Happy Fourth of July!: Independence vs. Dependence

Happy fourth of July! I hope you all are enjoying, or planning on enjoying some delicious BBQ with friends and family, then watching some fireworks somewhere (maybe even lighting of few of your own). But, let's not forget that while those things are fun, tasty, etc., they are not what this day is all about. This day is about independence. It is about freedom. It is about making a choice to believe in the unlimited capacity of the human spirit.

This is not dependence day. We do not need the government to provide us with internet, healthcare, retirement benefits, or anything but the opportunity to get those things ourselves. Tell me - was the iphone created because some lawmaker appropriated funds to some government entity and told them to create the world's coolest phone? Tell me - did the best computers in the world come about because of the government? Tell me - Did we become the largest, most innovative economy in the world because of government regulation and intervention? No. It was because of freedom. It was because our forefathers believed that private individuals live happiest and produce the most when they are not tethered to an oppressive government. That is why we separated from England!

In America everyone can be great. We encourage, and offer the opportunity from the bottom up, not top down. Stifling success to spread wealth and make everyone equal just lowers the quality of life and possibilities for everyone. However, letting people be free to innovate, create, be self-motivated, responsible, and allowing them to believe in themselves will make everyone prosperous. It has for 230 plus years. Let's maintain that trend.

God Bless America! Happy Birthday Lady Liberty!

Swine Flu: Run for your life!

OMG! It's the swine flu! I'm so scared. I mean I spend most of my time in Mexico rolling around in the mud with pigs and cutting deals with rural pig farmers. It's almost as bad as the West Nile virus that killed hundreds of crows across the US. But it's not quite as bad as the avian flu that killed many Chinese chickens and caused thousands to be slaughtered by the government in the worst chicken holocaust since KFC was founded.

The authorities are cracking down.

But they're having some fun too.

The swine flu is worse than AIDS. At least people got AIDS from monkeys. I mean, I know it's an ethical question that no one wants to talk about, but is it better to touch monkeys or pigs? Perhaps Michael Jackson has an answer. I like monkeys better, but that's just a personal preference. There are a lot of sick pig obsessed whack jobs out there.

I know what you're going to say. "But these people didn't get it from getting jiggy with pigs. Pigs are just genetically similar to humans and so the disease was easily communicable." I'm not buying it. Sounds like something a pig lover would say.

Blast from the past

Today I wanted to share with you a blast from the past. This is cartoon from the Chicago Tribune in 1934. My only question is, have things changed any? Oh, and you may find this picture a bit small. I had to shrink it to fit it on the blog.

Those in the cart are Ickes, Wallace, and Richberg. On the side of the cart it says "Young pinkies from Columbia and Harvard". One of them in the cart has a bottle labeled "power" and all of them are shoveling money overboard. The man leading the cart on a donkey has a sign on his back that says "Tugwell... Head Braintruster". On the back of the cart it says, "Depleting the resources of the soundest government in the world". In the background Stalin with arms folded is saying, "How red the sunrise is getting". In the bottom left corner there is a quote next to the head of the man writing the plan that says, "It worked for Russia". The plan says, "Plan of Action for U.S. - Spend! Spend! Spend under the guise of recovery - bust the government - blame the capitalists for the failure - junk the constitution and declare a dictatorship"

For Real Stimulus

Sometimes when you read this blog you chuckle. Other times I hope you think. Other times I hope you get confused. But today the blog is going to touch on some important stuff that most people should know. I got this article from Investment Business Daily. I think it was published either the fifth or the ninth (sorry, I cannot make out my grandmother's handwriting on the copy she sent me). I am in no way claiming this as my own work, but I am taking the time to re-write it on this blog verbatim for all of your benefit. Read on.

"Economy: Congress is ready to ram through a half-baked stimulus package costing as much as $1 trillion. But if it's stimulus we need, why not make it effective stimulus - tax cuts, say, instead of wasteful spending?

The massive new spending program that is being pushed by the congressional Democrats emboldened by their newly enhanced majorities may come up as soon as Tuesday, when they return from their holiday breaks.

