Undressing the State of the Union Address

Well, yesterday was Barack's first State of the Union, or as ultracool New York Times readers now call it: SOTU. These are the same people who say "Gitmo." These clowns are obviously too cool for the entire word. Or as they'd put it, TCFTEW.

Anyway, I'd like to quickly address Barack's main points from last night's speech. In a general sense, this was a "Restart Switch" for Barack. The word "healthcare" didn't slip his lips until almost halfway thru (in terms of word count, it was well over 3,000 words in).

This was the life and death issue of the universe the last few weeks. What's changed?



But Barack mostly talked about the economy. I think he's realized that it's what people in the chewy center of this country (politically and geographically) are most concerned about.

"And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today."

Thank you, Barack! Finally someone wants to say it. Kind of. For every dumbass that bitches about "a bailout for Wall Street, but not for Main Street," these words should be tattooed to the inside of their eyelids. The banks have mostly repaid their bailout money. Get over it.

Barack spewed a lot of gibberish, mentioning the names of various Anytown, USAs.

Then came the meat of the sandwich. The part of the Address when the President outlined his agenda for the upcoming year.

He mentioned his desire to impose a fee on banks in order to pay for future bailouts.

"I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need."

Just when I'm starting to like Barack, he goes back to the populist rage BS.

This incessant class warfare incitement has gotten old fast. 'Big bonuses to rich Wall Street fatcats.' Might as well call them Shylock (I'm not implying there's Antisemitism, it's just an allusion to the centuries old tradition of despising anyone who lends money) This is a nice sentiment, to force banks to pay for their own protection. But at the same time, who'll shoulder the burden of these fees? Customers.

Make banks pay to insure themselves. It can be presented that way without all the anticapitalist rhetoric.

It's not a bad idea, really, but there are costs. The big banks aren't going to stop paying big bucks to their highly sought after execs. They'll simply charge you more to use an ATM.



"Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year."

They saved government jobs. Which is all well and good, but at what cost? He repeated, like a machine gun, how he'd cut taxes. So with taxes down, and spending up, where's the money for these jobs come from? China. Which is where he also doesn't want our jobs to go. But they'll be collecting interest on the ruinous debt we incur to keep those jobs here. So the Chinese won't need to work.

Word of the day: myopia. Definition: nearsightedness, an inability to see things that are far away.



Then Barack talked about generating jobs.

"...you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they are mostly lending to bigger companies. But financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country.

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment."

Now I love the taxcuts. I'm almost always for a taxcut on anyone, even if it's not me. Taxcuts never hurt anyone but government bureaucrats.

But Government doesn't know anything about banking. It never has. The proposition of disbursing $30B to small businesses (through "community banks") sounds like a pretty idea, but there are thorns on that rose. Who determines who gets that $30B and under what terms?

If big banks, which are driven by the motive to profit, and are run by people who've spent lifetimes determining what loans are good and what loans are bad. If these guys are staying away from small businesses, doesn't that suggest that it's not a safe bet?

So essentially, the money the Government lent to the big banks, because of their failed risks, will be risked once again in investments that even the big banks find unsavory in this environment.

Makes sense to me.

Barack went on with infrastructure talk.

God, damn all the history teachers in this country to hell! The two weeks each one of them forces students to worship the New Deal are the cause of the Democrats' notion that those programs reinvigorated the US economy, instead of World War II (a war fought by the Allies with American vehicles, American equipment, fueled by American gasoline, transported on American ships, all of which was paid for by borrowing from America). Barack fancies himself the 21st century's FDR.



Unfortunately, he essentially is this century's FDR, who is so utterly overrated. FDR is the Brett Favre of Presidents.



Except Barack has an edge on FDR. Barack is green. All these clean energy programs. Programs which are grotesquely expensive if not for government incentives.

"China's not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany's not waiting. India's not waiting. These nations aren't standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs."

Yes, let's be more like China. China's economic growth has been meteoric, but it's come at the cost of thousands of lives, and an atmosphere sodden with pollution. Now I know Barack would love to emulate a pinko country, but even he is against China's human rights and environmental crimes.

"You can see the results of last year's investment in clean energy – in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels."

Government controlled jobs. That's what the Jeffersonian and the cynic in me sees here. If you work in an area favored by the Government, you'll be employed. Results don't matter, profit won't matter. So long as your line of work fits in with the current Government's agenda, you'll be employed.

"But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives."

More of your money. Enjoy Government deciding who gets to be employed and who doesn't.

Although thank you, Barack, for getting behind nuclear power and for drilling offshore.



Then he went on to exports. He wants America to DOUBLE our exports. Talk about optimistic. The US has been in a trade deficit since the 60s. And while I think Barack has a lovely idea here. How the hell does he intend to do it? And do it in 5 years, as he claims. Perhaps a Stalinesque 5 Year Plan?



Or maybe Barack's already got this scheme well underway. As he continues to borrow, the strength of the US Dollar will diminish. As the dollar devalues, it'll be more appealing for foreign industry to employ US workers. American sweatshops.



After all, the basic reason why countries like China and India export so much is that it's cheap to employ Chinese and Indian workers. So when €1,000 is enough to pay a US worker $50,000, German and Swedish industrialists will build factories all over our country.

He then ranted about the need to improve education, which I agree with. He had some weird, semisocialist ideas about student loans. But to be frank, I'm left of him in this area. I think the government should flatout PAY for citizens' college educations if they can get into that college and stay in it (and otherwise couldn't pay for that education). It's a good investment, and one that pays innumerable longterm dividends.



"That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment – their home."

Please, keep government the fuck out of capitalist markets!

Even if you do good now, one day that good will be bad. Government exists to regulate markets and protect investors from scams. It doesn't exist to exert positive influence in those markets.

Government can forcibly increase the value of homes, but such an increase would be artificial. And if the value of homes rise, so does their price. Which means fewer people can buy homes, unless they indenture themselves to monstrous mortgages. And isn't this all familiar territory here?



Then Barack discoursed about healthcare.

" I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."

In predictably typical liberal fashion, Barack explained the lack of support for his reforms due to a lack of understanding. After all, the only reason someone would dare disagree with a liberal is if they didn't understand the liberal's obviously superior intelligence.

"Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people."

I'm very thankful for the 59 Senator speedlimit he now has to observe.



Then Barack passed the buck (or seval trillion bucks) for the budget deficit...

