Contemplations of an Irate Liberal

The Way to Peace

2012-01-14T06:55:00.001-08:00

To look at Christian history, it is hardly conceivable that modern, prosperous, relatively peaceful nations would exist today. Christians "evolved" from brutal zealots to modern, peace-loving people.

You also can't look to the Bible for the source of this peace. The Bible is filled with social rules, prohibitions, and punishments that are barbaric by modern standards. If Christians don't judge the Bible with modern sensibilities, why do they judge the Quran with modern sensibilities?

If we judge the Quran to be more violent, you have to consider the times in which it was written. The Quran was written in the 7th century, which was an extremely violent time in human history. It was written down as events unfolded.

On the other hand, the old testament came from oral tradition passed down for thousands of years, and finally written down when writing became possible. Before it was written down, the stories likely changed. Over the course of thousands of years, much of the violence was probably lost in the oral transmission. The new testament was written during the time and geography of "Pax Romana", a time of relative peace in human history.

One of the most peaceful religions on the planet has holy books that are much more violent than the bible or the quran. The Hindus have the mahabharata and the ramayana. The Hindus have managed to become quite peaceful. Perhaps they take lessons on the evils of violence from these books. Is it so inconceivable that Muslims could do the same from the Quran? Many do, actually.

Christians have modernized and moderated through education, prosperity, and learning from the mistakes of their ancestors. Christianity has gone through enlightened / peaceful periods, and fell into violent periods of regress. Islam has enjoyed many enlightened /peaceful periods.

Islam is emerging from a violent period of regress. Just look at the progress of women's suffrage in the middle east to see how rapid this emergence is happening. Christians live in a nascent period of enlightenment. It wasn't so long ago that Christians were violent and aggressive toward "pagans", "heathens", and "savages".

If history has any lesson for the modern world it is this:
Enlightenment, prosperity and peace are fleeting and fragile. These ideal states of human existence are easily disrupted by violence, aggression, and war. If we wish to live our lives in, and pass on to our children this ideal state, we must stop vilifying each other. It is imperative that we start building cultural bridges and break down the barriers that divide us. We can pass on to our children a culture of enlightenment and peace. We just have to set aside our hatred and mistrust.

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

2011-12-08T09:26:00.000-08:00

Traditionally, the National Defense Authorization Act is a yearly spending bill that allows the military to operate for the year covered by the bill. The yearly renewal of this bill has traditionally been quick and non-controversial.

However...

This year the NDAA has provisions that basically allows for two things:

Military detention (without trial) of those suspected of links to al qaeda, taliban, or of planning or carrying out attacks against the U.S. and coalition partners. It states that this detention will be continuous until the "end of hostilities".
"Transfer of custody" of "covered persons" to any foreign entity.

These two sections are troubling to me.

The "military detention" provision has a "waiver for national security" which applies to "paragraph 1", which allows for the military detention. "Paragraph 1" refers to paragraph two, which contains the specific limitation to suspected terrorists.

My concern is that this waiver could be interpreted to allow the Secretary of Defense to "waive" the limitation to suspected terrorists. The bill only requires a written "certification" be sent to congress that the "wiaver" is necessary for "national security". If such a waiver to submitted, it is conceivable that this could allow the indefinite military detention of individuals that have no association with terrorist groups.

The "transfer of custody" section is worrisome because it allows the military to skirt U.S. laws pertaining to treatment of prisoners (specifically those prohibiting torture) by sending "covered persons" abroad for "detention". This practice, known as "extraordinary rendition", has been in practice for years. However the authority to do this is pieced together from pieces of different laws and disparate provisions of the "Patriot Act". Since this authority is piecemeal, the legality of that authority has been questionable. If this law passes, "extraordinary rendition" will be codified in law.

There is a provision that supposedly exempts U.S. citizens from military detention. There is another provision that supposedly exempts "lawful resident aliens" (green card holders) and their activities within the United States. I struggle with these exemptions because most lawmakers specifically state that this applies "American citizen or not" (quoted from Lindsey Graham and verified by calling his office in DC).

There is legal ambiguity as to whether or not current law allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and "resident aliens". The only institution that could clear up this ambiguity is the Judicial branch. However, the bill specifically removes judicial oversight by moving the entire process to military tribunals. The Supreme Court could take the extraordinary step of declaring that citizens are "resident aliens" are NOT subject to this law. However, considering the current makeup of the court, and the fact that the entire process will be outside their jurisdiction, that possibility seems quite slim.

When I called Senator Graham's office to inquire about this, his staff seemed unaware of the provisions exempting U.S. Citizens and "resident aliens". I asked about the constitutionality of this bill, I was told that is the job of the Supreme Court.

This bill passed the House of Representatives, but that version didn't have these troubling provisions. Now that the bill passed the Senate, it must be "reconciled" with the House version, then the "reconciled" bill must be passed by both houses.

Even if you agree with the indefinite detention provisions, the legal ambiguity of existing detention laws makes this very dangerous. Please contact your representative in the House of Representatives and ask them to vote against any "reconciled" bill that includes these harmful provisions. These provisions were slipped into a spending bill to force it through congress. Afterall, any representative who votes against it will be labelled "unamerican" and "against the troops". Our representatives need to know that we will support them if they vote this bill down because of these provisions.

Use the following link to contact your representative:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

You can also call the white house and ask the President to veto such a bill if it reaches his desk.

White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111

Response to Tony Perkins - Jesus Was a Free Marketer

2011-12-06T12:07:00.000-08:00

My Take: Jesus was a free marketer, not an Occupier

To use the parable of the minas to claim that Jesus was a free marketer is simply political spin. Keep in mind that Mr. Perkins is the leader of the "Family Research Council", which is one of the most vile homophobic organizations around. The FRC has made it their mission to malign single mothers, poor people, and gay people.

When I read the parable of the Minas, I see industriousness being rewarded and sloth being punished. I see nothing of "free markets".

The reason I doubt Mr. Perkin's "free market" comparison is because of what Jesus actually said (not in a parable) to a wealthy young man who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Matthew 19:21

The boy went away sad, unwilling to give up his vast wealth to help the poor. Then Jesus turned to his disciples and said:
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

So, Jesus seems to deplore greedy people who horde wealth and do nothing for the poor. Keeping that in mind, the parable of the Minas (Luke 19) seems to be about rewarding industriousness and punishing sloth.

I would like to point out some fallacies that Mr. Perkins also attempts to pass in his article:

1. He states that "each of us is given the same opportunity to build our lives", which is demonstrably false. The child of an auto mechanic doesn't have the same opportunities as the child of a doctor. The child of a welfare mother does not have the same opportunities as the child of an auto mechanic.
2. He talks about "occupiers" who trash public property, and engage in anti-social behavior. I don't believe the intent of OWS is to "trash" anything. Many of the nasty pictures people see are AFTER the encampment has been trashed by the police. The OWS camps that I visited (in Seattle and Minneapolis) were clean and well organized. I'm not sure what anti-social behavior he is referring to. OWS is collaborative and sociable by it's very nature. Rioting is anti-social, but it seems to have only happened in Oakland. Oakland has a history of rioting, which cannot be associated with OWS.
3. He states that "wins and losses are determined by the diligence and determination of the individual". If our "free market" system were truly merit / results based, there would be no reason for OWS to exist. OWS exists because of a peculiar blend of "laissez faire" / crony capitalism, and merit / results NOT being rewarded. OWS exists because the economic and political systems have been corrupted by power, influence and money.
4. He states that "[abuses] are not inevitable or intrinsic to free enterprise". I tend to disagree! Totally free markets are prone to consolidation and manipulation. Mr. Perkins must be living on a planet inhabited by a species much more noble and honest than homo sapiens. Free markets can be beneficial until they are consolidated and manipulated by powerful players. Once that happens the entire system is liable to crash. There are few forces on earth that can challenge the powerful players that manipulate markets, and government regulation is one of them. The fact is that Mr. Perkin's political party has meticulously gutted every state and federal financial regulatory agency.

He closes by saying: "our free market system works when bridled by morality. Not arbitrary morality that changes with political parties, but transcendent moral principles."

Mr. Perkins is again talking about his fantasy planet.

Perhaps on Kolob (planet where God lives according to Mormons), Mr. Perkins morality guides the markets. I suspect that morality guides those markets because Jesus is standing near the opening bell with a whip!

On the planet Earth, the morality of homo sapiens is easily over-run by greed when "no one is watching". Since Jesus isn't standing on Wall Street with a whip, we need some way of controlling the greed, consolidation, and manipulation.

Republicans like to champion the "self regulation" doctrine, while ignoring the complete and repeated failure of that doctrine.

I personally don't support overbearing regulations. But I support regulations that ensure the safety, sustainability, and fairness of industry and markets. Based on results, industry and markets are unable to properly enforce rules even if they make the rules.

I also don't support the idea that OWS should be sleeping in parks. Not only is it an eyesore, it tends to lead to unhygienic conditions. It also has a tendency to attract elements that most Americans would consider deplorable (drugs, prostitution, etc.). People will pay more attention to clean, organized, peaceful protesters than they will dingy, chaotic, rowdy protesters.

IMHO

Pictures from Occupy Oakland that make me nervous

2011-11-12T09:52:00.001-08:00

I promised a friend that I would post these pictures I found. I am worried that the General Assembly of Occupy Oakland is being over-run by these communist and anarchist agitators. I'd be willing to be that they are the ones who scream the loudest about police use of force, while actively taunting the police.

Let me clarify that I am well aware the Oakland has a reputation for police brutality. I certainly don't hold the police, mayor, or city council blameless. But it does seem reasonable that certain subversive groups are stirring up trouble for their own political agendas. Whether the agendas are to discredit OWS, or to instigate revolution is not clear.

What is clear is that the General Assembly needs to keep the subversive elements under control. It wouldn't hurt for them to send representatives to the mayor and city council to work out an equitable solution to the safety and sanitation problems.

Here are the pictures:

Protesters disrespecting the flag, and glorifying Che Guerva (a Marxist).

Protesters rioting...

A sign purporting to be from the "international communist worker's party". Admittedly, their website looks like it was designed by a child. It is registered in Panama. It seems possible that this "group" is a ploy to discredit OWS. If it isn't, I want nothing to do with it.

I totally disagree with this sign. Capitalism works MUCH BETTER than communism. I want to reform the system so that jobs are created, economic bubbles are checked, wealth is distributed more evenly, military expenditures are reduced, and corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

Again with the communist crap. OVER MY DEAD BODY!

Vandalism...

Vandalism and anarchist symbolism...

I understand that people are angry, but I don't think it is wise to throw the baby out with the bath water. Reform, not revolution!

My guess is that none of these communist agitators have actually lived under communism. Yet, they use the symbolism of communism, and associate communism with freedom. Perhaps they need a history lesson.

Rioters, and what appears to be a PLO style head covering on the guy on the right. While I support the rights of Palestinians, I don't believe we should be imitating the violence of the PLO or islamic fundamentalists in order to reform our system.

Again... what exactly do these people want to replace capitalism with? Reform, not revolution!

I'd love to find this bastard and slap him around a few hundred times. You may disagree with the state of things. You may want change. But when you trample on my flag, you'd better prepare yourself for a BIG FIGHT!

As stated before, OWS needs to reign in the crazy elements. Cool heads need to prevail, or this movement will drive away moderate people. When that happens, it will fail in a violent way.

Troy Davis scheduled for execution 9/21/2011

2011-09-07T12:14:00.000-07:00

First let me state that I fully support capital punishment for murderers who's guilt is beyond doubt. I would approve of capital punishment for rapists and child molesters who's guilt is beyond doubt. However, I firmly believe that Troy Davis' guilt is questionable. If he is innocent, the state of Georgia will be executing an innocent man on September 21st.

Troy Davis was convicted of murder based on witness testimony. That was 1991 in Savannah, GA.

One of the "witnesses", Sylvester "Redd" Coles, was actually a suspect before he turned states evidence. Here is a picture of Mr. Coles from 2007:

Here is a photo of Mr. Davis from circa 2008:

All the other witnesses, except one, have recanted their testimony citing police coercion. Only one witness is sticking to the original identification of Davis as the murderer.

At the time of his conviction, the Jury seemed to have two choices:
1. Believe one man against the testimony of 6 witnesses (possibly setting a killer free)
2. Convict of murder on the testimony of 6 witnesses.

Here is some information on some of the "witnesses":

1. Atwan Williams - "When the police arrived, I told them I could barely recognize the shooter, I was scared, nervous, I was just trying to take off." When asked if he read the back of the deposition he gave to police, he said "No Sir, I can't read".

2. Kevin McQueen - Has stated that he made up the details of a confession he attributed to Mr. Davis. He now says the confession never took place, and that he made up the confession in exchange for a lighter sentence in another case.

3. Jeffrey Sapp - "I had cops all around me. I was so scared, I'd have told them everything they wanted. They kept saying 'Troy told you, Troy told you.' I was saying the same thing they told me to say."

4. Monty Holmes - "It seemed like they (the police) wouldn’t stop questioning me until I told them what they wanted to hear. So I did. I signed a statement saying that Troy told me that he shot the cop." "When I had to go to court that first time, I felt like I had to say what was in that statement or I’d be in trouble, so that’s what I did. When it came to the trial though, I didn’t want to go because I knew that the truth was that Troy never told me anything about shooting [the police officer]. I heard the police were coming by to give me a subpoena for trial. I dodged the subpoena but they still left it with my mother. I still didn’t feel like I could walk in a court and say those things so I didn’t go to the trial".

5. Dorothy Ferrell - "I was real tired because it was the middle of the night and I was pregnant too… I was scared that if I didn’t do what the police wanted me to do, then they would try to lock me up again. I was on parole at the time and I had just gotten home from being locked up earlier that year." "From the way the officer was talking, he gave me the impression that I should say that Troy Davis was the one who shot the officer like the other witness [sic] had… I felt like I was just following the rest of the witnesses. I also felt like I had to cooperate with the officer because of my being on parole…I told the detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I didn’t see who shot the officer."

6. Darrell Collins (16 at the time of the murder) - "I testified against Troy at his trial. I remember that I told the jury that Troy hit the man that Red was arguing with. That is not true. I never saw Troy do anything to the man. I said this at the trial because I was still scared that the police would throw me in jail for being an accessory to murder if I told the truth about what happened. It is time that I told the truth about what happened that night, and what is written here is the truth. I am not proud for lying at Troy’s trial, but the police had me so messed up that I felt that’s all I could do or else I would go to jail."