Unfortunately, they've picked the least effective way to give the economy a boost. Those who argue for hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure projects and "green jobs" have it all wrong. We've tried those remedies before and found them wanting.

In the 1930s, for instance, we went on an infrastructure binge, building new roads, dams and schools; electrifying the rural south and enlarging our ports, among other major tasks.

Granted, some infrastructure improvement was called for. But all the activity didn't pull the country out of depression - not by a long shot. Unemployment averaged 17% in the '30s, and it wasn't until 1941 - the start of World War II - that GDP returned to its 1929 level.

Japan followed the same Keynesian game after its real estate bust of 1989. To the applause of many American liberals, hundreds of trillions of yen were spent on infrastructure, raising outlays on big projects from 6.5% of GDP in 1990 to 8.3% in 1996 - even more than contemplated under Obama's plan.

That didn't work either. The 1990s were a "lost decade" for Japan's economy, and the country is still stagnating. Its infrastructure boom did have one lasting legacy however: Japan is now the most heavily indebted nation in the OECD.

If President Obama and his fellow Democrats get their way, the U.S. may soon be trudging down the same path. Next year, reckons budget expert Stan Collender, the defecit may hit $1.3 trillion, or 8% of GDP, as Congress tries to spend its way out of recession. That's roughly $13,000 for every taxpayer.

Shouldn't we at least expect some big bang for our bucks? If so, and although it's not popular with his party, Obama might want to re-think his aversion to tax cuts. They'll actually work.

How do we know? Because they have in the past. In the '20s, '60s, '80s and again this decade, new presidents also faced grim economic conditions. Each time, the president - be it Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan or Bush - cut taxes. And each time the economy boomed.

McKinsey & Co. estimates total losses of $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion due to the credit collapse. But this can be reversed by making the underlying assets profitable again. The fastest way to do this is to cut taxes on businesses and entrepreneurs, which will immediately lift the rate of return on assets and thus their value.

This in turn will bring more investment, more hiring and more income - all things that Obama has said he wants.

We're not making this stuff up. According to research cited by former White House economist Greg Mankiw, the economy expands by $1 to $1.40 for every $1 spent by government. But if you cut taxes instead, you really get results.

Mankiw cites a major study of tax cut changes dating back to 1947 showing that each $1 of tax cuts brings $3 in added GDP. This study is particularly significant because one of its authors, Christiana Romer, is Obama's chief economic advisor.

Simply handing blank checks to Congress and the White House, and letting them pass an ill-considered stimulus plan with little transparency and no checks on spending is a very bad idea. 

No stimulus would be better than a bad stimulus. And the only stimulus that's been shown to really work is cutting taxes.

The Tonsils, Appendix, and Wisdom Teeth Conspiracy

I am a proud owner of both a set of tonsils, and one appendix. Unfortunately "they" took my wisdom teeth. This in part explains why my IQ has dropped from when I was a child. However, I am sure to be an anomaly. Many people have no tonsils, no appendices, and no wisdom teeth. And, given that the appendix is an organ that used to help us fly, and tonsils are remnants of a second set of teeth like in the Alien movies, and wisdom teeth used to activate previously unknown parts of the human brain, "they" are winning. 

But who are "they"? Some might have us believe that "they" are a clan of ninjas. Others might have us believe that "they" are black market organ/body part cartels. And still others might like us to think that "they" are the government. I'm inclined to think that's what "they" want us to think. The truth is probably much darker. Perhaps they are a black market ninja cartel that traffics useless organs and body parts and is propped up by the government. Which government you ask? Does it matter? Well, possibly. And it's probably the Venezuelans, ie: Chavez.

You might be asking yourself, "Why do I care about wisdom teeth, appendices, and tonsils?" Or perhaps you think that your doctor just took them out to save your life, all the while making an easy grand off your teeth, appendix or tonsils, making you dumber, less likely to ever fly on your own, and preventing you from taking over planet earth as an alien. Well I hate to say it, but it matters, and this issue is more pressing than you know.