"By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door."

Imagine if the captain of the Titanic turned over command to his Executive Officer. So the XO, inheriting this huge problem, decides to hit a smaller iceberg. Then when questioned, his first response is "Well Captain Smith hit an even bigger iceberg, and we were already sinking."

"Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years."

This sounds like me when I struggled through quitting cigarettes. "I'll quit after the weekend... after the World Series... after the Super Bowl... at the end of the semester... at the end of summer..."



"...which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger."

And what if the economy isn't stronger? Will we smash into more icebergs in an attempt to fix it? Will we spend more, or stop spending? Will we dig up?



Barack touched on the need for government clarity and transparency. And less pork. All good stuff, but stuff I've heard from previous Presidents. I'll believe it when I see it.

"I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era."

But the Nobel Committee sure did.



" And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership"

Well with 41 Senators, how do you push new legislation? How do you show that leadership? And just because Republicans disagree with Barack's particular version of "change," doesn't mean that the GOP has simply tried to slow everything down. They're trying to slowdown Barack's agenda. And I for one am glad they're doing so.



Barack moved on to defense, surprisingly late for a President in a time of war, and surprisingly early for a Democrat. In a stanza filled with reassuring rhetoric about how secure our national security is, he threw this in.

"We have prohibited torture..."

No matter your moral stance on torture of terrorists, does the fact that we don't do it anymore make you feel "safer?" It doesn't make me feel safer.

"That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced."

Because sanctions are typically sufficient to deter hardline maniacs from doing crazy shit.



"And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences."

Such as a stern talking-to, and no dinner before bedtime. Why do we treat murderously psychotic despots like misbehaving 5 year olds?

"We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation."

Unless you're a woman, then no science for you.

By this point in Barack's speach, we're well into the random torrent of miscellany. We got X number of people in Haiti. We gave money to AIDs research. Et Cetera.

"We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate."

This feeble attempt to use logic is why I'll never be liberal. To suggest that prosecuting crimes driven by prejudice more harshly will somehow reduce their likelihood is bananas.



Racists who are crazy/stupid/hateful enough to commit so-called "hate crimes" are insufficiently reasonable to comprehend that they'll now go to jail longer for beating up a black guy. All violent crimes are a form of hatecrime, no matter what color the perpetrator or victim is.

And so i'll summarize Barack's speech with a few bulletpoints:

#1: We need more bipartisanship, especially from the Republicans (which was, in and of itself, a partisan attack)

#2: I'll pretend to still care about healthcare reform, but I'll not talk much about it anymore

#3: I think taxing rich people and greedy corporations and borrowing from China is a good way to create jobs.



#3A: Those new jobs, of course, will all fall in line with MY agenda, so things like green jobs, government jobs, and anything Al Gore would approve of. Those kinds of jobs.



#4: It's time for an end to divisive tactics and rhetoric. Did you hear that you rightwing nutjobs?

#5: All your problems are W's fault. Yeah, my campaign duped you into believing I'd fix them with a snap of a finger and yet they remain. Whoops.

The Scott Heard Brown the World

Rejected but still quality potential headlines for this post:
Brown Out
What Will Brown Do For Us?
Great Scott!
The World Turned Upsidebrown
Warp Speed Ahead, Scotty
Scott DOES Know


And the grotesquiest:
Dems Can't Wipe the Brown

"(R-MA)"

That combination of characters is simply foreign to me. Republican from Massachusetts. I never thought it possible. My entire 25 year life, I've had two Democrats representing me in the Senate. And I'd always presumed that it would always be the case. I never dreamed that this FACT would ever be challenged, let alone changed. The sky is now red (blue to red, get it?), water is now dry, fire is now cool.

One more sentimental paragraph before we break into sterile political reality. I was so thrilled to vote yesterday. Because it mattered. It mattered here in The Commonwealth, and it mattered across the country. It was a first for a young Massachusetter, who's accustomed to his deep blue state. Win or lose, the vote that I recorded in the 3rd cubicle on the left at the Balch School Gym in Norwood was enabled, virile, powerful. The country felt my vote today, and not simply because my man won (another first).

Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley was a bit of a Perfect Storm scenario. Coakley was a forgettable candidate. Her campaign was presuming, dissociative, unnoticeable and then exceedingly desperate. I'll summarize her campaign strategy. "I'm Martha Coakley, I'm a Democrat, I'm running for Senator." The campaign didn't even ask you to vote for her. It just assumed you would because of the D next to her name.

I mean, this woman was just on another planet from the average voter.



Compared to:



Magnificently quaint. Even the echoing, homemade acoustics of the commercial make you FEEL like you're in the livingroom with them. It can be dismissed as political BS, but BS works!

Scott Brown was relatable, likable, slick yet simple. It was a good incumbent's campaign. They used his obscurity to his advantage, turning him into a newcomer, the outsider, the reformer. You do an image search for "Scott Brown" on Google, and in the first 3 pages, there's 1 picture of him. The rest are of a Scottish soccer player.



Coakley's poor campaign, Scott Brown's smoothness are what pushed Brown over the top in a close race. But what made it close was the backlash against the Democrats in Washington.

Some conservative pundits on Fox News were thrilled last night. They saw this as a booming anti-Barack voice from the heart of the leftwing's motherland. And it should be mentioned that Massachusetts hasn't had a Republican Senator since the 70's. Barack won Massachusetts by a whopping 25.8%. 61.8% of Massachusetters voted for Barack little more than a year ago. Democrats outnumber Republicans 3.5:1 here.

Massachusetts doesn't hate Barack. And I think it's too early to suggest that America wants somebody besides Barack in the driver's seat. And they seem to be fine with Pelosi n' pals being the backseat drivers. But Americans want to put a speed limit on this car. And that's what this election effectively does.


If you laughed at this shirt, you're a major nerd

The Democrats have railroaded about 3 years worth of ultraliberal legislation through Congress. But the US Government wasn't built for speed. Or comfort. Or motorboating. It was built to be slow, cautious, difficult to change. The Founders studied the descent of the Roman Republic into tyranny, and learned from those mistakes. They therefore constructed a system with checks and balances.

Change is good, but our system is meant to keep change at a snail's pace. New bills need to be examined, for longer than 10 minutes.



Slow and steady wins the race. Didn't the Democrats read the tortoise and the hare?

