A right to marry?

I heard an interesting statement recently. It was this: "Gays don't have a right to marry because heterosexuals don't have a right to marry". I was stunned. I'd never heard this before. In fact, it hadn't even occurred to me. So... I did what I always do when confronted with something like this. I researched it a bit until I could reconcile what seemed like an obviously asinine statement. As it turns out, it isn't so asinine after all. Homosexuals claim a right to marry for two reasons that I've heard. One, they should have the same "right" that heterosexuals do and two, that they should be allowed to marry because they love each other, just like heterosexuals do. Okay, this actually seemed to make some sense to me for a while. However, let's look at it, really. Does love give you a right to marry? After all, we don't allow pedophiles who "love" children to marry them. We don't allow men who love multiple women to marry more than one of them. We don't allow a man/woman to marry their pet because they love them. In fact, the idea of a right to marry existing because of love turns out to be ridiculous. Now onto the other point. Do heterosexuals have a "right" to marry?! A constitutional right is something guaranteed to all of us. However, we don't have a right because the constitution says so. The government is set up to protect and ensure our unalienable rights. These rights are those that we have simply by existing. The Declaration of Independence referred to three of them, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, does marriage exist as a right? If it does, then the government is constitutionally obligated to protect that right and ensure we all can exercise said right. In fact, if somebody wanted to marry, but was unable to find anyone who wanted to marry them, then they could use the legal system and the courts in order to gain their right. After all, it is their right. So, they have a right to marry and a court confirms that right. Now what? After all, nobody wants to marry them. However, they have that right. They must be allowed to marry and the government must guarantee it. Now we are stuck in a circular argument since nobody wants to marry them. That leaves us with one of two options. Either they don't have a right to marry or the government must protect that right, thereby forcing someone to marry them. If someone is forced to marry them, then the government has failed in protecting the other person's unalienable rights to life (it isn't your own life if you can't choose who you want to marry), liberty (you are enslaved in a forced marriage) and pursuit of happiness (would you be happy in this case?). Since we know these three things are unalienable right and we have no such circular argument conundrums with them, that should tell us something, shouldn't it. Yes, it should. We should realize that even heterosexuals do not have the "right" to marry. One, a person must first find someone willing to marry them. Two, they must get permission from the government through the issuance of a marriage license. Three, if they want to be married in a certain religion, they must find someone within that faith group willing to marry them. These are all things dependent on the choices of others, not something that we can claim a right to. So, what is the governments role in marriage. Well, it requires a license, often blood tests. There are social as well as tax benefits involved in marriage as legally established by the government. However, traditionally, marriages have been performed not by governments, but by churches and in fact, many argue that marriage is initially an institution of the church or God and not one of government, or man. Regardless of which it is, the government has set down a legal standard for marriage and in the U.S., that standard must be sympathetic to religious institutions, otherwise, you risk violating another unalienable right to freedom of exercise. In fact, you even risk the freedom from establishment since any definition of marriage on the part of the government would actually dictate to the church what they can and can't do. So, I submit that we should all stop trying to define marriage in a legal sense and instead deal with it this way. The government can give people whatever legal privileges they desire, whether they want to marry their dog, a same sex partner, or an opposite sex partner, as long as the two involved in the marriage transaction (it is really a contract after all) can find some church to marry them. Good luck with that. Oh, you say, what about justices of the peace. Well, those are really civil contracts with a word attached to them, aren't they? After all, you've chosen to use the states legal privileges and forego the religious ceremonies. I submit under my argument above that these are all civil unions, not marriages. After all, marriages are performed as part of a religious act or ritual. The government cannot provide such a ritual, so, all "marriages" performed in a civil event in front of a judge and not a clergyman are in fact civil unions. So, I guess I'd say two things here. One, the "right" to marry does not exist and therefore, those arguing their rights are being violated have no standing and two, the government can do what it wants to in this arena as long as it doesn't interfere with religion. Therefore, the government can choose to give civil privileges to whomever they want. So, in a nutshell, marriages are for religions and civil unions are for civil authorities.

Earmarks

Now, it might surprise you to find out that I'm not really all that opposed to earmarks in the federal budget. After all, if you are a Congressman/woman in our legislature and you want to get reelected, you'll probably try to include an earmark or two at some point for your local district. This is commonly how the game is played. In fact, most earmarks are harmless and relatively inexpensive compared to the overall federal budget. There are exceptions and they should be fought over tooth and nail. In fact, I'd prefer that local jurisdictions build their own nature centers, etc., but it is really the job of our representatives to "represent us". This means those in their districts first, the rest of the country second. I know, that seems a little backward, but we are supposed to be living in a Republic founded on a federal system, aren't we? Oh, considering how the states are being dictated to in the latest stimulus, perhaps that is no longer true, a travesty if that is the case. Nonetheless, the Republicans are really railing on the Democrats and Obama for the earmarks include in Obama's 3.6 trillion dollar budget. Now, don't even get me started on the budget. After all, even in good times, generally the most our treasury could glean from us was 2.2 trillion, so how we can possibly afford 3.6 is beyond me. Nevertheless, there are only about 10 billion dollars worth of easily identifiable earmarks in Obama's budget. There are many other problems with it, however. If we were to remove the earmarks to "save money", we'd remove 10 billion dollars from a 3.6 trillion dollar budget. That would make the budget what? Oh right, 3.59 trillion dollars. Hmm... guess it would still technically be a 3.6 trillion dollar budget, wouldn't it? So sure, some earmarks can be done away with and technically all of them could be, but they won't be as long it gets them votes. However, right now, my understanding of the budget is that 60 percent of the earmarks were placed in the budget by Democrats. So, if the Republicans are so upset about this 6 billion dollars, who is spending the other 40 percent? Oh right, Republicans. Time for them to start putting the ethics and standards where their mouths are and start living up to what they preach. If they don't then they won't regain enough credibility to make a dent in the 2010 elections. Complaining about earmarks while putting in 4 billion dollars worth yourselves doesn't restore credibility, it makes you look stupid.

Abortion in America (no soap box)

I've often heard these statements from supporters of abortion. "It should be legal, but rare" or "It is always a hard decision to make". I'm not going to argue a point of view in this post, but I do want to point out the disingenuous nature of these two comments. First, if there is nothing wrong with abortion and it is just a clump of cells, why is it a hard choice and why should it be rare? At least the other side of this issue is consistent in their arguments, at least in regards to abortion, although perhaps not in regards to life since many of them also support the death penalty, also disingenuous if you are going to call yourself a Right to lifer. I'd much prefer people to be consistent. Either be against the death penalty and against abortion or don't use right-to-life. In addition, say you are for abortion and for the death penalty or stop claiming you aren't a hypocrite. After all, to be for abortion and against the death penalty seems to suggest that the life of a violent criminal is more important than "potential" life. Nonetheless, I digress. I found some interesting statistics recently. They didn't exactly match, although they were close. Basically, this statistic explain the basic reason why women in the U.S. have abortions.

According to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform:
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

The Central Illinois Right to Life group make the same assertion this way:
The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
* Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
* 1% because of fetal abnormalities;
* 3% due to the mother's health problems.