I will cite some examples. My room mate had his appendix removed the first day of this semester. Then a friend of his thought she had to have her appendix removed too. It was like a virus. When I had my wisdom teeth removed my freshman year of college before I went to Brazil, the dentist said only one could have possibly caused trouble for me, but he took three. Then all of my other friends got their wisdom teeth out about the same time, with similar stories. Of course the dentist's cover is that he just wanted more money, which is true, but the dentists are making even more money on top of the money they charge per tooth. And who pays that money to them? "They". 

And, when the dentist said one of my wisdom teeth could have caused trouble, what did he mean? Was it trouble for me? Or trouble for "they"? You see, if I had kept my wisdom teeth I could probably have found out the master plan of "they". But "they" got to me first. Just like they got to my room mate, and to anyone else who gets their appendix removed. Did "they" think that we would mobilize an army of flying genius aliens and monopolize all the Citgo stations? Maybe. Maybe. 

At any rate, we're onto you Chavez.

Stop the Bailouts!

Yes, it is true, the economy is not in good shape. However, I am appalled and disgusted by the public's apathy toward the piss poor government solution of bailing out and buying up the private sector. The American public seems to have given the democrat-controlled congress and President Obama a blank check. Well, not entirely blank. The check looks to be to the tune of one trillion dollars. A trillion dollars! That's not petty cash. That is $300 billion more than the $700 billion that was already pumped into the market under TARP, and puts us down a path of spiraling monetary value, and endless debt.

(Government solution)

We are entering an age pervaded by a horribly defeatist philosophy of bailouts. And, what bothers me more than anything else is that the market now looks to Washington for help, instead of innovating and reinventing. But this was Washington's plan all along. It has fostered a cycle of dependency for years. On one hand it promises government backing for the likes of Freddie and Fannie, encouraging predatory lending, and then turns around and reprimands those same companies for practices it encouraged. How can we expect a problem that was in large part instigated and then exacerbated by the government to be solved by the government? If we continue to allow congress, the treasury, and Obama to buy up toxic assets and attempt to recapitalize the market, all we are doing is pumping the market with more instability. We are allowing the government to reward failures and cover its own backside when it has already failed royally.

There should be more outrage. I understand many are hurting, many are out of a job, but that is no reason to allow the government to spend, spend, spend. The effects are disastrous. The best one can hope for with such a strategy is a temporary rebound or a slight boost in morale, but the long term effects are irremediable. In no uncertain terms, what I am saying is the long term costs far outweigh the supposed short term benefits. Here is what all of this spending means:

1. The federal government, already submerged in massive debt, will go deeper into the abyss than ever. They are printing money with nothing but good will to back it. The dollar's value will plummet in the next months and years because of all the bailouts.

2. The federal government, despite its almost limitless debt, will position itself to control a huge part of the private market. It will be the biggest government expansion since the New Deal. It will create a new toxic asset bank, and numerous other bureaucratic arms that will supposedly maintain transparency and accountability but in reality will only further their own interests and limit investment opportunities, and market flexibility.

3. With government's part ownership of certain companies (namely the now state-controlled banks), and its demand for high prices for its involvement and money (taking preferred shares, and forcing companies to spend money the way that it deems most appropriate), investors will not help re-capitalize the banking industry and the financial sector. The government will have taken all the attractive parts of investment. Without private interest and investment, these state-controlled entities will stagnate or decline, and will end up needing even more bailouts to stay functioning.

4. The burden of all these bailouts does not fall on some mystical government entity that has endless supplies of cash. It falls on the taxpayer. The cost of this crisis from TARP to the trillions in infusions by the FED, to the latest Obama-Pelosi stimulus has reached stratospheric proportions. When all is said and done the government may well have spend upwards of 6 trillion dollars. That is nearly half the US GDP. And it also means that taxpayer will be saddled with these massive financial commitments for years to come.