7. Larry Young (the homeless man who was being assaulted when the murder took place) - "They kept asking me what had happened at the bus station, and I kept telling them that I didn’t know. Everything happened so fast down there. I couldn’t honestly remember what anyone looked like or what different people were wearing. Plus, I had been drinking that day, so I just couldn’t tell who did what. The cops didn’t want to hear that and kept pressing me to give them answers. They made it clear that we weren’t leaving until I told them what they wanted to hear. They suggested answers and I would give them what they wanted. They put typed papers in my face and told me to sign them. I did sign them without reading them"

8. Antoine Williams - "They asked me to describe the shooter and what he looked like and what he was wearing. I kept telling them that I didn’t know. It was dark, my windows were tinted, and I was scared. It all happened so fast. Even today, I know that I could not honestly identify with any certainty who shot the officer that night. I couldn’t then either. After the officers talked to me, they gave me a statement and told me to sign it. I signed it. I did not read it because I cannot read."

9. Robert Grizzard - "I have reviewed the transcript of my testimony from the trial of Troy Davis… During my testimony I said that the person who shot the officer was wearing a light coloured shirt. The truth is that I don’t recall now and I didn’t recall then what the shooter was wearing, as I said in my initial statement [to the police]. My testimony to the contrary was an honest mistake on my part… As I said in my statement given on that night, I do not and did not remember what the shooter was wearing."

These statements cause serious doubt in my mind as to the guilt of Mr. Davis. Considering the fact that his conviction was based solely on witness testimony, and the fact that most of the testimony has now been recanted, I believe that Mr. Davis deserves another jury trial. The trial should be based on non-coerced testimony, and the suspicious testimony of Mr. Coles should be eliminated.

The state of Georgia is preparing to execute a man who's guilt is clearly questionable. If you agree that innocent people shouldn't be put to death for the convenience of the state, please click here for more information.

Attention Congress, Repay Borrowed Social Security Funds

2011-07-25T05:37:00.001-07:00

It is a well known fact that the government "invests" social security tax revenue in treasury bonds, which really means they put treasury bonds into the old age trust fund and put the cash into the general operating fund. Those funds are then used to fund the bloated federal budget.

But that isn't enough to satisfy the ravenous appetite we have for spending beyond our means. Our government then goes on and borrows hundreds of billions of dollars more to continue spending.

That's what this "debt ceiling" debate is all about. I believe that both parties are to blame for the massive debt caused by out of control spending.

The overall federal budget has grown since Obama took office. But let's take a look at the numbers more closely for 2007 vs. 2010. I chose 2007 because it was the last full year before the economy collapsed. I have stripped out some spending (defense, social security, medicare, and stimulus), for reasons described below. Here are the numbers:

2007 (millions of dollars):
Total Budget: 2,863,084
Defense costs (deduct) 625,835
Social Security (deduct) 588,962
Medicare (deduct) 385,008
Income Security (deduct) 368,026
Jobs Bill (deduct) 0.00
Adjusted Budget: 895,253 (895 billion, 253 million dollars)

2010 (millions of dollars)
Total Budget: 3,600,577
Defense costs (deduct) 722,138
Social Security (deduct) 723,504
Medicare (deduct) 462,087
Income Security (deduct) 664,559
Jobs Bill (deduct) 50,000
Adjusted Budget: 978,289 (978 billion, 289 million dollars)

If you take the "adjusted budget" from 2007 and adjust it for 2.28 (roughly 7% total), you get an inflation adjusted total of 957, 895 (957 billion, 895 million). That is only 20 billion less than the 2010 adjusted budget.

So, in reality Obama has only increased the size of the federal government by 2.13%. Keep in mind, this is using "official inflation" which excludes oil price fluctuation. Real inflation has been more than 2.28% per year since 2007. Oil prices alone increased 68% between Jan 2007 and Jan 2010.

Let me explain my reasoning for deducting some of these expenses. Keep in mind that these deductions were done for both 2007 and 2010 to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.

Defense: This really isn't discretionary spending. The fact is, we have two wars going on. We should not place blame on Obama for properly funding our troops. That's why I removed the defense spending.
Social Security: If it were not for the "investment" of social security funds in treasury bonds, the social security system would not be part of the federal budget. It could be, and should be completely separate. These costs are not caused by Obama, but by relentless borrowing over the decades. Not even the increase can be attributed to Obama. That's why I deducted them.
Medicare: For the same reasons as social security.
Income Security: This includes a number of expenses for retirement, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, disability, and nutrition assistance. Most of the increases have been caused by the recession.
Jobs Bill: This was part of the overall stimulus. If you're against stimulus, I urge you to read about Hoover's role in the great depression. Stimulus was necessary to limit the catastrophe, regardless of what political talking heads say.

If you aren't a fan of Obama, that's fine. But keep these numbers in mind when you think about the fiscal outrage coming from the right. If you want low taxes, some of these expenses are going to have to be reduced.

However, it seems that Republicans want to eliminate parts of the national debt (or delay them a good while) by cutting social security and medicare. Since these programs are funded by taxes taken from the paychecks of average workers, and these funds were "borrowed" to keep taxes artificially low, I am absolutely opposed to cutting these programs to continue keeping taxes artificially low. If cuts must be made, they need to be phased in over a decade or more.

If you want a bloated military, fine. If you want massive subsidies to multi-national corporations, fine. If you want to deduct your mortgage interest, fine. If you want a deduction for your children, fine.

But you must be willing to pay the taxes to fund these expenses, deductions, and loopholes. If we continue to have artificially low taxes while we continue our spending binge, we will soon find ourselves insolvent as a nation.

Now let's talk about this debt ceiling debate. Republicans say that Obama isn't willing to compromise on increasing taxes. But the facts show that Obama has "sweetened the pot" for the GOP many times during these negotiations. Obama recently offered $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional tax revenue.

Economists agree that the budget cannot be balanced through spending cuts alone. The defense budget and "core" federal budget exceed tax revenues. Tax revenue must be increased, along with significant spending cuts in order to put our country on a sustainable financial course. If we also invest in small businesses, we will see the job market improve significantly.

FICA Tax, steal from average workers to cut taxes for the rich

2011-07-19T06:00:00.000-07:00

Every wage earner in the United States pays FICA tax, which is the tax that funds social security. Your employer is required to match your contribution, bringing the total tax to 12.4%.

The problem is, there is an income limit of $106,000 above which there is no FICA tax.

The other problem is, the government issues IOUs to the social security trust fund and uses that money to fund the general government operations.

Now, let's look at the swindle:

Based on an IRS study of the 400 wealthiest American taxpayers, their "effective tax rate" was 16.5%. Effective tax rate is basically the final percentage after all deductions, write offs, and loop holes are taken into account.

Now take a taxpayer making $50,000 / year, who does the standard deduction. This taxpayer actually pays around 14% effective tax.

So, when the wealthy complain about higher taxes they really aren't paying that much higher percentage after all their exemptions, write offs, and loop holes.

Then comes social security tax. Add the 6.2% paid by the $50,000 worker, and you come up with 20% tax. Add in the employer's portion (which puts downward pressure on wages), and you actually have a 26% effective tax rate.

With the exemption of wages over $106,000, social security tax has a negligible effect on the effective tax rate of the uber-rich.

Now you may be saying, "So what? Employees eventually get that money back".

Let me demonstrate some scenarios that will unfold as social security becomes depleted.

1. The government will raise the social security tax, as they have done many times. They will likely leave the income exemptions (but likely increase them for inflation). Since the government won't be able to borrow from social security anymore, income taxes will have to be increased to cover government operations.
2. They will phase out social security, leaving millions of American's out in the cold in retirement despite the fact that they paid into the system their whole lives.

In either case, social security taxes have been taken from average wage earners, then transferred to the general operating fund and used to fund the government. When the time comes to pay the IOUs, the government will either cancel the "internal debt" by eliminating social security, or it will raise the social security tax.

The reality is, after social security taxes are taken into account, average wage earners pay a higher percentage of their income to fund the bloated federal government than their wealthy counterparts. Social security taxes are taken disproportionately from average Americans, and those funds used to fund the government, while their wealthy counterparts stop paying into social security after $106,000.

Because the government borrows from social security to keep taxes artificially low, the social security tax is a defacto tax increase on the average American taxpayer. In essence, the wealthy get tax breaks on the backs of average American workers.

While I agree that we need to get our financial house in order, I see nothing being done by either party to fix this problem. We must stop borrowing from the social security trust fund, and we must raise taxes and cut spending to ensure that social security remains viable for current and future workers. If we can't get our financial house in order, we will see a drastic decline in American power, influence, and prestige.

What is behind high divorce rates?

2011-06-30T09:00:00.000-07:00

From my experience watching my friends and family get married and divorced, I have made some personal conclusions about the reasons for failed marriages.

Ignored Red Flags: When we start dating, we are awash in puppy love hormones which seem to diminish our willingness to "read between the lines" when we see obvious red flags. Some red flags may indicate behaviors that are negotiable, while some may indicate behaviors that are deal breakers (non negotiable). The problem is that we often ignore the red flags because our reasoning capacity can be diminished by our biological responses to our new love interest.
Broken Wing Syndrome: You find a person who you perceive to be a diamond in the rough. Maybe they have a criminal history, or bad credit. Some well intentioned people look at their new love interest as a bird with a broken wing. They think: If I can just heal that broken wing, I will have a fabulous bird. The problem comes when we ignore the causes of the broken wing, which are often behavioral rather than circumstance. You can change another person's circumstances, but you cannot change their behavior. Only they can choose to change. Any attempt to change their behavior will exhaust you, and cause resentment from them.
Jumping Ship Syndrome: This is the opposite of ignoring red flags. These people are looking for an ideal person that they have conjured in their minds, and the moment their love interest deviates from that ideal, they jump ship. I don't have a cogent theory as to the cause of this behavior. But you can see how this type of behavior can cause a person to jump from one marriage to another.
The Marriage / Wedding Cult: Our culture has a preoccupation with marriage overall, and weddings in particular. It comes from our parents, religious leaders, friends, and relatives. All of them pushing and prodding us like the father from "My Big Fat Greek Wedding": "Get married, make babies. You look so old!".
Religious Pressure: I cannot speak to this at length because it is an alien concept to me. However, I have noticed a great deal of pressure from churches and religious organizations for early and "productive" marriages.

A possible solution?
In my opinion, we need to change our cultural view of marriage. We should encourage our friends and family to get into marriage after at least a year of dating. We should encourage a "full disclosure" session between the dating couple before they get engaged. The full disclosure session would include a history of: criminal charges and convictions, domestic violence, substance abuse, driving record, credit rating, bankruptcy, debt, job history, etc.

Also, a pseudo-marriage arrangement might make sense. I don't mean cohabitation before marriage, or premarital sex. I simply mean going through some of the mundane but important aspects of marriage. Paying bills, managing finances, managing the house, cleaning, decorating, cooking, groceries, childcare, etc.

You don't have to live together to go through the motions. But these are important factors in determining real life compatibility. Many marriages break up over such mundane things. Once the puppy love wears off, it's the every day things that either bring you together or drive you apart.

Those are my ideas on how the dating-engagement-wedding-marriage route should happen. I welcome your thoughts on the topic.

Common Misconceptions about U.S. immigration law

2011-06-28T15:35:00.000-07:00

Over the years, I have heard so many people complain about "illegals". Some complain with a bitter tirade, while others wish the "illegals" would choose the legal option.

I was one of the "legal option" people for many years. That is until recently when the realities of American immigration law have become clear.

Most American's believe that the spirit of the following poem (from the statue of liberty) still lives in our immigration laws:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I am sorry to tell you that this beautiful poem, which exemplified the welcoming virtues of our republic, is no longer representative of our immigration law.

Today the "poor, tired, huddled masses yearning to be free" are denied any possibility of immigration. To immigrate legally to the United States, an individual MUST be sponsored by an employer, OR have a U.S. Citizen (who is a close blood relative) sponsor their immigration. To have an employer sponsor an immigrant is a time consuming, expensive task. Most employers won't go through the trouble unless it is a high profit / high demand position. Ask an immigration lawyer if you don't believe me.

So, for those of us who throw our hands in the air asking, "why don't they come here legally", hopefully this will give you an answer.

Despite the lack of legality, why do these people risk their lives to come here? The reasons are vast and varied. But for the most part they come to work, make money, and support their families back home. Some actually do want to stay, but there is no legal way of doing so.

As a result, when they arrive they live in the shadows. Illegal immigrants are brutalized and victimized by gangs and thugs on a massive scale compared to citizens. The thugs know they can get away with it because the illegal immigrants won't go to the police for fear of being deported.

I also hear many people complain that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, which is absolutely false. Click here to read the article discussing taxes for illegal immigrants.

It is true that some of them come and have large families, and the children born in the U.S. are American citizens. I have heard many people complain about this fact. They apparently forget that their ancestors likely benefited from that very same amendment. However, most illegal immigrants live meager lives, and remit their savings to support their families.

Another reason why people come here illegally: there is a need. Certain jobs are hard to fill with American workers (farm labor, housekeeping, janitorial, fast food, etc.). The fact is that these jobs don't pay well, and few provide benefits. Not many Americans want them.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that citizens get jobs first. But if an employer runs an ad and gets no applicants, what are they do to? What if they applicants they get don't fill all their available positions? They could raise prices and offer better wages. But then these same industries have lobbied heavily against minimum wage increases, so that seems like a non-starter.

A few questions that every American has to answer in their own minds:

When there is a demonstrated need for low wage labor, why do we rail against a migrant worker program?
When people come here to fill the need, and have NO OTHER LEGAL OPTIONS, why do we then punish and demonize them?
Why do we treat these hard working people as subhuman?
Why do we reward our political leaders for either supporting the status quo, or for passing draconian "enforcement only" laws?
Considering how illegal immigrants are treated, how much better do we treat them than we did slaves before 1864 or blacks before the civil rights act?

I recognize that not everyone will feel the same as I do. I just hope this information can provide a more informed public discourse, and perhaps a bit of kindness toward our fellow humans.

Rampant Racism in Illegal Immigration Discourse

2011-06-19T10:17:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/17/navarrette.immigrant.hunters/index.html

If you look at the comments at the bottom of the page, you see the rampant racism that has seeped into the national discourse on this issue.