And finally, William Robert Johnston makes this case on his website:
Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons.

This is all very interesting in a way. There are many people who do struggle with abortion in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality, mother's health, etc. In fact, I know a true story about parents who had two young children at home and had a third on the way. The birth became problematical due to breech and other issues putting the life of the mother in danger. The father was actually asked to choose between the two (a horrible choice if there ever was one) and decided to save the mother, if it came to that. Fortunately, it did not and that third child was born. In addition, bringing a child into this world who might live for a year or two and have little to no quality of life would be a tough decision for anyone, I submit, even the most ardent abortion opponent. However, these are clear moral gray areas. Are there moral gray areas involved in what the statistics above refer to as elective abortions? I'm not going to judge other people's decisions or beliefs. But I think the two opening statements, that it is a hard decision and that it should be rare suggest that even the most ardent abortion supporters find a moral gray area in any abortion. However, with the current number of annual abortions in the U.S. exceeding 1 million, estimated to be between 1.2 and 1.3 million, let's now look at those statistics above. Say we make the claim that the moral gray areas, mother's health, baby's health and rape or incest are to remain legal while we say that using abortion as a means of birth control for unwanted, inconvenient or unaffordable children is no longer legal. What does that do with the overall number.

In the three sets of statistics, the numbers are different, but oddly similar. In reality, thee difference is probably not what one would call statistically significant. The first one gives us a number of 7% (morally gray) and 93% (socio-economic). The second one gives us the number 5% (morally gray) and 95% (socio-economic). The final one lowers it even more with 2% (morally gray) and 98% (socio-economic). So, if we follow the logic above and declare that abortion is not birth control, 1.2 million abortions become: 84000, 60000 and 24000 respectively. So, at the largest number, it would take 14 or more years to equal the number of abortions performed in this country per year. Hmm...

Just food for thought.

Just to be clear!

Just so we are all on the same page. Rarely does Congress truly say what they mean or have your best interests at heart. The latest example of this was recently passed by the House. As far as I know, it has yet to go to the President's desk. This is H.R. 80. Your Congress will tell you that this bill is meant to protect you from all the Chimpanzees running rampant in our society that might harm you, such as the recent case in the news. Sounds good. Even if it is irrelevent to pass legislation that need not be passed because, really, how many chimpanzees are running wild? Nonetheless, I want to be protected from them, just in case they do, right? Okay, here's the thing about H.R. 80. It amends the Lacey Act to include non-human primates. So, what is the Lacey Act? Here is an overview of the act from the Animal Legal and Historical Center at the Michigan State University College of Law:

The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378, protects both plants and wildlife by creating civil and criminal penalties for a wide array of violations. Most notably, the Act prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold. Thus, the Act underscores other federal, state, and foreign laws protecting wildlife by making it a separate offense to take, possess, transport, or sell wildlife that has been taken in violation of those laws. The Act prohibits the falsification of documents for most shipments of wildlife (a criminal penalty) and prohibits the failure to mark wildlife shipments (civil penalty). The Lacey Act is administered by the Departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture through their respective agencies. These include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

The Lacey Act was first introduced by Iowa Congressman John Lacey in the House of Representatives in the spring of 1900. It was signed into law by President William McKinley on May 25, 1900. The original Act was directed more at the preservation of game and wild birds by making it a federal crime to poach game in one state with the purpose of selling the bounty in another. It was also concerned with the potential problems of the introduction of non-native, or exotic species of birds and animals into native ecosystems. Finally, it sought to buttress state laws already in existence for the protection of game and birds.

The Lacey Act has been amended several times since its inception in 1900. The most significant ones occurred in 1969, 1981, and 1988. The 1969 amendments expanded to include amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, and crustaceans. The maximum penalty was increased to $10,000 with possible imprisonment for one year. Additionally, the mental state required for a criminal violation was increased to "knowingly and willfully;" civil penalties were expanded to apply to negligent violations.

In 1981, Congress removed the heightened proof standard of "willfully" from the statute, making "knowingly" the standard. This came in response to an increased illegal trade in fish and wildlife both domestically and abroad. Indigenous plants were also added to the protected species. With regard to penalty, the maximum civil fine was raised to $10,000 and a bifurcated felony/misdemeanor scheme was created under the statute based on the conduct of the offender and the market value of the species at issue. Under the felony portion of the statute, the maximum penalty was set at $20,000 and/or five years imprisonment; misdemeanor violations were set at $10,000 and/or up to one-year imprisonment. The amendments also allowed for warrantless arrest for felony violations under the Act and expansion of the role of federal wildlife agents.

In 1988, the role of guiding or outfitting services were added to cover a new threat to big game species under the ambit of "sale." Prior to the amendment, big game guides who provided illegal hunts were immune to prosecution for violation based on commercial activity. The amendments also created a separate and distinct violation for the intended falsification of documents pertaining to the exporting, importing, or transporting of wildlife, fish, or plants. The felony provision of this part of the act was amended such that one could be convicted if he or she either knew of the import or export of the species or where he or she was involved in the sale or purchase of wildlife, fish, or plants with a market value greater than $350.

The Lacey Act now stands as one of the broadest and most comprehensive forces in the federal arsenal to combat wildlife crime. With increasing activity in international and domestic wildlife trafficking, the Act has evolved to become an important weapon to protect animals domestically and abroad.

Okay, so it is the most comprehensive force in combating wildlife crime. Go read the act as well. It is meant to protect wildlife from lowlifes. Admittedly, not a bad goal. However, that is a far cry from protecting the public from crazed, drugged up chimpanzees. What they are saying is that you can't have one. That's what this amendment to the act does. It includes non-human primates in the act. So, if it is signed by the President, it will be illegal to import non-human primates. So, no chimpanzees for you or monkeys of any sort for that matter. In addition, I have to wonder what effect this amendment would have on laboratories doing legitimate research for drugs (not cosmetics). Will they still be able to have their primates? This is important because testing drugs on primates is the only way to have any understanding of what they might do to humans. Maybe there are other ways, I have yet to be convinced that a computer can accurately predict the response of the human body to an untested drug, but I don't think any of us want to be doing this testing on humans first, do we? Nonetheless, this act is not about protecting us from them, it is really about protecting them from us, so Congress basically lied in saying it was a law meant to protect the public from things like what was recently in the news from happening. Flat out lied about it.

Now we are bailing out Germany too!