5. If it were not bad enough that our dollar will be worth next to nothing, we will be digging ourselves deeper into debt, and the government will in large part be taking over the private sector and no new investment will be coming our way, the stimulus package proposed will throw money at terribly wasteful items. Some notorious examples are the mob museum in Las Vegas and Pelosi's birth control stimulus. Those are only the more notable worthless projects. Others involve vineyards and train rides and amusement parks in Alabama. 

I implore you. I exhort you. Stand up against this wasteful stimulus. It will not bring us back. The New Deal didn't work, and neither will this. The only thing all this spending accomplishes is building an ever-growing, less competent Leviathan. The government will tighten its stranglehold on the private sector, and its centralizing power will eventually consume every aspect of our lives (You might think that I'm exaggerating, but I'm not). This is the soft despotism that Tocqueville warned about. Call your congressmen and senators. Tell them to stop the bailouts. Tell them to come up with real solutions. Perhaps instead of bailing out and buying up, we could compromise. Half of that trillion in tax cuts, and half in bailouts. Let's see which strategy works better and gets the economy moving. 

Here the numbers for all of the US Senators:

ALABAMA

Jeff Sessions (R) - 202-224-4124

Richard Shelby (R) - 202-224-5744

ALASKA (202-224-6665)

Lisa Murkowski (R)

Ted Stevens (R) - 202-224-3004

ARIZONA

John McCain (R) - 202-224-2235

Jon Kyl (R) - 202-224-4521

ARKANSAS

Blanche Lincoln (D) - 202-224-4843

Mark Pryor (D) - 202-224-2353

CALIFORNIA

Barbara Boxer (D) - 202-224-3553

Dianne Feinstein (D) - 202-224-2841

COLORADO

Wayne Allard (R) - 202-224-5941

Ken Salazar (D) - 202-224-5852

CONNECTICUT

Joseph Lieberman (I) - 202-224-4041

Christopher Dodd (D) - 202-224-2823

DELAWARE

Joseph Biden (D) - 202-224-4041*

Thomas Carper (D) - 202-224-2441

FLORIDA

Mel Martinez (R) - 202-224-3041

Bill Nelson (D) - 202-224-5274

GEORGIA

Saxby Chambliss (R) - 202-224-3521

Johnny Isakson (R) - 202-224-3643

HAWAII

Daniel Akaka (D) - 202-224-6361

Daniel Inouye (D) - 202-224-3934

IDAHO

Larry Craig (R) - 202-224-2752

Michael Crapo (R) - 202-224-6142

ILLINOIS

Richard Durbin (D) - 202-224-2152

Roland Burris

INDIANA

Evan Bayh (D) - 202-224-5623

Richard Lugar (R) - 202-224-4814

IOWA

Charles Grassley (R) - 202-224-3744

Tom Harkin (D) - 202-224-3254

KANSAS

Sam Brownback (R) - 202-224-6521

Pat Roberts (R) - 202-224-4774

KENTUCKY

Jim Bunning (R) - 202-224-4343

Mitch McConnell (R) - 202-224-2541

LOUISIANA

Mary Landrieu (D) - 202-224-5824

David Vitter (R) - 202-224-4623

MAINE

Susan Collins (R) - 202-224-2523

Olympia Snowe (R) - 202-224-5344

MARYLAND

Benjamin Cardin (D) - 202-224-4524

Barbara Mikulski (D) - 202-224-4654

MASSACHUSETTS 

Edward Kennedy (D) - 202-224-4543

John Kerry (D) - 202-224-2742

MICHIGAN

Carl Levin (D) - 202-224-6221

Debbie Stabenow (D) - 202-224-4822

MINNESOTA

Norm Coleman (R) - 202-224-5641*

Amy Klobuchar (D) - 202-224-3244

MISSISSIPPI

Thad Cochran (R) - 202-224-5054

Roger Wicker (R) - 202-224-6253

MISSOURI 

Kit Bond (R) - 202-224-5721

Claire McCaskill (D) - 202-224-6154

MONTANA

Max Baucus (D) - 202-224-2651

Jon Tester (D) - 202-224-2644

NEBRASKA

Chuck Hagel (R) - 202-224-4224

Ben Nelson (D) - 202-224-6551

NEVADA

Harry Reid (D) - 202-224-3542

John Ensign (R) - 202-224-6244

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Judd Gregg (R) - 202-224-3324

