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.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Why I love not having a nanny state

To anyone who thinks a march towards a government benefit heavy society is the way to go, look at England right now and France of a month ago. Eventually the government runs out of money and needs to raise costs, this is never met well and almost always with violence by the enlightended welfare queens across the pond. I will be back next Wednesday full time.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

On Second Thought

This is an interesting blog post refuting my point that Wikileaks hasn't done any damage.  Essentially, GG is arguing that the leaks break down diplomacy, and will be more inclined to use military action (instead of diplomacy) in the future.

He goes on to further argue that the people for it believe these documents will only affect the US Government, until they begin leaking personal documents.

The slippery slope argument makes sense to a certain degree, but I don't imagine I'm a part of any classified documents.  Yet.

The Genius is in its Simplicity

As you may have guessed by now, Legal Insurrection is probably my favorite blog.  Here's another reason why.  Although I tend to agree with my co-writer here, that any solution that pisses both parties off is likely a solution Americans want, I get concerned with the carte blanche "let's just add it to the deficit" argument.

The Bush Era Tax Reform costs too much? Well, we might as well add an extension of unemployment benefits. It's Another $20 all over again.

Sorry For the Delay in Posts

So legalized pundit is in law school and is in the middle of exams.

I was involved in an intense three day extravaganza with Super Mario Wii.

While you can debate which excuse is more valid, sorry for the delay in posting. I'll get back on it.

Bradley Manning is No Nathan Hale

So this article comes as no surprise to anyone that's ever heard of Berkeley: home to a school that kicks military recruiters off its campus, is the cesspool of all liberal activity in this country, and overall is a downright detestable city that prides itself on the furthering ignorance throughout the world.  Bradley Manning, dejected lover that he is, is a hero (note, I hate all Mannings, so I will freely admit my bias immediately).

Now my purpose in writing this isn't even to talk about Wikileaks all that extensively. I believe my co-writer here has already shown what an assbag Julian Assange is.   Frankly I'm just not sure how hurtful the leaked documents have really been to our national security.  Most certainly it's strained ties with some foreign nations (Lebanese aiding the US against Hezbollah, the Chinese being a-ok with a unified Korea), but a direct impact on US troops overseas?  I just don't see it. Yet.

But none of the matters.  This punk stole US classified documents and leaked them to non-US personnel with the specific intent of it being leaked.  It's treason, and there is absolutely no gray area here. Should the guy be executed? No, probably not (irony: his sexual orientation alone would get him executed in Iran).  But let's break this down a bit.  His very act would likely result in his execution by most of the nations who have been exposed through the leak. Russia? Check. Iran? Check. North Korea? Check. The list goes on.  

Here, we want to give Manning a frigid medal.  Admittedly that's a part of what makes our nation awesome.  Not the treason part. No action will forgive what Manning did. But rather, the right for cities like Berkeley to support this treasonous activity by awarding him.  Sure it makes our nation awesome, but I don't have to like it.  Unlike those on the left, while I may have an opinion on what Berkeley's doing, I don't for a second question whether they could, or should.

The peace and justice commissioner, Bob Meola was quoted saying "If he did what he's accused of doing, he's a patriot and should get a medal,"  But I simply don't see it that way.  We award a lot of pioneers that have helped paved the way to equality in this country.  But make no mistake, this isn't about bullying, DADT, or any other crap liberals will use to justify treasonous activity.  He sold classified documents with the intent of the information being leaked.  To my recollection, there isn't a single patriot I can think of that was "brave" enough to do something like this.  As usual, calling people like this a patriot desensitizes us to actual heroes.

So of course the story isn't about treason though. It's a poor dejected boy, bullied at his school, accused of being gay, and a prisoner trapped in a military he only joined to prove to his father that he was a man.  Let's not forget that he was suffering due to DADT.  the issue here is that DADT is in place not to avoid homosexuals in the military, it's for their protection.  Without pinning our military as a bunch of homophobes, truth is DADT was put in place to avoid hostile activity towards open homosexuals serving.  While one can argue whether that is still the case today is irrelevant. As Congressman elect Col Allen West said, while people are dying overseas, domestically we're worrying about who is sleeping with who.   Seems like we need to put things into perspective.

