We Welcome All Lively Debate.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Movin On Up

So we've moved to an actual website: Come see us there!

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

They Came in the Night for my Big Mac

A lot of attention has been given to Michelle Obama, the wife of the guy who is constantly grabbing burgers, and her campaign to rid childhood obesity. Now, it is certainly a good intentioned plan. Scientists have said this generation may actually be the first to live a shorter life than the previous generation since World War 2. And let's be honest, from what statistics tells us, there was nothing worse than the period before WW2. So to be worse than that period is very bad. You don't have to look very far to see the dwarf like Michelin men that are now populating our schools and playgrounds. (Just kidding, these kids don't exercise) So as far as stemming the tide of obesity in 4 year old (presently 40%, god damn) I am actually with Michelle Antoinette.

Where I depart from her line of thinking is how it should be accomplished. Yes, diet is an extraordinarily important part of overall health but who is the government to tell us what we can and can't eat. Michelle Obama, for all the talk of her tones arms, and boy howdy there was a lot of talk, has a spare tire around her stomach and a tank ass. Regina Benjamin, our current attorney general, is obese to the naked eye. This is our nation's top doctor and she herself is not in shape. I don't take advice on not drinking from alcoholics and I certainly don't listen to fat doctors on staying skinny. Then there is Janet Napolitano, our secretary of homeland security. She apparently thinks the obesity epidemic, which it is at this point, is a threat to national security. By contrast, UK terror plots are not a threat judging by her not briefing our top National Intelligence office. She is also fat. So these three women are going to tell us what we can and can't eat despite their visible lack of will power?

Instead of trying to come into people's homes and dictate diets, I assume this is what the framers meant for the commerce clause to be used for also, how about we bring back mandatory gym or after school athletics programs. For the 60k we pay a lot of teachers, I think we can get them to referee a soccer game one hour a week after school. Just like the deficit, this is a problem best approached from both sides, diet and exercise. (And Elmo apparently) Americans already think the government is overstepping its bounds, and 2 out of 3 federal district courts agree, with the healthcare mandate. So perhaps instead of trying to ban the pledge of allegiance, America's educators could work on helping our kids exercise. Though, I guess one thing is for certain, Michelle won't be saying "let them eat their cake" anytime soon.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

You May Want To START Paying Attention

So we all know Biden is a douche.  And dumb.

But this article proves he is beyond repair.

Truth of the matter is I don't pretend to know whether the Tea Party gives a crap about START.

But I do know that wasn't the crux of this years midterm elections.

Conservatives for Gay Marriage

I should start out by saying I am for gay marriage. There are a couple reasons for my thinking. First, we live in a country where marriage is almost a running joke. I'm not even kidding, it is the same lame 50% divorce rate joke on every sitcom starring some ex-Seinfeld cast member. What sanctity are we protecting when the institution is about as credible as Charlie Rangel? Second, if you dedicate your life to someone, it is just wrong to tell them they cannot seee that person when they go to the emergency room. There are few things more important in this world then allowing a person about to die the ability to see the person they love the most. Third, I'm a conservative.

That last one most likely sent you for a loop. Think about the Tea Party mantra, Don't Tread on Me. I love that phrase. I use it constantly, and often inappropriately, in everyday conversation. My law school study group can attest to this fact. The Gladston flag came about in the late 18th century to show a solid image of our country's opposition to unjust taxation, as well as the overreach of the crown. Let's ignore the fact that our arrangement as a colony was financially beneficial. We didn't want the government coming in and pushing us around. National security, maintaining roads, interstate commerce (when not being used inappropriately), and foreign diplomacy we were all fine with because we recognize the necessity for a federal government. However, we did not want them infringing on speech, religion, the press (they use to be independent apparently), or our right to arms. (Nukes?) No one wants to be treaded on outside of NY and CA so we take a very strong stance against the government telling us what to do when it doesn't involve public safety.