I am certainly not happy that people enter this country illegally, or overstay their visas. I am not happy that many of them end up on welfare. I am not happy that the presence of illegal immigrants puts downward pressure on wages. I am not happy that my old elementary school has all classroom window decorations in Spanish.

There are plenty of things I am not happy about when it comes to illegal immigrants. But I am horrified at the putrid stench of racism that has worked its way into the public discourse on this issue.

I have some questions for my fellow citizens who would crucify the "illegals" and "illegal aliens".

1. Where was your outrage when Bush and the GOP controlled Congress did nothing?
2. Where was your outrage when employers were not punished for hiring illegal immigrants?
3. Where was your outrage when your beloved Reagan signed the amnesty law of 1986?
4. Where is your constitutional outrage over Arizona SB 1070, which clearly violates the 4th amendment?
5. Why has immigration come to a head when the GOP lost both houses of Congress, and the Presidency? Doesn't that timing seem strange?
6. What do you say to people like commenter "Arizona444" who refers to Latinos as "poop colored" people who "multiply like flies"?
7. Do you think that all illegal immigrants should be put through the same punishment? Should a mother trying to feed her family face the same punishment as the drug dealer and gang banger?
8. Why are you so eager to believe unsubstantiated claims (i.e. that illegal immigrants started the Arizona fires), when there is no evidence of that.
9. Why do you assume a hostile intent on the part of every individual that comes illegally?
10. Do you honestly believe that white people will be stopped in Arizona and asked to prove their legal immigration status?
11. Do you support a guest worker program?
12. What would you do to "secure the border"?
13. What other rights are you willing to give up in the hopes of rounding up a few illegal immigrants?
14. What will it take to open your eyes to the rampant racism involved in this issue?

I certainly hope that my fellow citizens will open their eyes to this evil cancer of racism before it gets out of control. I will not be silent while other human beings are dehumanized and demonized for political gain.

UN Group Passes Gay Rights Resolution

2011-06-17T09:10:00.000-07:00

UN Group Passes Gay Rights Resolution

The headline of this article is a bit misleading. Here is what the UN Human Rights Commission website says about the resolution:

Action on Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

In a resolution (A/HRC/17/L.9/Rev.1) regarding human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, adopted by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions, the Council requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011 to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; decides to convene a panel discussion during the nineteenth session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner.

So, this resolution is to document, discuss, and study. It does nothing (yet) about violence and discrimination against LGBT people.

What is interesting is that the following 19 countries voted against even studying this issue:

Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda

Not surprisingly, most of these countries are in Africa and the middle east. Their excuses: respect for religious sensibilities, respect for "democracy", lack of precedent in current international law. One idiot actually claimed that being gay is a matter of "choice", so it is not a human rights issue.

There were three countries that "abstained": Burkina Faso (africa), Zambia (africa), China

The countries that voted for the resolution (23):Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay

It is interesting how CNN did not specify which countries voted which way...

I found this information on the following page:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11167&LangID=E

Kansas Rep. Pete DeGraff: Raped? Pregnant? Get a spare tire, you baby!

2011-05-25T08:56:00.000-07:00

While debating a bill that would ban healthcare insurance companies from paying for abortions, debate started on exclusions which would allow insurance companies to pay for certain abortions. The proposed exclusions were in cases of rape, and health risk to the mother.

During this debate, Rep. DeGraff argued to remove the rape exemption from the bill. He then argued that women would not be harmed by removal of the exemption, because they could buy "abortion only" policies. He then went on to compare being impregnated by a rapist to getting a flat tire. The solution, get a spare!

GOD DAMNIT! Is this what you pro-lifers want? Do you really want to force rape victims to carry the demon spawn of their rapist? If so, you probably blame the victim.

The bill passed without the rape exemption, and was signed by the governor.

This article on the "national right to life" website does not even mention the rape exemption being removed. It goes on to LIE, saying that the bill "protects women from dangerous abortion clinics". The danger at abortion clinics are the pro-life loons shooting and bombing the place.

Abortion, especially early abortion is a proven safe procedure which removes a zygote from the uterus. It is not dangerous. What is dangerous is forcing rape victims into the hands of witch doctors and back alleys to get unsafe abortions. Furthermore, the "dangerous clinics" that have come into the news lately in PA were the result of lax regulation and unwillingness for regulators to follow up on NUMEROUS complaints. The "house of horrors" described by pro-lifers is an accurate description. But comparing that to legitimate, legal, well regulated women's health facilities is just shameful lying. The best response to this kind of horror is regulation, not abortion bans to satisfy the pro-lifers on the right.

Regardless of your stance on this emotional issue, very few would argue that a woman should be forced to carry the spawn of a rapist.

How to balance the federal budget - my opinion

2011-04-18T08:57:00.000-07:00

I grow very tired of the partisan mud slinging and posturing going on in Washington D.C. Even though I am a "liberal", I believe both parties share equal blame for this debt.

Tackling the budget is politically sensitive, but especially during an election year. Each party is putting forward ideas that serve only their narrow political interests. Politicians, lobbyists, and interest groups do what is in their best interest, even if it is bad for the country.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but these are some ideas I have for balancing the budget and avoiding the political pot holes involved in the process.

1. Separate tax revenue by source. Gasoline taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes, import taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.
2. Divert gasoline tax revenue to infrastructure improvement, building highways, and developing clean energy technology.
3. Divert cigarette taxes to health care, spending the money to offset the health damages caused by smoking.
4. Divert corporate taxes to paying down the national debt, placing Social Security and Medicare first in line to be replenished.
5. Take the remaining tax revenue, and set that amount as the federal budget for ongoing operations. Determine what percent would need to be cut to fit the government into this budget, and cut EVERYTHING EQUALLY. Nothing should be "sacred", not welfare, and certainly not military spending.

Let me explain a bit of my reasoning behind each of these ideas.
1, 2, 3: Separate taxes by revenue source. I have always thought it odd that gasoline taxes and cigarette taxes should go into the general fund. Afterall, we're paying these taxes to support / improve transportation infrastructure, and to offset some of the health costs of smoking. It is astonishing to me that these funds are not being used for those purposes.

4. Divert corporate taxes to servicing debt: I personally believe that corporate interests have been the main drivers of increased public debt. Corporate interests have been the root of most military interventions in U.S. history. I also think that corporations control the "job market", and are able to set "prevailing wages" low enough to keep employees on welfare, while providing obscene executive compensation and issuing huge dividends to investors. Corporations have managed to gain the status of "legal persons", so why not let them take responsibility for their actions as "legal persons".

5. Take what is left and shrink government to fit: I firmly believe that government should be as small and efficient as possible. As the old saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. If the federal bureaucracy is handed a slimmed budget that necessitates invention and innovation, I am certain they will find ways to work more effectively within the new budget. What bothers me about the current debate is that military spending seems to be "untouchable", while things like child healthcare and school lunches for poor children are touchable. You won't hear any complaint from me if military spending is cut equally to the other programs. But to leave that massive expense intact, and gut spending on Americans is unconscionable to me.

The social security and medicare laws would have to be changed to allow investment of those funds in non-treasury securities with lattered maturity dates. With a conservative mix of investments, and ensuring adequate "cash on hand" to handle economic shocks, the Social Security fund should remain solvent forever. Excess revenue from this fund could be accumulated and used to fund economic stimulus when it becomes necessary.

That's my humble opinion anyway...

Financial Burdens Forced on Gay and Lesbian Couples

2011-04-05T08:28:00.000-07:00

Most Americans understand the overall gay rights issues, but one specific area is largely unknown.

So, as an insider to the "homosexual agenda" (what a joke), I will provide some details on the extra burden gay and lesbian couples face because we cannot get married. Keep in mind that there are legal means to alleviate these extra burdens without sanctioning equality through marriage. I think most people would agree that gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be taxed differently than our straight counterparts.

Some of you will say, "but you choose to be gay, so it is fair". To that I say, BULLSHIT! Some people may be "attracted" to both genders, and they can choose. These people are called bi-sexual. But the vast majority of people cannot choose, and that includes most gay and lesbian people. We only choose companionship and affection over celibacy and loneliness. We cannot "choose" to fall in love with someone we are not attracted to. If we were to enter into a "traditional marriage", it would be a lie and neither partner would be happy (in bed or otherwise). Unless you are bi-sexual, you did not "choose" the opposite gender, so please don't assume that gay and lesbian people are any different.

Now, on to the extra taxes and fees we "homosexuals" are forced to pay:

Inheritance: Many states, and the federal government place massive taxes on inheritance. There is an exemption for married couples, which currently stands at 100%. For married couples, they share their lives and build wealth knowing that they won't be "double taxed" when one of them dies. Afterall, they already paid taxes on the wealth when they earned it!!! The estate passes 100% tax free to the spouse. For gay couples, we share our lives and build wealth, only to have half of it taken away for taxes when our partner dies.

Survivor Benefits: Social Security provides benefits to any surviving spouse beginning at retirement, and to surviving children. The surviving spouse can immediately claim survivor benefits regardless of age if they have a dependent child with the deceased spouse. Gay couples, even married ones, receive no survivor or child care benefits. Their beloved partner dies, and the money their partner paid into social security is given to others who were afforded the benefits of marriage.

Pensions: Most pensions will not pay survivor benefits to same-sex partners of deceased pensioners. Of the few that do, the benefits are taxable at the inheritance tax rate. Then the remaining amount is taxed at the surviving partner's individual tax rate.

Taxes: There is a tax benefit to being married, which becomes more beneficial the higher your combined income. Some people say this is to encourage couples to have children, but they forget about the tax credit for children. Given the existence of the child tax credit, this "for the children" idea loses all credibility. In reality, it is an additional tax on single people. But even straight singles have a hope of breaking loose from this discriminatory tax by getting married. Gay and lesbian couples, on the other hand, cannot break free. We are taxed as single, even after decades of loving companionship.

Employers Sponsored Health Insurance: Straight married people can get health insurance through their spouse's employer. All the costs of providing those benefits are provided to the employee and family completely tax free. Many companies have started to provide health insurance for gay and lesbian couples, which seems fair. But, when the gay or lesbian employee gets their W-2 for the year, the cost of their partner's insurance (the employers actual cost) is ADDED TO THEIR WAGES! That extra "income", which the employee never sees, is now taxable at the higher single rate.

Employer Sponsored Health Savings Accounts: Employers often fund "Health Savings Accounts" or "Flexible Spending Accounts" with tax free money, to be spent on health related expenses. Even if an employer provides funds for an employee's same-sex partner, the government does not allow the use of those funds for the benefit of the unmarried partner.

Insurance: Most insurance companies provide a significant discount on most types of policies, if the policy holders are married. The underlying logic is, if you're married, you are more settled and less risky. I believe that is true for the most part, even for same-sex couples. Just as straight couples settle into a comfortable, safe routine; so do gay and lesbian couples. So, why should we be charged higher premiums for insurance? Why should we pay an average of 22% more for the same thing? And for homeowner's policies, why should one partner be treated as a "renter"?

These are just a few of the more expensive burdens, which are forced on gay and lesbian couples because we cannot be legally recognized as a couple.

It is true that gay and lesbian couples can inherit (at massive tax rates), assuming the deceased partner's family doesn't sue for the estate. In the event that the family sues, even more of the estate is lost to attorney's fees and court costs, regardless of the outcome.

Many gay and lesbian survivors lose everything when their beloved companion dies. We either lose everything in a lost court battle, or are forced to sell everything to satisfy the massive tax bill from the inheritance. After years of loving companionship, our surviving companions are often left destitute and homeless.

Losing your lifetime companion is emotionally very painful. A dying spouse can rest easier knowing their surviving spouse will receive federal and pension benefits on their behalf. Imagine losing your companion, losing their income, and facing a massive tax bill and court battle...

That is one reason why we "homosexuals" complain so bitterly at being denied marriage. We don't seek to destroy marriage as an institution, we seek to protect our loved ones and the assets we build thoughout our shared life.

Even if you are opposed to "marriage" for same-sex couples, you have to agree that these grievances are valid, and need to be resolved. If you really want to "protect marriage", please write your state and federal representatives and demand redress of these grievances. Laws can be passed to eliminate these disparities, even if they don't give us "marriage". Another option would be to allow us to have "civil unions", which would have similar benefits and responsibilities, but still reserve "marriage" for straight couples.

I understand that some people will never want "homosexuals" to have any legal standing, as individuals or as couples. However, I believe that the majority of Americans accept, respect, and support fairness for their "different" neighbors, coworkers, friends, and relatives. I urge this "silent majority" to stand with us in solidarity to demand redress of these grievances.

Misinformation on Illegal Immigrants

2011-04-03T09:32:00.000-07:00

There seem to be two sides of the immigration debate, and citizens are expected to choose one side or the other. I believe both sides are wrong, and are purposely misleading the public.

Side One: Conservatives, tea partiers, and most Republicans use rhetoric like "illegal aliens", and "illegals" when referring to individuals in this country illegally. They lump everyone, regardless of circumstance, into this group of "illegals". People who overstay visas, and parents coming to work to feed their families are lumped in with the criminal, gang, and drug elements. They seem to focus on enforcement, without any regard to the 4th amendment (which guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure).

Side Two: My fellow liberals often like to refer to illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers". While this seems to be more politically correct than "illegal aliens", I don't think it accurately describes the situation. It sounds very much like someone who just "lost" their immigration papers, rather than someone who overstayed their visa or illegally entered the country.

The truth is, people come to this country illegally for many different reasons. Some people cross the border illegally to make money to send home so their family can survive. Some do it in search of a better life. Others come to join gangs and sell drugs.

There is another group of "illegal immigrants" that also get lumped in with the other groups: People who overstay their visas. These people come into the country legally on a visa, and don't leave after their visa expires. There are many reasons for this. Some people are fleeing oppression, rape, genocide, or murder in their own country. They may be in the process of filing for a green card when their visa expired. They may have had children, gotten married, or just fell in love.

So, is it reasonable or moral to lump all these different circumstances into one group? Is it reasonable to punish these crimes as though all of them had the intentions of the drug / gang / criminal elements? Should a gang banger be put through the same process and punishment as the mother working to support her family? Should the person who overstayed their visa be put through the same process and punishment as the drug dealer?

Illegal immigrants also fall into five categories when it comes to taxes.