But anyway, why do we always need to look at the why? Motive is for proving criminal intent in court.  More importantly, even why the why is obvious (i.e. Fort Hood, Christmas Day bomber, etc), we still pretend the motive must be vague and deeper. 

Intent detracts from the point.  Rather than focus on the fact that treason was committed (and the administration was a decade behind in damage control), we're worried about whether his dad played catch with him enough as a kid, and whether Natalie Furstenberg and Phil McElroy were too mean to him as a kid.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

CUTS! The Musical

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (her parents were nice to give her a short first name) wrote in a Huffington Post article today about why she voted against the debt commission report. Now you might be asking yourself did she disagree with the cuts to programs, the elimination of the mortgage interest tax exemption, or the increase in the retirement age? You would be completely wrong because the way she sees it, the worst thing going on in our country is the wealth distribution that is slanted towards the rich. Of course its slanted towards the rich, that's why they're the rich, and pay a larger share of taxes by far than anyone else.

So obviously her first initiative is to blame Bush. Afterall, as only those on the left know, between 2000-2008 the entire government was run by one person. Certainly a democrat led from 2006-2008, you know, the years the recession started, had nothing to do with it. Or a democratic president in 1999 that repealed Glass-Steagull definetly had nothing to do with this. Don't misunderstand me, the republicans are certainly culpable as well but everyone is already giving them enough shit so I thought I'd go farmer on it and spread the manure around. Ms. Jan (last name too long) points to the fact that if were at our pre-recession levels of unemployment, 2005 and 2006, both GOP dominated years, we'd be increasing the tax revenue. She ignores the fact that the unemployment rate increasing and the recession coincide with democrats coming to power.

She goes on to say that cutting Medicare is wrong. I love when we make fiscal matters moral. Like Al Franken reading from the bible, it just seems disengenuous. But anyway, of course it sucks to cut Medicare, same way it sucks to cut defense spending, welfare, food stamps, and infrastructure spending. All spending cuts kind of suck, that's why fiscal solvency is not fun. Someone has to feel the pinch, luckily the debt commission went non-partisan with cuts and spread them around to everyone. So sure titanium hips might not be covered and you need to use aluminum, but the DoD won't have a new jet engine for the F-22.

As mentioned earlier, Cam Jansen doesn't want to cut social security or any entitlements. Of course they're also the things her constintuency votes her into office. (Now I'm with my cohort, vote for those who vote for you, but still) So what we're going to do is ignore the overwhelming factors that are pushing our future deficit. Now the commission recognizes that SS is not pushing the debt, yet. But with shrinking revenue and the baby boomers, it will. Across the board cuts are the fairest way to make everyone feel a pinch that in 30 years, will put America on solid ice and heading back towards landmass.

I'm Pretty Sure Fergie is a Man

So I was thinking about Stevie Johnson today - you know, the guy that dropped the game winning pass against Pittsburgh in overtime last week.  He went out and blamed God via twitter using perhaps the most improper grammar I have ever seen. I say good for him.  You always see these athletes thanking God for their athletic prowess - why not blame him for their screw ups as well?  Makes sense to me.

I'm sure that between war torn Sudan, AIDS, crack babies, North Korea, Iran, that tranny hooker that is president of Venezuela (I think his name is Julian Assange), and Al Franken, God has time to watch a leisurely Sunday football game and try to influence the outcome.  Particularly a guy that was drafted in the 7th round. By Buffalo.

Unfortunately, this isn't the worst thing that will happen in football this year.  Besides the obligatory verbal diarrhea that we'll here from Rex Ryan any given week, the Black Eyed Peas will be performing at halftime at the Superbowl this year.  It's almost enough reason to not watch the game, even if the Patriots make it, on the outside chance that I may catch a glimpse of that troll Fergie, and turn to stone.  

Seriously - Bruce Springstein, AC/DC, The Who - all recent performers.  Now the friggin Black Eyed Peas.  What's next? A Lady Gaga/ Justin Bieber duo?  The Black Eyed Peas might be the most talentless group to ever "grace" the stage.  This is a group that got 4th in a talent show at a crappy high school. The founding fathers must be rolling over and projectile vomiting in their graves.  Ruining last year's Victoria's Secret Fashion Show was one thing, but the Superbowl? Cmon.