So I pose this question to you, why, as conservatives, are we so concerned about the government telling us we can't be forced to buy healthcare (I am opposed to it) but at the same time we want to tell people who can and cannot get married? I would saying we're treading pretty hard on gays. Last I checked, we were one nation, indivisible. I don't think separating out one group to be discriminated against is in that thread. And the thing is, it doesn't matter that you're religiously opposed to it because as conservatives, we want government out of our religion. So who are we to force our religious values on another? Unless we want the conservative movement to be a big pile of hypocrisy, it's about time we course correct. Freedom for all means all. Not freedom for those who only buy what we're selling. The conservative movement is about limited government for the people by the people. Last time I checked, no new species had been created for those who are gay so it's time we let them into the big tent. If not, then we're no worse than the people trying to push dietary restrictions and purchase mandates on citizens and we might as well retread our sneakers now.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

The Easter Egg Roll Takes A Back Seat to DADT

So Don't Ask Don't Tell has been repealed.  We can all breath a sigh of relief.  I for one, have never felt safer with respect to homeland security, job security, and our national debt.  You see, DADT will reduce military cost, which in turn means we can write off our $13 trillion debt in about 5 years, provided we get a CBO report as inaccurate as the Obamacare reports.

I for one say, who cares?  I guess I do a little bit, otherwise I wouldn't post on it.

I've always felt, and still do, that DADT was in place for the protection of gay military members.  If homophobia is still a perceived problem in the military, then why are we removing the one protection that they had?  I predict it's about six days until the first code red is ordered, and Jack Nicholson is on the stand being tricked by a wiley young Tom Cruise into confessing to ordering the code red.

What bothers me is the lack of prioritization that occurs in this administration.  Now I wish we had a way to confirm what votes felt the most important issues were in 2008, but I bet none of them were the "successes" touted by the Obama admin: Health Care, DADT, extending unemployment, recovery summer...I'm starting to figure out why the Republicans took over in '10.

Look, I don't really care whether it gets repealed or not.  But here's the thing.  Next time you go to your job, take a look at the top three things you need to do that week.  Assuming your job bears at least some importance, if you don't get those tasks done, you're gonna take some heat.  Now let's say it's two years since you've begun your job, and you STILL haven't done those three things.  You probably just weren't notified that you got canned 1.5 years before (they just haven't fixed the glitch).

If only accountability existed in the public sector...

Friday, December 17, 2010

Why Is Abortion The Only Time The Law Is Off My Body?

So Monet Parham is suing McDonalds because her kids are forcing her to buy happy meals so they can get the free toy.  First of all, these kids are dumb, the toy isn't free - it's part of the $4.95 you pay to get the meal.  Second of all, her kids are 6 and 2. Now I know there has been some recent violence noted in the media involving some 7 or 8 year old kid blowing his mother away, but let's, for the sake of my argument, assume they aren't actually putting a gun to mommy's head.  Hell, the two year old can barely talk.

Does anyone else have a problem with this?  The crux of her argument is that the kids demand they get a happy meal each week for the toy, which in turn will make them fatty fatty fatties, because they're eating from Michelle Obama's favorite restaurant.

Perhaps it's because I came from a structured environment growing up, but in my house, the kids didn't demand crap.  Believe me, I tried, but it always ended the same way - a swift smack on the ass and 15 minutes on the stairs.  It was during these times on the stairs that I was able to study for the GMAT's.

I'm sure you all remember the infamous "coffee was hot" McDonalds lawsuit.  What some people may not realize is that this tubby woman's argument was actually brilliant.  She wasn't suing because the coffee was hot. In fact, she was suing because she contended McDonald's was intentionally making the coffee too hot, in order to keep the "for here" customers waiting long enough for it to cool down, so they'd go back and buy another Mcgriddles.  Seriously brilliant.

That's what this woman is trying to do, but on a much dumber level.  She, too, is arguing that the happy meal toy, like the too hot coffee, is a subversive message from McDonalds saying "we gotcha, now we're gonna real you in."  Unfortunately, her suit fails in one important aspect.