Over the years, and particularly during the Bush years, media sources liked to "fact check" presidential speeches. Obama's speech on Tuesday wasn't different very much. It was striking to me that the N.T. Times and the Washington Post, two newspapers who would have tore Bush a new one for making a stupid statement didn't seem to care about fact checking the President's speech. Of course, the Washington Post is the same newspaper that admitted, after the election, that their coverage was biased in favor of Obama. At any rate, the Associated Press issued an article doing the fact checking piece on the speech, as they usually do. I saw it picked up in a couple of places. It wasn't too bad for his first speech before Congress actually. He only misrepresented the amount of oil imported today and who will actually get money under his housing aid plan. Those are typical political ploys made by most politicians, so I'll ignore those. However, one of his statements would have been front page news had Bush or maybe even Clinton (media sources seem to have more integrity back when Clinton was President than they do now, in my opinion) said it. I don't really care that much that our President doesn't know who invented the automobile. I suspect if you took a national poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans would also think it was us. However, isn't he supposed to have speech writers and fact checkers to make sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen? Yep, of course, so has all the other Presidents and it still happens. Perhaps that is really a commentary on speech writers? At any rate, in the speech, Obama says: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." Cool for the American auto industry, right? After all, he's basically just announced that he's planning on giving them a lot more money. That's what is really meant by the statement. Anyone who reads this blog knows how I feel about bailouts, so I won't go into that here, but I have to say I do find this statement by our President to be quite amusing. After all, we all know he means the American auto industry must be bailed out. However, that isn't what he said. How can that be you ask? Well, since the automobile was invented in Germany by Benz, not in the U.S. by Ford (he wasn't even the first in the U.S.), I guess I'd have to say that our President just offered to bail out the German auto industry. That's what he said even if it wasn't what he meant. I know, I know, I'm splitting semantic hairs and being nasty to the President, eh? Well, actually that wasn't the point of this article at all. While I find the statement funny, I would not have caught it myself. I find it refreshing, a bit, that the Associated Press did catch it. However, the point of this article is to point out the double standard the media seems to be so fond of displaying with this President. As I said, they would have railed Bush, Clinton, anyone who made this type of faux pas in the past, so why did Obama largely get a pass? Anyone got an answer for that, beyond the obvious?

When will people start to see reality!

Hmm... Wall Street, or stocks, fell sharply again today. Why I wonder, could it be that the President gave a speech last night?

The crisis so far!?

I saw this image and found it to be very interesting. I've said for a couple of months now that every time Obama makes a speech, he makes things worse. At least it seemed that way to me. Glad to know I'm not the only person out there with the thought.

My Best Picture prediction!

So, the nominees are:
1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

This seems to me to be a very good film with good actors based on a famous, required reading, short story. No way it wins this year!

2. Frost/Nixon

Uh, Nixon, not gonna win.

3. The Reader

Another good film, starring a popular actress. It even has a point to make, but even the Oscars underrated it in how they treated it during the opening number. Not gonna win.

4. Slumdog Millionaire

This film has a chance and could be the upset win, but so far, I have yet to have heard anything positive about it from anyone that has actually seen it, outside of the critics of course.

5. Milk

Hmm... in a year when California legally voted to overturn gay marriage and the losers in the battle are now acting sorely by trying to get the results of a legal election overturned, I'd say this film is close to the hearts of many academy voters. It also stars very popular actors in Sean Penn and Josh Brolin. So, guess what, I think this film has the right mix of cause, sentimentality and moviemaking to win this year.

Oh, but it can't happen here

There are many things about our government that are clear violations of the Constitution. However, one of the most egregious is the executive order. I recently read a disturbing article online in regards to this very thing. Read the Constitution folks. Where does it give the President the power to issue executive orders. It doesn't. You won't find it. In fact, when Andrew Jackson used an executive order to remove the Cherokee from their lands, it was ruled unconstitutional and illegal by the Supreme Court. Jackson's response? "Let them enforce their ruling" Which of course the Supreme Court has no power to do. Thus was born the executive order. Now, for those think this is a harmless violation of our Constitution, let's examine the facts. Abraham Lincoln used executive orders during wartime to imprison dissenters and to suspend the writ of habeus corpus. Wilson used executive orders to arm U.S. vessels during WWI when Congress refused to act. FDR used the executive order to establish the Japanese internment camps. Harmless? Okay, well these were only used during wartime and we've always returned to normal later, you argue. True, but issuing an executive order is easy for a President to do. Once it is in the Federal Registry, it is considered to have the same force of law as Congressional legislation. Only an act of Congress or another President issuing a rescinding order can override one of these. This is way too much power for one person to have. In fact, Howard J. Ruff said "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it." Hmm... sounds dubious. It gets worse. Here's a list of many executive orders that have been signed by Presidents and have never been rescinded, meaning that it would only take a sitting Presidents signature on a single piece of paper to bring all of them into force which would give a President dictatorial powers, plain and simple:

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11490 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.

Still think this is harmless? One stroke of a pen and all of these can be applied today. These orders, combined with several real laws that were actually passed by Congress (the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1991) and including a recent shift in thinking at the Pentagon to allow uniformed troops, stationed inside the U.S. to "assist" in times of national crisis (this undermines the 130 year old Posse Comitatus Act actually passed by Congress) sets us all up for the unthinkable. The wrong person getting into office at the wrong time and thus using these (unconstitutional) powers of the President to basically establish a dictatorship right here in the good old U.S. of A. Still don't believe it? It must be nice being you.

How's this for entitlement?

The NYTimes ran a story on Feb. 17 that talked about an article, published last year in the Journal of Youth and Adolescents entitled: Self-Entitled College Students: Contributions of Personality, Parenting, and Motivational Factors by Ellen Greenberger. This study looked at causal factors for why college students seem to have developed a strong sense of entitlement not previously seen. Hmm... why would people possibly feel entitled to good grades? Could it be the same phenomena that causes people to think they can sing well enough to try out for American Idol even though they can't even hold a tune? Don't get the reference? Oh, okay, because they've never been told NO! Parents who tell their kids they can sing when they so obviously can't aren't being kind to their children, they are being destructive enablers, but this is the kind of attitude many parents have had following the "you can't discipline your child" mentality of the 60s-80s. Is it any wonder that many kids now think they should be given a grade of B, just for showing up to class and doing what was required? When I was growing up, I knew there had to be a result in order to get a good grade and it had to be a good result. When I was told to write a 20 page paper, I knew it had better make a good point and that I'd better be able to back it up in order to get a good grade, but that's not the attitude of a whopping 40 percent of college students according to this study. Here's a quote from one student: "I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade," Mr. Greenwood said. "What else is there really than the effort that you put in?" Effort? How about a RESULT Mr. Greenwood. Effort is great and is often included in grading, usually like 10 percent for participation etc. is where teachers place effort. The rest of your grade actually requires you to do something of substance, not just put in the effort. Putting in effort is great, but according to Mr. Greenwood, putting in 2 years of effort on an overpass that collapses before it can open means the contractor should be paid. After all, they put in all that work, right? Uh, no. The result was unacceptable and therefore they don't need to pay them. Hello?! What are we teaching our kids? Is it any wonder that people are calling this latest generation, generation ME? Okay, maybe Mr. Greenwood is the exception? How's this: James Hogge, associate dean of the Peabody School of Education at Vanderbilt University, said: "Students often confuse the level of effort with the quality of work. There is a mentality in students that ‘if I work hard, I deserve a high grade.’" Again, really?! Okay, here's one from another student: Sarah Kinn, a junior English major at the University of Vermont, agreed [with Mr. Greenwood above], saying, "I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B." What? I read the books and went to class. How'd you do on the tests. Did you write the required paper and was it any good? Where do they get this idea from?! I'm astonished and shocked really. There's not really much more to say. Our entitlement society has now reached down to the youngest in our society. When that happens and everyone begins to think they are entitled to something, what happens to personal responsibility? Oh wait, our government has been doing nothing for the last year except saying to everyone in the world that there is no such thing as personal responsibility, that if you mess up, the government will help you. No wonder our kids don't get the message.