So what does this have to do with employment? Nothing. I just hate the Black Eyed Peas.

The fallacy of government spending, and they Keynesian approach, is that it assumes spending = jobs.  And let's face it, you can spend a lot of money without stimulating crap.  Given me $787 billion, and I can guarantee you I wont create (or save) a single job.  The only difference is, if you give me that money, I'm outright telling you I wont do shit with it.  The biggest difference between tax cuts and spending is this:  While it's true that both can leave you with a big pile of nothing at the end of the day, spending is more dangerous. And here's why.

The government is a succubus.  Remember that girl your friend used to date? She always brought him down, and made him a miserable slag, but he couldn't get away? That's a succubus.  The government will spend your money with no intention of ever giving it back.  In fact, the solution to any government issue, is to throw more money at it, or create another regulatory agency. Which costs more money. You can't trust the government to spend in the short term, because it will become long term in the budget.  

It's true that tax cuts may not create job growth either.  Just because operating costs are decreased doesn't mean a business will hire.  But, at the very least, we can guarantee that the government isn't recklessly wasting our money.  After all, it wasn't theirs to begin with.

Quick Hits

Today Obama forgot to mention the Coast Guard when talking to the armed services in Afghanistan. The Coast Guard, unless appropriated by the Department of Defense, is not allowed to operate outside of US waters, certainly not in a landlocked country with 4 drops of rainfall a year. This is a man who is destroying our national Healthcare and we're complaining about him omitting a branch of the armed services that definetly wasn't present, that is retarded. I don't like him but everytime you complain about something so unimportant, and this may be the pinnacle, you kill your future arguments that may have merit.

Helen Thomas is an anti-semite. One rant landed Mel Gibson labeled an anti-semite, justifiably so, and this woman just keeps at it. Dear liberal media, please just give up defending her, she is now in the land of no return. You only hurt your already diminished credibility evertyime I hear this wingnuts praises sung.

An open letter to thin skinned Americans, stop complaining everytime you see Christmas. I know it offends your delicated sensibilities of believing in nothing and your own individual nothingness, but no one cares that you're upset. It's a holiday that's important to the vast majority of Americans. Is it that hard to just let people have one day a year when they can be happy without you being a little complaining bitch?

Michelle Obama, you're fat. While I don't know your specific measurements, I can say with a high degree of certainty anyone in the medical profession would tell you to lose weight. While I think it's important to curb this obesity epidemic, perhaps you could strengthen your argument by not having a husband who stops for greasy burger every other week. I know we have an obese surgeon general, but it's still really stupid. Telling people to do what you and your family don't do is the pinnacle of elitism.

Friday, December 3, 2010


Sorry, I got carried away with my last post (Obama will do that to you) and forgot the main crux of why I started writing that - to introduce you to Nikki Haley, South Carolina's new Governor--elect.  This is an interview with the spitfire.

Although it's too early to start talking about Nikki being the VP hopeful for '12, let's see how her first term goes, but I'm optomistic about this woman.

Raising Taxes Increases Unemployment, Which Helps Create Jobs, Right?

As you may have read in my previous post, by extending unemployment benefits, you create jobs.  Therefore, now that unemployment rose from 9..6% to 9.8%, more people will be unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits, which helps create jobs, which means unemployment will shrink.  Ergo, we need to get those wage earning assholes unemployed again so we can stimulate job growth.  You're following this, right?  

Based on Sherrod Brown's logic, this must be why the Democrats are against keeping all of the Bush tax cuts (side note: the crats get pissed when you call health care reform Obamacare, but it's totally acceptable to call this the Bush tax cuts) - unless we let them expire and increase unemployment, we'll never get out of this vicious cycle.  

Okay I've managed to confuse myself.  It can really only be one way, right?  If you allow the tax cuts to expire during a recession, or whatever the kids are calling it these days, you're going to prohibit job growth.  I was listening to a special on Laffe's curve the other day (originally written on a piece of napkin. The graph, not the special, I think) and it seems to make sense to me.  As the clown that writes this page with me explained the other day, at a certain point, the wealthy contribute less when their taxes increase, and therefore overall GDP will eventually go down.  Guess what? It's the reason the rich are rich.