When you start messing around with healthcare, the people get nervous. They want to know what's going on. The Democrats failed to let us in on their designs. They just wanted it passed, and passed ASAP, whatever 'it' was. Just like they shoved their stimulus packages through.



The election of Scott Brown is an indictment on the Democrats' stranglehold in Washington, but not nearly a conviction. And this is Massachusetts we're talking about here. The home of MIT, Harvard, BC, BU, Northeastern, etc. These are smart people who have college+ education and put their kids in private high schools. These people have white collar jobs, drive hybrids, wear suits, and vote for Barack Obama. These are smart, educated people. These aren't the "Tea-Baggers" that Democrats prefer to demean and dismiss as ignorant instead of addressing their questions.

If Massachusetts wants Barack to slow down, what speed limit might the rest of the country want to implement?



"Wake Up Call" will be the buzzphrase of the cable news pundit from now until November. And this is clearly a call for Democrats to rise and shine. But is that a good thing for conservatives?

Of course I'm happy that it's 59 to 41 in the Senate. I'm happy that the Democrats might move back toward the middle. And that's great for the here and now. But a parable:

A boy is given a horse on his 14th birthday. Everyone in the village says, "Oh how wonderful." But a Zen master who lives in the village says, "We shall see." The boy falls off the horse and breaks his foot. Everyone in the village says, "Oh how awful." The Zen master says, "We shall see." The village is thrown into war and all the young men have to go fight. But, because of the broken foot, the boy stays behind. Everyone says, "Oh, how wonderful."
The Zen master says, "We shall see."

What if we've woken up the Democrats, so they slow down their socialisms, and they maintain their solid majority in the 2010 elections? I guess so long as they're closer to the middle with their policies, it isn't so bad.

For conservatives out there, celebrate but don't rejoice. This isn't the "beginning of the end" for Barack or his disciples. It's certainly the end of the beginning, but we shouldn't revel much in having only 41 Senators in Washington.

For liberals out there, get over it. You guys are still driving, and still have the map. Is it really so much to ask that you consult us when deciding when to stop to use the bathroom? Some anonymous liberal reactions I've observed so far:

"Voting for Scott Brown is something I cannot understand when so much for the common man is riding on him losing this election."

The fact that liberals fail to grasp why we voted for Brown is precisely why we voted for Brown. Liberals just don't get us, they get the New York Times.

"That seat, held for nearly half a century by Mr. Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate, will now be held by a Republican who has said he supports waterboarding as an interrogation technique for terrorism suspects; opposes a federal cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions; and opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants unless they leave the country."

So maybe the same population that voted for Kennedy 8 times, doesn't much mind water-boarding terrorists, don't give two shits about carbon emissions (who has ever won or lost an election on carbon emissions?), and are fine with illegal immigrants remaining illegal immigrants. Maybe the People of the Commonwealth care more about their taxes, their jobs, and their healthcare.

"Yup, I am moving to Brazil."

Really? Because you can no longer ram bills through the Senate no questions asked, you're going to move out? WOW! Spoiled!

"Goddamn it, Massachusettes. Thanks a frigging lot."

Hasn't Massachusetts done enough for the left? Certainly disproportionate to its population it has. Ted Kennedy, JFK, RFK, John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, Barney Frank, et cetera, et cetera.

"I think the dems need to make sure they're organized, more than they need to change course."

Now this is music to my ears. Don't change policies, try to change campaign strategies. Please, please, please, pretty please with sugar on top!

While Coakley's pitiful campaign was ultimately why she lost the close race, it wouldn't have been close if not for thousands of disgruntled moderates. Barack's liberal agenda makes them anxious. We don't know what the liberals are actually doing, but it's coming at us at 400 MPH. That's alarming.



I'll compare this race to baseball. Coakley's bullpen ultimately cost her the game, but a better offense and starting pitching performance wouldn't have given a bad bullpen the chance to blow a 30 point lead.

I'll compare it to the 4th & 2 play the Patriots had against the Colts. While Belichick's decision to go for it on 4th & 2 arguably decided the game, the Patriots' poor performance in the Red Zone on previous drives would have never let this one play affect the outcome.

I'll end this post with a short bit about Scott Brown's future role in the Republican Party. Kid's got potential. If politics were baseball, he's just been called up to the Majors, has a 96 MPH fastball, and a wicked slider. He's still just a prospect though. But he has done something no Republican has done since 1972. And he's gonna get lots of national publicity for it.

He's got an American Dream kind of family, one daughter is pre-med, the other a rising star in the singing world who also plays basketball in the ACC.



Thus far, he has the raw materials to be much more than a Senator. Now plenty of politicians with the same talents have come and gone in the past for both parties. But it's worth watching what Scott Brown does in the Senate.

There's a vacuum in the GOP. There's a groundswell of anti-liberal sentiment, but there's no heroes to get behind and vote for. There are loudmouthed figureheads (Palin, Beck, Limbaugh). Wise, respected statesmen (McCain). But there are no clear leaders. Not yet. Brown might someday be one of those leaders.

Brown for President in 2016?

I Don't Want to Pay for Your Abortion

I don't want to pay for your abortion. I don't want to pay for your operations. I don't want to pay for your medicines. I don't care if your life is on the line. Call me an asshole, but if I wanted to pay your medical bills, I'd write you a personal check.

I'm employed part-time, so my measly crumbs of tax payments will only pay for a infinitesimal, negligible, invisible morsel of your medical procedures. But then there's also that phantom I call "indirect taxation." Somewhere, some wealthy person cannot afford to expand their security company and hire new help (me), because they're paying for your abortion. Several hundred upper middle-class folks can't afford to go to a BC hockey game, and my company has to reduce its staffing for the event (me). All so some alcoholic in Des Moines can get a new liver to tear up.

Now, I'm not exactly pro-life. I'm not exactly pro-choice. I'm pro-apathy when it comes to abortion. I don't denounce those who have abortions. It doesn't affect me, so I don't much care. I just don't want to pay for it. And that's not a moral stance, it's a fiscal one. Quite simply, my fucking money should stay my fucking money. It shouldn't be used to undo your fucking.



Abortion is elective, it's not healthcare. Unless, of course, the mother's life is at stake. And don't try the old "Well, if the mother can't afford the baby, their life actually is at stake." I'm afraid that argument is preposterous. Doctors are not supposed to be financial planners.