Is this racist and harmful or silly humor? Does it matter?

CNN posted an editorial today about a political cartoon that appeared in the N.Y. Post yesterday. First, I want to say that it is never a good idea to underestimate or dismiss people's feelings on an issue, especially when it comes to race. I saw the cartoon the editorialist was referring to. Since I keep up with current events and politics, I thought nothing of it. After all, two cops shooting a chimipanzee? That's been all over the news. The part people have had problems with comes in the caption. It reads "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill". Hmm... is that racist as the editorialist contends? Well, that probably depends on your perspective. I did not find it racist at all. After all, Nancy Pelosi is credited with authoring the stimulus bill, so if the monkey is supposed to be a person, you'd think it would represent her. However, the monkey isn't labelled as a specific person, which cartoonists are fond of doing. To me, the monkey represented something else. Remember the old saying about probabilities that if given enough time, a monkey could write a symphony? Well, I thought the author was simply saying that a crazed monkey had written this horrible stimulus bill. I read it as an obvious joke on what a bad piece of legislation this was. So, I found this response very interesting. Roland Martin, in his editorial, contends the cartoon is obviously racist and the N.Y. Post editors should have seen that it was racist and rejected it, but should now apologize. I read his response, and I see why he, and many others, think it is racist. They believe the monkey is depicting Obama. If that were the case, I'd agree with him wholeheartedly. After all, this is a common and degrading depiction of African Americans from our nations past. In addition, he points out that the Post is trying to pass blame off on someone else, accusing Al Sharpton of being politically motivated and hypersensitive. Well, the Post might be right, but it is simplistic of them to use this argument. The cartoonist himself said the monkey did not depict any particular person and if it could be interpreted to represent someone, he said it would most likely be the author of the bill, Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Martin has a point though in regards to the Post editor's response. It was simplistic and careless of them to think that accusing Mr. Sharpton would make it go away. The response from the cartoonist was much more appropriate. All that said, Mr. Martin hurts his own argument by this statement. "What could be seen as silly humor if President George W. Bush were in the White House has to be seen through the lens of America's racist past, as noted by the leaders of the New York Association of Black Journalists, who also are demanding an apology from the Post." He goes on to note that Jews and Italians would not like themselves being depicted in certain ways either. I'm sure this is true. Every (yes I mean every) racial group has something to be offended by in history's depiction of them and we should be sensitive to that. However, Mr. Martin himself said this cartoon would have been nothing more than silly humor if GW were President. This being because GW was white and therefore couldn't be compared to a monkey, I'm guessing. He's right in a way, but I contend that if it is silly humor for one President, it is silly humor for any President. I'd be completely on board with Mr. Martin here if the cartoon labelled the monkey as Obama. I can even see why Mr. Martin sees this as offensive. I didn't find it offensive or racist, or even to be depicting our President when I read it. Is that a failing on my part or are people reading more into it than actually exists by seeing the monkey as the President. I don't know the answer to that. If you want to see the cartoon, go here and select the cartoon for Feb. 18, 2009. Is it racist? After reading Mr. Martin's response, maybe it is, at least to some. Should the Post apologize? I'm not sure they should for two reasons. It is clear that a reasonable person could view this cartoon and not find it offensive, unless I'm not a reasonable person. The second reason is more subtle. It is a matter of freedom of speech and of the press. I still contend that people have a right to be bigoted, sexist, racist, whatever. I'd argue against them and fight those notions until I was blue in the face, but they still have a right to them. This includes in print. In fact, asking the Post to apologize for this reminds me of what happened to a particular Danish newspaper when they printed cartoonish images of Mohammed. Have we become so sensitive that we have to reject freedom of speech and the press so as not to offend anyone? That is what we are talking about here at the root after all. You can never please anyone 100 percent of the time and no matter what your intent, whatever you write or draw will likely be seen as offensive by someone. Therefore, under the precedent being set here, if something could possibly be perceived as offensive by someone, then a newspaper, tv station, whatever, shouldn't print it. Really? Is that where we want to go as a people? I see something on a daily basis in the news or on tv that I could choose to take offense at (such as violence, sex, anti-Americanism, etc.), but I choose not to be offended. I'm sure some will think that I am in fact taking people's feelings lightly or diminishing the real hurt African Americans have felt over the years. I would not do any such thing. I simply ask the question. Does the desire to never be offended outweigh freedom of speech, of the press, etc.? If you believe that it does, then the N.Y. Post should apologize for this cartoon. If you believe that it does not, then we really have to examine where the political correctness path we are on is taking us.

Anti-semites abound!

CNN posted an article today about a Jewish man who was attacked in London because he was Jewish. His attackers told him it was payback for what Israel was doing in Gaza! Really! A British citizen, a Londoner, who has probably never been to Israel is somehow responsible enough for what is happening in Gaza to be attacked? I don't think so and neither should any rational person. In fact, Denis MacShane, a British lawmaker said this: "[police] report that since December, there have been four times as many anti-Semitic attacks as attacks on Muslims, even though there are seven or eight times the number of British Muslims as there are Jews." Okay, I'm not one of those people who thinks it is okay to attack Muslims either, so I'll start off by saying that none of these attacks should be taking place. However, this is an interesting quote for several reasons. First, 4 times more attacks on Jews than Muslims but there are 8 times more Muslims? Wow, that is a huge difference. I wonder why this is? Hmm... today, anti-semitism is really a word that is used to describe attacks on Jews, even though the Jews are not the only semitic people. Doesn't really matter, this is a clear indication of anti-semitism on the rise in Europe/Britain. This is NOT a good thing, although some things I've read lately would try to paint this in a positive light, oddly enough. The other thing I notice about this quote is that, for someone who supposedly led Britain's first Parliamentary inquiry into anti-semitism, MacShane seems to have missed the point. Assuming the quote is accurate, he says British Muslims, but gives no such accolades to the Jews, simply saying Jews. Could this mean nothing? Absolutely it could mean nothing, but in a country struggling with anti-semitism on a grand scale (see numbers above), is it nothing? Hmm... Maybe it is nothing, after all, MacShane says the right things: "Parliaments now have to acknowledge that anti-Semitism is back. It's a potent ideological force, causing fears to Jews in many different countries, and it has to be combated by all people that care about democracy." He's right, anti-semitism does need to be combated. So, is anti-semitism because of Gaza? No, it has always been around. MacShane says it is back, but I submit it never really left, it just took a hiatus for awhile when it was unpopular to hate Jews. Don't believe me? Ask Michael Bookatz, the victim in the case being reported here. He says, "Anti-Semitism is around," he said. "It has always been around. Throughout my life, I have experienced anti-Semitic attacks... Gaza was probably a focal point, something that triggered it: 'OK, now that Gaza is happening, we can use it as an excuse to attack people,'" so yeah, it has always been around, it just hasn't always been a strong force, like it is now becoming. Mr. Bookatz has a warning about that as well: "Whenever anti-Semitism sinks roots, the world is heading in a disastrously wrong direction," he said. "That is a lesson from history. If we don't tackle anti-Semitism in the early stage, then it devours democracy." It devours Democracy! Well, Europe has been destroying democracy pretty well all on its own as they've moved toward socialism and towards the European Union which turns out to not be a very democratic organization, so I have to wonder if freedom and democracy are killed by anti-semitism or if anti-semitism becomes rooted in worlds that do not have freedom and democracy? It doesn't really matter which is the cause and which is the effect, the fact is that anti-semitism abounds, especially in Europe and the Middle East. Do you really think that Israel giving up half of its land to Palestine would stop the violence in the Middle East? Really? Nice of you to be so naive. No, there are several people, Ahmadinejad in Iran, or the Ayatollah Khomeini before him, Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat before his death and many others who have basically said that only the destruction of Israel is an acceptable outcome. So, half their land won't do it. Only the abolition of the Israeli state will do it. Is that acceptable to people? It shouldn't be, but I'd bet it is. You say, oh the Israeli are awful with their bombing and invading Gaza, etc. Okay, maybe they are, but they seemed to have learned something the rest of us haven't. You can't negotiate with fanatics and terrorists. Oh wait, someone else did know that and his name was Ronald Reagan. Anyway, I digress, why is it that only Gaza was invaded while the West Bank remained peaceful? Could it be that Hamas was attacking Israel from Gaza but the people in the West Bank weren't? No? Well, actually yes, that is why. In fact, it wasn't even a week after Israel pulled out of Gaza that Hamas began mortar attacks all over again. So, who broke the cease fire? Israel has shown remarkable restraint in not just going in again, mostly because Europe and the U.S. have begged them not to. At any rate, don't be blind. Israel is a legitimately recognized nation under international law and therefore has a right to defend itself. I might not agree with all her methods because I happen to think you create terrorists by killing terrorists. However, the fact that they seem to be the only people in the world who learned the real lesson of WWII (that you win a war by using force, but that the force you use is only useful if it is disproportionate and demoralizing) means they know how to defend themselves. I have to wonder why so many people want the only stable democracy in the Middle East to fail. Hmm... could it be, anti-semitism?

