Health Care Reform on Life Support

Barack's latest Hope Crusade: Healthcare Reform. Funny how we call things like this Crusades. The original Crusades started with seemingly good intentions of a pious and religious nature. But when the Crusaders actually went Crusading, they raped, pillaged, killed just about anyone they could. And in the end, only the First Crusade succeeded, with the following 7 failing (and as its supporting Crusades failed, the First one was also essentially a failure). And that's what Barack's Healthcare Crusade will be. Even if it "succeeds" it will only fail in the long run.

Healthcare's expensive, and the Uberliberals hate that. Who doesn't hate that? And being liberals, they think that Government can and should solve every problem in the world.

Healthcare is costly for many reasons. But here are the main ones:

1. It's very good, and very high tech.
MRIs, EKGs, blood work, and that's just the basics you'd get at a routine physical. Microsurgery and all the not-so-regular stuff is even more expensive. Then there are drugs, which take billions of dollars to research and develop. And no, you shouldn't make all drugs generic, because then drug companies would stop making them (no profit potential=no research)

2. We live longer
A 60 year old man needs healthcare much more than a 40 year old man. And a 20 year old man needs the least care of all. As the Baby Boomer generation grows old, they need more care. Which costs more money.

3. We're not healthy
Obesity overtook cigarette smoking as the #1 cause of death in this country a few years ago. Obesity leads to countless heart problems, diabetes, nutritionists, muscle problems, back problems, and so on. All these are extremely expensive to care for.

4. Insurance is no longer a form of risk management
Why have health insurance? In case you fall down the stairs, break all your ribs, you don't want the hospital to break your bank account to pay for the treatment. So you pay small monthly premiums, so just in case the worst happens, you don't have to pay crippling medical bills. In fact, you HOPE to lose money on insurance in the long run. You hope to pay more into your insurance than your medical expenses warrant. But these days, routine and regular visits to the doctor, as well as tests and prescription pills, are very expensive. Yet they're paid for by health insurance. That's not risk management, it's a payment plan.

So how does the government solve problems like our healthcare being so high tech and so good? By making it worse? Lower tech? Leeches were cheap, MRIs are expensive.

How does the government fix the problem of people living so long? Put little diamonds in their palms and kill them when they turn 30?



And what about the problem with the general health of Americans? You can't FORCE people to lose weight, quit smoking, and exercise. You can't make it illegal to be fat. I wouldn't have a problem with the government funding free public gyms and stuff like that, but it's unconstitutional to force people to be healthy.

Then there's that whole insurance/risk management thing. Now there's something the government could solve. You wouldn't expect an auto insurance policy to pay for your oil change, so why should health insurance cover physicals and other routine appointments? Perhaps this area of healthcare should be reexamined.

Is having health insurance an inalienable right? No. Absolutely not. Americans have the right TO BUY health insurance, but it's not something that should be given out by the government. It's not a necessity of life. Before the 1860s, no American had ever had health insurance. Modern health insurance didn't come about until the 1920s.

How did mankind survive before health insurance? Who knows? Scholars maintain the explanation was lost hundreds of years ago.

I do think healthcare could use some reform. But it's important to stay true to that word "reform." An overhaul is not reform. A complete 180° is not reform.

Malpractice law needs to be adjusted so doctors and hospitals are not overly targeted. Doctors should only be held responsible for death or injury if it can be proven that they were negligent or grossly incompetent. They shouldn't get sued for simply making a mistake, which is what humans tend to do. Malpractice insurance is a massive expense built in to health care. But of course, Nanny Liberals think that if someone goes to a hospital, but dies, then it's governments job to somehow fix the problem. And that's where you get frivolous malpractice lawsuits, which are very costly even when won.

There are too many lawsuits in this country as is.



Universal health insurance is not the answer. And I'll give an anecdotal reason why. Currently, government provides us with a free education through high school. Let's say a high school senior, who doesn't legally have to attend school, isn't trying, and fails all his classes. He's kicked out of school.

Now let's say we had universal health insurance. Some person isn't trying to stay healthy, weighs 400 pounds, has diabetes, heart disease, smokes 4 packs a day, and drinks a gallon of Jack Daniels every night. Shouldn't this person be ejected from a universal health care system? Does this person deserve public funds to be spent on their hugely expensive medical costs?

And if you think this grotesque kind of person is a rarity, then you've never been to Alabama.


Alabama Man - Watch more Funny Videos

Universal health care is a nice, pretty, happy idea. But like having a tea party on railroad tracks, it's a pleasant thought that inevitably will be destroyed by the harsh realities of life.

Government organizations are inefficient. This is because the best employees are snatched up by the private sector, and because most politicians are where they are because of who they know and/or how much money they have, not for any real merit.



Furthermore, our government IS DESIGNED to be inefficient. It's called checks and balances. It's an intentional obstacle to quick change. The people have to really want something in order for it to happen.

Adding government bureaucracy to healthcare will make it slower, more expensive, and of lesser quality.

I'm selfish, so I don't want to pay for people I don't know and don't care about to see their doctor. But maybe I'm in the minority. If so, why not put a checkbox on tax returns. Ask the taxpayer "Would you like to donate $x,xxx into the National Health Insurance Program?" See how many people check "Yes!"

