citizens.....without guns, we are subjects


"Saddam Hussein was reduced to the Unabomber — Ted Kaczynski — a nutcase hiding in the sticks. Sure, the terrorism by his supporters is frightening. Hence, its name, 'terrorism.' Killing innocent people by surprise is not called 'a thousand points of light.' But, as frightening as terrorism is, it's the weapon of losers. The minute somebody sets off a suicide bomb, you can be sure that person doesn't have 'career prospects.' And no matter how horrendous a terrorist attack is, it's still conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force." - PJ O'Rourke

Chicago Style Politics Live On

Boss Obama is back to strongarming states to get what he wants. In a letter written to Gov. Jan Brewer of AZ (in response to a tv appearance by Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona), Sec. of Transportation Ray LaHood threatened to withhold stimulus funds from the state of Arizona. The reason, you ask? Sen. Kyl stated on "On This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the stimulus was not working and that all contracts not already started should never be. Bottom line is that the Obama administration didn't like what Kyl had to say so now they are threatening to withold funds from the state as a penalty. I'm sad to say that, myself being a product of Chicago, I am surprised we haven't heard about more of these kinds of events (its how 'work' gets done in Chi-town.... just look at the Daley Empire)

Link to article ---> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/15/nice-state-you-got-there-kyl/

How is this kind of behavior acceptable? A voice of dissent and disagreement results in threats? I thought the whole idea behind our democratic government was that of open dissent in order to have an enlightened conversation that would produce the best result for all parties involved. Apparently I have the whole concept ass-backwards.

This Bush-esque tactic is coming from the administration that marketed themselves as being everything that Bush wasn't (can I sue for false advertising?). This is a classic bait-and-switch tactic (Dr. Myers taught me that one, thanks T$). I believe this is a sign of things to come. States will be threatened and cajoled into giving the national government what they want until one day we will wake up and realize states don't exist anymore (we're already close to this already with a national drinking age, federal road funding, and national speed limits).

Let's not get too sidetracked though. The issue is that Arizona is being threatened for having a different opinion than the President. A healthy skepticism is exactly what we need when it comes to the federal government, it was us NOT being skeptical that got our national debt to the unholy level that its at now and got us into Iraq too (don't give me that 'Support the Troops' lecture, that's not even remotely the issue). Imagine everyone having the exact same opinion as the O! administration (Picture a scene from A Brave New World), we would be a socialist nation full of drones turning bolts 8 hours a day (why do you think Russians drink so much?).

Naturally, this story has taken a back seat to the Sotomayor confirmation hearing going on now as well as the "MJ was murdered" stories (and don't forget the media loves O! and refuses to report objectively about anything he does. They have given more air time to the Obama dog than this issue). So don't expect anything to come of this issue but let's see what happens next. Will this kind of thing continue to happen? (My guess: absolutely) Will AZ actually get their stimulus money? Will it come out that Kyl is having an affair with a former staffer? (Woops, wrong Republican)

And I leave you with 2 parting quotes:

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

"People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people"

These are from Thomas Jefferson, smart guy, huh?

I hope this isn't the beginning of the end......

Classroom Application of Obama's Policies

Here's a story I stumbled upon. I don't know where its from but I find it enlightening none-the-less:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan."

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D!

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

The UBS Issue

As many of you are well aware, Swiss based UBS has been a haven for wealthy Americans seeking to get away from the oppressive taxes levied on them. This may not be the case for much longer (read the details here: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910389,00.html)

I have many, many issues with the IRS but the issue here is that of a broader political problem. The US government in the form of the IRS is saying that a company based on Swiss soil must turn over records about their clients to the US government. Let's turn this around for a second..... imagine Citibank being told by the Chinese government they had to turn over records of dealings with Chinese citizens or their assets would be seized and they would no longer be allowed to do business there. Seeing the problem a bit more clearly now?

What it boils down to is that the IRS is pissed that they are missing out on taxing all the $15 billion that US citizens allegedly stashed with UBS. Well you know what IRS? These people are clearly smarter than your agents are, don't be a sore loser!