Of course they do!

The story on CNN today has the headline: GM, Chrysler ask for $21.6 billion more! Is anyone really surprised by this? I mean, really. It was obvious in December that these companies were in trouble and the government came out and basically declared that these companies are too big to fail (this is never true) and therefore needed to be given money. Now, if these companies did fail, it would be a huge cost to taxpayers, not just shareholders and labor. So, I fully expect that they will get more money from us. However, I was appalled by what I read in this article. These are some of the statements quoted in the article:

"The most important issue is not what the automakers are going to do to cut costs, but rather what the government is going to do to stimulate car sales,"--Jeremy Anwyl, CEO of car sales tracker Edmunds.com

"When consumers refuse to buy your product, that's the economy telling you you're bankrupt,"--Rich Yamarone, director of research at Argus Research

"it may make sense to give them the money they need, even if it's good money after bad, because the battered U.S. economy can't weather the halt of operations at GM and Chrysler right now"--Rich Yamarone, director of research at Argus Research

So, how the heck is the government supposed to "stimulate" auto sales. They can give money to these companies all day but the only thing that will stimulate sales is making a product people want to buy, dumping money losing products and reducing overhead. None of these can be done by the government. I suppose our government could provide some sort of tax credit or deduction for buying an American made car, but wait, Toyotas and Hondas are made in the USA, just for a heck of a lot less than the overbloated unionized shops in Detroit. So of course the issue is what can they do to cut costs. That's how a company survives tough times. The government can't do much of anything.

Mr. Yamarone get even more priceless. He admits that consumers refusing to buy your product means you are bankrupt whether you've had to declare it or not, but that somehow, again with the too big to fail concept, the government needs to throw good money at the bad here in order to keep these companies afloat. Detroit would probably go out of business as a city if these two companies failed, I admit. It would be a tragic day in America, but to continue to throw money at something that has proven it isn't working is like sticking your hand into a fish tank full of piranha, getting bitten and then repeatedly putting your hand in again until you have no fingers. This isn't smart policy or smart fiscal policy. The Republicans derailed the legislation to help these companies back in December even though the Democrats really could have voted it through in the House anyway because they knew it was a bad idea at the time. That of course put the ball into G.W. Bush's court. Since he showed extremely poor judgment economically, especially in the last two years of his Presidency, that wasn't a wise course of action either. In addition, he was being heavily pressured to "do something" and so he gave them bailout funds. The Democrats love this because they can blame Republicans even though it was the Republicans who derailed the legislation in the first place. However, I'll say this just once. G.W. Bush, or Bush II, is no conservative. He increased government spending, he increased the size of government, he increased the government's debt, he espoused protectionist rather than free market ideas, he supported a bailout of the financial sector and he gave the automakers a bailout as well. This makes him a liberal who is against abortion, not a conservative. At any rate, this is going to happen. If Congress doesn't give these companies more money, Obama will. In exchange for all of this, we will slide even further down that slippery slope that ends even more badly than the bad economy alone could ever produce. Yes, I'm gonna say it! Socialism!

Chavez wins!

So, freedom really does die to thunderous applause. Hugo Chavez has apparently won a referendum to remove term limits from the Venezuelan Constitution with 54 percent voting with him. So, Democracy works. Well, yes it does, but so does fascism and that's the kind of dictatorship Chavez is setting up. And what does he want to do you ask? Well, he has clearly stated that he wants to use his popularity and power to bring about a socialist revolution for Venezuela. Hmm... gotta wonder how Democracy is working when people voluntarily elect someone who clearly states their goals as being socialist in nature, which succeeds at only one thing historically. Loss of personal freedom. Oh wait, that happened in this country recently too. God help us all.

Quotation

"Government can not save us and will not save us. It can't give us peace. There is only one hope ... only at the cross do we find a real bailout." -- Spike Hogan, Pastor, Chet's Creek Church

Who should do Health Care?

I just read a report in USAToday on a survey asking the question: Would the government do a better job managing and paying for health care than the private sector? Interestingly, the results showed that 27 percent of people believed that government would do a better job. That's not a glowing endorsement for change, Mr. President. It is especially concerning that this administration continues to move forward with rhetoric regarding changes to health care when 32 percent of the respondents said government would do about the same as the private sector, but 40 percent of people said the government could NOT do as well as the private sector. Okay, so about 70 percent, or so, of the population does not think we should turn health care over to the government, but we are about to try to do just that. Hmm...

