TSA: Toddler Security Administration

The TSA continues to protect us from the most sinister of foes:  toddlers.  

This much is true: An 18-month-old was pulled from a JetBlue flight and her family was questioned by Transportation Security Administration agents because the airline said the child appeared on a “no-fly” list,  her parents said.

I have an 18-month old niece and while I do call her "The (Giant) Baby of Destruction", I think her taking down an airliner is probably outside the realm of possibility (at least as long as they keep the cockpit doors closed and locked).  Also, she knows about five words, so it would be interesting to see the TSA "question" her.  

I know times are tough and jobs are hard to find, but I would like to believe that I have enough honor to quit my job if it required me to 1) suspend disbelief and assume a toddler is a terrorist, and 2) forcibly sequester that toddler from his/her family and interrogate him/her.  

Do stories like this make you feel any safer?  We keep hearing more and more stories like this coming out about the TSA and yet, they continue to operate without any oversight or any semblance of common sense.  They don't seem to care at all about public outrage, which begs the question:  what do we have to do to get their attention and make them accountable to us (the people they supposedly serve)?  

More Decades-Old "News" About Obama

Related to this previous post about Obama's dog-eating, it becomes ever more obvious that no one read his book.  A news story this week is that one of the girlfriends Obama talks about in Dreams from My Father is actually a composite of several girlfriends of his over the years.  

Except this isn't news because Obama made note of the fact that he used composite characters in his book to protect the identity of actual people.  Ergo, people just bought this book to put up on their shelves and pose as ... I-don't-know-whats, people-who-buy-the-memoirs-of-other-people-too-young-to-have-authored-memoirs?  Ridiculous.  And all of these so-called reporters and journalists should be ashamed of themselves.  

Plus, the country is still in the crapper and we're talking about "news" pertaining to Obama's girlfriends coming out of a book that was written almost 20 years ago?  Pathetic.  And I am pathetic for talking about it as well.  

From One Julia to Another*

Alright, I was busy with some other things yesterday so I only became aware late yesterday evening of "The Life of Julia" -- the Obama campaign's attempt to bribe stupid/ignorant, shameless, and unambitious women into voting for him.  

The youtube video shows Julia from cradle to grave and how she lives (and even thrives!) off the government's largesse, thanks to President Obama.  It also has helpful reminders of how each of these vital "gimmes" will be taken away under a President Romney.  

I have a few questions for my liberal, female friends:  1) does this bother or offend you in any way?,  2) if not, why not?, 3) if not, have you no sense of shame?  Because of all my liberal, female friends -- I'm not aware that any of you need the government's help to live your lives.  You are all productive, tax-paying citizens who contribute positively to the fabric of our society (not counting your voting record, of course).  This should offend you.  I am offended for you.  This is how your government sees you -- as a damsel in distress, waiting to be saved because you couldn't possibly save yourself.

Are American women unable to provide for themselves?  Are we unable to actually earn a scholarship to college or work to pay our own way?  What is the role of parents and family in our society? Are we truly helpless without government handouts?  And if so, is that something to be celebrated?  Is that a reason to vote for a particular candidate?  He's just trying to buy your vote:  "if you elect me, I will pay for __________."  

The most offensive thing about this gambit is that he and his campaign think it will work -- they think we all operate on greed.  That the most important thing to any and all of us is how much we can get for nothing.  So, if your greed exceeds your desire for freedom (and it's responsibilities), then vote for Obama.  (But before you do, take a look at this rebuttal:  "The Real Life of President Obama's Julia".)

*My first name is Julia.

Old MacDonald and His Government Overlords

Now the government wants to tell farmers which chores their children are allowed to perform on their own farms. There is no limit to the government's sense that it knows better than you what is best for you and your family. In this case, the government knows better than you what chores are safe for your kid to do. 4-H and FFA programs would also be gutted by the new law, and replaced with  -- you guessed it! -- a government-run program.  

For those of you out there who think that the government is the only option for curing society's ills -- is this an acceptable trade-off for you? Is bartering away your freedom an even exchange for the bloated and ineffective welfare programs that only serve to create and maintain a permanent underclass? Or does this not bother you because you are not a farmer, so it's not your freedom being taken away or your relationship with your child being micro-managed by the federal bureaucracy? Do you not think that they'll come for you one day?  They will. They always do.

At the End of My Rope

Time to wake up, people.  Our government is completely out of control.  As is usually the case, the TSA is the perfect example of not just government ineptitude, but true tyranny. The latest news out of that cesspool is their detaining and terrifying a four-year old girl for the crime of acting like a four-year old girl in a security line at the airport.  