Group One: Those who's employers have a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude. They work "under the table", being paid cash. They haven't stolen anyone's ID. Their employer has to pay taxes on that money because the expense is not deductible from the employers taxes. The employer receives a benefit from their labor, and often generates revenue from their labor. The employer has to pay taxes on those funds. The only taxes that are not always fully paid are the FICA tax and medicare, because of taxable income limits for those taxes.

Group Two: Those who make up a social security number, and give that number to their employer. These individuals pay taxes, including fica and medicare, which are taken out of their paychecks. From time to time, they may accidentally make up a social security number that actually belongs to someone. This fact comes to light when the "real" owner of the SSN gets a notice from the IRS saying they didn't claim all their income.

Group Three: Those who knowingly steal or purchase a real SSN and SS card. Again, they pay taxes out of their checks. The difference between groups two and three is the intent. One group knowingly steals an identity, while the other does not.

Group Four: Those who get an EIN (employer identification number) from the IRS, which issues these numbers to businesses for tax reporting. These individuals also pay taxes out of their paychecks.

Group Five: Those who do not "work" perse. They support themselves by engaging in gang / criminal / drug activities. These individuals do not pay taxes either directly or indirectly.

As you can see, not all these groups are the same. Except for groups three and five, there is no intent to harm or defraud another person. In all groups except five, taxes are paid directly from the worker's paycheck, or as part of the employers (usually higher) taxes.

I firmly believe that lumping all these disparate groups into one, and labeling them "illegal aliens" or "undocumented workers" does a disservice to the public, and applies the punishment and social stigma of the criminal / drug / gang elements to otherwise good, hard working people.

If we are going to remain a welcoming, compassionate beacon of freedom in the world, we must insert some truth in the immigration debate. Otherwise, we empower evil and racist elements in our culture. These evil and racist elements are a danger to all liberties and human dignity, not just those of illegal immigrants.

I beg my fellow citizens to call out politicians, news organizations, and talk show hosts when they spread misinformation and demonize illegal immigrants. We must not allow the public discourse to be hijacked by evil, xenophobic, racist elements.

Gay Adoption

2010-06-26T17:43:00.000-07:00

For some reason some people have the misguided belief that they should have a say in whether or not I can have a family of my own. Below you will find my letter to these people:

Dear tea bagging douche bags,

You have no right to deny me the ability to adopt a child.

If the tables were turned you would be screaming about your liberties and pulling our your guns. But you are content to judge my worthiness to be a parent. I am sure the Republicans will turn this into yet another ballot making issue drawing conservatives to the polls.

Let me say this: You may keep me from marrying the man I love. But when you use my family (or future family) as a political game, you will find yourself the target of my unending and unlimited wrath. Proceed at your own peril!

Sincerely,

Irate Liberal

Protesters spit on Democrats

2010-03-21T09:28:00.000-07:00

Protesters hurl slurs and spit at Democrats

I know not all Republicans are this crazy. This makes me very angry.
Where do we draw the line? I wouldn't put it past one of these bastards to try to assassinate the President, or someone else that doesn't conform to their militant views.

These tea-baggers think they can get away with these things, but they can't.

You can say whatever you want, but when you spit on people it's time to start smashing some skulls!

Sarah Palin: Bag of hot air

2010-02-07T06:46:00.000-08:00

Mrs. Palin gave the keynote speech at the Tea Party Convention.

Some of my favorite parts of the speech are:

1. She says we need to push the reset button on health care reform, and get a plan that has bi-partisan support. She forgets the fact that Republicans have not come up with their own ideas. They simply say no. She and her fellow Republicans only want Obama to fail, regardless of the cost of the status quo. Do you remember the profit Limbaugh (yes I mean profit, as in money) saying he that the failure of healthcare reform would "kill Obama"? She touches on tort reform (litigation limitations), forgetting that litigation is only a drop in the bucket of the overall healthcare problem. It is also something that was addressed when Bush was president.
2. She wants President Obama to be "transparent" about national security threats. She forgets that she said nothing while Bush was wiretapping Americans (a blatant violation of the constitution), and running an illegal "extraordinary rendition" program. Bush was not "transparent" about these. When the "mainstream media" got wind of these programs, the Republicans said it was a matter of "national security", and thus was a secret. Why is Sarah so quick to forget these things?
3. She complains that the Obama administration used the term "overseas contingency operation" to describe the two wars we are fighting. She is oblivious to the fact that a "contingency operation" is a legal term to describe certain operations. Adding the word "overseas" only means that the operations are not taking place in the United States. She again forgets that Bush liked to rename things. Bush renamed taliban soldiers as "enemy combatants" thinking he could get away from the pesky geneva conventions. He renamed a host of torture methods as "harsh interrogation techniques".
4. She complains about the Christmas bombing attempt, and how the Obama administration is treating it as a "law enforcement issue", rather than...she doesn't say. She forgets that this happened in American airspace. As such, this man is entitled to all the protections under the constitution. She goes on to say that we need a "commander in chief, not a professor of law". She seems to think that the President is above the law. Probably in her eyes he/she is. I do not share that belief.
4. "Hope-y change-y stuff". She asks how the "hope-y change-y stuff is working out for ya". She then goes into "transparency", and how Joe Biden's meetings with the "transparency and accountability board" was closed to the public. Let me first say that the existence of this board is "change-y", since Bush didn't care about being transparent. Secondly, I don't believe this board was ever meant to meet publicly. If every meeting were public, the tea bagging dogs would be there screaming, and no one could get any work done. However, the findings of this board are made public. Take that, Barbie!
5. She says that the tea party is forcing both parties to change the way they do business. That would be good, if it weren't simply the screams of a semi-militant piece of the Republican party. They call themselves "Patriots", but they were content to sit by while Bush also ran up huge deficits, and disobeyed the law. They also seem to oblivious to the fact that the "socialist takeover" of several industries began under the Bush administration. Many of these tea baggers would be without jobs had there not been a rigorous attempt to stabilize these industries.

It is very sad that this movement can't be non-partisan. It is sad that they can't call all politicians to task for outrageous spending. It is sad that they resort to screaming spin, rather than rigorous discussion of the issues. They complain about everything, yet they provide no ideas. They are like a child in the "terrible twos", who just throws tantrums and screams NO to anything and everything.

Now that my morning rant is finished, I think I will go get some coffee.

Unlimited Corporate Political Spending

2010-01-23T08:12:00.000-08:00

There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around about this ruling, and I would like to clear this up.

It seems that this ruling is limited to political advertising in support or against a particular candidate for public office. It does not allow direct cash contributions to campaigns. Direct campaign contributions are in the works though.

Repugnicans are spinning this as a constitutional fight, one that they won. They are saying this is reinstating the free speech of corporations.

I have a question for these gluttonous capitalists: Where in the constitution does it say anything about the rights of corporations? The answer: It doesn't! Just as a hateful bastard once told me that I have have no "right to marry" that is in the constitution, the constitution also doesn't enumerate any rights to corporations.

There certainly should be a place for business at the table (government), but the government was founded as "we the people", not "we the corporations", and certainly not "we the corporate interest groups". It seems to me that big business is trying to take over the government by placing their own allies in office.

Good bye Democracy. You had a nice run.
Good bye two-party system.
Hello Gluttonous Capitalism, our new lord and master.

Fighter Jet Escort for an Unruly Passenger

2010-01-09T07:57:00.000-08:00

Fighter Jet Escort for an Unruly Passenger

This seems extreme. I can understand the need for an "abundance of caution", but this is ridiculous.

Think about it this way: If you are planning to take down or hijack a plane, why would you immediately draw attention to yourself when you board?

The answer: You wouldn't. You would seek to draw as little attention to yourself as possible.

However, if a scenario like this unfolded it would likely distract the flight crew from noticing while you construct your bomb in your (laugh) underwear. It might give you the opportunity to quietly coordinate with co-conspirators in your devious plot.

Let's also be realistic about the fighter jets. They were likely the result of an Obama Administration policy that went into effect right after the "events on Christmas". That shows that Obama is willing to change when he realizes he made a mistake. If I were in Obama's shoes, I would probably have given a similar order. However, I would probably also quietly ask the prosecutor to not seek a harsh punishment for this man's foolishness. I would probably ask for a stiff fine (say, $5,000), but not 20 years in prison.

21st Century Holocaust

2009-12-16T17:57:00.000-08:00

Taboos Silence Opponents Of Uganda Anti-Gay Bill

If this law passes, the religious right will soon be joining the likes of Hitler in starting their own holocaust.

They all will have blood on their hands. If there is a hell, I hope they all go to it.

Shame on all of them!

Right wing douchebag wants Obama to fail

2009-12-12T07:03:00.000-08:00

Here is a link to a right wing article which preports to list flaws in the Obama Administration policies:

Right Wing Douchebag

Let me go through this list to describe how this person is so brainwashed by right wing lunacy that he cannot even think straight.

1. If President Barack Obama is resolute on reversing Bush administration measures that have served to keep this country safe from attack for over seven years, I want him to fail.

My opinion: The only Bush era policies that have been changed are the ones that diminish the liberties of Americans. For example, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, and many other policies that were a direct violation of the constitution.

2. If the President believes that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are due the same Constitutional rights as American citizens, I want him to fail.

My opinion: I don't think President Obama ever said these people were due the same rights as Americans. However, I think Obama has said that we MUST abide by the Geneva Convention. This is a treaty that the United States signed in good faith, and was ratified by the Senate. That means the Geneva Conventions are legally binding. Bush tried renaming them as "Enemy Combatants", hoping the right wing talk radio machine would justify things like waterboarding.

3. If the President believes that “direct diplomacy” with despotic leaders of murderous regimes is the best way to keep America strong, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Direct diplomacy is better than sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the problem goes away while we were distracted in Iraq.

4. If the President is willing to trod upon one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence – namely, the right to life – with his illimitable support of abortion, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Abortion is a touchy subject. The problem with the religious right, is they are unwilling to see any truth to the argument of the other side. I am personally opposed to unlimited abortions as well. However, I see nothing wrong with early abortion, and the morning after pill.

5. If the President believes that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortions, I want him to fail.

My opinion: I also don't want my tax dollars supporting "faith based" organizations. I also don't want my tax dollars being used to force Christianity on the rest of the world. I don't want my tax dollars used to fund the military complex, which only exists for the purpose of murder. Quite frankly, I don't care what you don't want "your tax dollars" to do. "My tax dollars" are used for plenty of things that I am morally opposed to.

6. If the President wishes to use taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research, I want him to fail.

***See opinion 5.

7. If the President wishes to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who view the Constitution as a document that breathes and bends with time, I want him to fail.

My opinion: This person is obviously unaware that he lives in a country that uses a common law system. If you want to live in a country that uses "code law", move to France.

8. If the President wants to infringe on my Constitutional right as a law abiding American to own a firearm, I want him to fail.

My opinion: The second amendment was written in a time of muskets and broad swords. The founding fathers had NO IDEA that assault rifles, AK47s, and automatic guns that could cut down a tree or cut through thick steel. I agree that law abiding citizens should be able to own a gun (not an assault or automatic rifle) for self protection, and for hunting. However, I don't think anyone should have the right to own a gun that is extremely powerful. Enough to kill or disarm a home invader = yes. Powerful enough to pierce armor and cut down trees = no.

9. If the President believes that government is better equipped to solve the problems of Americans than Americans themselves, I want him to fail.

My opinion: This is more of that "communist" and "socialist" shit they like to fling at anyone who doesn't subscribe to their narrow world view. We are living in the middle of the disaster caused by capitalism run amok. We need the government to make sure capitalism and greed don't run us all into bankruptcy. Think of it this way: In 2004, if Bush had unleashed the hounds on these "don't ask don't tell" loans, we probably would not be in this nasty recession.

10. If the President attempts to follow through on his campaign promise to fundamentally transform the United States of America, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Does this guy really believe that this country was headed in the right direction under Bush? Does he honestly believe that blind consumerism, debt, war, and growing poverty are the right direction for the country?

11. If the President wishes to send me a check that I didn’t earn, paid for with other people’s hard-earned tax money, and call it a tax cut, I want him to fail.

My opinion: I couldn't agree more. I don't want to take money from anyone to cut my taxes. However, I should mention that Bush gave tax cuts to everyone. Let's move to a progressive tax system where everyone has to pay something.

12. If the President wishes to send a so-called stimulus check to those who did not pay federal income taxes, I want him to fail.

My opinion: I agree with this, except for the "I want him to fail" part.

13. If the President believes that government bailouts of private sector businesses are the way to tend to an ailing economy, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Right.... so the government should sit back, do nothing, and watch the economy sink? That sounds very familiar. I know... you find it in a U.S. history book. Hoover tried that same thing in 1928. Historians and most economists agree that this made the great depression much worse.

14. If the President believes that the government should set pay limits on executives of companies who receive bailout money, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Let me make sure I understand the concept here: Executives make millions of dollars, all the while turning employees (aka hard working Americans) out in the cold. When their companies hit hard times because of their poor leadership, they beg for taxpayer assistance (you know... money from those same hard working Americans). Then they complain that the government wants to limit their compensation while they are suckling from the tit of taxpayers?

15. If the President believes that government spending of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money is the way to deliver the economy from recession, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Herbert Hoover, anyone?

16. If the President believes that the planet is in danger of catostrophic ruin due to man-made global warming, and is willing to implement so-called “green” policies that will damage this country’s economy, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Yeah, it is far better to stick our heads in the sand and hope that empirical evidence is wrong. We can also hope that the fox spin doctors were right. Besides, won't Jesus save us? Any evidence that 3.5 billion years of life are in danger don't matter as long as we toe the line with our political party.

17. If the President wishes to undertake an unparalleled “domestic infrastructure” plan that puts untrained non-professionals on the government’s payroll with the belief that this will stimulate the economy, I want him to fail.

My opinion: I don't ever recall the President saying anything about putting stimulus money into the federal payroll. I do seem to recall him saying the money would be used to stimulate private sector job creation through government infrastructure spending. That means the fed and state governments hire contractors (generally private companies) to do the work. Those contractors hire unemployed Americans to do the work, and those Americans spend the money they earned.

18. If the President believes that people who fall into the highest tax brackets in this country need to pay more taxes, I want him to fail.

My opinion: My partner will have to pay an additional 4K in taxes because I am on his employer sponsored health insurance plan. If we could marry (despite the efforts of people like this guy), we wouldn't have to pay higher taxes. Do you think this guy would consider our higher taxes as unfair? Probably not. I personally would support a flat tax if they did away with dependent credits and charitable deductions.