We are all Socialists now

There it is, the headline from the Feb. 16 issue of Newsweek. See here for the cover image. As for the story, it couldn't be more fawning of Obama than it is, could it? Here's the story on Newsweek's site. The story begins by saying we already resemble a European style economy. It then goes on to criticize FoxNews, Sean Hannity and Congressman Mike Pence for suggesting that moving more in the direction of a socialist European model is a problem. It seems to Newsweek that socialism is an inevitability that Hannity and Pence, and apparently me, should just get over and start figuring ways to manage it rather than argue against it. To really rub it in, the article goes on to describe how it was a "conservative GOP administration" that brought the 700 billion dollar stimulus package and moved us closer to Europe. Well, two issues with that. One, Bush is not now and never has been a conservative. Two, the GOP did not have a majority in either house of Congress that could have prevented the bills passage. So, yes, a Republican President did in fact support this bill (which you'll note in my earlier posts I was against regardless of who the President was), but describing the instigators of the bailout as "conservative GOP" is a stretch to say the least since the large majority of those conservatives have now rejected Bush. There was a reason he had single digit and low teen approval ratings and it isn't because all Democrats hated him. While that statement may be true, the reason is that independents like myself and the majority of true conservatives also had serious issues with his final days in office. Ironically, to make matters worse, people like John McCain, who claim to not support the stimulus, supported the bailout. McCain might have had a better chance in November if he'd come out against the bailout. Why? Because a lot of independents and those conservatives out there might have shown up for him in greater support, but instead, he proved to be nothing more than a moderate Democrat, not a conservative by supporting the measure. Sure, he's against the stimulus now, but what good does that do him at this point. He lost the election, largely over economic issues. Next, the article continues on to describe our growing ratio of spending vs. our GDP and says "As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French." Is this really want Americans want? I don't think so. France is far from a model worth emulating, yet Newsweek seems to think that this is not only inevitable, but positive, based on their reporting. Did it occur to anyone over there that we should instead be reducing government and spending? Here's the final straw to show they have no clue at Newsweek about how things really work.

"The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon."

Really?! You just said, we will borrow and spend to solve a crisis creating by too much borrowing and spending! Am I the only one who can see the lack of logic in that statement? I mean, come on. If I went to my wife and said, "Honey, we have too much debt, we're about to lose our home and I don't know what we are going to use to buy food this week, but hey, I just stimulating things by buying a car" I'd get tossed out of the house so fast, and my wife would be within her rights to do so. So, somehow, because it is the government, this kind of thinking is okay? Huh uh. The final statement in the article? To get the balance between France and America right? How about we retreat to what America is and stands for and leave the French alone. That's how we achieve growth, results, low unemployment, etc. Not through socialization, but by realizing that we have to put our ducks in a row. That's what everyone else has to do, and so should our government. No more bailouts and stimulus!

Will somebody clean please stand up!

So, today, Sports Illustrated is reporting that 4 independent sources confirm that Alex Rodriguez was among the 104 players who tested positive in 2003 for performance enhancing drugs. 104 out of about 1100 tested. That was almost 10 percent. No wonder the union couldn't protest instituting mandatory testing beginning in 2004. Nonetheless, between the BALCO case and Barry Bonds, the Mitchell report and Roger Clemens and now this with A-Rod, what is the baseball fan supposed to look to? Perhaps we can look to people like Greg Maddux who has never been linked to any of this, but he's retired now. So, who in the game, now, can we look to. Perhaps Chipper Jones? He's never been linked to any of this, although that doesn't necessarily mean anything. However, the fact that he's remained productive while still being injured suggests he hasn't done the steroid thing, otherwise, maybe he'd have been injured less often? Isn't that the idea? I don't know, maybe we just have to get rid of Selig and the head of the union and get a real drug testing policy with real penalties in place before we can say we can trust any of them or their numbers. This is all very unfortunate because baseball is a great game. However, it's reliance on the past and the history of the game require us to wonder if we'll ever be able to compare modern day performance with players of old, who did not have access to these types of drugs and therefore relied on nothing more than natural talent. I don't know, this upsets me, as a good baseball fan.

The debate is over, even though it isn't!

The journal Nature recently published an article about a giant snake being discovered in the rain forest in Colombia. It was a very interesting article, all about giant snakes (this one was 12.8 meters or 43 feet long) and how it baffles scientists because snakes shouldn't be able to grow this large, etc. However, hidden in the story (not really hidden, it is clear for anyone to see, but you have to have a good head on your shoulders to catch it) is this statement: "researchers suggest that at the time the region would have had to be 30 to 34 degrees Celsius for the snake to have survived". Wow, that's warm isn't it? To average that in the region. Well, it is the equator so maybe it isn't so warm after all, eh? Well, actually no. The current average temperature around the equator is probably closer to 28 degrees Celsius, so it is quite warm. This flies in the face of what scientists believed about this region and this era. In fact, it calls into question assumptions about temperature in the past which therefore calls into question assumptions made by climate models to try to predict the future. In addition, it clearly shows that the world was a LOT hotter then than it is now. Wait, didn't they say this is the hottest we've ever been, or did I miss the update on that one? At any rate, if the world was 6-8 degrees warmer then than it is now and it didn't explode or destroy all life on Earth but in fact allowed life to thrive, hmm... maybe it's just me, but what then are we worried about?! So, the debate is over huh? There is consensus huh? Well, climate change is real I grant you, but global warming (man-made climate change) remains an unproven hypothesis where the "evidence" to support it is far from conclusive and certainly not something upon which we should base public policy. Nevertheless, the debate is settled and now is the time for action, isn't it?

This is just too funny!

The Guardian today, yes, the Guardian, posted a video put up on YouTube that originally aired on C-Span. It is a press conference by our House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, telling reporters how dire our situation is and that "500 million Americans will lose their jobs every month", if we do not act now to pass a stimulus package. How sobering Nancy! 500 million of us. Wow, that's, wait, there aren't 500 million of us. 500 million? There are only around 305 million Americans as of now according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, there are a heck of a lot of children, so not all 300 million of those even work. Perhaps there are wayward Americans (ex-pats) spread across the world who are also going to lose their jobs, but 200 million of them? Nonetheless, her statement implies that every month, ALL Americans will lose their jobs if we do not act on the stimulus package. All of us, that includes herself and all the rest of the crooks in Congress, House and Senate. So, just to be clear, she obviously (I hope) misspoke and meant something closer to 50,000 each month or even 500,000 each month. I hope that is the case because the alternative is just too laughable. The fact that she said it still makes me laugh out loud. So, the question then becomes, why haven't you heard about it! The Guardian covered it for gosh sakes (of course maybe this is just because of their habit of America bashing). But media outlets in America seem to have let it slide. I also saw it on the Drudge report and Glenn Beck, but where is CNN, USAToday, the NY Times, CBS, ABC, NBC, even FoxNews didn't cover it, it was on Glenn Beck's radio show, although he'll probably have it on his tv show too. Nonetheless, if Bush had said something so stupid, we'd have plastered it all over the news and made sure that everyone knew just how stupid he is, but somehow with Pelosi, it doesn't even get mentioned? Nancy hopefully made a mistake and misspoke. What's the medias excuse?

How is alarmism a leadership quality?