Let's just reduce that lame-brain argument to absurdity, for fun. Should the government pay for an aging, fattening supermodel, with no education and no ability to do anything else; to get a tummy tuck? After all, if she doesn't get it, she'll be unemployed and poor and unable to support herself.



Barack and his cronies want us to pay for abortions. Even if we're zealous pro-lifers, or even if we're sterile/barren, or even if we're abstinent, or even if we use protection. Where in the Constitution does it give people the right to free abortions? Was the Revolutionary War fought over a lack of social benefits from the British Government. Did Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, plead for a government that took care of its citizens' doctor bills?



I have no problems with a charitable trust to pay for abortions for women who can't afford them. A PRIVATE charitable trust. I don't mind giving it tax-exempt status, and giving tax deductions or even credits to those who donate.

But elective abortions are not expenditures for which I'm willing to foot the bill.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of good reasons to be against socialized medicine. Not the least of which is the confusion of who gets control over things like this abortion issue.

Will elective abortions be paid for by the government? That's up to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is a Cabinet position, appointed by the President, and approved by Congress. In other words, abortions will be paid for by the government, when the government wants them to be.

This kind of confusion and potential alteration is a red flag. Isn't one of the goals in socialized medicine to keep costs stable, and predictable? Doesn't it seem weird that when Barack is in the White House, elective abortions will be covered by the government. But when/if Sarah Palin comes to town, they probably won't be?



Doesn't this incongruity suggest that elective abortions are not a healthcare necessity? When Palin, or another adamant pro-lifer is in the White House, will anyone die because they weren't granted a free elective abortion?

Doubtful.

But the government will control healthcare. They'll control the definitions of healthcare. They'll eventually control health. What is healthy, what is unhealthy.



I admit that right now, the insurance companies wield this power. BUT, at least we as consumers still maintain the control of selection. Premiums are contained thanks to capitalistic competition, as is quality of product. Health insurance isn't so expensive because the healthcare companies are run by Ebeneser Scrooge and Henry F. Potter.



It's expensive because drugs need to be researched for years, and MRI machines aren't constructed from duct tape and aluminum foil.



Instead of consumers controlling the cost and quality of healthcare, it will be up to the government. Which succeeds so often in maintaining low costs and high quality. Remember the Big Dig? $22 billion for leaking tunnels.



Low cost, high quality.

Barack wants his healthcare reform passed because he'd rather have government workers (and their friends, relatives, neighbors) running your healthcare. After all, we can't trust DOCTORS to make proper healthcare decisions.



We've got to take medical decision-making away from doctors, and give it to bureaucrats who have no background in medicine!

The less control the government has on its citizens, the better. That's a simple axiom, espoused by many people who now adorn U.S. currency. Citizens should control the government, not vice versa.

Why are the Democrats so rushed in their healthcare push? Because November 2010 isn't far away. Despite what the media wanted you to think, Barack's Democratic cronies in Congress aren't exactly safe and secure. A few months ago, the media asked if the GOP was dead. (I answered)

As is natural in American politics, there's been a considerable backlash focused on those in power. And there are more than a few Senatorial and Representative seats up for grabs in 2010 that could affect the balance of that power in both Houses.

The Democrats, for all intents and purposes, currently have a filibuster-proof majority. This means that legislation cannot be held up by purposefully long-winded speeches, which are meant to indefinitely delay voting on an undesired bill.



The Democrats have this power because of 312 people in Minnesota. That's how many votes Al Franken won the 2008 Senatorial election by. 312. That's about one millionth of the US population, and this microscopic sliver of citizens have helped assure that we'll have socialized healthcare.

And because of those 312 Minnesotans, one of the most expensive, and most important pieces of domestic legislation this side of the New Deal (both sides can agree on its importance), doesn't even deserve more than 10 minutes of debate.



The Democrats are smart to hurry. They'll see their legislation passed before they lose their 60/40 edge in the Senate. I just hope I don't get sick until January of 2011, when a new Congress, infused with the anti-Democrat, Tea-Party rage growing across the country, is sworn in. And at the very least, this monumental crapload of crap-legislation can be inspected properly and thoroughly.

Barack the Conqueror

Only Barack could get away with extending a war and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in a 10 day span. The deification of Barack the Conqueror/Peacemaker continues unabated.

It was a funny reaction after Barack declared a Surge in Afghanistan on December 1st. "Surge" seems to be the new favorite word for TV pundits to sound like military strategists. I don't remember there being a "When to Surge, When Not to" chapter in The Art of War. Maybe the Chinese don't have a word for Surge.



The basics of the plan outlined by Barack is that the US fighting strength in Afghanistan will increase by 30,000 troops within the next 3 months. And in 18 months, we would begin to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Remember when Dwight D. Eisenhower set a timetable for US withdrawal from Germany? Wait, that never happened.



But I actually don't think Barack's plan is that bad. Essentially, he's giving a deadline to the Afghan people to put up or shut up. If they can't handle their own shit in 18 months, then they're on their own.

What's funny was how unhappy EVERYONE was with Barack's decision here. Of course most people on the left were pissed that we'll still be in Afghanistan for years to come. But the conservatives who agreed with him were pissed that his speech wasn't zealous and zestful enough to inspire his soldiers. They unfavorably compared it to George Patton, Winston Churchill, even Henry V.







Except, Patton didn't roll through North Africa, Sicily, France and Germany because he gave good speeches. He did it because he was a ruthlessly aggressive expert in armored warfare.



The British didn't fend of Nazi Germany's Blitz because Churchill was a fantastic orator. They did so because of radar, an efficient organization of their fighter command structure, and outright blundering on the part of Germany's Luftwaffe.

The British didn't win at Agincourt because Henry V gave an inspiring speech. They won because it rained, and the heavily armoured French were immobilized and even drowned by a deluge of mud.



In the movie Braveheart, William Wallace gives this rousing speech before the Battle of Stirling Bridge.



You may remember that in the ensuing combat scenes, there's no bridge present. The REAL Battle of Stirling Bridge took place on a bridge. The Scottish allowed some of the English/Welsh to cross, then slaughtered them piecemeal, before the entire English army could come over. But that's not very cinematic, is it?



You don't have to know much about history to know this: no war has ever been won by a speech. No war has ever been lost by a speech. Wars are won or lost by men (and sometimes women), equipment, and decisions.