Forget for the moment that she is wasting her time on this lawsuit, and therefore being a terrible mother in the process.  Forget for the moment that recent legislation is trying to allow the government to have more of a say in our diet.  At the root of this, the woman can't control her kids.  That's a real problem, because I'm sure she's not alone.

My co-writer wrote an post in the past about parental responsibility and it holds true again here.  Children are dependent beings. More so than any other species by far.  Tell you what, your kid wants McDonald's and you wont give it to him?  By the third day of his Gandhi-like protest, he'll eat a sweaty gym sock.*

Truth is we're a society of the "pass the buck" philosophy. Fat people are fat because people make them eat shitty foods.  Kids are bad because of violence in the media and crappy teachers. And wife-beaters hit their wives with soap in a sock because she lost the blood stained denim button-down shirt (sorry, been watching a lot of Twin Peaks lately...). Until we accept personal responsibility for the things we can control, you'll see the government continuing to intervene under the rouse of "the people's best interest."

You know what, I've already got the TSA doing things I normally pay Elliot Spitzer money for, Michelle Obama counting my carbs, and the FDA pulling their endorsement of my (incredibly successful) late term breast cancer meds [hint: prelude to rationing].  I think I'll take my chances raising my own kid, thanks.

*I'm not advocating starving children, merely making a point that kids will eat what is put in front of them. Especially 6 and 2 year olds, who can't just go eat at a friend's house.

Lest We Forgot

Law and Order just mentioned the Cash for Clunkers program. Remember how terrible of a program that was? I just hope that at least one PAC runs an add showing how badly it failed to stimulate the economy and remove gas guzzlers from the road. It also managed to have more foreign built cars bought than domestic cars. I think Barry needs to stick to Easter egg rolls.

Loose Lips on Fat Chicks

Megham McCain is up to her shenanigoats again. She was recently on the Lawrence O'Donnell show bashing Sarah Palin. Now M&M (you are what you eat, right?) is all about tolerance and the big tent approach the republican party so how does it help going on MSNBC to bash a prominent conservative? She also goes on to say Palin is running for president, which is interesting because unlike her Dad, most people aren't in try to become president mode all the time. I feel like M&M is trying to start a fight with Palin because Palin running for VP and endearing herself to huge swathes of the country had a bigger impact than a fatty chaser's dream tweeting from the campaign trail.

Airlines and the Free Market

I guarantee that there will be another financial crisis within the next 20 years because of banks over leveraging themselves and using complex derivatives that make their companies barely solvent but create enormous profits. The reasons is the bailout. The government basically wrote a check, and with the Dodd banking bill ordered a whole new check book, telling Wall St. that the idea of voters losing jobs is so unpalatable, we will retroactively guarantee all your idiotic choices. Now, I fully recognize that TARP get us from another Great Depression, except the auto bailout portion (their problem is shitty products no one wants being produced by overpaid union employees no one wants), but it doesn't mean I have to like it or it's the best way. If we had let the market engine churn, weak firms would have gone under, strong firms and individuals with capital would have scooped up their assets, and much stronger firms with better risk tolerances would have emerged. Instead, we gave Wall St. carte blanche because they know what the deal is.

Now, I am not just making these bold predictions from nothing like I normally do with sports. I flew to South Carolina tonight, it was supposed to be this afternoon but that will all fit in quite nicely to my allegory. The airlines are the worst businesses in the world. They have a service in incredible demand, rapid transit, and have managed to make it so unpleasant and burdensome, the free nips of Dewars I got on my flight made me ecstatic. I forgot about the 4 hour delay, the 3 dollar bag of potato chips, no WiFi (yeah not even pay for WiFi, LaGuardia is awful) and the fact I was flying on the Wright bros. original design because they have me .37 cents worth of Scotch. I would let the hippies tell me "I told you so" if high speed rail could be a viable alternative. Our expectations are so low, getting in on time is a laudable accomplishment. No other industry is like that, and very few are as unionized or control so many votes.