Have you ever read about the Kapos in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany?  They were the inmates on whom the Nazis relied to keep order and dole out punishments in the camps -- without them, the camps couldn't operate in such an efficiently evil manner. The Kapos were often just as -- and sometimes more -- cruel than the Nazi guards.  It may seem that I'm overreacting by comparing TSA agents with the Kapos, but there's a starting point for all malevolence and there's a definite and comparable psychological reaction involved when a small cadre of people is given power and authority over their fellow citizens (or previous co-equals in the case of the concentration camp inmates). You know the saying:  "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."   

We are now faced with the greatest moral dilemma of our society and civilization:  do we want to be truly free individuals and accept all of the responsibility that comes with that, or do we want to be serfs and slaves to Leviathan and humbly take whatever handouts our rulers are willing to dribble out in order to keep us at bay and prevent us from revolt? Which is it?

To those on the Right -- are you willing to work within the confines of the private sphere (or at the local level) to influence your fellow citizens to adopt your morals and values? Can you accept that such a system will allow people to engage in behavior which you find abhorrent (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, drug use, prostitution)? Are you confident enough in your convictions and your powers of persuasion to save others from themselves without using federal laws and regulations to enact your vision for us?

To those on the Left -- are you willing to work within the confines of the private sphere (or at the local level) to influence your fellow citizens to adopt your morals and values? Can you accept that such a system will allow people to engage in behavior which you find abhorrent (i.e. not recycling, driving SUVs, shopping at Wal-Mart, engaging in capitalism, deciding where and how to spend their paychecks, using incandescent light bulbs, having a kick-ass shower-head with awesome water pressure)? Are you confident enough in your convictions and your powers of persuasion to save others from themselves without using federal laws and regulations to enact your vision for us?

Can't we all just f***ing get along? We live in a huge country with lots of different kinds of people.  Even when we were just 13 states along the Eastern Seaboard, our founding fathers were smart enough to realize that the Constitution was the most specific legal document practicable to bind our nation together. That's why it's so short. And that's why it's not a "living" document. And that's why it is primarily a treatise on what the government cannot do. We should not -- and ultimately cannot -- effectively govern our great nation from Washington  D.C. (look around you if you need evidence of this).  

What are we all so afraid of?  Failure?  When the s**t really hits the fan, do you think the government's going to save you?  Ask the residents of New Orleans how that worked out for them.  We are already on our own in every way that matters, so let's embrace the freedom that our forefathers gifted us with over 200 years ago, and we will create our own prosperity rather than waiting on favors and indulgences from those who seek to control us.

About that Dog Story

The most amazing thing to me about this Obama-ate-dog-meat story is that it's just now news (or more accurately, just not news).  We are aware of this dietary eccentricity because Obama wrote about it in his famous memoir Dreams from My Father.  That was published in 1995 -- for a best-seller, it sure seems that a lot of people haven't actually read it.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  

Face Time

So, Obama has now put his face on a bunch of basketballs they were using at the White House Easter Egg Hunt.  This is trivial -- it's not like adding several billion dollars to the deficit -- but it is seriously creepy.  We are a nation of ideals, ideas, principles and citizens.  We are not a nation defined by the personality of our leader.  But this dude puts his face on everything -- in much the same manner that a totalitarian ruler does.  I find it very troubling that he and his staff can't see how creepy and off-putting this stuff is.  He's probably already commissioning his own memorial on the Mall (I'd  bet money on it).

Can you imagine if George W. Bush put his face on everything?  Created his own presidential seal while still just a candidate?

Don't know how I missed this earlier, but he's already had his face put on our freaking flag.  (I don't actually know who created the flag with his face -- just like I don't know if I'm more disturbed by him or his freaky-deaky acolytes.)

Ann Curry on the Cutting Edge

I accidentally caught part of the Today show yesterday and heard Ann Curry praise The Hunger Games because it has a female protagonist.  How avant garde.  Apparently, Ms. Curry lives under a rock and is unaware that there have been countless female protagonists over the years in films, literature, and pretty much all media.  What is with this rah-rah sisterhood, female empowerment thing going on?  Ms. Curry is the host(ess) of a national morning news program and probably pulls in a 7-figure salary -- is she implying that she is oppressed somehow because she's a woman?  It's 2012 -- can we lay the women's rights thing to rest now?  

I would like to point out the obvious by saying that just because we have the same anatomical features, doesn't mean that all women agree about everything -- particularly politics.  I am offended by that notion.  I am offended that someone would think that I am so shallow as to agree with Nancy Pelosi on something (like healthcare or the government paying for my birth control, for example) because we both have a vagina.  It's absurd.