But this brings to light a bigger issue than just the IRS and their pettiness. In modern day America, people who earn more are increasingly taxed as a sort of jealousy penalty (can you tell I'm a proponent of a flat tax?). It is almost like saying "oh, you make more money than I do? Let's take some more!" This kind of tax policy is the definition of unfair. It is discrimination based on income alone. See the graph below to see a quick and dirty of what I mean:

So what our unfair tax policy leads to is exactly what the IRS is fighting today, it drives our high earners overseas to tax havens like Switzerland. The desire to save money is basic human nature (I would do the same if I had any significant amount of money). Instead of giving an insane percentage of their earning to the federal government, they take it out of the country entirely which makes the US government worse off than if they had just asked for a reasonable amount from these people in the first place. So the government pays the IRS to investigate and then the whole shitstorm gets tied up in litigation as it is now which also costs the taxpayers money. So the logical conclusion (who am I kidding, logic isn't in the government's vocabulary) would be to go to a flat tax system where everyone would agree to pay and you wouldn't have these enforcement problems (good luck getting a flat tax program passed, there are waaaayyyy too many people who would be out of a job, like every single accountant).

The entire US tax system is a disgrace and this just goes to prove my point.

Now a little more light-hearted:

Check This Out

If the O! Administration is really about transparency, then this should pass with flying colors:

http://www.readthebill.org/

Cliff Notes: We the people get 72 hours to read and express opinion on any non-emergency bill put in front of Congress.

AMAZING IDEA, maybe someday we can just vote on the bills ourselves and get rid of the middlemen.

Whoring of The Public Sector

So it just came out this morning that Steven Rattner is stepping down as Advisor to the US Treasury (aka Car Czar) (link here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/Rattner-leaving-auto-task-force_07_14-50679542.html). He took this job on February 23rd of this year after coming from Quadrangle Group (where he was one of 4 founders. The group apparently has about $2.5B invested). So, more or less, he left a position in the private financial industry where I'm sure he was making a healthy salary (and don't forget about his investments in Cerberus Capital Management) for a government posting which I'm sure resulted in a significant step down salarywise.

Apparently no one saw a problem with hiring a guy from the private financial sector to drag GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy. Generalization warning: the private financial sector (while may not being the cause of) made this economic downturn much worse than it should have been so why would we (the taxpayers) hire someone in the private financial sector for this job? I have no idea. But that is neither here nor there (that decision was made without consulting me back in February).


The issue at hand is why is Rattner stepping down days after bringing GM out of bankruptcy? There could be many reasons (and I'm speculating here). Maybe he just wanted to gain some notoriety by being 'the car czar' for a few months and leverage that in the private sector afterwards. Maybe he realized there is NO money in working for the federal government, especially with Obama's policies (except if you are a senator apparently). Maybe he rushed GM through the bankruptcy process and doesn't want to stick around to be responsible for GM going down in flames (again, which it most likely will). According to Rattner, he is leaving in order to return to private life and his family in New York City. This probably means that he will be returning to Quadrangle Group in the near future but that is just my own speculation. I'm guessing the answer to this question will come out in the near future and I will be watching the news closely for it.




So this going-on raises a few bones that I have to pick. The first being, if the Obama administration wants (more like they NEED) executive level talent like Rattner, they need to pay accordingly. You can NOT cap pay at $150,000 per year. Someone who is making 3 or 4 times that amount will not leave their cushy private sector job for a federal posting with heavy public scrutiny for less pay (someone who does make that decision should be required to undergo extensive psychological testing). If you want the best people in the country working for you, pay accordingly.





Another issue is that of private industry goons using the government as a tool of publicity. I have a feeling that not many people, apart from financial insiders, knew who Rattner was before he started working for the Treasury (I know I didn't). After working for the government for 5 months, he now enjoys top of the mind awareness and is a household name (even the best PR firms can't bring that kind of notoriety). So this guy is more or less going to make more money in the coming months because he working for the government (going along with the Obama theme, shouldn't he be taxed on the difference between his pay before working for the Treasury and after citing that his brief foray into government work is responsible for this increase in pay? Doesn't Democrat logic suck when turned on those who constantly spew it?)