The airline industry operates under a business model which builds in a 15 year government bailout. The airlines know no politician will be attached to letting 70,000 people lose their jobs so they charge us $25 to bring a bag. I'm sorry, but what would you like me to do, wear all my cloths through security? (I might if the TSA keeps getting handsy) Their pricing scheme is terrible. Every other industry with expiring goods discounts them as their expiration draws near. Not airlines. They get insanely expensive to feel seats they will have to eat if you don't buy that ticket. They don't charge $15 for milk expiring tomorrow for a reason. And forget any sort of brand loyalty. I am a Delta skymiles member and I get treated like everyone else. Hey, I took the 4 minutes to fill out the form online, at least give me some plastic wings.

Wall St. had adopted the same type of toxic business model. Rack up huge profits using techniques Helen Keller could see our stupid, and when shit hits the fan, use your golden parachute to jump out of the flaming plane Uncle Sam is now piloting. I am not trying to say Wall St. is bad. It is home to some of the smartest people in the world, especially when it comes to using money to develop and expand companies. But you've added a new X factor. The rich benefactor. If all your risks were backed, you would keep taking bigger bets. We're institutionalizing a terrible habit across the board of saying choose any business model and instead of the market dictating your success, the government will bail you out when you fall flat on your face. If we don't stem the tide with the auto and financial sectors going forward, we're going to start bragging about the free lollipops even though the bank lost all our money.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Way To Stand By Your Bill, Barry

So of course, now that an agreement was put in place, Barry's already trashing the group that he helped make the deal with.

First, he was held hostage. Now, it's their bill.

Check out this article from the USA Today, in which Barry says:

"Republicans are going to have to explain to the American people over the next two years how making those tax cuts for the high end permanent squares with their stated desire to start reducing deficits and debt,"  

What a classy, classy man.  I don't recall the Republicans only wanted tax renewals for the wealthy, and I don't recall them saying that extending unemployment, and the Bush tax cuts were deficit reducers. They are merely a means to not make things worse at this point.  Well, extending unemployment just perpetuates laziness, but continuing the tax cuts will stave off a double dip.

Seriously, what is wrong with this guy?

In the last week, he has:

-Maintained the petty name calling against the right.
-Wrote a shitty bill - with Republican support (why can't we just keep the bill as is from before?)
-Been emasculated by Bill Clinton (and big Mo')
-Suffered a major defeat in the health care saga

The bill is simply overall crap.  It's the same tax bill from before "with a side of bacon."  But at this point it's t-minus 17 days and counting until your taxes go up. At some point, a decision needs to be made on where to go with this.

But it's no wonder Obama brokered this deal in the first place. After all, the unemployment extension is probably the biggest boost we can give the economy.

Monday, December 13, 2010

John and Mackenzie Phillips - Gross

So I came across this article earlier today on Weasel Zippers. They did a good job of showing some responses from the Huffington Post writer and Columbia poli-sci professor David Epstein, who was just charged with having sex with his 24 year old daughter.

I have a real problem with this.  Now I'm sure that some lefties think this is as vial as it is.  But why in God's name is ANYONE defending this clown.  He had sex with his daughter. There are few acts that I can imagine that are more sweepingly abhorrent.

Here are some from the left's rationale:

1. So what if it's illegal, it shouldn't be - they're consenting adults.
2. I'm sure the guy was fulfilling his proud Judeo-Christian roots (cause it's always about religion with the left).
3. It's none of the government's business
4. Moral relativism - who are we to say this is wrong (can't wait for the left to start using that rationale for murder)
5. This is just like homophobia

I really wish I was making this up.

Irony of the day - the left argues that abortion should be legal because of cases of incest.  Because obviously we don't want a bunch of deranged and retarded babies running around.  You know what? I'm fine with that rationale. But here's why incest is flat out, non-negotiably wrong: Incest produces deranged retarded babies!!!