Or we could just get the rich to pay for it. Tax from the rich, redistribute to the poor. I thought Barack was from Chicago, not Sherwood Forest.



Taxing the rich is great! And fun! They probably inherited their money anyway. Or if they didn't they schemed it away from people some other way. Then again, these are the people who invest in small businesses. These are the people who buy cars, giving the car salesman a job. These are the people who add guest rooms to their mansions, giving the contractor and painter and plumber and electrician a job. These are the people who hire accountants, lawyers, nannies, maids, butlers, and so on. These are the people who go out to dinner, give their kids $100 to go to the mall, and so on.

Rich people, unlike what liberals think, are not like Scrooge McDuck. They don't keep their money in vaults to swim around in. They do two things with money: spend and invest.



I have no qualms about taxing the rich to improve the public school system, or even heavily taxing inheritance to encourage people to spend more while they're alive. But it's very stupid to view the rich as a neverending pool of potential revenue for endless amounts of entitlement programs.

Social security is faltering, so tax the rich!

Healthcare is expensive, so tax the rich!

Red Sox tickets are too hard to get, so tax the rich!

So be careful what you tax the rich for. Rich people create jobs, just like Ted DiBiase created a job for Virgil.

Imminent Immigration and Entitlement Entanglement

I can trace my paternal family lines from where I live in Massachusetts back through western New York, then back to Germany, then to the Ukraine and Russian steppe, eventually back to Africa. And on my mother's side, through Boston to Ireland, Scotland, and England, then back to Normandy, then Scandinavia as a Viking, and then back to Africa. We can all go back to Africa. Funnily enough, the 2 conquest obsessed sides of my family have frequently fought with each other for domination of northern Europe.

I'm a descendant of immigrants. Everyone in this country is, even Native Americans. The inscription on the State of Liberty reads:

"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-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

I don't see where it says "first come, first served."



Why were my ancestors the Zeitlers easily allowed into this country circa 1830? And how about the Kierans about 100 years ago? Why so much hassle about immigrants these days?

I believe America should be open to just about everyone except criminals (unless their crime was something like protesting an election in Cuba). Yet I can tell you precisely why I currently believe in tight immigration restriction. And it's the only problem i have with immigration. It also illustrates many of the difficulties of a socialist/welfare/nanny state.

I remember after a long, sleepless overnight flight from Washington to London; being grilled by the British immigration people. Before allowing me entry to England, they asked me to "prove that I would leave the country." They didn't want me staying there, benefiting from their universal health care and other social services. They eventually stamped my passport, leaving a mark that read "Employment and Recourse to Public Funds Prohibited."



Liberals hate illegal immigration laws. They want to give illegal immigrants amnesty to stay in the country. They fight against any drive to remove/punish illegal immigrants. And you may or may not have noticed that the stimulus packages contain no funds for improving border facilities in Texas, California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Coincidence?

And I'm actually with them. I think instead of barb-wire fences and border patrols, there should be Ellis Island type facilities, registering new Americans, and welcoming them to the country. But if and ONLY IF the United States is not a socialist welfare state.



If people are given free health care (actually, we should call it health care paid by others) at the border, it costs everyone money. I don't mind welcoming the tired, poor, and huddled masses of the world. But I'm selfish. I do mind paying for them.

And that's the dilemma of the Uberliberals and what they want. They want there to be no barriers to immigration. But they also want everyone to be given things like health care, welfare, medicaid, social security. That means that the arrival of every new American, typically without a job and with very little in their pockets, will quite literally cost other Americans money.

But of course the liberals don't care. They believe government can and should solve all the problems of the universe. They think everyone should be allowed into this country, and completely cared for by the government.

The liberals will point to semi-socialist states like Britain and Canada as brilliant examples of socialist successes. But do you know how hard it is to get Canadian citizenship? My cousin's been trying for years. He's got no record, works, has family in Canada, impeccable references, but it's easier to get into MIT than to become a Canuck.



It's one or the other. You can't give every American all these wonderful benefits while simultaneously allowing anyone in the world to become an American. That would be ruinous.

And once the entitlements stop. Once social security is either abolished or finally collapses under the weight of its own stupidity, once people decide that people need to take care of themselves, then I'll be one of the first to go down to Texas and process all the new Americans. Unfortunately, liberals tend to fight against reality. A battle they've always lost in the end.

Pulling Out of Iraq, Double Stuffing Afghanistan, and Ignoring Iran

In a letter to the editor thingy I found on Boston.com, Ken from Arlington said:

"Obama was absolutely correct not to give Iran’s theocracy the benefit of appearing to meddle in its obviously rigged election process - a process to elect what is essentially the country’s number two leader.

"Condemning the violence that is occurring in Iran’s streets, rather than bringing that violence, as in Iraq, is a smart first step toward redefining democracy in the Middle East."