That's all I've got for this morning, I may have an afternoon rant in me later on. Enjoy some satire below for the time being:

A great quote

"I would rather swallow my blood than swallow my pride"

I have no idea who said it but I wish I could claim it as my own.

A little social commentary....

VS

Like most red-blooded Americans, I watched movies and some tv this past weekend. What I noticed about what I was watching was how widespread infidelity has become in pop culture. I watched "He's Just Not That Into You" as well as a few episodes of "Californication" yesterday as part of my girlfriend's and my lazy Sunday tradition. In both plots, spouses are depicted cheating on their significant others on various occasions which begs the question, since when did it become socially acceptable to sleep with someone other than your spouse?

I really do believe that marriage has become the dating of yesteryear. It seems that many people rush into marriage seeing it more as a status symbol instead of a statement of commitment. These kinds of willy-nilly marriages show a disturbing lack of foresight by people (mostly my age) and then, eventually, lead to infidelity, divorce, or both.

So, back to the question, when did it become socially acceptable to cheat? I don't recall seeing Jason Seaver (Growing Pains) cheating on his wife or Fred Flintstone divorcing Wilma. I don't have an answer to the question but I do know that it will have an impact on my generation as well as future generations. Instead of having role models that observe the commitments they have made we have people like Paris Hilton and Gabrielle (Desperate Housewives). With this kind of trend, what kind of values do we expect our children to have?

Are you comfortable with your children growing up with shows like Desperate Housewives, Gossip Girl, and The Secret Life of the American Teenager? I'm certainly not.

PS - Reading what I wrote above, I sound like a total prude. For those of you who know me, that is the last thing I am. I just believe that marriage is a binding agreement (between ANY 2 people, I'm not a Republican, remember?) that should not be taken lightly. The movement to treat it like a passing fad pisses me off to no end.

Good Job Pelosi? Yup, I said it

For those who know me, I normally respond to anything that comes out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth with a stream of curses. I do believe that she has done more to destroy this country than all KGB agents, terrorists, and N Koreans put together but today she actually did something to redeem herself (albeit on an issue that has no purpose being in front of Congress in the first place).

What I'm talking about is this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jackson-pelosi10-2009jul10,0,764678.story

The cliff notes version you say? Ok here goes, Rep Jackson Lee - D Texas (I thought Texas summarily executed all Democrats?) sponsored a resolution to honor the illustrious Michael Jackson on the floor of the House (honor how, I don't know but I heard the resolution itself was more-or-less a biography of his music and the money he donated to various charities). Now Pelosi has come out saying that, because of the shitstorm that MJ's life became in the last decade (I'm paraphrasing here), the House should not even vote on a resolution to honor him.

This will probably be the only time I will ever say this but good for you Nance! This marks a departure from her policy of appeasement and means that she might actually have some values and sense of purpose of her own (shocking!). The House is not a place to talk about such a topic. You want to have a moment of silence for the death of a pop icon, that's fine and dandy but let the issue die there (pun UNintended).

Now I plan on resuming my undying hatred for this woman and everything she stands for (I am quite proud of myself for admitting that I agree with her for once even though it's a meaningless issue)

Enjoying the Change You Believed In?

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words and this case is no exception. I have a feeling this eroding of our approval of our President is just the beginning. He has only been in the office for about 6 months and, according to this study, people who strongly approve of Obama have dropped about 10% already. I would not be surprised if this is just the beginning of things to come. It seems as if every new decision he makes pisses off someone new. This should not be surprising seeing that B Obama was praised by Castro on his inauguration day (he was that guy who parked nukes 90 miles off our coast, remember?)