John Sununu (R) -202-224-2841*

NEW JERSEY

Robert Menendez (D) - 202-224-4744

Frank Lautenberg (D) - 202-224-3224

NEW MEXICO

Jeff Bingaman (D) - 202-224-5521

Pete Domenici (R) - 202-224-6621

NEW YORK

Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

Charles Schumer (D) - 202-224-6542

NORTH CAROLINA

Richard Burr (R) - 202-224-3154

Elizabeth Dole (R) - 202-224-6342*

NORTH DAKOTA

Kent Conrad (D) - 202-224-2043

Byron Dorgan (D) - 202-224-2551

OHIO

Sherrod Brown (D) - 202-224-2315

George Voinovich (R) - 202-224-3353

OKLAHOMA

Tom Coburn (R) - 202-224-5754

James Inhofe (R) - 202-224-4721

OREGON

Ron Wyden (D) - 202-224-5244

Gordon Smith (R) - 202-224-3753

PENNSYLVANIA

Robert Casey (D) - 202-224-6324

Arlen Specter (R) - 202-224-4254

RHODE ISLAND

Jack Reed (D) - 202-224-4642

Sheldon Whitehouse (D) - 202-224-2921

SOUTH CAROLINA

James DeMint (R) - 202-224-6121

Lindsey Graham (R) - 202-224-5972

SOUTH DAKOTA

Tim Johnson (D) - 202-224-5842

John Thune (R) - 202-224-2321

TENNESSEE

Lamar Alexander (R) - 202-224-4944

Bob Corker (R) - 202-224-3344

TEXAS

John Cornyn (R) - 202-224-2934

Kay Hutchison (R) - 202-224-5922

UTAH

Robert Bennett (R) - 202-224-5444

Orrin Hatch (R) - 202-224-5251

VERMONT

Frank Lautenberg (D) - 856-338-8922

Bernie Sanders (I) - 802-862-0697

VIRGINIA

John Warner (R) - 202-224-2023

James Webb (D) - 202-224-4024

WASHINGTON

Maria Cantwell (D) - 202-224-3441

Patty Murray (D) - 202-224-2621

WEST VIRGINIA 

Robert Byrd (D) - 202-224-3954

John Rockefeller (D) - 202-224-6472

WISCONSIN

Rusell Feingold (D) - 202-224-5323

Herb Kohl (D) - 202-224-5653

WYOMING

John Barrasso (R) - 202-224-6441

Michael Enzi (R) - 202-224-3424

*Some of these Senators are no longer in office. 

Jump Roper or Rope Jumper?

This is fundamental question that will determine the rest of your life:

Are you are rope jumper or a jump roper?

While some may think it purely a semantic difference, I beg to differ. On the one side, you are jumping the rope without controlling the rope, and on the other you are jumping and controlling the rope. 

A jump roper is completely independent. He swings his rope and knows exactly when to jump. He lives in his own bubble, or rope loop (which ever you prefer more). A rope jumper jumps the rope, but does not control the speed or arc of the loop. He is left to the whim of the the person controlling the rope, or the roper. But, the roper is also controlled by the rope jumper. If there is no rope jumper he has no purpose. And, the rope jumper can opt not to jump if the roper goes to fast or is inconsistent. So perhaps the rope jumper has more power than it seems.

And, for the record, this is all literal. There is not an ounce of analogy that can be taken out of this. We are controlled by schoolyard games. Jump rope is their king. It governs our life. You can either embrace it, or it will embrace you (and the kind of embrace will be a deadly bear hug). Hahahha (read as if it were a maniacal laugh)

Getting Back to "The Issues"

I love it when I hear democrats say, "Let's get back to the issues." 