In other words, whatever Barack does, Barackis will adore him for it. This guy is praising Barack for ignoring an illegitimate election in Iran. This guy was probably one of the many liberals who protested the 2000 US election. There was a very well written comment in support of this letter. In parenthesis are my thoughts:

"Brilliant letter! (it agrees with me, it must be brilliant) Jeff Jacoby is consistently blinded to facts on the ground by his own right wing ideology (conservatives are always wrong because they're conservative). He seems incapable of an evolution in thought and political analysis, still clinging to 'evil-doer' dualism and American triumphalism (I support ismism). You might think he would recognize that Bush's belligerent rhetoric on 'Democracy' gave us Hamas, the empowerment of Iran following our invasion of Iraq, and global enmity for torture (He also started the IRA and he's responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings). Jacoby in effect justifies all of this philosophically. It's ugly stuff. And of course he completely misses the new paradigm President Obama has initiated in the mid-east. Under Bush there was no dissent in Iran, they were united against the U.S (before Twitter we had no clue what was going on inside Iran). Under Obama, we see new expressions of people power, including the election in Lebanon two weeks ago. (Obama gave us Twitter)"

All this eloquence and high diction came from someone called "Tomato76." And is even more deification of Barack. Every sunny day this summer will be because of Barack. Every rainy day is still because of W. IT'S A GLOBAL REOVLUTION!



Today is an historically ambivalent day. The US military is leaving the cities of Iraq to be policed by Iraqis, and terrorized by Iranians. Americans will now police only the countryside. It's Iraq's turn to walk a bit on its own, albeit with an American cane.

The liberals must love this. No more blood for oil, just blood for sand. Frankly, I think complete withdrawal from Iraq is long overdue. We accomplished/failed with what we wanted to do. Everything since the ousting and capture of Saddam has been a waste of life and material.

And remember, these soldiers aren't coming home. They're going to Afghanistan. No more blood for oil, now it's blood for opium. The media will mention this as rarely as possible. But hey, that's where the war against terror "began." And we have to get Osama bin Laden. Because he's the only terrorist in the world, and there's only terrorism in Afghanistan. Nobody from Saudi Arabia was on any of those hijacked planes.

And there's absolutely no terrorism spawning from Iran. There's no reason to even acknowledge Iran's existence. We can reason with Iran. We can reason with a government that's not only illegitimate, but is nothing more than a puppet of the religious power holders. We're dealing with the 21st century's Holy Roman Empire here.

But I'm sure Barack's policy of doing nothing will work. After all, he's already responsible for all the protests in Iran, right?

There is something to be said for a policy of ignoring Iran. Most of the "countries" in the Mid-East are fractured and fragmented, but can easily be united by a common hatred for America. So if America stays out of the picture, it allows for dissent and possible change in the region. Hope. Yes we can.



But won't the new leaders still have that hatred for America? And since when do we care about what Iran thinks of us? America didn't become America by tiptoeing around the world in hopes of being the most popular kid in the UN cafeteria.

And all the liberals that protested the 2000 election in Florida, where are you in all this? Why don't you fly to Tehran to protest for fair elections, just like you flew to Tallahassee? Or are you still working on your conspiracy theories regarding the 2004 election in Ohio?



I love how if there are irregularities, and a Republican wins, then the election is rigged. And the air-quote dude who deemed towing to be voter intimidation should rent a time machine and travel to 1932 Germany.

And where the fuck is that impotent group called the UN in all this Iranity? How useless is that organization?

Barack's liberals and Bush's conservatives have two conflicting philosophies on terrorism. Bush thinks terrorism ends with US involvement. Barack thinks terrorism begins with US involvement. Both are wrong. Terrorism never starts and never ends. Terrorism thrives when it works and dies when it fails. You leave Iraq because you want to leave Iraq, not because you're afraid of upsetting the terrorists.

But Barack and the liberals want America to win popularity contests. They'd rather have the people of Iran suffering under a fake government but loving America. And we all know that the world loves America the most when we stay out of foreign affairs...

Negative Action

God, can't she just say she had great grades and fucked up the SAT? Hell, I had a great SAT (1400 back in the 1600 days), and mediocre GPA with no activities. I could bitch and moan about grades and activities being culturally biased, or I could just say "I didn't try that hard."

And I'm not attacking Sotomayor here. I'm not proclaiming her to be an affirmative action appointment (like Pat Buchanan has). She seems like a decent judge with experience, credibility, et cetera. I have no problem with her being on the Supreme Court.

No, my problem is with affirmative action itself, perhaps the most vile government policy in modern times. Little to me is more abhorrent as selecting someone for a job, or for a school based on their race.

Affirmative action is not racism. But it is discrimination. Look it up. Discrimination = "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." And discrimination is wrong, right?

That's the argument for affirmative action, correct? Discrimination in the past was wrong, so we'll fix it with discrimination in the present. Let's call it counter-discrimination, which is what it is. And it's not "reverse racism," that term sucks. A FoxNewsism if there ever was one.

I think "counter-discrimination" is a fair term. And it isn't discrimination AGAINST whites, it's discrimination FOR non-whites. But imagine how hard it would be to get something called "counter-discrimination" into law?

Why does affirmative action exist? Because racial discrimination has been part of American law, policy, and life for centuries. Not just slavery, but Jim Crow laws, segregation, and so on. This longstanding institutional racism has put minorities in poor position to compete in this country. And I'm not arguing against this FACT at all.



But that's history, folks. Someone once asked me why I'm so interested in history. After all, everything in history books has already happened. Who cares? But history is WHY and HOW the present is the way it is, for better or worse.