What's really frustrating though, is that when bad news comes out, Obama is nowhere do be seen. You'd think the master of spin would be out today, saying how "we turned another corner today, and this is why you enemies should have elected the Democrats back to office."  But alas, only when surprising, I repeat, SURPRISING job data comes out do we see Obumbles.  Odd though, he understands all of this better than we do - he just has the darnedest time explaining it to us simpletons.  And when the facts are out, well, there's no way we'd be able to see the positive in this, so he might as well not even try.

Moral of the story? Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Don't come out and blab about recovery summer (a very close second in absurd statements made by the administration only to "the stimulus worked"), don't say we turned a corner, don't blame the Republicans for the economic disaster when your party was in power when it happened (the lost decade? the Crats were in power for half of it).  Now I don't blame Biden that much, only because he has two go to moves: plagiarize speeches, or make shit up (by the by, that speech was not the only thing Biden has plagiarized). Fact is, Biden was elected because any time he gaffes,  it's laughable.  I use the term "gaffes" loosely here, but for clarity's purpose you can also use the word "speaks."  

Here's who I do blame - Obama (shocking, right?). I'm sick of being treated like a two year old.  Now "I couldn't paint you a picture, I probably can't hit the ball out of Fenway, and I can't play the piano" (see what I did there? I stole a speech from Good Will Hunting - my idea came from Biden).  But here's what I do know a little about.  Economics - I stress a little.  But truth is I don't need to know anything about economics to know that when unemployment continues to flirt with 10% after we've spending nearly a $1 trillion to fix it - it didn't work. So stop lying to me, stop saying that we're on recovery road, stop coining stupid phrases like "recovery summer."  But most importantly, stop spending to get out of the recession, and create common sense tax relief to support and inspire job growth.  Interesting side note, Google "incentives and economics."  You'll learn all you need to know about why the free market system works, and government takeover doesn't. My next prediction? Fall (didn't really need an adjective there), followed by "Woeful Winter."

Thursday, December 2, 2010

They Come in the Night

The head of the FCC has recently said that there needs to be a bit more of a lock down on the media. As he puts it, the media has a "case of substance abuse." Now I don't agree with what a lot of the media says. Sure, our country would do well with the likes of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck, and Joy Behar no longer populating the television. But that isn't for us to decide. The First Amendment provides for both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These are the quintessential freedoms that are nation was founded upon. If you don't like what someone is saying, you have the right to not listen to it. Sure a lot of what they say is bluster, but who cares and where do you draw the line? Jerry Springer had his final thought on that raucous talk show of his, was his opinion too much if it strayed to politics? Whoopi Goldberg stormed off the view when Bill O'Reilly said Muslims committed 9/11, is that too far?

The problem is, the last person drawing the line should be the government. The government has the most to gain by silencing their critics. You want to see so much bipartisanship your head will spin, announce a bill that will silence the media, who despite their failings and biases, are still the vanguard of accountability in our democracy. Don't simply say I disagree therefore your argument should be silenced. Engage the argument, point out it's shortcomings, admit it's strengths, and try to have both yourself and the other party walk a way a little bit further on in the evolution of our collective conscious.

The market will always help to determine and even out the distribution of opinions that are dominating the airwaves. This is why Fox News presently has the top 7 shows and Air America was shut down, people simply did not want to hear personalities towing the line for a president they perceived, rightfully so, as out of touch, weak, and with no clear direction. The same thing will happen to these same hosts if they simply tow the line for the new GOP majority if they don't create the fiscal responsibility they were voted in for. The problem is not the media, the problem is the government saying the problem is not them but the media portraying their shortcomings. No, Mr. Obama, you don't have a PR issue, you have a shitty ideas issue and until that changes, satan (Van Jones words, not mine) over at Fox News is going to keep taking you to task and thank god they will. If it wasn't for the same treatment of Bush by left outlets, we would not have had the surge or the drubbing the republicans rightfully deserved in 2006.

I Already Like Bristol Palin More Than Her Mother

All right I get it.  Sarah Palin serves a purpose for the Republican Party.  I just hope she never serves the people as part of the Republican Party.