Historically, in elections, when democrats focus on the issues, they lose. That is why Obama has spent so much of his time on a soap box talking about a vague hope, and an unclear, but nonetheless forceful mantra of 'change.' 

And, focusing on the issues does not mean calling McCain Bush and trying to tie him to that administration. That is false campaigning. If they really want to focus on the issues they need to talk about McCain's record, not Bush's. And, if they really want to focus on the issues they need to tell people what an Obama administration would do to 'change' things. If they told America more about Obama's plans, most Americans would disagree. But, people don't vote on issues they don't know about, so instead they vote on character and personality, or, what they perceive as character and personality. So, let's talk about the issues:

Obama wants to cut taxes for the 'middle class' supposedly, and make up the difference by taxing those who make more, making our already unequal tax distribution more top heavy. 

However, his definitions of 'middle class' and 'rich' are not correct. Contrary to popular belief, people who make six figures, aren't necessarily rolling in dough. And, even people who make upwards of $50,000 a year aren't either.  And part of that is because they are taxed like they are rich, when they are not, and then those who make significantly less than them pay nothing. 

Obama wants to make more bureaucracy and government work programs like FDR did, federalizing medical coverage, and creating an 'Obama's Youth' movement. 

Now that might seem all well and good on the surface, except that when the government takes over any large organization or task, it tends to be miserably inefficient. The argument of 'you will pay less for your coverage' may be true on the surface, except if you pay less, you get less, and on top of it, you're not really paying less. To cover everyone's new "free" medical expenses, taxes will go up. And, those taxes don't go to R&D, new techniques, better training and better facilities. No, those taxes go to a new middle man. A technocrat who works for the government and tells you what the government will and won't pay for. The doctors will get paid a flat rate (regardless of their years of schooling and amassed debt from that schooling), and they will be forced to see ALL patients (even illegal aliens). But, so what?! Well, that means that doctors have less incentive to do their jobs well, and reduces the amount of time they can spend on patients, thus causing your "free" coverage to be worth just what you supposedly did not pay - nothing. 

The moral is, don't let politicians trick you into thinking you are getting "free" anything. The truth is, you pay for it. You know how everything in DC is "free"? That's because your federal taxes pay for all those museums and monuments. So, while it might appear to be "free," it's really not.

And, on liberal blogs, and news article forums I read elitist sentiments like this: "The American people are stupid. They are so easily duped by the republican machine. And those people in middle America aren't really Americans, and I sure as hell don't want them to run my country."

Wow. These comments come from people who live in big population centers on both coasts, who have no idea that most of what that they eat, and the electricity that runs their homes comes from those "people in middle America who aren't really  Americans." I love how people who live in big cities claim this moral, intellectual, and social superiority over those who live outside the city. It's a bunch of crock. Guess what? The kids who have an hour bus ride to their school from a podunk farm in rural Montana are often better educated than most inner-city kids. But, people who make these kinds of comments, that despise others who think differently than they (and call them stupid for not agreeing with them) are not inner-city products. Most of them have been fed from silver spoons, receiving their education at private institutions. Oh the irony!  

Drum beats

I dance to the beat of my own drum. If the beat of my drum happens to be American Indian tribal dance, Zulu wedding dance, Depeche mode, Led Zeppelin, or Berlin night club...that is what I will dance. Just as I dance to the beat of my own drum, so does McCain (however, I don't think he is quite so literal).

I am not a devout McCain supporter. Let me start with that. He has a habit of frustrating me. He doesn't dance to his own drum beat. He marches forward with it. He has a history of reaching across the aisle to get reform done. He works with democrats, independents, and republicans. That is something that cannot be denied. He is nobody's b*tch. And, although it can be frustrating to a lot of people, it is a good sign. It means he puts his own judgment and America above that of partisan politics. Aside from drawing in independent and democratic voters, there is a bit in the maverick image that attracts even conservatives (some would argue that what really attracts them is Palin, and that's true too - she's hot), but knowing that he is not anyone's puppet is comforting (I know Bush has been everyone's puppet at one time or other). And, as much as I like puppet shows, I don't want to see that happen again.