But undoing centuries of discrimination is like trying to put a broken egg back together again. You might glue it, use some duct tape, and maybe paint over the cracks. But it's still broken. I advise that you get on with your life, use the broken egg to make some French Toast, and have a nice day.

Undoing centuries of discrimination via counter-discrimination is like breaking the egg, then breaking all the other foods in the kitchen so EVERYTHING is broken, therefore making the egg the same as everything else.

Affirmative action's supporters' first line of defense is very telling. This is actually a well-written and well thought out defense of affirmative action right here. I'll quote from it:

The claim is that these programs distort what is now a level playing field and bestow preferential treatment on undeserving minorities because of the color of their skin. While this view seems very logical on the surface, I contend that it lacks any historical support and is aimed more at preserving existing white privilege than establishing equality of opportunity for all.

So basically, those who argue against affirmative action are doing so because they want to preserve their "existing white privilege." So since I'm white, and upper-middle class, I can't argue against affirmative action as a policy, I can only defend my precious "white male hegemony." With such a fallacious and dismissive first defense, how could such a policy be amoral?

Just imagine this. I get married, have two kids (boy and girl), get divorced, get married to another woman, have two more kids (boy and girl). Both my wives die of swine flu, so all four kids come to live with me. But let's say my first wife was white and my second wife was black. Now I have four children, with the same father, same economic status, and even sharing some similar Irish and German roots. Yet with affirmative action, the children from my second wife are able to get into better schools than the children from my first wife. They're able to get better jobs, get promoted faster, et cetera.

Does this seem American to you? Does it even seem fair?

I'll not lie, the playing field IS NOT fair and even. I got a $130,000 education from Ithaca College, paid for by my parents' hard work. I got a free car, free health insurance, and I'm debt free, all thanks to my parents. That's not fair. I know people who had to pay for their own college. I know people who couldn't afford to pay and had to transfer or leave school altogether. That's not fair. I knew people who had to bust their ass working two jobs while they were at school. Meanwhile, I got free time to study and play Madden. Not fair.



Life's not fucking fair. Sorry folks, but that's the truth. And it isn't the government's job to make it fair. It's the government's job to remove barriers to fairness and potential upward mobility, like segregation and voting restrictions. But leveling hills and mountains on that playing field is both impossible, and unethical.

There is a natural force that allows, and even drives playing fields to be even. It's called competition. When and where there is discrimination, there will be weakness. If only whites or blacks are allowed to work for a company, that company will be weaker, especially if a competitor is hiring people based on QUALITY and not ETHNICITY.

Look at baseball in 1947. Before then, there were barriers to black players. Baseball desegregated itself, thanks to Jackie Robinson, Branch Rickey, and the desire to win. That same desire to win turned owners who once barred black players into owners who craved them.

But what happened to teams that failed to select players based on quality? The Red Sox were the last team to integrate. They passed up on Jackie Robinson in 1945. Which is, in a way, understandable, because being the first integrated team would have been difficult. But in 1949, there were multiple black players in MLB, and the Red Sox passed up a chance to acquire Willie Mays for a song. Willie fucking Mays.



Imagine an outfield with Willie Mays and Ted Williams. Nearly 1200 homeruns hit between those two.

The Red Sox didn't integrate until 1959, 5 years after Brown v. Board, and two years after Jackie Robinson's Dodgers moved to Los Angeles. Hell it was a year after Willie O'Ree took the ice for the Bruins as the first black NHL player.



And while other teams benefited from wider pools of talent to draw from (the Indians won the World Series in 1948 with an integrated team, the Dodgers won 6 pennants with Jackie Robinson), the Red Sox limited their own success by limiting their hiring.

But sticking with baseball, could you imagine a rule that required all teams to have at least one black player? How about in football, imagine a rule that required at least 1 QB to be black, at least 1 WR to be white, at least 1 O-lineman to be black, at least 1 CB to be white, and at least 1 coach/coordinator to be black?

Sports are the ultimate meritocracy. Race doesn't matter. If you're good, you can get away with murder.



But if there are no quotas, and no affirmative action in sports, why is there affirmative action in fire departments and police forces? In law schools and teaching schools? In the military?

Here's an interesting hypothetical metaphor from the same site I sited above:

Suppose that [there] is a track officials judging two athletes running a hundred yard dash. Before the official shoots off the starting pistol, one runner kicks the other in the shin, stomps on his toes, and then runs ahead fifty yards. Now because our official is observant, he sees this dirty play and immediately halts the race. So, he walks over to the runner, who is fifty yards ahead and tells him that what he did was unfair and wrong and he is forbidden from doing it again. Then he goes back to check on the runner at the starting line. The runner is a little bruised up. The official tells him "Don't worry I saw everything that happened. I told the other runner that what he did was wrong and that he shouldn't have done it. As I speak the rules are being changed to outlaw such actions from ever happening again." Then the official strolls back to his position and fires the starting pistol to begin the race, where the runners left off...

The race has already been tainted. It is our duty to somehow reconstruct the situation so that fairness can again pervade the event. At the very least we must allow the injured runner time to heal and then advance him fifty yards to be even with his competition. We must actively deconstruct the advantages. If we do not, we violate our own rules of fairness, preserving the advantages of one runner over the other.