(Suda)Fed-up

My sister went to the pharmacy yesterday to get some over-the-counter medicine to help her deal with the sinus issues that occur when pollen lays siege to your town.  In the course of discussing the different options with the pharmacist, my sister casually mentioned that she had "popped a couple of Sudafed" that morning.  The pharmacist -- apparently taking issue with that turn of phrase -- then told my sister that she couldn't purchase any more Sudafed.  Because obviously, my sister is a meth-head (it must be her perfect, pearly-white teeth that gave her away).  The pharmacist ended up getting an earful (and boy, do I wish I could have been there -- remind me to tell you later about the time the Macy's checkout lady asked my mother for her Social Security number) and my sister got her meds.  But at what point do we revolt?

Is our country really free if every time we enter a drug store, we're suspected of being an illegal drug dealer/manufacturer?  Or every time we enter an airport, we're suspected of being a terrorist?  Or just about every time we're pulled over after dark, we're suspected of driving drunk?  What is our collective breaking point?  Because I'm thisclose to reaching my personal one.

The Republic of Me

I've been thinking lately about people (and candidates for public office) who seem to think that their choices in life should foisted upon every other citizen (see posts on Rick Santorum, among others).  

In the spirit of elaborating on that subject, here's a glimpse of what America would look like if my opinions became the law of the land, in no particular order.

Chick-Fil-A:  open on Sundays.

Drugs and prostitution would be legal.  Cottage, ricotta and pecorino-romano cheeses would be illegal.  

College football would be played year-round and Auburn would be forbidden from participating.

The NBA would be abolished.

The IRS would be abolished.  Income tax would be replaced with a national sales tax (I've got some ideas about alleviated this burden on the poor, but I'm not getting into it here).  

The Department of Education would be abolished.  

Intelligent design would be taught as a concept only in philosophy classes (and believe me, there's a convincing case to be made for it).  If you want your kids to learn about Creationism, then take them to Sunday school -- it's not a good idea to force apathetic teachers to school your children in something you consider so important.  

Sex education -- with the exception of basic anatomy -- would not be taught in public schools (see above).

The following people would be banned from appearing on television and/or film:  William Devane, Brian Dennehy, Richard Thomas, Alex Trebek, Chris Kattan, Rob Schneider and, of course, Oprah.

Lifetime Movie Network (LMN) would show only Meredith Baxter Birney movies with The Betty Broderick Story, Betty Broderick:  Her Final Fury, and Kate's Secret in heavy rotation.  The Tori Spelling movie Mother, May I Sleep With Danger? would be allowed one showing per month.  

The number of federal employees would be cut by at least half.

COEXIST bumper stickers, Jesus fish, Darwin-fish-eating-Jesus-fish, and those stick-figure family stickers would be forbidden.  Same goes for decorating your car at Christmas.

Congress would meet once a month for two (2) days.  Their salaries would be cut accordingly.  

Low-rise and skinny jeans would be illegal.  

I'm sure there are a great many other things I could come up with, but this is just a glimpse.  So, consider yourselves lucky that a) I will never be elected to anything and b) we do still have enough respect for the Constitution (at the moment) that we wouldn't allow ourselves to be ruled in such a manner. 

But do take a moment to think about it every time you hear someone calling for a new law or regulation -- particularly at the federal level.  Making new laws should be our last resort to solving problems.  

Ick, Santorum -- Part Deux

Now Rick Santorum wants to declare war on pornography.  Sounds like a great idea.  We don't have any more pressing problems for a potential president and Commander-in-Chief to be worrying about.  It's not like the economy is still in the crapper or Iran is ever closer to nuclear power or gas is approaching $5 per gallon or Afghanistan is in ever greater turmoil.  Nah, all that stuff is under control.  The federal government should definitely focus on pornography.  Which is legal, by the way, except in cases of child pornography.  

I think Rick Santorum is total doofus.  Nobody wants to elect a scold.  I probably agree with him about 80% of the time in terms of how people should live their lives in a way that's best for them as individuals and for society at large, but there's a world of difference between an opinion of how someone should live and making that opinion the law of the land.  That is not American and that is not what our forefathers fought and died for -- or what our young men and women continue to fight and die for.  

Ick, Santorum

This is (partially) why I don't like Rick Santorum and would have a very difficult time voting for him.  Even if he's just making a joke about criminalizing teleprompter use by presidential candidates, it's troubling for a politician to kid around about making things illegal.  Unfortunately, I don't get the impression that he was kidding.  A lot of times, we jump on candidates too quickly and too much for being loose with their language, and we make mountains out of mole hills.  I don't think this is one of those times.  