McCain's speech last night was a responsible one. It pointed blame where it needed to, - he accepted that his party became corrupt with power in Washington - and he called for unity (and given his habit of bipartisan reform, he can really claim that call more than Obama, who has no such record), he called for energy independence, he called for transparency and accountability, and he called out for controls on government spending and excess taxation. 

On the topic of energy independence his approach is all-encompassing. The energy question does not need to be mutually exclusive, and he proved that. It's not fossil fuels versus green energy. A responsible plan uses both. He called for clean coal technology, natural gas, nuclear power, wind and solar power, electric and flex cars, and drilling. There is a responsible way to do all that. There is a sustainable way to drill, to use coal, and other fossil fuels (and if we don't use them, we are wasting our own potential and shooting ourselves in the collective foot). And, while we use the more economically feasible and well-studied techniques involving fossil fuels, we can concurrently develop more sustainable green energy so there is a smooth transition. 

But the big issue my friends is medical care. McCain said Obama's plan puts a bureaucrat in between me and my doctor. That's true with universal healthcare. Why do people seem to think the government will do a better job with our medical system than competitive, hard-working, private individuals? It boggles my mind. On that point alone I see it imperative to vote for McCain, who claims to have a much more useful reform in mind.

PS - I will continue to dance to the beat of my own drum, right now it's t.A.T.u. - for McCain it's whatever is in the best interest of America, and it will take him to the Oval office. Do the research people! Just because Obama is good-looking and speaks well, doesn't mean he should take the reins over the most powerful nation on the planet.

Universal Garbage

I've been getting so used to not writing, that I was almost reluctant to do so today. I hear laziness is, however, somewhat unbecoming. So I'm writing. Clearly. But, of course, by the time you see this post I will have already written it. With that said let's jump into the ridiculousness of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. 

The press is billing the event like its the Super Bowl. And, to make things right, it's happening in a football stadium (so at least they got the location right). The event however, is not nearly as thrilling or as captivating. Obama's wife has spoken, Hillary has spoken, and even the brain tumor-plagued Ted Kennedy has spoken.

Initially Kennedy's speech was interesting and even a little inspiring, but then he got on his soap box about universal health care. I left the room disgusted.

Universal healthcare is a bad idea. What it means is that the government once again takes over an industry, taking it out of the hands of competent, well-trained, well-paid professionals, and puts it in the hands of the giant federal bureaucracy. Yay! TSA is a joke. Homeland security is not that great. The FCC is a joke. And so is the FAA. Friends, putting the government in charge of our hospitals and medical care will only exacerbate our problems here. 

Now, I would like to clarify that doctors will still have jobs, and will not be replaced by US Postal workers, but because all of our medical bills will be subsidized by the government, the doctors will receive less for their services, we pay more in taxes, and we get to wait in line more as doctors are mandated by the government to see the most inane cases. 

In the UK, with their 'amazingly good system' as it is touted by Michael Moore, people wait for months or even years for cancer treatments and important urgent care because the system is inefficient. The doctors working there are expected to treat any and all people on a 'first come, first served' basis, and do it for almost nothing. Not a good deal for them, and not a good deal for their patients.

It is true that our system could use an overhaul. Our system is inefficient in the US. But, when it comes to getting urgent care, it is more likely to happen here than in a socialized system. When Michael Moore showed in his documentary how easy it was for firefighters from 9/11 to get treatment in Cuba, and how hard it was in America he forgot to include the fact that he went to one of the nicest hospitals in Cuba, and he went with his documentary crew, and he and those with him were not impoverished Cubans, but rather well-to-do North Americans. In most hospitals in Cuba, the government provides the bare minimum in care. For instance, if you need a kidney removed, they'll take it out, but you will be left on a gurney with an ice pack in a dirty room, and if your family doesn't come to bring you towels, blankets, food, water, soap, or anything else you might just die right there due to neglect and infection. So perhaps that's the kind of efficiency we need in this country. Bare minimum get 'r' done mentality.