Just to expand on this metaphor, suppose the cheating runner has kids, and the cheated runner has kids. Is it right to actively punish the children of the cheater and give a head-start to the children of the cheated?

Or is it right to punish the ENTIRE ETHNICITY of the cheating runner for what he did?

And how can one reconstruct the 100 yard dash IMMEDIATELY, which is what affirmative action is supposed to do: quickly remedy the problems created by historical racial discrimination. The cheated runner needs TIME to heal. In fact, the worse the injury, the more TIME it will take to heal. So the worse the historical discrimination, the more TIME it will take to be remedied.

If the cheated runner has a broken foot, it's impossible to give him a proper head start, or give the cheating runner a proper punishment that will result in a fair race. What's done is done.

Remember my analogy about putting a broken egg back together? And do you recall the story of Humpty Dumpty? All the King's horses, all the King's men not being able to put him back together? It's a common liberal trait to believe that government intervention can solve everything, even the unsolvable.



Affirmative action is an overly optimistic liberal notion that the past can be undone. That millions of injustices committed by long-dead people against other long-dead people can be rectified by government policy.

It'd be nice if that were possible. But it's not.

And then there's the victims of affirmative action. Liberals are ever so quick to point out the beneficiaries. Judge Sotomayor even claimed to be one. But for every person helped by affirmative action, doesn't there have to be someone hurt? If Sotomayor got into Yale because of her ethnicity, doesn't that mean someone was rejected based on theirs? Is THAT fair? Is it American?

It's a form of racial socialism.

Until 1954, when the Supreme Court handed down Brown v. Board, Blacks were legally pushed to the margin of society where many were left to dwell in poverty and powerlessness. The Brown decision removed the legal impediments that had so long kept Blacks in the impoverished peripheral. Despite this long awaited victory for Black Americans, the historic decision failed to provide adequate means for the deconstruction of white dominance and privilege. It merely allowed Blacks to enter the arena of competition. This recognized and established the status quo (white wealth and Black indigence, white employment and Black unemployment, white opportunity and Black disenfranchisement) as an acceptable and neutral baseline. Without the deconstruction of white power and privilege how can we legitimately claim that the playing field is level? Does it not seem more logical, and indeed fairer and more just, to actively deconstruct white privilege, rather than let it exist through hegemony?

"Actively deconstruct white privilege?" That's a lofty and frightening goal. To belittle my personal accomplishments based on my whiteness and my privilege offends me. Certainly both helped, but I graduated from college, not my race. I got a 1400 on my SAT, not my economic status.

Is there anyone or any group in the universe wise enough to determine which of my accomplishments are due to my "white privilege" and which are due to just myself?



How do we separate those whites who "deserve" to be rich and powerful, from those who simply inherited theirs from centuries of discrimination and hatred? Again, more lofty liberal uberoptimism. Such a task is impossible. Moreover, it's not even worth attempting to carry out. Failure in this task is inevitable due to its impossibility. And any failure simply results in more harm and misleveling of that proverbial playing field.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Two discriminations don't lead to equality.

Miss California vs. Barack Obama vs. Dick Cheney

Miss California will be stripped of her crown, title, and duties. (Duties?) I don't care and neither should you.

But do you remember the whole Miss California debacle? She answered a question as part of the Miss USA pageant about gay marriage and became public enemy #1 for people like Perez Hilton and others.

I've gotten so good at tuning out meaningless media drivel that I never even heard what she actually said until my curiosity peaked a few minutes ago.



Kind of reminded me when some guy defined marriage in another superficial competition:



Eerie how similar their views on gay marriage are. Scary how differently they were treated. One was asked a political question in a beauty pageant, told the truth, and was vilified. One was asked a political question in a political pageant, told the truth, and it was ignored.

Loyal readers of this blog know how I feel about gay marriage:

Lone Star Tyranny
Iowa is More Progressive than California?

To sum up, I think two consenting, unrelated, and unmarried adults have the right to marry each other, regardless of gender. Marriage is a familial acquisition (in other words, a legal contract that makes two unrelated people part of each other's family). If a man wants to add a man to his family, then that's his right.

But lots of people don't like that idea. And as much as I disagree with them, I'm not going to HATE someone just for that.

But if I did hate someone just for disagreeing with me on one issue, I'd hate EVERYONE who disagreed with me on that issue. I wouldn't go after Miss California, then give Barack a pass just cuz he's so gosh darn loveable.

And where is the liberal criticism of Barack on this issue? Why can't they try to cajole him on this one issue if it's so important to them? Because for many liberals, it is an ancillary issue. They use the gay marriage issue to vilify conservatives as bigots. Hell, how much flak did Sarah Palin take for her quotes on gay marriage?

Then after they use the old "conservative=bigot" tactic, they shelve the issue until the next election. So Barack gets a free pass.

And Dick Cheney's stance on gay marriage gets swept under the rug:



Wow, this is friggin Darth Cheney here. And in this one issue, he's LEFT of Barack. Wow!

The 800 Billion Pound Elephant in the Room

There's a hidden tax you've been paying. Barack and his cronies will go on CNN and claim that they've lowered taxes for most Americans. And technically they're correct. But you're still paying for all this government spending, just in a roundabout way.