In an effort to please everyone, by extending the war in Afghanistan but also establishing a deadline, Barack has pleased almost no-one. There's a good lesson there. Yet he'll still have that Peace Prize. If by some miracle the Afghans figure out how to run a country (something they've never even tried to do, ever), I'm sure Barack will be given the credit, not the soldiers, not the Afghans.

If in 18 months, things are no better in Afghanistan, we'll begin the withdrawal, and Barack will still get credit for keeping the war "short." Even though it will be over 10 years old at that point. So Barack's taking a hit right now, but eventually he can claim credit for a victory, or for minimizing a loss. It's political genius, not military genius.

This whole war on terror is still fucked up and unwinnable in any traditional sense. Imagine playing chess against someone who moved his rook diagonally, or moved pawns 3 spaces at a time, or shifted his white bishop to black squares?



When countries like Iran and Pakistan willingly or unwillingly harbor terrorists, and yet no American soldier sets foot in them, you simply can't hope to win. In fact, these countries are the more dangerous in this War on Terror. When the Taliban and al-Quada were buddies, it was easy to go into Afghanistan and obliterate the Taliban. But when the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia simply look the other way, it's a lot harder to go into there and crack some skulls.

So what strategy should we implement for the War on Terror? An old one, but an effective one. The War Party. Kill your enemy, then leave. Simple, brutal, cheap, and safe. In Iraq, for instance, we could have left once Saddam had been captured, and the countryside scoured for those nonexistent WMDs.

But then you get the bleeding hearts worried about rebuilding countries after we destroy them, worried about military strongmen filling in the power vacuums. So be it. Who cares who runs Iraq so long as they stay in Iraq?

I don't care who the Governor of Rhode Island is, a state only 17 miles from my house. Why should I care who runs Afghanistan?

So here's the Zeitz Doctrine:

1. Establish a set of Commandments for foreign leaders to follow. Things like "Thou Shalt Not Train Terrorists to Attack the US or its Allies."
2. Forcibly remove any foreign government that breaks a Commandment.
3. Abrupt exit.

It'd be a whole lot more effective, and a whole lot less deadly (for everyone really), than trying to police the world.

Time to Take an Afghanistand

Want to know what's funny. And I don't mean laugh out loud funny, but like "hmm, that is funny." I've been mulling with the idea of writing this post about Afghanistan for a few weeks now. I'm usually a few days, or even weeks behind current events when I finally write about them here. But my snail's pace is miles ahead of Barack's sloth-on-valium pace.



To be fair, it's a mighty large decision he's faced with in Afghanistan. But at the same time, it doesn't seem, at least on the surface, that he's spending all of his time working on this decision. I understand that it's difficult to weigh all the different factors involved in combat strategy, but it's impossible to weigh them if you spend little time near a scale.

Barack cares more about healthcare reform than Afghanistan. There, I said it.

And what has he done to demonstrate otherwise? He and his Democratic disciples spend more time talking about healthcare, debating healthcare, promoting reform, and writing lengthy bills. How many trees have been killed over healthcare reform.



It's time to review a little history. Like General Patton, I think studying the history of warfare is vital to mastering it in the present. But don't worry, this won't be a long-winded lesson.

Afghanistan has never been a nation-state.

It's been conquered by foreigners, although not lately. It's been a kingdom, but it's never been a true nation. What does that mean? Well, when you leave Boston and go into the sticks of Western Mass. or the rolling hills of Vermont, or the rocky expanses of the Crown of Maine, you don't fear for your life do you? Some tribe of New Hampshirians aren't going to steal your clothes. There's law and order outside of the heavily populated areas. That law and order spreads to and is contained by our national borders.

There's an idea of being an American, and it supersedes ethnic background or accent (usually). But the only thing that has unites people in Afghanistan as "Afghanis" is their hatred of American involvement. Other than that, they're a very loose collection of tribes. And that's what works there.

In the US, different municipalities have different governments. In the square states, county government is a big deal. They don't have towns. In suburban Boston, we have towns, and town meetings. In the cities we have mayors and city councils. People tend to develop ruling systems that can efficiently rule. Afghanis utilize a more tribelike system of government because it works there.

This situation is worse than Iraq. At least down there, there existed a slight framework of nationhood. But to be honest, the only kinds of government that can succeed in these shitty places is your token military strongman.



And should we be surprised by that? We think we're so clever with our Democracy. Yet look at our own history. It took this country about 140 years to have universal suffrage. And then 50 more years to really have civil rights for all. Do you want to spend 190 years helping Afghanistan figure things out?



What is victory in Afghanistan? I hear Bill O'Reilly and other conservative mouths proclaim that withdrawal from Afghanistan now would be defeat. We'd be letting the terrorists win. But don't these people also consider dying to be victory? What the fuck do we care what a bunch of crazy assholes think. If they want to think they're winning, let them.

We can't let Afghanistan be run by the Taliban because the Taliban supports terrorists. If we were to take this logic and apply it to other countries, we'd be involved in many more theatres of war. Iran and North Korea come to mind first and foremost, but also more than half of Africa, and even some of our allies. Are we going to try to install democracy in all of these countries?

To me, Barack's decision seems obvious. Victory remains undefined. It's impossible to fight for a victory when you don't know what it is you're trying to accomplish. Just imagine playing football or baseball if you didn't know the rules. Imagine playing chess without a King to checkmate. You'd just have pieces knocking each other off.



Pull out and monitor. Let the Taliban play in their own backyard. Just make sure they don't have too much fun. Support uprisings against them. But if Afghanis want democracy, we can only give them the tools and the wood, they have to build their own house.

But what the fuck is taking Barack so long? And how come he hasn't asked this one pivitol question: "Why is it taking me so long to figure out how to win this war?" Because you can't figure out what "winning" actually means. And therefore should seriously consider withdrawal.

Every day he mulls, ponders, and spends time talking about healthcare reform; the WRONG STRATEGY is still being used in Afghanistan. Whatever the right strategy is, it isn't being used right now. That much is certain. So every day spent thinking is a day spent fighting a war the wrong way. There are the most serious consequences for such hesitation. You made sure you brought cameras with you so we'd know that you know this.



I know Barack doesn't want to fuck this up. But by spending so much time trying not to fuck up, he is indeed fucking up.

And sadly, all America, liberal, conservative, and inbetween, cares much more about their own health plans than they do about the war.

WTF, Maine?