This article in USAToday starts off with a rather stupid statement from our new President. After all, he has supposedly said that this recession will turn into an economic catastrophe if a stimulus bill is not passed quickly. This isn't a true quote, the article only quoted "economic catastrophe". However, I want to ask a few things. One, has our current President ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecy? If the President goes before the country and says a disaster is coming, people believe him, so I find the statement a bit irresponsible. Two, isn't our economic situation already a catastrophe? I mean really, this is the worst it has been in recent memory, probably since the Great Depression. I'd call that a catastrophe, but I don't need to hear it on the news every day. Third, who really believes that a congressional "stimulus" package can really do a darn thing to help? So, isn't having to hear increasing statement of gloom and doom from our "leaders" from the President to members of Congress just alarmist overkill? Okay, all that said, I actually read in this article that one thing being proposed as an addition to this overbloated package is to give everyone who buys a home, this year, a 15000 dollar tax credit. WOW, that's quite a chunk of change. That is how you go about solving the housing crisis. You get people out there wanting to buy. Of course, that only solves one side of the issue. Nobody will lend money to any of these people because the banks have frozen up the credit market. So, we are still going to have to raise interest rates or provide other incentives to banks to get them to start loaning people money. But hey, if a lot of people can expect a 15 grand tax credit, they'll go out and buy their house this year, which will go a long way to help. It sounds to me like there might be one or two Senators who are actually thinking.

Star Wars gets it right and wrong

I was reminded recently of a quote from one of the Star Wars prequels that was supposed to criticize government power (and perhaps Bush specifically). While I'm in complete agreement about the dangers of government power, I'd have to say that Star Wars (or just George Lucas as the writer) missed the point on this one. It is ironic that G.W. Bush never heard thunderous applause. In fact, he was even booed out of office (tacky). Bush is by no means innocent of improper acts that call into question his support of the Constitution, although he would be far from the first President to be guilty of constitutional violations. So, what's the quote?

"So this is how liberty dies ... to thunderous applause" -- Padme Amidala

Well, liberty dies on the backs of socialism, communism, totalitarianism. There are all sorts of ways to kill liberty. Today's version is to kill it by marginalizing it through claims of people's right to equality (I've dealt with this in other posts so not gonna do it here). In addition, our liberty is threatened through the very manipulation of our language and thought (political correctness anyone). Now, our liberty is threatened through the government's increasingly socialistic policies in regards to the economy. Not to mention the historical pattern of making people reliant on the government through social security and other programs designed to "help" us but in fact make us dependent rather than free. Guess which party is guilty of trampling on the constitution in every single case I mentioned above. That's right, it is only one party and no, it isn't the Republican party. It is the nanny state democrats who want to make you so dependent on the government that you will have no choice but to vote them into office, otherwise you'd lose your benefits. These benefits actually make you indebted to the government and remove your freedom, in case you hadn't noticed, but they are held up by the Democrats as being good and necessary. I don't think the Dems will stop with this madness until they have somehow forced everyone in America onto some sort of government program (nationalized health care perhaps?). Yet during all of this, what do we hear? We do not hear complaints about our loss of freedom or complaints about the amount of control the government has over our lives. Instead, we hear thunderous applause. So, maybe that is how freedom dies.

I just had to laugh

I heard Glenn Beck say that Social Security is nothing more than a government sanctioned Ponzi scheme. This made me laugh, as Glenn often does, not because he is wrong but because he is funny. However, when I thought about it a bit, I realized he has a point. After all, a Ponzi scheme is where you take money from someone promising certain returns, than you take money from several other people and give money back to the original person claiming to have made a killing for them. This whole scheme continues on and on, involving more and more people, until something happens to cause the money to dry up and the entire house of cards comes crashing down. Now, we are prosecuting Bernie Madoff for doing this because it is illegal, as it should be since it is nothing more than a scam. However, if the government does it, it is not only legal but okay? How does that work. Here is a description of how social security works. My parents started paying into it in order to give money to their parents with a 40 paying in to 1 receiving benefits ratio. Now, I'm paying into it in order to give money to my parents, but thanks to the baby boom generation entering retirment, that ratio is now down to 3-1. My children will start paying into it when they go to work in order for me to get money out of it but who knows what the ratio will be then. So, we all pay into it, but our money is used to give to the current recipients. For us to receive anything, the pyramid must continually build upon itself so to speak, meaning our kids will have to pay into it and so on. The only way for this to work in the long run is if we are having more children with each successive generation than the previous one did. This is obviously not the case. In fact, our birth rate is in decline, generally. So, that means the money will eventually dry up because once you have a 1-1 ratio or worse, the system cannot sustain itself, the proverbial house of cards will have to crash. It really is one giant government sponsored ponzi scheme after all. Still think it is the BEST way? I haven't thought that for years.

I guess Obama lied

Our President said during the campaign that he would not hire anyone who'd worked as a lobbyist in the last two years and that he would fully vet all candidates for office to ensure there would be no corruption in his White House. Admirable, if a little naive (which I stated at the time). Nonetheless, he has sense made 2 exceptions to the lobbyist rule, which he refused to answer questions about, instead choosing to lecture the journalist who asked the question. In addition, one of his picks dropped out because he is now under investigation by a grand jury. Another, who has since been confirmed, had to pay back taxes for making "mistakes" over several years. I said at the time that someone who can't properly do their taxes should not be running the Treasury Department and I stand by that, even though he was confirmed. Now, come to find out that Tom Daschle also has trouble with his taxes. While tax issues don't really matter in running the Department of Health and Human Services, assuming they were in fact a mistake, Daschle has been working for a lobbying firm for the past 2 years in the Health Industry. While he is not a registered lobbyist, thereby avoiding the lobbyist in the last two years according to the letter of the law, this isn't really within the spirit of what Obama said during the campaign, is it? At any rate, I pointed out on this blog during the campaign that Obama tended to find himself in connection with various persons of questionable integrity and nobody seemed to care. So, should we really be surprised that he has, in fact, hired several people who were lobbyists in the last two years and that several other of his nominees have actually had legitimate legal issues? I continue to question the judgment of our current President in whom he chooses to associate with based on the people he's chosen to be cabinet members. I guess we'll just have to see.

So what happened to reality!?

I'm tired of people saying the Democrats are altruistic, generous and loving while the Republicans are tight fisted, racist and self-absorbed. Well, if people would talk about both parties, they'd probably be right about the self-absorbed part. Nonetheless, research has clearly shown that Republicans are actually significantly more generous in charitable giving than are Democrats. How can this be you ask? Well, most Democrats believe that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people, not their personal responsibility, whereas Republicans believe it is their personal responsibility and not the job of the government. Therefore, they give more, much more in fact ... but I digress. The Republican party opens itself up for criticism on a regular basis as being for big business and against the little guy and being racist. While I'm sure this is true of individual Republicans, it is not true party wide, nor would it be true party wide for Democrats, but I'm sure there are some examples of it in that party too. The fact is that Republicans stand for something, or at least they claim to. Supposedly (and they rejected this during the Bush administration which is why I think they lost power), they believe that freedom is a virtue to be fought for while equality is a slippery slope to socialism and communism and they believe that small government is better than a large bloated government that means to control you. If this were really what Republicans believed, I'd be one, but everybody knows this isn't how they acted in the last 8 years. Liberty is a higher moral value than equality because in order to achieve "true" equality, we'd have to limit people's liberty. Small government is better as well because the larger a government becomes, the more it seeks to control (this is from the wisdom of our founding fathers). The more control the government seeks, the less freedom we will have as individuals. So, the government should be kept in check rather than allowing it to run amok and gain control over nearly every aspect of our lives. As for Democrats, they don't believe in anything. They will spout whatever they have to in order to sound good for the electorate, but if you push them on the basis of their beliefs you'll get Progressivism or Keynesian economics or an argument for equality for all (already pointed out the flaw in this one). These aren't solid foundational beliefs, they are political talking points. However, the history of Progressivism relies heavily on a single leader controlling the movement, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt in the U.S. and moving on to Woodrow Wilson and then on to FDR. This is actually a bad way to do business in a free society because if you get the wrong person in power, well... Nonetheless, Progressivist history is also full of eugenic policies. Maybe you are a believer in social engineering. I'm not, but if you are, then perhaps you should take a hard close look at what social engineering really is, say, read about Nazi Germany. Nonetheless, our latest economic stimulus package contained a lot of money for birth control measures. Fortunately, it was removed but mostly because Nancy Pelosi stuck her foot in her mouth more than because of any perceived wrongness on the part of the program itself. At any rate, this is what she said about it to George Stephanopolous:
"The family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now, and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