You feel it at the gas station. Gasoline prices have soared in 2008. Why? Because oil prices have soared.



But why have oil prices soared? Demand is stable. Supply hasn't changed. So why is the price going up?

THE DOLLAR.



Oil is traded in dollars. Everyone in the world buys and sells oil with dollars. And the value of the dollar has steadily decreased the past few months, as more and more dollars are printed by the US government in an effort to pay for all the spending.

So for other countries, buying oil costs about the same in their own currency, as they get more dollars for their Pounds, Euros, Yen, and Yuan.

This is a bit simplistic: $1 is worth a percentage of the US economy. It's almost like a share of stock. So the more dollars out there, the smaller percentage each one represents, and the less it's worth. Furthermore, the US economy has shrunk at a pretty steady clip, and will likely continue to shrink slowly but surely.

Demand for US dollars is going down. Supply of them is going up. So the $500 in my bank account today will be able to buy $499.999999 worth of stuff tomorrow. It's slow, but it can get faster. In Zimbabwe, their hyperinflation reached an annual rate of 231 million percent.



CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli concocted a great metaphor for inflation. I semi-quote: "If I stick a hose into your basement window and turn it on, and you sit in your living room, just because you don't feel the water yet, doesn't mean your house isn't flooding."

Inflation is the worst thing in the world. And this unrestrained spendfest is a potential cause of inflation. Inflation can cripple an economy, and tends to lead to civil unrest and even revolution (See: Germany, 1920s and 30s).



Now every time the subject is broached to one of Barack's talking heads, or the man himself, the first part of their answer is invariably "We inherited this problem."

Whoever is elected President or Führer in 2016 should learn from Barack. Not learn about his economic policies, or his defense policies. But he should learn how to start every answer with "We inherited so many problems from the previous regime." Because it will be the truth.

Government Motors

The free market is a wondrous thing. A market has no morals. It's blind and brutal, but it's not debatable. If a restaurant doesn't make money, it goes out of business. If a person has no skills, they lose their job. There are winners, there are losers, but when the market is allowed to divide the two, there's not much that can be said.

A free market is like a sporting event. And the new brand of quasi-socialism the government is now practicing is like the Oscars. The Steelers won the Super Bowl because they scored more points than the Cardinals. On the other hand, Slumdog Millionaire won Best Picture because some nontransparent committee decided it was the best. Who decided that? What criteria was used?

See the difference? There's no debating the Steelers are the champs. But Slumdog Millionaire being the best? That debate is quite literally endless.

I own General Motors now. I don't want to. But We The People are now owners of General Motors. And we'll have to "invest" AT LEAST $50 billion of our tax dollars in order to resuscitate it.



If the free market were allowed to do its dirty work, General Motors would be wiped off the face of the planet. All those auto workers in Michigan and Ohio would lose their jobs. As would those auto workers in Mexico and Canada who do a hefty portion of GM's manufacturing. And then GM's parts suppliers would go bust. So industry in the Midwest takes a big hit, unemployment dramatically increases, and shit hits the fan.



But hang on a minute. The government seems to think that GM can be resurrected and in 4 or 5 years, it can become profitable. And that's why we're putting tons of money into it, so it can be reborn and eventually pay us back.

If this is true, that GM can make a comeback, then why do anything at all? Instead of forcing the comeback, why not let it die and be reborn naturally via private sector investment? Or let another car company, like Ford or Toyota, take over GM's territory in the market?

If GM, or another entity, can regenerate Midwestern industry in 4 or 5 years, it will be able to do it ON ITS OWN. If no entity or entities can do this, then a GM supported by the government will also be destined to fail.

To simplify: you own a bar. The bar goes out of business. If a bar or some other business can be profitable in that location, it will be. Someone with money to invest will open a bar, or a restaurant, and will either succeed or fail.

The other alternative is that the government invests in the bar. If the bar succeeds, then it would have succeeded with private investment anyway, so government intervention was meaningless. If the bar fails, the government loses money.

How come the government didn't save Boston Billiard Club? They had some fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine bartenders.



It's a no-win scenario when government invests in private businesses or industry in an effort to save them. Because if the government does win, the private business (or some form of it) would have won anyway.



And before you counterargue by citing the bank bailouts, banks are banks because they have cashflow. The credit crunch occurred and they couldn't get cash. Without cash, banks freeze and can't do business. The bailouts weren't a loan to failing companies, they were fiscal lubricants applied to a grinding part in order to allow the larger machine to move with ease.



Then you get to the United Auto Workers. It's funny. The tone of the conversation might change if instead of calling them workers, we called them voters. Instead of saying "3 million workers' jobs were saved" let's say "3 million voters' jobs were saved." Barack won Ohio by less than 300,000 votes. How many auto worker/voters are in Ohio? Curious.



The UAW took some concessions in the GM bankruptcy. Like they can;t get Viagra or Cialis from the corporate health plan. They maintain their base pay, and there's been a minimal reduction in benefits. They won't get tuition assistance for their kids' schooling for 1 year. Cue a violin.

WHAT THE FUCK? No reduction in base pay???