52.8% of voting Mainers voted "Yes" on Question 1 in the recent election. Question 1 was a binding referendum to reject Maine's recent gay marriage law. In other words, "Yes on 1" meant "No on Gay Marriage." So by public acclaim, Maine is now removed from the ranks of states that allow consenting, unrelated adults to marry whomever they want to.

Shame. But at least it was a close race, close enough to keep the issue on the proverbial front-burner, close enough that if only 3% of the voters change their minds, it will go the other way.

Those of you who've been loyal readers of this political blog might be surprised to hear that somebody (me) who thinks Ronald Reagan should be beatified as a Saint, would be for gay marriage (or as I prefer to phrase it "I don't care about other people and what they do with themselves"). But the truly dedicated, hardcore Ambi-Winger already knows how I feel on this issue:

Miss California vs. Barack Obama vs. Dick Cheney

Iowa Is More Progressive Than California?

Lone Star Tyranny

I have a question for the typical Anti-Gay Marriage conservative. And to liberals out there, or anyone who is Anti-Government-Sexual-Legislation, feel free to utilize this argument, because it's so juicy, it's so relevant, it's so contemporary, but like a ripe apple it'll spoil if you don't use it right now. Just pretend the next line is addressing the person you're debating against:

How come you're against government interference in health care, but you're for government interference in marriage laws?

Here's the anticipated comeback, it's a scare-tactic, actually it's a scare-diversion, even a deflection of the issue. Instead of talking about human rights vs. government rights to legislate human rights (e.g. murder laws=good, anti-gun laws=bad), the Anti-Gay Marriage advocate that isn't a religious nutjob will counter with an argument that scares the shit out of parents. It was the spearhead of the "Yes on 1" campaign.



I love the simplicity, and outright ignorance of a viewpoint like "I don't want gay marriage taught in schools." But I do see that in certain anecdotal cases, like the ones in the commercial, how irritating it could be to a parent. There's a simple solution, and I'll phrase it in question form:

Why the fuck is any marriage taught in school at all? It should be math, science, social studies, reading/writing, gym. I am against sex-ed in school, in all schools, because it's just a way for lazy parents to pay someone else to teach morals and values to their children. Sex-ed should be limited to biology class and should be called Procreation-Ed, or Reproduction-Ed. It should be taught in 6th grade bio class. Penis goes in vagina, ejaculation, fertilization, pregnancy, birth. Keep it clinical, keep it scientific, make kids memorize big words, use disgusting cross-sections, make sex as unfun as the rest of school is.



It seems like year after year, we as a society beg the government to take care of more and more of our problems. Then we bitch about how bad a job the government does. If you want your children to learn abstinence, teach them that. If you want them to learn about condoms, teach them yourselves. It might be awkward for you, but imagine being a junior high teacher having to tell 30 semi-pubescent tweenagers about fellatio and cunnilingus.

And you know what the "No on 1" people should have done? You know what Gay Marriage activists should do? They should be the biggest advocates of keeping gay marriage out of public schools. They should spend more money doing that than anything else. It's a road block and it's not going away.

Sun Tzu's Art of War can be summed up nicely in 3 words: "Make winning easy." If you eliminate this whole school crap, then people apathetic to BS like "sanctity of marriage" will come over to your side, or at least abstain from voting against gay marriage. Furthermore, your remaining opponents are more likely to expose themselves as bigots.

Maine disappointed me last week. I like Maine, I like Mainers. There's a down-to-earth hickness to them. They don't have the cosmopolitan fakeness or smugness of a typical Northeast liberal. They've got more common sense, but they're not book-stupid either. They allow individual Congressional districts to cast electoral college ballots individually (so if a district votes Republican, while the rest of the state votes Democrat, that Republican district can cast its vote for the Republican candidate. 48 of the 50 states don't allow this. For instance, all 54 of California's votes go to one candidate, even if 20 districts voted for his/her opponent).

There's hope for Maine, and there's certainly hope for most logical states. And gay marriage needs to be passed by votes and referendia, not just State Supreme Courts. Otherwise it'll be as illegitimate and scoffed as the BCS.



For non-sports fans:

The BCS is a combination of polls and math equations that select which 2 college football teams (out of 120) will play each other for the national championship. Big time college football is the only NCAA sport that doesn't determine a champion with a playoff system. The BCS has often been questioned, occasionally leaving undefeated teams out of the title game.

The people who want to see rights given to all need to play hard, get dirty, and even play dirty. They need to write ironclad laws AGAINST gay marriage being taught in schools. They need to make people FEAR government intervention in marriage by using history's facts (anti-miscegenation laws) and future's potential. That racist justice of the peace in Louisiana should be the posterboy of the gay marriage movement.

Compare your opponents to Hitler, confuse the issue, scare the hell out of reasonable people into thinking that they absolutely have to be on your side or something terrible will happen to their children.



And the Barack loving liberals out there need to put pressure on their man in the White House and their people in the Congress. There's little to no reason for Barack or any other centrist Democrat to support gay marriage, because there's no pressure. There's no criticism from the Left on this issue.

But it doesn't have to be that extreme in Maine, thankfully. 47.2% of people voted No on 1. If only 1/10 of these people ask their disagreeing friends "Why are you against government run healthcare but for government run marriage?" Then maybe Maine can be turned back. Or maybe Massachusetts should reacquire it, make it part of The Commonwealth like it was before 1820.

The Health of Capitalism

Capitalism, like Julius Caesar, is slowly being murdered by a well-intentioned yet conniving coven of conspirators, each holding a knife, each plunging their blade into capitalism's torso, each thrust drawing more and more blood. With each angry stab, what was once a healthy body is deteriorating into a corpse.



Who mourns for capitalism? After all, it's the system that allowed slavery. It's the system that turned peaceful nations into warlike empires. It's the system that denied you a mortgage. It's the system that repossessed your engagement ring. It's the system that made your health care and your health insurance more expensive than gold-laced cocaine.

Capitalism breeds materialism. He with the most toys win. Consumption, consumption, consumption. It leads to sweat shops making sweatshirts, Wal-Mart forcing small businesses out of business, brand new brand labels that label us as shallow and materialistic.



In a recent TV interview, Michael Moore described capitalism as a system in which "The people have very little to say as to what's going on." And he's right. When a person chooses between Pepsi and Coke, neither company asks the customer what to use for ingredients. Neither company asks him how much a can of soda should cost.