19. If the President believes that the military of the United States is a venue for social engineering – such as lifting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – I want him to fail.

My opinion: Right, because gay and lesbian Americans aren't patriotic. We don't love our country. We don't feel the call to serve when the nation is at war. We don't want to protect our families, and the American way of life. We should simply let you "socially engineer" a policy which drums us out of service to our country simply because you are morally offended by our sexual orientation. All because a book written in the bronze age says so.

20. If the President believes that healthcare is not only a right but a moral obligation of government, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Right. Health is only something the wealthy are entitled to. If the poor get sick, let them die. It will just be the end of a pathetic and dispensable existence. Let's face it, they chose to be poor right? What an asshole.

21. If the President believes that it is a good idea to attack those who listen to conservative talk radio as a means of fostering unity, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Right. Because Rush Limbaugh is just a kind, loving man. He never says an unkind word about anyone. He loves everyone, even if he disagrees with them. He never tries to fling poo at his political opponents. He is so like Mr. Christ that he must be able to walk on water...

Why can't this guy see that conservative talk shows are just that:
Conservative, meaning they are only tell one side of any issue.
Talk: This is all opinion. They don't have a legal or ethical reason to tell the truth.
Show: It's all about the ratings. They tell you whatever keeps you listening, even if is a lie. They know you aren't going to check their facts.

22. If the President supports a reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, effectively ending talk radio as we know it, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Exactly. No good American would allow both sides of an issue to be presented with facts. Americans don't want to choose for ourselves. We want to be told what to believe. We don't believe in individuality. We only believe the spin that is spoon fed to us from the media.

23. If the President is unwilling to boldly deal with illegal immigration into the United States, and chooses to try and come up with something “comprehensive” to solve the problem, I want him to fail.

My opinion: Exactly! It will be a small task to round up 12 million people, deport them, and hope they don't find their way back. We don't care about the reason why they came illegally. We don't care that they are human beings struggling to feed their families. We only see them as "illegals" and "spicks". If our children were starving, we certainly wouldn't cross a river or a desert in an attempt to feed our children. We would stay home and pray.

24. If the President is unwilling to take a serious look at nuclear energy as a viable and safe alternative source of energy, while wasting time focusing on wind turbines and solar paneling, I want him to fail.

My opinion: I have no problem with nuclear power. But it does give "the terrorists" a good lethal target. Are we no longer in the business of using scare tactics to make people afraid of "the terrorists"?

25. If the President decides that he will continue his class-warfare style assault on big corporations – such as oil and pharmaceutical companies – as he did during his campaign by punishing them with higher tax rates, I want him to fail.

My opinion: So, taxing corporations is about class warfare? I don't understand this at all. I thought it was about generating revenue to pay for the American war machine? Oh, it also legitimizes the "seat at the table" that big business shares with lobbying groups and trade associations.

I want him to fail because each and every one of these policies hurts my country.

I love it how conservatives have suddenly claimed this as "their country". Liberals aren't even Americans, according to many conservatives.

You aren't a REAL AMERICAN unless you own a gun, eat meat, pray to Jesus, and participate in mindless consumerism. You label anyone who disagrees with you as: idiot, moonbat, or baby killer. Oh, lets not forget my favorite: Terrorist.

Lazy People

2009-11-28T12:47:00.000-08:00

I have often thought that poverty is something that is often out of the hands of the poverty stricken person. However, I have recently come to believe that most people who live in poverty are there because they want to be there.

Some choose to be in poverty by the kinds of friends they keep. If all your friends are hicks, trash, or bone idle how can you be anything but those things?

Some choose to be in poverty because they have an attitude of entitlement. They believe that anyone who challenges their behavior is "startin' shit with me", or is just nagging.

Some choose to be in poverty because they refuse to work. Sure, from time to time they will hold down a job for a month. Then...BAM, unemployed again. Rather than look for work, these lazy bums "hang out" with looser friends, and participate in "easy money" schemes. When they are being evicted or foreclosed on because of their laziness, they blow up your phone and email with requests for money.

Mostly, these people blame everyone else in the world except themselves. They cannot possibly be responsible for their own poverty, so it must be someone else's fault. Obviously, it must be that asshole of a brother who won't help for the millionth time to pay the rent.

I think these poor people give the rest a bad name.

Where are the poor that are struggling, working, saving, doing anything they can to survive in an honest way?

Where are these people? If they exist, I want to help them. I'd rather give them the money than have it go into enabling a lazy person to destroy her life.

18 things to teach your sons about women

2009-09-23T15:32:00.000-07:00

18 things to teach your sons about women

I have a few things to say about this article.

1. Pick your battles. - This is just dumb. Everyone should learn this skill, and it has nothing to do with gender relations. It is a life skill.

2. Walk on the outside (closer to the street) of your female companion. - What kind of outdated crap is this? Women don't need escorts, so why should it matter how a couple walks down the street?

4. Cooking, cleaning, and taking care of kids are things men can actually do as well as women. - Absolutely! Your wife / girlfriend / partner is not an unpaid maid or babysitter. She is an equal, which means the lazy men need to get off the couch and help out.

5. Keep backup supplies of quality chocolate in the house for her to raid. - For what, a drought or famine? She is just as capable of keeping and maintaining a stash as anyone else.

7. Women like compliments and gifts. - So do men. There is nothing different here.

9. Be on time, even if she usually isn't. - Can you say double standard? I knew you could! She is just as capable of keeping track of time as you. Granted, some women have more preparation time than others, so that can be factored into the planning. A man cannot be expected to be ontime if a woman isn't expected to do the same.

11. Find out what her favorite flower is. - And she should learn the things you love too. Afterall, she isn't the only one in the relationship.

13. Smiling and nodding aren't the same as listening. - Unless the man is enduring a PMS rant, in which case it is better to smile and nod than to voice your opinion.

16. At some point she'll be more important than your mother. - Only if she is jealous of your mother, or visa versa. Either way, you are in for trouble. RUN LIKE HELL!

18. Oh yeah, and no woman will ever be good enough for my baby! - Did you know, if you take the letters from "MOTHER IN LAW", you can rearrange them to spell "WOMAN HITLER"? Perhaps mothers need to stop this insanity. You either respect your child's choices or you don't. If you don't, there can be only two reasons for this: 1. You were a bad parent. 2. You are a control freak. Either way, your child is destined to learn things the hard way.

The only times men have to treat women differently is when it comes to specifically feminine things (PMS, periods, child birth, and some small emotional differences). I believe every other difference is based entirely on the fact that some women are raised thinking they are the "weaker sex", which I find to be outdated and sexist.

At least, that is how I see things...

Health Care Reform

2009-08-22T17:58:00.000-07:00

As much as I like President Obama, I am not in favor of his public option healthcare reform. If it is funded by dollars which are taken from taxing wealthy Americans (mostly hard working people), then I am absolutely opposed to it.

If we are to have a public option, I believe it must have four important parts:

1. Funded by participant premiums.
2. Administered by an independent group, not by politicians.
3. This entity should be tax exempt.
4. It should be run as a non-profit organization.

Let me explain my reasoning for these:
Funded by participant premiums: This would make certain that people take an active role in their health, and their healthcare. You could have incentives for people to lead healthier lives. For example, an overweight person would pay a higher premium than a healthy weight person, as would a smoker. It would also ensure that this public option does not drive insurance companies out of business.

Administered by an independent group, not by politicians: The reasoning for this is obvious. I would add one more qualification to serve in this group: Insurance companies are not allowed.

This entity should be tax exempt: This plan will be taking on millions of Americans who are rejected by traditional insurance companies. To offset this increase, it should not have to pay any taxes.

It should be run as a non-profit organization: It should be run and managed very conservatively. Meaning, it should be stashing away cash during good times as a cushion for bad times. Those who are fiscally conservative (like me) know that the party doesn't last forever so you had better save money while you can. This would stabilize the system.

In closing, despite my opposition I won't be screaming lies at townhall meetings. That is just trashy, not to mention unproductive. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I am suspicious of these people. I wonder if they are being paid to disrupt the Democratic process....

8 signs of hope for the economy

2009-06-09T06:39:00.000-07:00

8 signs of hope for the economy

CNN today reported the following POTENTIALLY favorable signs of recovery in the economy:

Housing starts (new construction) were flat from the previous month
S&P 500 was up 9.4% in April (the DOW is up 15% since April 1)
Consumer confidence is climbing, up 12 points in April
Home prices seem to be finding the bottom (but a few more months of data are needed)
Corporate Earnings seem to be stabilizing, as opposed to hemorrhaging cash
Initial unemployment claims dropped slightly (but this could reverse quickly)
Manufacturing shows some signs of life
Credit Market is thawing, meaning more credit available to the economy

I am perfectly happy for 'housing starts' to be flat. If there are fewer homes built, the housing market will have fewer homes for sale. The homes for sale will come closer to the number of eligible buyers. When that happens, the housing market can recover.

The stock market is volatile, but I would hate to have missed the recent gains. Some bank stocks have doubled in value in recent months (i.e. ZION has gone up 112% since March). Buy low, sell high.

Consumer confidence is important. The fact that this number is increasing is probably the most stable indication of economic recovery.

Home prices seem to have found the bottom. A few more months of data will tell us if this is a temporary anomaly, or if this is the beginning of a stabilizing trend.

Corporate earnings are important for the portfolio, and for the economy as a whole. When companies post profits, their stock prices jump. After posting profits, many companies start hiring and buying again. This has a strong impact on the overall economy.

Initial unemployment claims dropped by 14,000. That is not a significant drop, but it is much better than increasing initial unemployment claims. We must be careful not to over-react to this number. As the economy recovers this number will fluctuate, which is absolutely natural. Only sharp increases should concern us.

Manufacturing numbers are important, but I believe manufacturing will be almost as slow to recover as the housing industry.

The credit market is getting better. Banks are starting to lend to each other more easily. I think the Troubled Asset Relief Program has had a great deal to do with this. It will be a few months before the banks feel confident enough to lend to consumers more. This is all good news.

I believe the economy will show significant improvement over the next few months. Perhaps by late October we will see consumer confidence improve enough to have a good holiday shopping season. If that happens, in March we will look back and realize that the recession ended in December 2009.

I am keeping my fingers crossed, and holding on to my job. :)

Democrat Socialist Party

2009-05-18T10:09:00.000-07:00

Democrat Socialist Party

I am a Democrat only because the GOP has sold it's soul to the devil (neocons and loons like rush limbaugh).

If they were serious about the ideas they promote, I would probably be a liberal Republican (not to be confused with a fascist Republican).

I actually wrote a post listing and discussing the things I admire about Republicans. Needless to say, from my perspective they flunk every category. That is why I have moved to the left. Similar "say one thing, do another" issues have caused me to reject organized religion.

Let me end this rant with my idea to rename the Republican Party: Fascist American Theocratic Party. FAT for short. If you add Republican, you can even change it to FART. However, I think we should keep the "Republican" open for a group who speak and act on Republican principles (low taxes, small effective government, self sufficiency, respect for life).

Patented Genes

2009-05-14T15:23:00.000-07:00

Patented Genes

Did you know that 20 percent of all distinctly human genes have been patented?

Yeah, it surprised me too.

I understand that patents allow for a company to profit from the research and development that go into the patented item. I have no problem with that.

However, the idea of patenting human DNA bothers me.

I think the fact that human DNA is inherent to all human life, it should be used for the benefit of ALL MAN KIND, not only those who can afford to pay a royalty fee.

I think this could also open the door to companies patenting human beings which have been genetically altered. For example, DNA could be manipulated in such a way that the child would have increased aggression, better reflexes, reduced empathy, and a mindset to follow orders without question. The DNA could be patented and sold on a "per unit" basis. The result would be a human being (a "unit") who's DNA is owned by the military.

Since DNA is the basis of life, we would basically revert to servitude and slavery. Afterall, what else do you call it when a person is "owned"?

I have a message for these companies that want to patent my DNA:

**While holding a plastic spiral DNA model, and giving a stern look like Charlton Heston at an NRA meeting***

FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!

Slumdog Millionaire Star's Home Demolished

2009-05-14T13:30:00.000-07:00

Authorities tear down 'Slumdog Millionaire' child star's illegal shanty home

I feel horrible that this happened to this poor child. But if we look at the parents, we will see the cause of this poverty.

I have been unable to find a reliable source to tell me the number of siblings he has. So, I will look at the family of his co-star Rubina Ali.

Rubina Ali, is a neighbor, who co-starred in slumdog, has 6 siblings. That means her parents have 7 children. SEVEN CHILDREN!

I cannot understand how two adults could ever expect to support 7 children on the salary of a carpenter.

If they had stopped with one or two children, they would have been able to provide adequately for their children. Their children deserve to have 3 meals a day, a roof over their heads, and an effective education.

I am sad to say, these parents have failed their children. That is, unless their goal was to perpetuate poverty in their children.

The parents work, and I'll bet they work hard. But no amount of work will allow them to overcome the crippling poverty caused by their unwillingness to slip on a condom.

I certainly feel bad for the kids, but not for their parents. I absolutely refuse to feel bad for someone who is living the life they built for themselves.

If they want to do right by their kids, they should adopt them to families who have the common sense not to breed themselves into poverty.

Texas police will return cash in case that prompted lawsuit

2009-05-07T04:48:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/06/texas.police.seizures/index.html

Am I the only one who thinks these officers and prosecutor should be thrown in prison? It's one thing to seize drug money. It is entirely another thing to unreasonably seize cash and property in blatant violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution.

I personally think the lawsuit should proceed. If the local yokels in that hick town are so backward and apathetic as to allow this type of corruption, they deserve the public humiliation that would ensue from such a trial.

Paranoia over swine flu H1N1

2009-05-04T03:02:00.000-07:00

I must first admit that I am not a Physician, so my opinion should in no way be taken as medical advice. Now, on with the opinion.

Let us look at the facts about "regular flu", the one that comes around a few times a year to make us all miserable:

The seasonal epidemic flu infects 3 to 5 million people world wide, killing nearly 500,000 every year. Even with 3 million infections and 500,000 deaths, that is a mortality rate of 0.17%. If the infection count is raised to 5 million, the mortality rate drops to 0.10%.
Most of those who die (directly or indirectly) from the flu every year are children, elderly, and those who are immunocompromised.