Here's a perfect example of why his 'strongly approve' numbers are falling and will continue to do just that. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/High-speed-rail-is-about-pork_-not-transit-7941879-50228082.html. High speed rail? Really? This is the United States of America, where the car is king. Does he expect people to drop the freedom and convenience of car travel to pay more to use trains? (By the way it takes longer to get from Richmond to DC on a train than if you drove and it costs significantly more to take the train too). What this kind of decision does is effectively polarize those who generally don't give a damn about politics. If you are an average Joe who sees Obama and the government trying to get you to stop driving and take public transit everywhere, you probably won't like it. You don't want to be limited to where the public system goes (I can tell you that Amtrak doesn't get me to my parents house in Central Indiana).

I really do believe that many people voted for Obama as a concept of change and now, when he attempts to implement his policies, those same people realize the impact that this 'change' is going to have on their daily lives. Change is always easy to support when you think someone else will be doing the changing.

He's Dead, Get Over It

Most mornings, the first web page that I see is Google News (its like my morning paper of yesteryear). This fine morning I counted 5 front page stories talking about the 'historic' Michael Jackson and his memorial service. Five, cinco, 5, V. Are you kidding me?

Let's forget for a moment that the last decade this 'man' has been surrounded by accusations of multiple counts of child molestations. In the 1970s and 80s, he was a pop icon. I will be the first to admit that, growing up in the 80s and 90s, I LOVED his music. I saw his Captain EO 3D show at Epcot numerous times as a kid (and I do not fault my parents with letting me see it, I would have let my kids). He was a trendsetter. His music was groundbreaking (Black or White is one of the best race songs of all time). His dancing.... there are no words to describe how amazing it was (I remember practicing the crotch grab as a lil boy. Never could nail the moonwalk though). So he was a pop music star, no arguing that. He dies and the nation stops to mourn, WHY? Farrah died the same day (cue the joke about Farrah asked God to save the kids of the US) and so did Ed. Now I can understand why people my age felt more towards MJ than the other two but there's one other person that died that should be recognized over all three of them put together: Robert McNamara. He died two days ago and the coverage of the MJ Memorial still got more air time. You have to be kidding me! This is the guy that decided the fate of the entire world, not just the US, in the 1960s and 70s. He brought us back from the brink of nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis saving (most likely) millions of lives globally. I have a feeling the majority of people my age have no clue who he was which is a sad realization.

So back to MJ. Now let's pull the whole child molestation accusations back into the equation. I know he was acquitted of all charges but let's be honest here, that does not mean that he was innocent, it just means a jury of US citizens (who I increasingly find to be pretty thick) could not bring themselves to believe that the holy MJ could do it. Let's also remember that he paid out large sums to the families of the children to settle civil suits (if that isn't an admission of guilt, I don't know what is). So, in my mind, he was a predator and a freak. Now flash forward to this past week where people were singing his praise (pun intended) dubbing him a "hero" (maybe I should start touching children inappropriately, will I be a hero then?). No one had the balls (save for one Congressman) to speak the truth and say that he was, on the whole, a negative force in this world. Spare me Al and Jesse, he was a slime ball. I don't care how many chart-toppers he had, all the good his music did is outweighed (BIG TIME) by his crimes against humanity.

With all this being said, I will continue to listen to his music (probably only when drinking heavily) but I am also happy that my children will be born into a world without that 'man'.

MJ, rot in hell.

The Beginning

Good morning, afternoon, or night depending on where you are,

I just want to outline my goal for this in the form of a mission statement, if you will.

I seek to examine modern day US society with a critical eye. My sources for inspiration will included (but will definitely NOT be limited to) current events, politics, entertainment, financial news, and my daily commute into work. It seems on a daily basis I am positively dumbfounded by the amount of stupidity (for lack of a better word) that I see go unobserved and unchallenged. My job is to open others' eyes to absolute absurdity that we let run unchecked.

A little background first. I am a yuppie (young professional BTW) living in the DC metro area (yes, by choice). I graduated from college in 2008 (where that was I will keep a secret for now) and have been here since then. I consider myself a fairly average guy just trying to live life, I am not a Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal.... I have my own opinions on issues that can't be summed up by Left or Right or by a party name (I have been called many other names as well but they are not fit for print).

I will rant (and write in parentheses where probably not appropriate). Enjoy my increased blood pressure and take solice in the fact that my opinions make no real difference in the world!

Cheers