When a man takes his family out to eat, he can't decide what's on the menu. Whatever's printed there is what's there.

When a healthy woman goes to her physician, she can't tell her doctor whether or not she needs to see him again in a week for yet another check-up.

When a family is looking to buy a new car, they can't call the factory and request that they make a more fuel efficient vehicle. The cars are already on the lot!

In 1985, when Coca-Cola decided to change the flavor of their soda, it wasn't the people's collective disdain for the taste of New Coke that removed the drink from the market. Didn't you know that it was all part of Coke's grand scheme to make people fall in love with their classic soda: eventually re-released and renamed Coca-Cola Classic?



The people had nothing to do with New Coke's death! How could people BUYING a product tell the company MAKING the product how to make it? And certainly people aren't more powerful than a multi-billion, multi-national goliath like Coca-Cola. It was all a classic Capitalist conspiracy.

Socialism is where you get choice. Just ask Barack, an intelligent man. The people have control in socialism. They control what everyone eats, what everyone drinks, what everyone buys. Socialism will give us free electric cars, and free health care, and free time. We won't need jobs because the government will take care of everything for us.

The great thing about socialism is that it has momentum. Once you get it started, it's almost difficult to stop it (as if you'd want to). You start off by taxing those greedy, cossack, rich swine who make $100,000+ a year. Then you spread that money around through necessary things like health insurance and car companies. Just like Barack has done and plans to do. And he is an intelligent man.



But why stop there? Once those rich people get taxed down to the level of the working class, there'll be no upper class to start businesses and employ the middle classes and lower classes. But what's fantastic about socialism is that we won't need employers! The government will employ people. In factories, and farms, and camps, and of course we need beefed up police departments to ensure nobody is hording personal possessions.

What's great about government involvement is that it usually makes things more streamlined, efficient, and cheaper. History books don't agree with this statement, but books can simply be altered to say that it's worked in the past. And so long as people believe in it, it will be true. Just like Tinkerbell can live so long as people believe in fairies.



What's even more phenomenal about government involvement in healthcare is that it will put a halt to ever-escalating costs. After all, health insurance grows more expensive as the quality of healthcare increases. Once the government steps in, the profit motivation will be removed, the quality will remain level, and therefore the price will remain level. So that's good. And if we're super lucky, the quality will drop, thus lowering the cost. Barack wants to lower the cost of health care. And he's an intelligent man.

Those big drug companies are the perfect examples of Capitalistic Monsters. Pfizer, the largest drug company in the world, had revenues in excess of $70 billion in 2008. And they only spent $11 billion of that to research new drugs!!! Companies like Pfizer should WANT government control. If that happened, they wouldn't have to spend a dime researching new drugs. Nobody would. And researching new drugs makes new drugs expensive. And nobody likes expensive drugs. Especially not Barack, an intelligent man.



What did capitalism do for you? It made you PAY for the computer you're reading this blog on. It makes you pay for the electricity that's powering the computer. It makes you work for the paycheck that you use to pay for that electricity. It makes you pay for the car to take you to that work. It makes you pay for the gas that takes that car to your work and to your vacation house down Cape Cod. It makes you pay for the beers you drink at the vacation house.

Worst of all, it makes you choose things. You have to go into the store and labor over which brand of chips to buy, or if you want 1% milk or skim. Then the prices. You never get to haggle over price.



You have to determine the price of that milk along with your fellow milk consumers. What a pain in the ass that is. That's no control! That's sharing control with other consumers. And who wants that?

And health insurance, that's the worst idea Capitalists ever came up with. The idea of spreading risk over a large group, thereby avoiding the potential of crippling costs that come along with unforeseeable and unanticipated medical catastrophes is just pure greed. It's people wanting to hang onto what's theirs. That's avarice in its purest form.

I mean what kind of system wouldn't give insurance to someone who is sick? A capitalist system. It's just like those diabolical greedsters at the auto insurance companies who won't insure a car that's about to go off a cliff.

I for one am glad that Barack is going to allow people with preexisting conditions to receive health insurance. It's polite. And it will surely reduce costs.

And I'm glad that Capitalism will be gone. Sure, I'll miss my computer, my car, Sam Adams Octoberfest, professional sports, quality movies, television, new medicines, new medical technologies, and my blog.

But I won't miss the lack of control I feel when I have to buy gas to take my car wherever I want to go. I won't miss my evil health insurance company making me pay premiums so that in the off-chance I contract H1N1 I'll only have to pay a $15 co-pay for my treatment. I won't miss MetLife doing all the legal legwork for me when I got into a hit & run accident a few months ago.

I'm glad we have a President who cares so much about us, and is so smart and wise. I'm glad he's supported by people similarly wise as he is. Hopefully the people of this country listen to him and his designs. Hopefully they give him license to cut his dagger of wisdom across Capitalism's throat. Because he is, of course, an intelligent man.







Here's to inspiration...



Et tu, Barack?

National Socialism and You

It's become a habit of some conservatives to compare Barack to Adolf Hitler, and equate his economic and social policies to that of Hitler's Nazi regime. These conservatives do a great disservice to the conservative cause. Then again, equally ignorant people on the left of the US political spectrum called George W. Bush a Nazi. Everyone calls everyone a Nazi when they want to win a debate.

Godwin's Law states: "As a [debate] grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

As a conservative, these right wing ignoratti comparing Barack to Hitler aggravate me. They make the right look bad. But as an amateur historian, anyone comparing anybody to the left of Mussolini to Adolf Hitler pisses me off to no end.

Some really ignorant people are comparing Barack's economic agenda with Nazism. They point out that Nazi is short for National Socialist. When in fact, it isn't. It's short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. This phrase means "National Socialist German Workers' Party."

What is National Socialism? Well much like capitalism, there are different forms of socialism. The socialism of Germany from 1933 to 1945 is different from that of Communist Russia, and from the modern forms of socialism practiced today in the UK, Canada, Scandinavia, and elsewhere. The socialism practiced by Germans, unlike that practiced by Soviet Russia, allowed for individuals to own their own property and goods. So one could own a house, unlike in the USSR where the State owned the house.



The Nazis believed that capitalism was wrong. They believed a government should control the direction of an economy, instead of letting it go wherever the marketplace determined. At the same time, there wasn't nearly the amount of force exerted on the economy as there was in the USSR.