What?! This argument doesn't make sense, does it? Well, actually it does if you look at it from a slightly different direction. How in the world could providing money to the states to ensure contraception possibly save the states money? There's only one way I can think of and that is by reducing the number of children that might need welfare in the next several years. How do you reduce them? You provide birth control to the target population. What is the target population? African Americans. So, Nancy Pelosi wants to save the states money by preventing the births of black children in America and she defended this idea as a good one? You heard very little backlash about this in the media but they should have been up in arms at the racist undertones hidden in this statement. In fact, if a conservative had said it (they wouldn't because it violates their supposed principles) then the press would have had a field day calling that person a racist and forcing them to apologize. Where's Nancy's apology or the calls for her to step down as Speaker? They aren't there and they won't be there, but I'm telling you that those who claim to be Progressive, if they really believe in the movement will eventually show themselves to believe in "social engineering" better known as eugenics. This is what is hiding behind the veil that isn't being lifted by the press in this case. At least, that's the way I see it. Got another logical explanation for Nancy's crazy talk? I'd like to hear it.

I'm against it, what's in it?

Well, anyone who reads my posts knows I am against, really any government stimulus package, but this one in particular. So, will it create jobs and help businesses? Let's see what's in it? So, according to the Wall Street Journal on January 16, using the Associated Press as their source, the highlights of what's in the bill are as follows:

Energy
$32 billion Funding for "smart electricity grid" to reduce waste
I've felt for a long time that we needed to get the federal government and the state governments together to work on redoing our electrical grid, nationwide, but it won't provide a significant number of jobs, if any nor does it help anyone except perhaps a few energy companies

$20 billion + Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit
Again, this sounds like a great idea, but it doesn't create any jobs and it doesn't help any businesses, at least not this year, and it doesn't do anything for you and me.

$6 billion Funding to weatherize modest-income homes
Okay, our economy is driven by the middle class and small businesses. This idea might actually get money to the middle class to give out to small business owners in order to actually save themselves some money on energy costs. Bravo on this one. Assuming of course that Congress actually defines "modest-income homes" as people who can actually get and spend this money. I doubt they have, but who knows, perhaps we should hope it. Nonetheless, I'll give this 6 billion a thumbs up, at least as ideas go.

Science and Technology
$10 billion Science facilities
Who gets this money and how is it being spent? To build something (construction industry)? Probably to upgrade already existing facilities. Not a lot of stimulus here.

$6 billion High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas
This does little to create jobs or help businesses. However, if you think that greater access to the internet can increase ones opportunities to find jobs, I'd have to agree, so while I think this is a task better left to the states, at least it can be justified as stimulus, maybe. So, we are up to 12 billion in "legitimate?" stimulus.

Infrastructure
$32 billion Transportation projects
$31 billion Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure
$19 billion Water projects
$10 billion Rail and mass transit projects
I'll deal with this as a lump sum. 92 billion dollars for repair, construction, etc. of our infrastructure. These all sound like things that assist with interstate commerce, which is actually the job of the federal government, so we could argue (depending on the specifics of course) that this 92 billion is legitimate, so up to 104.

Education
$41 billion Grants to local school districts
Sounds good, but doesn't stimulate anything.

$79 billion State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid
Probably useful, but, doesn't stimulate anything, again.

$21 billion School modernization
I guess this might help out somewhere in the construction industry, maybe.

Health Care
$39 billion Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid
This could be the greatest expansion of Medicaid ever, at least since it was originally created. Are we seriously going to add the unemployed to Medicaid? Hmm... not sure how I feel about that one. I always thought it was for seniors. Guess I was wrong.

$90 billion Help to states with Medicaid
And we are going to give money to the states to cover their Medicaid shortfalls. Really?

$20 billion Modernization of health-information technology systems
I know what this one pertains to and it is very big brotherish, but it might help out in keeping one doctor from prescribing something that in conjunction with something you got from another doctor could kill you. It doesn't stimulate the economy though.

$4 billion Preventative care
Preventing what? Regardless, no stimulus.

Taxes
Individuals:
* $500 per worker, $1,000 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion
Okay, this 140 billion dollars assumes that we would actually spend this money, but with no requirement to do so, we found out last year that we won't.

* Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor
Probably not a bad idea, maybe, but how would it stimulate the economy, the working poor can't afford to spend much and won't spend anymore because you gave them a tax credit, which wouldn't help them anyway because the majority of working poor don't actually pay any taxes anymore anyway, so who would get the money through this expansion?

* Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children
Interesting, but it still doesn't stimulate anything.

* A $2,500 college tuition tax credit
This would have been nice when I was in college, but it doesn't stimulate the economy!

* Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time
This looks good and is helpful to homeowners, sort of. Nonetheless, it is a long term issue, not something that will help anyone in the short term and therefore, not stimulus.

Businesses:
* An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two
This might work for some, but how much and who qualifies really?

* Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment
This is just peachy. In a time when almost everyone is having to contract their businesses in order to properly compete in the market, we are going to give out money for expansion, whether you need to or not. This is just plain stupid.

* Doubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases
This is a nice touch. This one will also help out small businesses save a few dollars this year. Not really going to stimulate anything though, is it?

* Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans
Hmm... a tax credit for hiring people that you'd probably never hire for any other reason. Does that sound like a good business practice to you?

So, basically, I found 104 billion dollars of spending that I actually thought might have some effect as stimulus, and there is another 275 billion in tax cuts, most of which won't actually stimulate anything, leaving us with about 500 billion dollars going down the drain. Hmm... in addition, the 104 billion doesn't really do much for the economy overall. It seems like the primary recipient of these funds would be the construction industry. Great if you are in that industry, but how about anyone else? So, this bill isn't stimulus, it never was. It is a laundry list of things from the last 14 years that Democrats have wanted to shove down our throats but weren't able to do because they didn't have a majority or they didn't have the White House. Now they do and they have a chance to do meaningful things and instead, they are doing this. I do hope everyone will survive this stupidity so we can do something about it in 2 years. The Senate seems to be getting their head together in regards to this kind of spending so I can hope that they will, but we are talking politics here rather than economics.