Do people ever wonder why laws exist?  If there is a high likelihood of producing a child with severe defects, your actions in producing that child are probably wrong.  It's the reason the doctor recommends you kick that nasty cocaine habit while with child.  And it ruins your ability to make logical decisions - just ask Obama (or was that crack?  At least he didn't do heroin, because he didn't trust his dealer - his words not mine).

It used to be four certainties in life:

Tim Wakefield beating the Tampa Bay Rays
Incest being wrong

Now, we're just down to two certainties in life.

Obama Must Have Been a Point Guard the Way he Passes the Buck

I'm calling it, Friday will be the day that historians will regard as the day Obama's presidency started its slow descent towards oblivion. Think Jimmy Carter trying to negotiate with Muslim extremists. (Amazingly the left still thinks it might work) As everyone who uses the internet for something other than porn knows, Obama and Clinton had a press conference together Friday. See, what would make sense would be it being Hilary Rodham (when did she drop Rodham?) but no, it was Slick Willy, bubba himself, Bill Clinton. Its rumored, Obama, the braggart he is, actually gloated about his drubbing being bigger than Bill's. Then they turned to talking about taxes in a joint presser.

See, Bill Clinton may have done some really stupid non-cigar things in his presidency, Glass-Steagull which lead to the financial collapse being one of them, but he was a great politician. Unlike our great reader of a president, Clinton knew how to speak. I met him once at a golf outing and no joke, just saying hi gave me a half pack of Rolaids (don't worry there was no metal, but definitely some wood). He could spin a yarn like your grandma sitting on the back porch and get concensus on anything from DADT (yeah, a democrat passed that, Irony) to drowning a sack of puppies because they might be part of Branch Davidian. That was his strength. He was a truly gifted communicator and oratory, a combination of Sarah Palin's common touch and Obama's lofty rhetoric. His cerebralness is still a source of debate.

Anyway, so there they are. The old and new guard, working together, hammering out compromise and selling it to the press. Clinton is in his element and Obama is shutting up. Yeah, that's right, chatty Cathy actually doffed to someone else's speech. Now this tax compromise, is a funny sort of mess. As Patrick Ruffini said, I've never seen such a battle over keeping things the same. So to not raise taxes in a recession, that's right, I don't believe in a jobless recovery, the republicans swallowed a hard pill and allowed long-term unemployment to remain high. Or in other words, they extended unemployment benefits and swallowed another poison bill labeled long term economic insolvency. But it was a compromise and this jaded neo-con (I have no idea what that is, it just sounds cool) felt a little bit better about the pendency of gridlock.

Then, as if spoken from Oden's mouth atop the mounts of Asgard, Obama dropped this one on us. "Well I've get the first lady waiting long enough, so I have to go." Then proceeded to abandon (or not, because Bill was dominating) the former president and go to the White House Christmas Party. So, if I may analyze, and frankly I will because why else would you read this, a press conference defending a compromise that will bring some stability to businesses was actually just filler until Michelle finished putting her spanks on. Now, when I'm waiting for my girfriend, I dick around on Twitter, but I was never a community organizor. This was, in my opinion, the most important press conference of his presidency for two reasons. 1. It showed he was going to take the economy seriously and 2. he was going to indicate his desire to work with the GOP and pull of a Clinton/Lazarus resurrection.