While the Germans' socialism wasn't as hardcore as the Russians', it was more extreme than the socialisms of the 21st century. Canada is a socialist country (relative to the US), but it is also a capitalist country. There's a free market in Canada, with prices set by supply/demand and not the government. People pay higher taxes, receive higher benefits from the government.

Let's say an economy is a road. The amount of government control is the speed limit. Here are some examples of how this analogical road would be under various economic climates:

Pure Capitalism: no speed limit
American Capitalism: 65 MPH limit for safety
Canadian style Cap/Soc: 65 MPH limit for safety, 40 MPH minimum for traffic flow
USSR style socialism: every car must travel at 50 MPH and split gas costs equally no matter how far they have to travel
Nazi-type Socialism: every car must travel between 50 and 60 MPH and drive the same brand of car made in Germany so all Germans are employed

The type of socialism Barack seems to support (socialized health care, billions of dollars to house people in danger of defaulting on their mortgage, buying General Motors) is more of a safety net socialism. And while I vehemently disagree with the ideals of this brand of socialism, it's not as extreme as the USSR's or Nazi Germany's.



And even if Barack's socialism is similar to Hitler's socialism, does that make it or him evil? Do we hate Hitler because he was a lousy economist? No! We hate him because he killed a few million people. The fundamental strength of the Nazis was their belief that Germans were superior to all races. All those rallies, all those concentration camps, all those tanks were built around that belief. Socialism was merely a side dish.

People have been comparing how similar Barack is to Hitler. How much people worship him. How children are literally singing his praises.



And all the "Hope," "Change," and "Yes We Can," is all bullshit, if you ask me. Barack's spread fear of an economic collapse, and is now spreading fear of a healthcare collapse. He hasn't changed the laws regarding same-sex marriage. And he cannot get his healthcare policies passed. He isn't Hope. He isn't Change. But he's also not a fucking Nazi.



Comparing people to Hitler seems like a good way to win an argument. It's half jokingly called reductio ad Hitlerum, or reducing an opposing viewpoint so it can be compared to Hitler/Nazism. Example: Barack wants socialism, Hitler wanted socialism; therefore Barack and Hitler want the same thing and are alike.

But this is such a stupid argument that only stupid people use, and it only works to win arguments against other stupid people. Once this country gets a Zeitzist regime, it will be against the law to use Hitler in arguments.

Albert Einstein spoke German. Adolf Hitler spoke German. Einstein=Nazi

Natalie Portman is a vegetarian. Adolf Hitler is a vegetarian. Natalie Portman=Sexy Nazi



Picasso was an artist. Adolf Hitler painted. Picasso is a fascist.

Hitler wrote a book in jail. Gandhi also wrote while imprisoned. So I guess Gandhi's writings are in the same category as Mein Kampf.

Hitler was German, and so was Albert Schweitzer. So I guess that hospital he built in west Africa was a Nazi hospital.

Hitler had a German shepherd named Blondie. So I suppose all owners of German shepherds hate Jews.

And that was me using reductio ad absurdum on reductio ad Hitlerum. Ship it.

I hate Barack Obama. I hate him and his policies with an unrelenting anger. I would rather a bunny rabbit be President than him. I believe he and his party are ruining our economic future. I think he's indecisive about Afghanistan and people are dying while he struggles to make a decision. I think he's a neo-socialist. I think if George W. Bush spent time trying to get the Olympics in Dallas, liberals would crucify him for it. But it's OK for Barack to go to Denmark to try to get them for Chicago (although Hitler had the Olympics in Germany in '36, hmmmmmmmm).



But he's not a Nazi. He's nothing near a Nazi. There's no Obama Youth movement. There's no propaganda on the scale of the Nazi's. I just said all that stuff about him in the paragraph above, and I won't be visited by the DNC in the middle of the night with a truncheon. He hasn't built concentration camps or invaded any countries. So until he does, let's keep things in context. And let's slap anyone you hear utter comparisons between Barack and Hitler.

The Health of the Health Care "Debate"

The health of the debate itself is not good. In fact, it's dead. There is no debate over health care. You may think there is, but look closer. Is Jimmy Carter talking about health care?



No, he's talking about the liberal belief that conservatives are conservatives because they're racists.

Is Joe Wilson talking about health care?



No, he's talking about the Republican fear that Democrats want to give illegal immigrants the keys to their houses (Las llaves a sus casas). But Pelosi's reaction is priceless.

Is the artist who made this depiction thinking about health care?



No, he/she was thinking about how badly they failed history class. Comparing Obama to Hitler is like comparing W. Bush to Castro. It doesn't make sense.

I guess my whole point is that neither the liberals or the conservatives are making any points that are actually about health care. It's the same old political poop tossing.



But isn't the onus to make points on Barack and his party? They're the ones in power. They and New York Times pundits have had a field day making fun of jackass conservatives at town hall meetings.



The women is an idiot. But what the hell do Barack and the Democrats want in this "reform?" Do they want universal health care? A public "option?" They haven't figured out what they, as a party, want. They have sufficient votes in both houses to pass whatever plan they concot if they could only FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY WANT.

But what does Barack want? We know his goals: cheaper, more accessible health care. But we don't know his plans to reach these goals. Does he even know? Or is he like the Underpants Gnomes from South Park?



And remember back in January? Wasn't it the Republican Party and its conservative base that were in trouble? They said the Party was dead, and that conservatism was a dwindling minority in this country. The Republicans had no leaders except Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Yet this leaderless rabble of hicks, racists, "tea-baggers" and ignorant fools have somehow scared enough swing-state-Democrats to ease up on the socialization of America.



And now we'll get the Barack-Attack. An all out multimedia blitz, utilizing tried and true rhetorical techniques delivered via modern vehicles of media. And the spearhead of this attack is fear. If we don't pass health care reform in the next 24 hours, everyone will explode!



I just want the government to stop spending, and stop spending now. That's the only thing I want the government to do as quickly as Barack wants it to reform health care. Complex things take time. Lots of time.

So just take a day off from spending. I'd like to have kids someday, and would like them to inherit the same opportunities I did, instead of a mountain of debt to China, a Dollar worth one tenth of a Euro, and the entire country babysat by the government.

And I want to talk about the actual legislation. I want Barack to just admit that he wants government run health care. He's done it before.



Just do it again. Just tell the truth, please. Barack, I thought you were hope, and change personified. A lying politician doesn't seem very changeful to me.