There are some differences in this strain of flu (swine flu). Let's discuss the differences:

It kills people in all age groups, but seems to have a preference for individuals who are young and healthy (not children, elderly, or immunocompromised).
The infection rate is difficult to know because of a difference in "confirmed cases" and "suspected cases". Confirmed cases are where the DNA of a virus is verified to be the same strain as the "swine flu". Suspected cases often turn out to be "regular flu", as discussed above.

One thing which might make this flu more deadly is the "over reaction" of a healthy immune system, also known as a Cytokine storm. A Cytokine storm, in basic terms, is when your immune system mounts an over active response to an infection. Cytokine cells taking part in your immune response call for reinforcements. Your body responds by sending more immune cells to the infection site. Normally, your body keeps this reaction in check. Sometimes, for reasons that are not well understood, your body is unable to keep this reaction in check, and it results in a Cytokine storm. If prompt medical care is not received, the lungs can fill with fluid, and the oxygen exchange mechanisms (alveoli) can be permenantly damaged.

In certain instances a healthy immune system can actually be a liability, which is why some strains of flu kill more young healthy people.

Now that we have some information, what are we to do?

For myself, I am going to go about my business. I will be careful to avoid crowded places, and I will wash my hands often. I will keep myself hydrated, and eat healthy foods. In the event that I start having flu symptoms (fever, headache, fatigue, cough, sore throat, stuffy or runny nose, body aches) I will seek medical care immediately. Once I start feeling ill, I will quarantine myself from others. I will follow the doctors orders, without deviation.

My guess is that this first outbreak will be mild, but I think it will return in the fall. We need to study the mortality rates in "confirmed cases" to determine how deadly this virus is, and this needs to be done in the next 2 - 3 months.

If it is determined that this will have a high mortality rate, we must put in place contingency plans which will allow isolation (quarantine), social distancing, and medical treatment to minimize the human and economic cost of a pandemic in the fall / winter.

If we fail to prepare, or prepare inadequitly, we will find ourselves overwhelmed by this flu. Our already fragile economy could be pushed into deeper recession, possibly even another great depression.

Cardboard Solar Ovens

2009-04-09T05:50:00.000-07:00

Cardboard Solar Ovens

What a wonderful idea!

I think an altered solar oven would work in Antarctica or on Mount Everest.

Take a wire basket that has a hinged door, wrap it in aluminum foil 3 or 4 layers thick, and paint the outside black. Set this on a pedestal about 4 feet high, and surround the pedestal with mirrors angled to focus the light on the oven. Put your food inside, close the door, and in a few hours you should have a nice hot meal.

The size of the mirrors will be determined by the amount of sunlight. On a day with direct, bright sunlight, you could remove the mirrors. On a cloudy day, you would have to use large mirrors.

Kids with life sentences

2009-04-09T05:34:00.000-07:00

Teens locked up for life without a second chance

I fail to see the reason for this article. It is very sad that these kids either lost, or didn't develop the empathy required to keep them from killing. That is the true crime here. The fact that these murderers are paying for their crime is not news. That is a little thing I like to call JUSTICE.

If we were to end poverty, we would be able to eliminate this kind of crime among children. In order to eliminate poverty, all schooling should be free from pre-school to University. That way, a child's potential is only limited by their own abilities, not the poverty of their parents.

Free education won't end poverty alone. It will greatly reduce it, but it will not eliminate it. The last nail in the coffin of poverty would be free tutoring, mentoring, and after school activities. We have to keep these kids engaged in learning. We need to keep them away from the drug dealers, pimps, and thugs that would pollute and distort their minds.

Commentary: Obama is flunking economics

2009-03-27T06:58:00.000-07:00

Commentary: Obama is flunking economics

Mr. Navarette,

Would you prefer that we follow the Republican proposal to let these huge institutions fail? It was the "free market" mentality which allowed these institutions to become so large, and so entangled in the financial system that their failure would lead to financial chaos. The Republican proposal would take the economy down with the banks and insurance companies. If we were to follow your ideas, we will look back at this time as the Great Depression 2.0.

I don't have any crazy idea that Obama is infallible. But I do think he is doing what needs to be done for the long term good of the country.

In closing, I would like to point out that Bush did have a great deal to do with creating the economic hurricane we are currently in. He pushed for the changes in bankruptcy law. He pushed for lax regulation of banks, insurance companies, and mortgage companies. He pushed the free market mentality which, unchecked, caused this whole mess. He neglected everything except the Department of Defense. I know it wasn't all his fault, but he shoulders a great deal of the blame. Obama seems to be trying to do what is best for the country.

I have faith that President Obama will reign in spending after this crisis is relieved. If not, we will have to lean on our representatives in Congress to reign in the spending.

In closing, I have one request of you: Please quit your incessant whining!

Time for a tea party?

2009-03-24T04:05:00.000-07:00

Jack Cafferty wrote in his column today asking if it is time for another tea party.

Time for another tea party?

I understand his criticism of the state of our nation, and his anger at the run away spending. What I don't understand is how he completely ignores the cause of the problems that led to the increase in spending.

I think Mr. Cafferty is referring to the 'tea parties' advocated by the don't go movement. The don't go movement seems to be a conservative group with the sole purpose of building opposition to the increased spending that has resulted from their failed economic policies.

Conservatives espouse the ideals of a free market economy, while whining about government oversight. They also refuse to see how free markets and government oversight have both caused major economic catastrophe, when one or the other gets out of hand. The best way to run an economy is a balance between free market, and government oversight that keeps the playing field even, and promotes safe practices. A move too far in either direction is dangerous to the national economy.

These tea parties are gaining significant support amongst those people who are concerned about the national debt, and its long term effect on the economy and tax rates. People have reason to be concerned. I hear estimates that tax rates as high as 50 percent will be required to pay off this debt. This is debt we are passing to our children and grandchildren.

But, the tea parties only build opposition. They propose nothing constructive, and only serve to criticize the attempts by our government to solve the current economic problems.

Conservatives didn't complain when Bush wanted to stimulate the economy during the last recession. They also didn't complain when Bush lied to go to war with Iraq. The Iraq war has cost over 600 billion dollars so far. Despite this government waste, our economy still tanked. It tanked because under Bush, the government failed to do its job to regulate the mortgage industry.

Do you remember driving down the street in 2003 - 2007? You probably saw lots of signs saying "I buy houses" or "own 4 bedroom home for $575 a month, no credit check", most hand written on little signs stuck in the ground near busy roads. I wish I had the foresight to have called one of these companies to find out who was behind such blatherskite. The crazy thing is, at that time it wasn't blatherskite, it was true. You really could get such a loan.

I realize President Bush isn't entirely to blame for all this. President Clinton started the beginnings of this process by forcing fannie may and freddie mac to lend to people with lower credit scores. This was mainly done to make sure lower income people could be approved for loans to buy their own home. But, other than lowering the credit requirements, a buyer in 1999 would have the same down payment and interest requirements as anyone else.

The real abuse of the system started when President Bush reduced enforcement and oversight of the mortgage industry. That's when sub-prime mortgages took an ugly turn. A turn that eventually took the entire economy off a cliff.

Book Review: How to win friends and influence people

2009-03-19T06:00:00.000-07:00

How to Win Friends and Influence People
Author: Dale Carnegie (11/24/1888 - 11/1/1955)

My star rating: 4.9

This book completely changed my life. While reading I would often come to realize that, despite the best intentions, many people probably think I am quite an ass.

I have been prone to argue, and often have no finesse. I am often confrontational and verbally unkind.

Even though the original book was written in the 1930's, most of the points are still valid today. As our world becomes more connected, these principles will be more important in providing a personal touch, which can be a competitive edge.

The only reason I don't give this a 5 star rating is because many of the historical references in the book are outside recent memory. Meaning, no one alive will be able to remember the events referenced in this book. The author does a great job explaining the pertinent information relating to the events, and how those events relate to the point at hand. This is only a minor inconvenience, which is why I only docked a small amount.

Overall, this is to date the best book I have ever read.

What I admire about Republicans

2009-03-17T04:15:00.000-07:00

I call myself an 'Irate Liberal', but on fiscal issues I believe I am fairly moderate. It is only on social issues where my liberal streak comes out.

Despite the years of mud slinging, I have been able to identify a few things I admire about the Republicans. Most of these are on fiscal issues.

Low Taxes
I think Republicans are right to want to keep taxes low. I adhere to a belief that lower taxes on individuals with more expendable income (not living paycheck to paycheck) eventually benefits the entire country. I think this type of policy allows for job creation. Many people like to demonize this idea as 'trickle down capitalism'. I prefer to call it by another name: Self Determination.

Small, Effective Government
Republicans publicly state their desire to have a small, effective government. The idea here is to ensure that government doesn't meddle in the private sector, or impede individual liberties.

Minimal Welfare
I understand the need for a little 'helping hand' when a family has a hardship. However, I don't understand when parents have more children than they can properly care for (food, clothing, shelter, tutoring, education). In this context, I strongly support limitations on Welfare.

Strong National Defense
I support the idea that we need to be able to defend ourselves against our enemies. I understand the need to sometimes take a proactive approach to our defense (intelligence). As long as we are acting in our defense, I support support defense funding.

Self Sufficiency
I support the idea that every individual and family needs to be self sufficient. Meaning we all live within our means, and use the opportunities available to increase our means. I firmly believe that we all benefit when each individual takes responsibility and accountability for their own life.

Respect for Life
I support the idea that life is sacred. However, I don't limit myself to only human life.

Where I disagree with Republicans

Low Taxes: Very often, the low taxes are used as a political tool. Spending continues as usual, and the government issues 'treasury bonds' to raise the difference. Treasury bonds are a debt, which has to be repaid by future generations of Americans. This is exactly the opposite of what a responsible government should be doing. Governments should be squirreling away money to use when the economy contracts, as it is doing right now. If they were to save money, they wouldn't need to raise taxes or cut services during a downturn.

Small, Effective Government: Republicans only seem to give lip service to this idea. The fact is that Government has consistently grown under Republican presidents from Thomas Jefferson to George W. Bush. It is also disturbing that any president would believe themselves above the law. Nixon himself said 'if the president does it, that makes it legal'. George Bush decided to use a similar tactic when he disregarded federal law, and authorized the warrantless wiretapping program.

Minimal Welfare
I know from my own childhood experience that welfare is a useful tool to assist families in breaking the cycle of poverty. Republicans seem to have made it their duty to completely eliminate this tool. They point to the welfare families who sit on welfare for years, never trying to improve their situation. I know for a fact that these families are the exception, not the rule. I support reforms and limitations to welfare. I do not support abandoning these families altogether.

Strong National Defense
After 9/11, I supported the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Afterall, they were harboring the criminals who planned and financed the attack. It seems reasonable to assume that, had we concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan, we would have completed the mission already. Since Bush decided to lie to the American People, we diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. I think history will look back on the invasion of Iraq as a tragic mistake.

Respect for Life
Republicans seem to be willing to do anything for an unborn child, even if it is detrimental to the health of the woman, and the current or future stability of the family. It also seems that, once you are born, they don't want to help you at all. They don't want to help you get medical care, housing, or education. They say that abortion is murder, but they rail against birth control, contraceptives, and sex education. I know some parents don't want their kids being taught about sex. Which is exactly why you can choose to keep your child out of the class, in most states. There also seems to be little political will with Republicans to make men more accountable for their children. I think men will think twice about using a condom if they know their actions (unpaid child support) could result in a prison sentence. Oh wait..Republicans don't support the use of condoms either.

I will close this rant with the wise words of George Carlin. In this quote, he was referring to religion. Since Republican ideas have formed an incestuous relationship to religion, I think it appropriate:
"It's all bullshit, and it's bad for ya". - George Carlin

Chairman Norris, leader of a Theocracy in Texas

2009-03-12T14:56:00.000-07:00

Chuck Norris recently made a comment on Glenn Beck's radio show, which seems to lend validity to the insane idea that Texas could secede from the union. Apparently, Mr. NorAss doesn't understand the term 'Perpetual Union'.

I would suggest that Mr. Norris read a bit of history, to enlighten his backward little mind. You see, in 1777 the Second Continental Congress passed the 'Articles of Confederation', which specifically states that "the union shall be perpetual". The last state to ratify the articles was Maryland, which did so in 1781. Once Maryland ratified the articles, they were law, and binding on all current and future states.

Upon joining the union (and no one forced Texas to join), they agreed to be bound by these same articles.

This has already been tried, and the southerners got their collective asses kicked. Not only kicked, but completely humiliated.

Let me revive some old sayings, and place them in modern context so idiots like Mr. NorAss might understand:

"Treason started in Texas, and it will end in Texas."
(South Carolina was the first to secede from the union (treason), and they were severely punished when Sherman marched through the state and burned Columbia, including most of the inhabitants.)

"I intend to make Texas howl."
(After the battle of Atlanta, Sherman marched through Georgia burning anything he thought could be used to aid the confederate traitors. He decimated most of Georgia, including Atlanta).

Mr. Norris has the right to say whatever backward, insane, unpatriotic thing he wishes to say. He is lucky he lives in the United States, because he does have that right.

But let me be very clear. If Mr. Norris, or any of his uninformed baboon followers think they can break apart the Union, MY COUNTRY, I will stand up with every other patriotic AMERICAN and defend my country! Don't tread on me!

Obama wants to overhaul education system from 'cradle to career'

2009-03-10T10:22:00.000-07:00

Obama Education Reform

President Obama,

I like this plan so far, except for one thing. What about the parents?

It seems to be a mistake for teachers and schools to be solely responsible for the success of students. I would dare say that teachers and schools make up only about 40% of the equation that predicts student success. The rest are completely up to the parents.

Parents need to understand that environment, nutrition, proper sleep, home study time, parental tutoring, homework completion monitoring, good role models, and keeping the right friends make up the rest.

Rather than giving money to state governments who have varying degrees of success, why not split the money between students and parents? If a student gets a certain score on their standardized tests, their parents get a tax credit and the student receives a tax free deposit into a college fund.

I think this plan will give students and parents an incentive to take school seriously.

Behavioral Security Screening, a potentially very bad idea

2008-12-02T09:19:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/12/02/airport.security/index.html

I think this technology goes too far. The part that seriously worries me is:
"Once these technologies are in place, a passenger may pass through a security screening without realizing it. For example, passengers could use an automated check-in system or gaze at a screen with departures information without realizing they've just been exposed to the words 'Islamic jihad' written in Arabic."