I wouldn't care, except I OWN GENERAL MOTORS NOW!!! Why do these people get paid the same when a replacement could be hired (especially in this dry jobs market) for half the fucking pay???

Again, I wouldn't care if it weren't my money. If some company wants to pay a worker $60,000 when they could pay them $30,000, go right ahead. But when that worker is getting paychecks that come out of my pocket, I'm going to stand up for myself.

And how come successful car dealerships, like Westminster Dodge in Westminster, MA are getting forced to close their doors, yet these UAW fuckos are getting to keep the same base pay?

This is anti-market-morality. Successes are losing their jobs, failures are keeping theirs. Thanks, Barack. Could you imagine being in a school where the A students were held back and the F students skipped a grade?



And where does this $50 billion come from? Obviously from us. Well, kind of. Most of it will probably come from the upper class and business tax hikes the Democrats are pushing. Sounds great, right? Steal from the rich, give to the poor.



Nothing wrong with that, right? Except, the money taxed from those rich fat cats would have been invested in some other business. You know, a business that had a track record of success. Or the money would go to pay a maid, or buy a yacht, or import caviar. But importing caviar gives a job to the caviar importer. Buying a yacht gives a job to the yacht crew, as well as the dock workers where the yacht is anchored, as well as the people who made the yacht. And hiring a maid is pretty explanatory as a job creation.



Even if a rich guy just puts their money in the bank, that money gets loaned out to others.

So instead of letting people WHO KNOW THE RIGHT THINGS TO DO WITH MONEY spend and invest their money, the government (WHICH DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH MONEY) takes it, throws it into a company that's already gone bankrupt, and is paying workers more than what they're worth.

That's great, that's super. So instead of moving on with our economic lives, acknowledging the mistakes of companies like General Motors, we're trying to raise the dead. Instead of letting people spend and invest their own money, we're taking it from them and throwing it into a welfare company just so voters in swing states keep their jobs and vote Democratic in 2010 and 2012.

I think I'm going to move to China in order to live in a capitalist country.



Bling bling.

The Battle of Guantanamo Bay

101 years ago, the US invaded Guantanamo Bay. It was a battle in one of the lesser examined wars in US history: The Spanish American War. In 1898, it was some Marines fighting some Spainards. Now the Second Battle of Guantanamo Bay is between Democrats and their old arch nemesis: Reality.

The Democrats are always the sentimental favorites, but they always lose to Reality. Democrats think you can just throw money at problems and they'll go away. Reality disagrees. Democrats think you can negotiate with the lunatics that run countries like Iran. Reality really crushes them in that battle.

During Barack's campaign, Guantanamo was a rallying cry of the New York Times Liberal (NYTL). They even used a cool, slick nickname for the base: "Gitmo." After all, Guantanamo Bay sounds like a Spring Break hotspot. Gitmo sounds like a futuristic concentration camp.



Shut down Guantanamo! That's what Barack promised he would do back in January. Not IMPROVE Guantanamo. Not IMPROVE the conditions of prisoners in Guantanamo. Flat-out, shut it the fuck down!



Now just a sidenote, I don't think water boarding is torture, but I'm not the Geneva Convention. The US never signed "The Rob Zeitz Treaty" to define torture and all that cool stuff. You have to play by the rules you agree to play by. So I'd be fine with restructuring and improving the conditions at Guantanamo. But "shutting it down?" Why?



Apparently, people can only be tortured in Guantanamo Bay. They can't be tortured anywhere else.

But now Reality wields its formidable arsenal of truths and "face-its." Logistics, an ally of Reality since time began, is the spearhead of the counterattack on liberal idealism. Where do these detainees go? Leavenworth? I don't think Kansas would like that. Colorado? i don't think John Denver would like that.

Face it, no state wants these guys. To me, it's not a big deal if they're here or there. Hell, put them in Walpole. There are murderers and psychos everywhere. But I think people prefer to have them in Cuba, and not their own state. It's part of that whole peace-of-mind thing. Remember, this is the American public, the same people who rushed out to buy duct tape to seal up their houses for fear of massive chemical attacks. They scare real easy.

I have arachnaphobia. There are about 70,000 spiders per suburban acre, and my house sits on about 1/3 of an acre, so that's about 20,000 spiders that I live with. How do i deal with that? I don't see them. I know they're there, but they're not right in my face. It's the same thing with these detainees. People don't want them on the same landmass, let alone the same state.

Of course, the primary feature of the afore-mentioned New York Times Liberal, is an inability to recognize that there are people who don't think like them. The NYTLs (pronounced nittles) just wanted "Gitmo" to go away. They didn't think of the logistics. And now Barack's flip-flopping like John Kerry on a 2 day cocaine bender. He's got his superleft base, and the larger but less vociferous moderates. The superlefts want Guantanamo destroyed and the word erased from history books. The moderates want to keep terrorists in Cuba.

Decisions, decisions...

And say what you want about George W. Bush, but that motherfucker either didn't know or didn't care what would make everyone happy. He did what he thought was right.

Is the Republican Party Dead?