No offense to Sarah, honestly. I like her message, I like her as a pundit, but she's really vulnerable to attacks from the left.  Is that enough to say she shouldn't run? No.

But the fact is she plays an important role for the Republican Party by rallying mid-America, and creating awareness.

However, I came across Bristol Palin's response to Olberdouche calling her his "worst person in the worrrrrrrld" (by the way, didn't he suspend that segment?).  Okay I admit I'm biased towards anyone who trashes Olberman, but all the same, a good article none-the-less.

Dancing with the Blue Bloods

The head of Dancing with the Stars wants Meghan "Log Cabin Syrup Republican" McCain to join the cast for next season. I think she'll do better than Bristol Palin. You see, Bristol slowly got fatter as the season progressed, I think it's called eating your feelings, whereas Tanker McCain already knows how to move her Henry Knox-esque body. Question is, who is the hotter pageant mom giving their kid a complex from their projection, Sarah Palin or Cindy McCain.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

...Since "Deficit Reduction" Never Means "Cutting Spending"

Great article on Obama's "post shellacking wrap up."

On a side note, have people ever thought about the phrase "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it."  I mean, think about it for a second. I know I can go to the doctor's and my co-pay is $15. I know that if I get admitted to the hospital, it's $100. I literally know nothing else about my plan.

I guess my point is that I personally, and I believe the average American, doesn't know enough about their health care options to really know whether their plans are being fundamentally changed by health care reform in order to cut cost.

Maybe the burden's on me to figure this out, because who knows what changes we're gonna see if this health care bill stays as is.

Black Gold and the Green Movement: Another Obama Miscue

So I was reading an article today, on how the Obama Administration has reneged and decided to ban new drilling in the Gulf.  Supposedly, the ban may extend to the Atlantic and Pacific as well.  Good God.

Okay so I live in Tampa, and was a stone's throw away from having to swim in Quaker State for the next 5 years.  But banning more drilling is about the most idiotic thing I can think of.  As usual, the administration misses the mark.

The cause of the BP oil spill had nothing to do with drilling.  It had everything to do will ill planning, not having proper protections in place, and assuming the worst case scenario meant impossible.  Oops.  It's amazing that Obama, who could not have appeared more indifferent about the suffering of Gulf Coast states seems to think drilling is the problem.

What needs to be done is to increase protections from things like oil spills from occurring.  Now a ban does this, because hey, if you aren't drilling, you can't spill oil.  And of course, drilling at maximum capacity increasing the danger of another spill to levels of significant concern.  But isn't there a middle of the line solution here?  A "30,000 instead of 0 or 40,000 troops" if you will?

We need to keep drilling for several reasons.  First, the green movement just hasn't completely caught on yet.  For starters, climate change extremists need to stop lying.  Secondly, they need to sell it better.  The left is already sold, of course, but many on the right remain skeptical.  Here's how to sell it (and the message needs to be stronger) - lack of dependency on foreign oil.  Banning future drilling does the exact opposite.  In a fragile transition towards cleaner energy, the Obama administration wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil, and thus further strain the relationship between greenies and skeptics.

Besides, the US has some 21 billion barrels of oil in reserves.  Considering the strong push towards green energy, what exactly are we hanging onto this for - are we expecting the green movement to fail? It sure seems like it.

Anyway the resultant conclusion here is the following:

-The Obama Administration can't get anything right
-Charlie Crist proved why he lost to a Republican whose name no one knew 8 months ago
-And, like Dodd-Frank, the stimulus, health care reform, and national security, we just don't get it.

Another Relgious Bruhaha

The Smithsonian Gallery has an ant-covered Jesus this year for the Christmas seasoning preview. This, like anything, and I mean anything that has to do ever so tangentially with religion, has caused quite the uproar. Let's just get this out of the way. Christmas has become so secular, I'm happy to see Jesus getting his props for his big day. Now, I have no idea why Jesus is covered in ants though it does give some credence to my theory that Jesus was actually made of strawberry jam. I will turn to our good friend Moe Szyslak of Simpsons fame for the explanation. "It's Po mo. Post modern? Weird for the sake of weird." Thanks Moe. I've met a number of artists in my day and whatever figgy pudding is rattling around in their skulls should never induce anyone to anger.