First of all, Islamic fundamentalists aren't the only group of loons that threaten the civilized world (east and west). I am also more than a little worried that such subliminal messages could have unintended consequences, like perhaps increasing hate crimes against people who might appear to be Muslim.

Second, there is a serious possibility of false positive readings if the determination is based solely on 'emotional strain'. Who hasn't had emotional strain at some point in their lives? Perhaps a person is very afraid of flying, so they are naturally under 'emotional strain'. Are we going to help this person get over their fear of flying by harassing them at the security gate?

Finally, I think this is a step toward mind reading. Call me crazy, but I don't think the time is far off when machines will be able to determine what we are thinking by listening to the neuron pulses in our brains. Once that technology is developed, it won't be difficult to alter the technology to work from a distance. Such a technology would be a violation of privacy and human dignity, and in the wrong hands can lead to serious human rights violations.

As a side note, I find it very odd that these companies are marketing this idea as a way to make security screening less discriminatory. That sounds like an honorable motivation, but I believe the potential for abuse makes this technology very very dangerous.

Protect Marriage Amendment

2008-11-06T09:23:00.000-08:00

I want to let you know that I am starting a petition to further define marriage. Since most divorces happen when the bride and groom are under 21, I propose raising the minimum age to 21.

I further propose that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman who are no more than 5 years apart in age. This would stop gold diggers from marrying an elderly person and waiting to inherit their fortune. Also, divorce is much more likely when there is a large age difference.

I also propose that marriages between people of different races be outlawed. Such marriages are just disgusting.

Let us also pass amendments making adulterers ineligible for marriage, and make adultery a crime eligible for prison time!

Furthermore, if such a ballot measure were to pass, all current marriages that are outside of the bounds of these new rules would be invalidated.

If people complain, tell them they have no 'right' to marry. If they further complain, accuse them of wanting 'special rights', since they do have the ability to marry within the rules.

Let us move on to children. Let's protect children from bad parents. Since a home with a married man and woman is the "proper place to raise children", let us take away children from those people who are not married. If a parent has a criminal record, let us also take away their children.

We have already opened Pandora's box, what's the harm?

In order to get the signatures to put this on the ballot, I will use deceptive tactics. I will tell individuals that the petition is to put more funds into education. I will give them the education petition, have them read and sign it. Then, I will ask them to sign a 'backup copy', which will include my devious petition.

I will then take money from special interest groups who are just crazy enough to fund such a campaign. I would use the money to skew the issues, spread misinformation, and pay to have studies done to support my cause. Once the studies are complete, I will launch a media blitz to get the word out that we are trying to "Protect Marriage, Protect Children". Most people won't read it, they will just assume it is geared toward those faggots and dykes they all hate.

As a result, the "pursuit of happiness" for millions of hard working Americans will be halted, and my plan will be incorporated into the constitution of every state and nation who's citizens are willing to blindly pass it. Civil rights don't matter, as long as my beliefs are forced upon those with whom I disagree. This is all despite the fact that these people have done nothing to me, and pose absolutely no threat to me.

Oh, one more thing. I will use the religious and political institutions I have infected to demonize, demoralize, and alienate anyone who dares challenge my 'values'.

***Please note, I am really not starting such a petition. This is only meant to help people understand how their vote opens pandora's box, and sets us on a slippery slope toward theocracy, as opposed to Democracy.

John McCain's mistake

2008-11-06T09:13:00.000-08:00

The mistake McCain-Palin made was to move way to the right. They pandered to the worst parts of the GOP followers. I am absolutely certain that not all Republicans are as crazy as the far right bible thumping loons. Just as your average Democrat is not as crazy as Jessie Jackson or Howard Stern.

I don't think half of this country is conservative, or half liberal. I think 75% of this country is moderate, but fall on either side of a narrow ideological divide.

If a politician wants to be successful in the 21st century, they must cater not to their party base, but instead to the moderate intellect and reason.

President Obama

2008-11-04T20:59:00.001-08:00

I am so happy that our nation has finally fulfilled its promise that "all men are created equal". I hope President Obama will be able to lead our great nation out of our current troubles and on to freedom, justice, equality, peace, and prosperity.

It was so nice to see Senator McCain give a kind speech to concede the election. Recently I had begun to suspect that he was just an angry, bitter old man. Now I can see that he is a good man, despite my disagreement with many of his social positions.

I cannot help but think now that perhaps Dr. King's famous words, "Thank God Almighty, we're free at last", might not have referred only to African Americans, but to all Americans. I think it was a challenge as much as it was a dream. The challenge was and is to move past historical bigotry and injustice. The challenge was for us, as a nation to reach the promised land. We may not have reached the promised land, but I do certainly believe that we, as a nation, are "on the move now".

Dr. King, I hope to continue this legacy you worked so hard to realize. You had a dream, and we are on our way to realizing that dream.

Mixed Martial Arts

2008-09-18T10:01:00.000-07:00

Mixed Martial Arts

The very idea that fighting could be a "sport" is just awful. Martial Arts are learning to defend yourself, not to beat each other in a bloody competition for money. I think it dehumanizes the fighters, and brings out one of the worst human tendencies.

I can think of another activity that is dehumanizing, brings out bad human tendencies, and involves the exchange of money: PROSTITUTION.

Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice

2008-09-03T06:01:00.000-07:00

I used to be absolute in my opinion that abortion is murder. Now, I have come to the conclusion that early abortion is stopping cell growth. The cells that are extracted would most likely become a human being. But, I now stand firmly in my belief that the cells extracted are not a human being.

I do not think that extracting cells in an early abortion should be a crime under any circumstances.

However, I think after the first few months those cells start to form something that is beginning to be human. At this point, I think extenuating circumstances should be required to allow such an abortion to take place. Circumstances like rape, incest, or a complication that threatens the life of the living, breathing mother.

After the first 2-3 months, I believe there is a life that isn't quite human, but I still think it has rights that need to be considered.

When pro-life people tell me that 'life begins at conception', I am always reminded of the medical fact (I checked this with my doctor) that 80% of fertilized eggs never attach to the uterus wall, but are instead flushed out during menstruation. So, an embryo is not viable until it attaches to the uterus. So, why are the pro-life people concerned over a fertilized embryo that is not attached to the uterus when it is used for stem cell research? I think there is something beyond the 'life begins at conception' argument in their minds when they froth at the mouth over 'protecting the unborn'.

Add into that mix the fact that the pro-life movement advocates 'abstinence only', and complain when schools try to educate young people on the responsible usage of contraceptives. They say that schools are advocating teen pregnancy. It is preposterous to insinuate that teachers and school administrators would actually support teen age pregnancy.

Then again, it seems as though strict pro-choice people want to be able to abort a pregnancy up to the point where most people would consider it murder.

I do agree that the woman has to carry the child, so it has to be her choice. But, I think the woman should be careful by using contraception and pregnancy testing often. That way, if they do decide to end a pregnancy, it will be in the first few weeks. Even the most ardent pro-lifers say privately that this kind of compromise would be acceptable.

I am the last one to place all this burden on the woman. I think men need to step up to the plate and do the 'manly' thing by insisting that they use a condom.

If men and women both would exercise common sense and caution, the sheer number of abortions would drop drastically.

Jururs cringe watching Duncan torture tape

2008-08-24T11:21:00.000-07:00

Jururs cringe watching Duncan torture tape

Under most circumstances, I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty because the life taken is often an innocent life.

But, in this circumstance, I am whole heartedly in favor of the death penalty. But, I think a few things should happen first:

1. The trial should finish in due course.
2. This evil man should be sent to a psychiatric hospital for scientific study. Find out why he is so demented. Find out what led him to these brutal rapes and murders.
3. Once it is clearly understood, put him on "the rack", and make it known publicly that it was his punishment for what he did. The victims surviving family will determine when he has suffered enough, even if the rack tears this monster's limbs completely off, it is their choice.
4. After that, end his life in the fashion he inflicted on his victims.
5. Burn his body, and dispose of it in an unmarked grave.
6. Use the information obtained to determine how to identify those people who need intervention in order to keep them from becoming similarly demented. It must not become a witch hunt.

I would like to mention that this evil man was diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder in 1980. When reading the wikipedia article about antisocial personality disorder, I noticed how it's prevalence in prisons is upwards of 75% (the general population is around 3%). This means there is a strong correlation between this disorder, and unlawful behavior that leads to prison.

If more research and psychological help were given to those people showing signs of this disorder, perhaps we could drastically reduce the prison population. My guess is that most of these people have no idea what is wrong with them, and they probably feel discriminated against for one reason or another.

One final note about Antisocial Personality Disorder: There are three strong indicators of childhood problems that correlate strongly to this disorder in adults:
1. Bedwetting (after the age of 7).
2. Animal Abuse
3. Pyromania.

I think, considering his past behavior (raping a young boy at gunpoint), he should have never been granted bail in 2005. Certain offenses should not be bailable, period. If you are arrested for murder, rape, assault, or drug dealing, you should not be granted bail.

In closing, this man should never see the light of day. Try him, learn from him, kill him, and be done with it.

Stray Dog saves the life of an Abandoned Baby

2008-08-23T05:49:00.000-07:00

Stray Dog Saves Abandoned Baby's Life

This story is truly heroic. This stray dog, that was abandoned by humans and left to fend for herself, took as her own an innocent human infant. Her efforts saved this child's life.

She did the only thing she could: She dragged the baby from where it had been abandoned 50 meters to the warmth and safety of her nest (or whatever you call the place where a dog gives birth).

She did what came naturally to her. She took this helpless child, and sheltered him.

It warms my heart to have this affirmation of what I have believe all along: That animals have feelings, and they do care about us.

So, when people abandon a dog or cat, or when they starve and torture them for a demented "sport" (dogfighting), I am enraged. After they harm an animal, I think they are no longer human. I think they are demons, evil and twisted.

When we do find one of these demons, and catch him red handed (red with the blood of these innocent dogs), what do we do? We sentence him to 23 months in prison.

No wonder we are having a debate about "extraordinary rendition" and whether or not water boarding is torture. It is the obvious result of a society filled with demented, depraved, selfish demons.

I am not surprised that the height of depravity has been achieved during the "Neocon Revolution". Neocons have taken selfishness to a whole new level, and it just makes me sick.

Russia invades Georgia, Bush vacations in Crawford, TX

2008-08-19T03:41:00.000-07:00

The sovereign nation of Georgia has been invaded by Russia, and where is the commander in chief of the United States?

He was tending his cattle in Crawford, Texas.

While an ally has been brutally invaded, and those russian pigs thumb their noses at a weakened United States, georgie porgie bush chose to take a vacation in Crawford, Texas.

By lying about Iraq, Mr. bush has allowed this country to commit our manpower and resources to a ill conceived war. This happened at the very moment that our resources and manpower should have been focused on keeping russia and China in check.

Congrats Mr. bush! You have allowed 50 years of democratic progress to be undone.

Good bye Sophia Petrillo!

2008-07-23T09:02:00.000-07:00

I admit it! I love the Golden Girls. I was too young to get most of the jokes when I was a kid, but I now know they were hilarious. I own all 7 seasons. Yeah, call me a freak...I don't care.

Estelle Getty died yesterday at 5:30 AM PT.

I hope her death was painless and quick, and I hope her life was full of happiness. The kind of happiness I feel when I watch the "GGs" as they are called around our house.

Goodbye, Sophia.

Obama and faith based initiatives

2008-07-22T03:50:00.000-07:00

I have been reading a lot about Obamas plan to continue the "faith based initiatives" program. With all the polarized information floating around, I decided to get the information right from the Obama campaign.

So, I emailed Obama asking him to clarify his position. I was particularly interested in the way he would handle hiring practices based on religious beliefs by these organizations. The bush administration has let these practices go unpunished, despite the fact that they are unconstitutional.

This is what the Obama campaign sent in reply (verbatim from the email):

"Senator Obama firmly believes in the separation between church and state, and he will abide by a set of principles that will ensure this new initiative honors that constitutional mandate. For example, organizations that apply for new funding from Obama programs will not be able to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring. In these programs, government funds may only be used for secular programs and initiatives, not for proselytizing or teaching religion."

So, as long as President Obama uses the justice department to rigorously pursue allegations of religious discrimination, I suppose I would be content with this program. But, I would really like Congress to pass legislation allowing or disallowing it.

The office of the President must not be allowed to usurp the checks and balanced provided in the constitution. Andrew Jackson usurped the Supreme Courts power, and it led to the trail of tears. He also usurped the authority of Congress when he redirected federal deposits to individual State banks, and destroyed the Bank of the United States. This and other events led to the panic of 1837.

I also noticed a little remark in this email that gives me a great deal of encouragement:

"Senator Obama believes that we need all hands on deck to help people in need, regardless of their backgrounds or where they live, and that government should work with both secular and faith-based partners to this end. Secular and faith-based organizations each bring unique expertise in providing critical human services, whether that’s keeping veterans off the street, feeding the hungry, or rehabilitating ex-offenders."

My biological mother is an "ex-offender", quite possibly a current offender. I have watched her go through the prison system so many times, and I don't see any real progress in terms of helping her break the cycle.

Granted, she earned her high school diploma in prison. She has been through rehab (forced) more times than I can count. But, when she gets out, she still has the same psychological and social impediments that keep her churning in and out of the system.

My mother is a white woman who struggles with the broken system. I can only imagine how black people are treated in a system that is often racist.

I hope Obama can do something to help the 2 million (plus) incarcerated people in this country. We need real prison reform, and we need to help those who "do their time" to move on with their lives in a productive, law abiding manner.

A Revolution!

2008-07-15T11:17:00.000-07:00

I am calling for a revolution!

In Washington and every State Capitol, politicians work behind closed doors to deny and dilute each citizen's vote. They redraw voting districts, ensuring that their cronies continue to raid the Treasury and our paychecks for their personal gain.

We also do not have a direct vote on very serious issues. Issues like War, Peace, Government Allocation, Military Budgets, etc. The Presidency is the most outrageous one. We do not directly vote for the President. How our votes are "counted", if at all, is completely up to our State Legislature.

To fix this, a simple solution: GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE! Modern technology makes direct votes very possible. So, get rid of the electoral college, and force a direct vote.