This has been a popular topic of discussion on those 24 hour PowerPoints known as cable news networks. The President is a Democrat. 60 of 100 Senators are Democrats. 257 of 435 (59%) Representatives are Democrats. 29 of 50 Governors are Democrats. And there's really no big name Republicans out there. Who will run against Barack in 2012? Who will save the Republicans, or is it too late?

That's pretty much the gist of what's going on. Reminds me of 2004, when Bush was clearly President, the Republicans were in control of Congress, and it seemed like the 21st century would be the Century of Christian Conservatitude. Everyone was wondering if the Democrats were dead.

Here's what happens in this cycle: Both parties suck. They get power for 4 to 10 years. Then people get sick of them and go to their only alternative. Then the alternative is in power for 4 to 10 years. Then people get sick of them. So they return to the first party, which is their only alternative.

Just look at recent history. Nixon+Ford (R) for 8 years. Then Carter (D) for 4 years. Then Reagan and Bush I (R) for 12 years. Then Clinton (D) for 8. Then Bush II (R) for 8.

Enjoy it while it lasts liberals, because it won't. And neither will the conservative reign of terror to follow, so don't fret.

But I do love how the struggles of the GOP are being covered by the media. Rush Limbaugh's name has been dropped so much that he's challenged MSNBC to not mention him for 30 days.



Sarah Palin. Why is it that only liberals go so far as to characterize Palin as a Republican leader? Many Republicans feel as though she was a hindrance to McCain's hopes, so why would they think she could be electable running at the top of a ticket. (I'd like her on top of my ticket)



But seriously, Palin was the VP candidate because she was young, vibrant, charismatic, a woman, and an old school conservative. Best choice? Perhaps not, but McCain's campaign wanted someone shocking. High risk move that probably didn't pay off, but that's politics. In my opinion, even with a more dignified VP candidate, the Credit Crisis still sinks McCain, just like the iceberg still sinks the Titanic even if those two perverted watchmen aren't preoccupied with ogling Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet making out.



Subtitles remind me of Holy Grail's opening credits.

There really aren't any marquee names in the Republican Party these days. So liberals get to delude themselves into thinking Sarah Palin = GOP.

But wait just a minute. Let's take Barack out of the picture, and what do the Democrats have? It's like taking the Ace of diamonds out of a Royal Flush, it turns into a pretty shitty hand.



Joe Biden?



Nancy Pelosi?



Hillary Clinton?



Misremembered? Apparently Hillary and Roger Clemens have the same set of advisors.

How about John Kerry?



You can still hear that ball bouncing.

So what are the Democrats without Barack? They're not in much better shape than the Republicans. And guess what, there's something called the 22nd Amendment, which limits a President to 2 terms, or 8 years in office.

So instead of everyone wondering who the Republicans will get behind in 2012, they might want to start wondering about the Democrats in 2016. Or 2525, if man is still alive.

How Come Every Time...?

How come every time anybody asks a member of Barack's Administration about increased spending and/or budget gaps, and/or deficits, they always start their answer the same kind of way.

"Well the previous administration increased spending."

"We inherited a record deficit."

"It's all W's fault!"

I haven't heard the third sentence verbatim from the Administration, but that's the basic idea they're trying to convey. The Bush Administration spent a great deal, and Barack's not afraid to remind you whenever anyone questions their catastrophic spendfest.

But I'm a bit perplexed at the logic here. If Bush overspent, and dug the country into a fiscal hole, why are we spending to get out of it?

Imagine going to a quack dietitian, who advised you to eat lots of sugar and salt. You inevitably gain weight, so you go to a new dietitian. This new guy tells you how awful the previous dietitian was, and how much extra work you have to do to fix all the problems he's helped create.



Enjoy a short dialog...

New Dietitian: Well the last guy has put you in an awful mess. We're going to have to work extra hard to get you out. I want you to eat even more sugary and salty foods. Ice cream and French fries!

Patient: But wait a minute, isn't that the problem? I think the sugar and salt might be bad for me.

New Dietitian: Well your last doctor was the problem, you over indulged in the sugar and salt departments. Without him, you wouldn't be in this situation.

Patient: Exactly, so why should I eat even more...?

New Dietitian: Look, we inherited this problem from your last doctor. He made you gain weight at an astronomical pace.

Patient: Yeah so why...?

New Dietitian: Listen, it's not my fault you weight 400 pounds and have diabetes. That was Dr. Bush's doing. Now let's go to Burger King. Whoppers on me.



If you think spending is the way to fix problems, then simply admit it. And most liberals do admit it, just not the elected ones. I tend to disagree, and I find fiscal responsibility in government spending sexually arousing, but I at least understand why people like government spending.

So just give us a straight fucking answer. I'm fine with attributing a part of the budget problem to programs started by Bush's White House, but don't criticize him for spending what you're spending twice as fast. And if he dug us into a hole, digging down even further is only making a bad problem worse.

And we conservatives dropped the ball, as well. Bush had no accountability toward us, and we let him get away with Dukakisesque spending. It's time to get back to basics when it comes to conservatism. All this pro-life, anti-evolution, pro-censorship, moral majority crap needs to go. It's lame.

The government needs to stop spending. No economic recovery EVER has been because of government spending. The history books in school may have told you about the New Deal, but it didn't fucking work. World War II ended the Great Depression, not Franklin Ilyich Roosevelt.