Coaches always say the best player is the one who wants the ball with the game on the line, well I think Obama just punted on 2nd and 3. For the past two years we've said Obama is in over his heads but were met with the retort that he inherited a mess/handled it better than anyone else/we're racist. Now we can say, no, in fact, Clinton, our Cap Rooney to Obama's Steamin' Willy Beamen, came off the sidelines and picked apart the 85 Bears defense for the win. In one sentence, we got to see how lackidaisically Obama takes handling the economy and how well someone that is a seasoned politician is capable of handling our economic crisis, because make no mistake, we are still in the thick of it. This does not bode well for America or Obama '12, now with 30% more race baiting. When it comes to our economy, you want a Tom Brady, not a Jay Cutler, unfortunately, we've got Ryan Leaf.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Say, What's In This Drink? (The "It's Not Rape Rape" Post)

You ever wonder how half that crap we hear people say doesn't matter so long as we have a kickin beat to it?  I blame "Baby It's Cold Outside."  Seriously, since 1949 people have been writing what essentially adds up to date rape, but so long as it's singable it's okay - guy getting the girl drunk, begging her to stay, blah blah blah sex. It's a classic move, apparently.

Think about it. It's all about "The Implication."

And it's not just Baby It's Cold Outside. Dave Matthews Band used lyrics such as "I'm gonna tie you up like a baby in a carriage car." And yet, girls swooned (so did I, I love South Africans).

Lady Antebellum, more recently produced a song called "Lookin For A Good Time."  Get the girl liquored up and she'll be begging to get taken home in a cab (at least they're not drinking and driving).  Best part?  They're making a promise to not promise anything more than one night.

No wonder marriage and the middle class aren't meshing.

When did this happen? 1949 apparently.  But the problem is worse than that.  As legalized pointed out last week - people get their panties in a bunch over seeing a Christmas display in a public forum, yet don't seem to be disturbed by the above captioned lyrics.  And trust me the examples are endless - Yummy yummy yummy I got love in my tummy (No, I didn't make that song up), Afternoon Delight, the list goes on.

While I credit these artists with ingenious subtly, I blame them for the demise of our moral fiber.  And it's not a religious thing.  America is a country that prides itself for acting on behalf of what's right - fighting the threat of Nazism, for example.  Yet when it comes to our social behaviors, we give ourselves a free pass.  Now I'm no social conservative, not by a long shot.  But I'm also no moral relativist.  And if I were to pick a side, I'd admittedly lean right.

But that's for two reasons.  1. I hate moral relativism. 2. Whoopi Goldberg's an asshat.

Phillips Can Go Screw

So I made the mistake of going shopping with my wife today.  We just bought our first home 8 months ago, and didn't realize we would need a second mortgage for Christmas decorations alone.  But here's the thing our generation faces verses that of our parents.  Energy efficient lights.

I hate energy efficient lights.  They look stupid, you don't use them enough to realize any savings in energy, and they cost 25 times as much as their non efficient counterparts.  Look no further than the $23.98 (plus tax) I spent on 120 Phillips LED blubs.  I'll need to live until I'm 98 to realize my savings. By which point those lights won't be efficient enough, and I'll need to spend 250,000 yuan to get new ones.

It's probably the #1 reason I hate the green movement so much.  It's not that I don't care (I don't by the way), it's that I can't afford to care. I have an energy efficient air conditioner - in Tampa's summer months that equates to about $12 in savings off our $300 electric bill monthly.  If cap and trade passes, it'll be $12 off my $600 electric bill, which I won't be able to pay because that's what it will cost to fill up my gas tank.

The failure of the government imposing energy efficiency, as I've stated in the past, is that it fails to sell it properly.  Sure I want less dependency of foreign oil, but I need to be able to afford it.  Energy efficient products are more expensive, and the savings don't outweigh the initial cost.  You want to sell it better?  Have the price per kilowatt hour decrease for someone who has an energy efficient a/c unit, not just give em $1,500 off their $8,000 unit.

If you think about it, cap and trade is the cruelest trick around.  The left gets a boner trying to tax the rich more, yet they want to pass a bill in which the intention is to make non-green products so costly, we'll stop using them.  The irony is that the rich can afford it, your average American cannot.  The bill doesn't promote green behavior, it doesn't provide an alternative, and it targets needs.  Some bill.

My brother used a quote today "it is so cold out I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets."  I think he meant Obama.