It also bothers me that 4 years pass before Americans get the opportunity to remove a bad President. I think voters should hold or dismiss the President every year, with a full election every 4 years. Part of the hold/dismiss question would be "in the event that the President is dismissed, who should be the replacement?".

It also bothers me to hear "Senator so and so served his constituents for 50 years, until his death". Why do we keep these same people in office for so long? The same people churn out the same ideas. Also, those who are very politically savvy will find ways to bend their constituent's will. Those constituents who don't bend are ignored or demonized. They get elected year after year, decade after decade. They find their way into a committee in Congress, and they sit, waiting for the next election or death.

I propose that we set the same term limits on Congress as we do the President. Two terms, and you're done! No perpetual benefits either. You have served your country, now GET OUT!!! Kind of like the military.

Next, we have HUGE CORPORATIONS making donations to "Political Action Committees", and to candidates directly. Why is this a problem? They always give their money to the candidate that they feel they can force to do their bidding! Basically, they are taking away the voice of the People.

In the Constitution of the United States, it does not say "We the Corporations", or "We the Wealthy", or "We the Elite"; It says "We the People". If you read the rest of the Constitution, you see that our country was founded FOR THE PEOPLE!

To fix this, I propose that only individuals be allowed to make political contributions. I would further limit it to $500 per year, which I think should be tax deductible. That limit would be total for the year, not per candidate.

This business of our Government going into debt is crazy. Citizens should foot the bill each year for the Federal, State, and Local governments. I am very uncomfortable to know that our Government is indebted to the likes of China and Japan.

To fix this, I propose that the Federal, State, and City budgets be put to a direct vote. Major appropriations should be spelled out on the ballot, with the entire budget available upon request. Before the election, the nation could go about debating how much money should be spent and where. Then, THE PEOPLE would form a consensus, and WE could spend OUR MONEY exactly the way WE CHOOSE. Obviously, under this system, things like War and Welfare would be greatly reduced.

Those are my ideas. What do you think?

Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis

2008-04-29T03:52:00.000-07:00

Just a short note about this mess that is dragging our economy into the dumps:
First Warning of the Sub Prime Mortgage Meltdown

I hope you read that and see that back in March2004 some economists were worried about the economic impact of rising interest rates on Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM). That would be 2 years BEFORE the whole thing started to crash.

Had congress and the president acted back then, we would not have been in this whole mess. But, I am sure bush and congressional leaders were heavily bribed to do nothing. It wasn't until the press got wind of the story that the wheels of congress started to move, albeit slowly.

What is the result? Raid the treasury to give a welfare check to every American, not just the ones that are losing their homes to greedy investors.

I understand the reasoning behind this decision. But, I think a welfare check does nothing to address the real problems facing the nation today: Mortgage Meltdown, Rising Oil Prices, Inflation, and the travesty in Iraq.

Sure, perhaps this $600 will help a family stall the inevitable loss of their home, but the end result is the same: they lose their home.

Perhaps this $600 will go into the gas tanks of these gluttonous, status symbol SUVs that Americans seem to be addicted to.

Perhaps this $600 will go to offset some of the increase we pay for groceries.

As for me, that $600 is going directly into my emergency fund. Even though I work in a fairly recession proof industry, one can never be too careful during a recession.

One last note. I am curious why, during the neocon "revolution" during the past 8 years, have the conservative fiscal policies gone right out the window? Why have we attacked abortion, gays, immigrants, and evolution while ignoring the fact that most Americans do not understand how to manage their personal finances?

The Republicans have switched away from being fiscal conservatives to being moral crusaders hell bent on using the Federal Government (their old nemesis) to force evangelical lunacy down the throats of the American people.

Economic Stimulus Package

2008-04-29T03:17:00.000-07:00

Dear Uncle Sam,

While I am happy to receive your generous gift, I question your wisdom to go into debt in order to provide me with this gift.

I understand that you hope I will use this money to stimulate the economy, but that is not what I am doing with it. I will instead place this money in my savings account for the rainy day I see on the horizon.

I had hoped that when the Democrats took over congress they would institute some programs to encourage Americans to save money. So far, nothing has been done.

So, instead of pushing the very American idea of being independent and self sufficient, Uncle Sam saw fit to help Americans by making them less self sufficient and more reliant on government welfare.

Instead of raiding the treasury to "stimulate the economy", why not pass a law that will stop these forclosures in their tracks, and punish the banks, mortgage companies, and investors who have been raping American families.

Of course, this law should specifically bar induhviduals who did not actually live in the house they bought. This would keep the focus on American families, and keep real estate speculators out in the cold where they belong!

Angola refuses to unload chinese ship with weapons headed for Zimbabwe

2008-04-28T09:16:00.000-07:00

Angola refuses to unload chinese ship with weapons headed for Zimbabwe

It's about time the U.S. stood up for something other than oil and bible thumping lunacy.

McCain camp says Hamas wants Obama

2008-04-19T14:52:00.000-07:00

McCain camp says Hamas wants Obama

What a dirty trick. The bush style attacks have started. I wonder how many "swift boat veterans for the truth" type groups will be formed to spread misinformation about Obama. I'll bet they have a hay day spreading a lie saying he is a Muslim.

Just look at the poll from March 2008 that shows 10% respondents answered "Muslim" when asked if they could pinpoint Obama's religion. Magnify that with the lying tripe of the neocons, add in the race factor, and splash Obama's middle name "Hussein" around, and what have you got? Another election lost over the lies, spin, and misinformation of conservative swine.

I say we pull a swift boat veterans for the truth style campaign against McCain. We could certainly find some hard up disabled vietnam veterans willing to form a sham group (funded by donations) to buy air time to air ads questioning McCain's war record.

McCain, if you start these attack ads, they will come back to bite you in the ass!

2008-04-19T07:14:00.000-07:00

Weapons bound for Zimbabwe move to Angola to continue journey

I just want to say that I am elated that the unions did the right thing by refusing to unload that Chinese ship. Mugabe will only use those weapons against his political enemies. I predict that anyone who voted against or spoke out against him will disappear after those weapons arrive.

If it's not bad enough that those bastards in china are killing their own people, and funding the travesty in Darfur, they are now enabling the monster mugabe to kill his own people.

How nice that we are hindered by our own travesty in Iraq. During these 5 years, we could have challenged china in Tibet and Burma, we could have challenged mugabe in Zimbabwe, and we could have built a coalition to deal with iran. In short, we could have truly freed millions of people. Instead, we are stuck with a humanitarian, political, and military disgrace.

Oh. One more prediction. I predict that if McCain wins in November he will start a draft at some point. He publicly says that he does not support the draft. But, during one of the low points of the Iraq war, he was singing a song about "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran". He actually said that is what he would do if he were in power. So, he would have bombed iran, causing them to declare war, and we would have to start a draft to get the cannon fodder needed to deal with his stupidity.

So, when you go to the polls in November, just remember your little son. Do you want his life cut short by another republican blunder? Vote Democrat!

Oh, and for you nit pickers who would pick apart my post for my CaPiTaliZation, you need to know that I show disgust for a proper noun by not capitalizing it. You will find this often used with bush, china, iran, mugabe, republican. But, I always start the first letter of the first word of each sentence with a capital letter, which is why mugabe is capitalized once in this post.

Single Parents cost taxpayers $112 billion

2008-04-15T13:14:00.000-07:00

Single Parents cost taxpayers $112 billion

So, let me get this straight. Households headed by a single female bring in less money, and there is more poverty among these households. That is true. Do they blame the pay disparities between the genders? Do they blame the high drop out rate in our schools? Do they blame the fact that their "compassionate conservative" congressional representatives saw fit to deny the minimum wage being increased by inflation? Do they blame their own aversion to birth control and abortion? Do they blame dead beat dads for abandoning their kids?

No. As always, they blame the Women.

Focus on the family is just another arm of the white stupidity (bowel) movement. They grunt out steaming logs of hatred against Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Immigrants, and the LGBT community.

These bastards are the very reason my angelic Mother worked tirelessly for years at PetsMart being passed over for promotions, and hired at a wage $2/hour less than a fat baboon male they hired only weeks later. After 9 years she was still not making $10 an hour.

Why are these "compassionate conservatives" the cause? They promote a culture of sexism, racism, and homophobia. They fund this "research", bringing in all the conservative whack jobs they can find.

I'll bet this won't be published in any peer reviewed publications. Do you want to know why? Because it won't hold up to real scrutiny.

I think there probably is a cost to the taxpayer because of single parent families. However, I believe it is caused by the issues above, not because these families are headed by Women. If these conservatives want to start enumerating the cost to taxpayers, why don't they study the following:

Cost to taxpayers because of:
Low wages (a family cannot afford to pay their bills, so the cost is absorbed by the rest of us)
War (I think this one goes without saying)
Charitable Tax Deductions (it's not charity if you receive a benefit)
High School Drop Outs (how much money are we spending on each kid that drops out of school?)

Hey Focus on the Family, why don't you study these things? Is it because the results would embarrass the corrupt politicians you have in your back pocket? Oh wait, you would probably just find some conservative loons to skew the data to blame your usual scapegoats.

Church walks the walk of King's message

2008-04-14T14:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/14/jakes/index.html

Despite the fact that I am whole heartedly Atheist, I have always held Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's message and works in the highest esteem. Perhaps it is because I am "as queer as a lemon on a peach tree", and an Atheist that his message brings tears of pride and hope to my eyes.

I support Bishop T.D. Jakes in his work with the poor, and his efforts to keep Dr. King's dream alive. I do hope that some day he will realize that he is completely wrong when he calls homosexuality a "brokenness", and that he would never hire a "gay person". It's no different than when John Dixon of Mallory & Evans told me during a job interview that he "would never hire a n****r". Let me tell you more about this interview, and the subsequent retracted job offer.

During my interview with his payroll manager, she told me that his background checks are extensive, and that he could "find out if you were wearing underwear". Despite the fact that I told them about my 2005 bankruptcy (I even gave them a copy of all three credit reports), after a background check, they used my bankruptcy as the reason for retracting the job offer. I am sure that background check turned up something about my support for gay rights, and my signatures on many online petitions. Aside from this, there would have been no reason for him to retract the job offer. The company refused to release the information found during their "background check", because it was not based on anything that FCRA would cover. As such, they claimed I have no right to see the report.

My conclusion is that they retracted the job offer because I am gay. The very same way they would not even consider hiring a black person.

Some people bristle at the idea that the civil rights movement, and the gay rights movement could have anything in common. It is true that they are different. The hate is different only because racism is based on the pigment (or lack thereof) of a person's skin. Whereas homophobia is based on either a narrow interpretation of the bible, or the idea that it is somehow unnatural. They are also different in that you cannot always perceive a person's sexual orientation by looking at them. You can usually determine a person's race (or at least that they aren't the same race as you), by looking at the person. Aside from these differences, the basic emotion of hatred is still the same between racism and homophobia. The emotion is fear.

For racism: kkk, black panthers, aryan nation, nation of islam, the nazi party
For homophobia: kkk, black panthers, aryan nation, nation of islam, the nazi party

The same groups plot to murder and terrorize us for daring to challenge their views. Weather you are Black, White, Hispanic, Native American, Arab, Indian, Asian or LGBT; one or all of these groups want your head.

Abortion searches blocked

2008-04-09T03:35:00.000-07:00

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89486048

So, USAID cannot legally "support abortion activities". I don't think allowing factual data to be searched is "legally supporting" abortion. It is simply allowing people to search data.

Technically speaking, the United States Government cannot legally pass a law respecting the establishment of religion. Anti abortion sentiment is always related to an absurd belief that human life is somehow 'sacred', which is a religious belief. The fact that congress has passed a law restricting the "support" (finance) of abortions means they have broken their word when they swore to uphold the constitution.

People who disagree would say, "I don't want my tax dollars funding the killing of innocent children". Yet, most of these same people accept the loss of Iraqi children's lives as an unavoidable part of war. That sounds duplicitous at best, extremely racist at worst. They ignore their own bible where it says, "thou shalt not kill".

My moral values say that killing any animal (even humans) is wrong unless your own life (or the life of your family) is in jeopardy. Iraq was not a threat, and everyone knew it. Yet, neocons decided to "rally around" their insane president.

If the neocons can pass an unconstitutional law banning the funding of abortion because of a moral objection, I believe we should pass laws based on more anti-war morals.

Let us stop the war, bring our troops home, pay war reparations to Iraq, impeach the president and arrest him, and institute sweeping reforms to ensure such a miscarriage of justice can never again happen. Now that the president is in custody, let us give him an extraordinary rendition to a secret location outside of U.S. authority, and let them do what they wish. Of course, he would not actually be charged with a crime in the U.S.

Why? Because "I don't want my tax dollars funding the killing of innocent children".

Gas prices

2008-04-04T07:33:00.001-07:00

I love high gas prices. I get to stop by the gas station once a week and laugh at the morons filling up their huge SUVs.

It is a slight inconvenience for me. I do drive 35 miles each way to work. But, I drive a Toyota Camry. If I drive it right, it can get 31 mpg (about twice what these gas guzzlers get). So, overall my gas cost has gone up only about $8-$10 per week.

Then again, I don't have a mortgage on a house I cannot afford. I don't have spoiled children who hate me because I tried to buy their love rather than make time to spend with them. I don't have credit card debt up to my eyeballs. I don't have a payment for a status symbol SUV.

I live well within my means. Truth be told, I live on half of my post-tax pay. The rest goes into savings, 401k and IRA.

How many of you can say that?

Blackout tomorrow. This "cracka" will be part of the boycott

2007-11-01T09:57:00.000-07:00

Although I think the civil rights leaders are sometimes mis-guided, even devisive, I think they are right on the money on this one.

I have noticed over the last few years, a massive resurgence of racism. After the shock of 9/11 wore off, some small minded induhviduals have started spewing their hatred more openly. Let me reiterate that, more openly. When hatred is bubbling right below the surface, any little thing can make it boil over. In this instance I think it has been the rabid lies, misinformation, and blind arrogance of the conservative institution.

Conservatives talk about being "compassionate", yet on their watch we have outsourced jobs, decaying education, exploding debt, human rights violations, mismanaged wars, and millions of Americans without health insurance. The cherry on top is the resurgence of racism.

Join me tomorrow by boycotting all spending. No gas, groceries, eating out, clubbing, etc. Let us send a message to Washington and every state that we will not sit idly by while they ignore the storm on the horizon.