That is my piece on universal healthcare. If that were the only issue, it would be easy to see why I do not favor Obama, but there are many others that irk me just as much. I'm not going to say I like McCain, but I at least believe our government's size and scope would be kept in a more real check with him in the Oval Office.

Great Paradox

Sometimes, when you feel most powerful, you are in fact the most insignificant. Then, when you feel quite insignificant, you are the most powerful. It is a strange state of irony, but it very often holds true. The more our confidence pushes us toward arrogance, the weaker our moral position becomes, while the more our confidence pushes us to understand the greatness of the whole and our small part in it, the more the world opens up to us. It wanes toward the biblical and the God-fearing, and I find it interesting.

I have had a philosophy for some time now, that I am better off being bold, brazen, and visible rather than quiet, meek, and hidden. My rationale is that if I am confident, and believe I have something good to give or share, it is my duty to share it. It's like the candle under the bushel. I'm not a fan of that. It might catch the bushel on fire. So, while many might find my ways arrogant and cocky, the motives behind them are pure my aim is to be anything but that. I hope at times that my confidence, ambition, and determination inspire hope and optimism rather than irritation, cynicism, and contempt. But the world cannot judge us by our motives.

As much as people would like to prosecute 'hate crimes' differently than other crimes, we cannot become a society that looks to punish for motive. We punish for the deed. What differentiates a 'hate crime' from 'crime?' There are in fact both wrong, but I think the hubris required to attempt to punish someone for their intent, without being able to really gauge it is folly. In the same way, I will continue to be me. I will say what I say, stand up for what I believe, and try to be a visible example. Of course I will falter, make mistakes, do and say stupid things, but my intent is good. And men cannot judge my intent. That is for God.

Why DC is so great.

Well, if you didn't know already, like it or not, DC is awesome. Yep, you might as well just face the music, bite your upper-lip half-heartedly and dance. The reasons are so astoundingly atestable and verifiable there truly is no sensible line of reasoning that could take you elsewhere. DC takes the cake.

First. DC has a thriving job market. No where else on earth do you have such a dependable job market. Why is that you say? Well, the big bureacratic beast with lots of fangs, rabies and a leash made up of red tape lives here. Right downtown. The world's most powerful, but strangely inept government. It doles out millions of new jobs each year for all the fabulous new cubicle mice who are bound to sit in dark cement-laden bomb shelter government offices for new agencies to act as middlemen for other agencies that society already thought were middle men. Yay!

Second. Everything is free! Oh yes, you can go just about anywhere in DC and see works of art, ancient artifacts, and years worth of archives and memorials without paying a dime for admission. And how can this be? Well, surprise surprise. You pay for it. You ever wonder why you pay so much in taxes when you live out in the middle of Wyoming? It's so all the illegal immigrants who protest in DC can have a great weekend planned out with their Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents, and children who are citizens and demand representation without taxation or legal entry. It's so they can see all those monuments and museums that you paid for. Oh DC.

Third. You are surrounded by water and don't even have to deal with all the icky sandiness that you would get from other cities that have a beach close by. You are conveniently placed in between two possible entry points of the sand abyss, but are fortunately sheltered by the most wonderfully smelling and attractive bays in the world. The Chesapeake! Oh what pride. And let's not forget the Potomac. Beautiful brown and gloriously full of treasures like free pianos, tractor tires, refrigerators, bowling balls and old cars...you don't even need to go shopping here, just go fishing and hope an angry minifridge takes your bait. Oh yes, and if you do have a hankering for some blue saltiness and want to get skin cancer you can drive 3 hours north to Bethany Beach Maryland or 3 hours south to Virginia Beach. See, in DC you're lucky.

There are many reasons that DC is the best, these three are just a start. Come on down and check out what all the Peruvians, Hondurans and Guatemalans are raving about! DC! DC! DC!