But this goes beyond Jesus and the Giant Arthropod. Anytime someone does something offensive to any religion anyone of that particular religious proclivity tends to get their g-string in a bunch. I'm as religious as the next Ned Flanders, but I simply don't care what some jag-off from Chelsea who probably went to New School cares about my faith. If you're relationship with the almighty, whether it be God, Allah, or Ryan Reynolds, is so tenuous that a person burning a book can get you riled up, you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself. And in the case of Pakistanis, before you take to the streets demanding Facebook be shut down.

People are never going to stop harshing on people for religion, mainly it's because they don't understand how someone can believe in something bigger than themselves. But don't let them get to you or the terrorists win. Take the guy in Florida, you know, the outcast from Dukes of Hazard. He wanted to burn the Koran and Muslims got all pissed off. What I say to that is consider who you are letting get in the way of your natural feelings for your religion. This guy had a beard like he was going to duel Andrew Jackson (AJ would have powned him) and all of about 15 followers of the craziest variety. So no, ants on Jesus won't piss me off because the guy who painted it's name doesn't even come up in a quick google search, and he's the center of a controversy, that's how unimportant he is.

Just Like the Girl at the Bar in College, Always Check a Pundits Credentials

Ann Coulter is found of pointing out that Keith Olbermann went to the agricultural Cornell, not Ivy League Cornell. In that same idea, I would like to point out that Meghan "I have to google what blue blood means" McCain went to Columbia and majored in Art History. Now as much as I love a "cool, young conservative woman for other conservative women to look up to", because who doesn't want to listen a mid 20's blue blood (no I didn't have to google it) who somehow thinks supporting gay rights makes you an edgy republican, (most conservatives I know already do), I actually had to learn in college to get work in the real world. Listening to her is as crazy as taken advice from someone who went to a Wisconsin state school and got a degree in social work. What? People do listen to Suze Ormon? Yikes.

Cop Out 2: This Time it's Fiscal

The debt commission has released its full report today and I for one am quite happy. A four trillion dollar reduction in the national debt by 2020 is just the kind of big swinging dick proposal we needed to right the solvency ship. And as I've previously stated, everyone in Congress is against it therefore it must be good. Both parties hold one half of the key resolving this issue. The republicans come armed with the knowledge that cuts to entitlement programs and not solely taxing the rich will help. Democrats bring with them the idea of cutting waste in the military, and be sure there is plenty, and a desire to raise revenues. Combined they attack this problem from both sides and will meet in the middle much faster. We wanted partisanship, unfortunately it is coming in the mutual dislike of the debt commission's proposals.

So I was speaking with Legalized Brother, who is a raging liberal but like hipsters, he won't admit it, and the subject of taxes came up. Now this might be a shocker but his first idea was to tax the rich. (We'll ignore his retracement on the idea once I told him he was in that bracket) There are three problems with this approach. Actually four. 1. Laffe's curve. Great economic research that showed taxing the rich hurts GDP, and thus economic and tax revenue, growth. 2. A recent study found the actual tax rate off the rich strays very little from 19.4% because of their deductions and fastidious accountants. 3. The rich are responsible for massive amounts of campaign donations so congressmen won't bite the hand that feeds. 4. It is never going to happen.

Taxing the rich is the greatest non-answer in government history. It is a solid idea in theory, but one that will never be implemented. It's like cutting Medicare waste. Sure it'd be nice but it's not going to happen so let's find another way. The clown car that is Congress loves to give solutions it will never implement because then they don't have to make tough choices. Yes, the retirement age needs to go up. It will suck. It's just like any other economic entity, home/business/some parts of Ireland still, that needs to work with the money it has. It always sucks to cut back on your pear schnapps but when times are tough, you need to start drinking Natty Ice.

This is what the debt commission did. They made the tough choices for Congress. Now all they have to do is not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This isn't one of those lame do it for the kids moments. Forget the kids, they'll probably be obese anyway. This is about securing our own lives. A 10 year horizon is incredibly short. Most of us not named Jimmy Carter will probably still be around then. This is our chance to do something great, and hopefully Congress will put on its big boy pants and do the job they were sent there for.