Santorum's comment exposes him as an acolyte of the nanny-state, same as his liberal opponents.  His mantra seems to be "that with which I disagree should be criminalized".  It also seems as though he thinks the American electorate is foolish enough to not recognize Obama's reliance on his teleprompter (among his other, more egregious shortcomings) and must be protected from their own ignorance.  If the American people are too stupid to realize that Obama is rhetorically-challenged without his teleprompter, then they get what they deserve.  Actually, that's not even true -- if Americans are too stupid and foolish to vote for or against a candidate based on his or her teleprompter use, then we are stupid and foolish people and we get what we deserve.  

It was troubling and offensive to me when Obama joked about IRS audits -- that kind of rhetoric is chilling and anti-democratic. When you're not in a position of power and are a citizen at the mercy of the IRS (as most of us are),  a joke about getting audited really isn't funny.  To me, that comment of Obama's exposed how he views the presidency and the power that comes with it -- he's no longer a fellow citizen, he's a ruler.  

And while Rick Santorum's values may be different from Obama's, their methods in the form of government-as-savior are much too similar for my taste.  

Wal-Mart Cometh

Wal-Mart is attempting to open a new store in my neighborhood, and unsurprisingly, my left-leaning enclave is vehemently opposed to a Wal-Mart colonization.  There have been protests and meetings and people in Birkenstocks standing on corners handing out fliers and requesting that I honk my horn in support.  The usual.  

In the neighborhood newsletter that I received earlier this week, it seems as though they are making traffic the focus of their concerns (most likely in an attempt to sound sane and practical).  The site of the proposed Wal-Mart is a decrepit, semi-vacant strip mall off one corner of a 5-point (possibly 6-point -- it's a bit of a cluster) intersection.  Using the logic that a new Wal-Mart would increase traffic at an already busy intersection, it seems as though my neighbors don't want any successful business to move into the strip mall and revitalize it.  Although, I can pretty much guarantee you that they wouldn't be protesting a Trader Joe's or a Target or a Whole Foods or a giant tofu market.  Just the Wal-Mart.  Because Wal-Mart is evil ... and fascist, according to some of the literature being dispersed.  My husband saw this and asked me how Wal-Mart is fascist and to define "fascism".  That's easy:  anything opposed by liberals and leftists is fascism. 

I am actually conflicted about the Wal-Mart.  On the one hand, I love to piss off these kinds of people.  And I love me some discounts.  Which brings me to the other hand -- the Wal-Mart would displace my thrift store and as I sit here in my $4 sweater, $1 t-shirt and $3 shoes, that makes me sad.  Such is free enterprise -- which is not fascist, but don't tell my neighbors that because they wouldn't understand the actual definition of fascism.  If only the city/county had seized the strip mall using eminent domain to give it to Wal-Mart, these anti-commerce hippies would have my support.  

Revelation

Much is being made about President Obama's latest self-aggrandizing statement in which he seemingly compares himself to Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.  My problem isn't how Obama views himself in the same league with those gentlemen, it's the revelation of how he views America in the same league as colonial-ruled India and South Africa under apartheid.  The man who presides over our great nation sees his country as plagued by the same kinds of injustice that Gandhi and Mandela fought against in their nations.  That is a truly disgusting notion.   

The irony is that if Obama gets his way, we will live under actual tyranny.

The Contraceptive Debate

What a cluster.  I'm not going to get into the religious liberty aspect of it.  What I want to talk about is the fact that we are debating over whether working women -- meaning women with jobs/salaries/incomes -- should be forced into the hardship of purchasing their own birth control because their employers feel that providing such coverage in their health care plans is against their morals and values.  (A hardship they are no doubt currently experiencing and have experienced for as long as they've worked at their respective institutions.)  

Do you know how much my birth control pills cost per month?  Nine (9!) dollars.  9 f---ing dollars.  And no, that's not with a co-pay.  It's $9 to walk in off the street and buy my birth control without any subsidy from an insurance company.  And we're debating this issue?  This is how we're spending our time?  It's $108 per year that I think a working woman can afford on her own.   

You know my stance that health care is not a right, well birth control certainly isn't a freaking right.  Is a Big Mac a right?  Is a foot massage a right?  Is Botox a right?  Birth control is not a right.  

A Sad Day Indeed

Rest in peace, Andrew Breitbart.  Freedom-loving Americans have lost an important voice -- a force of a nature.  We should all live our lives with the energy, passion, principled convictions and sense of humor with which Mr. Breitbart lived his life.  

I Should Have Gone to Church This Morning

Jack Lew was on Meet the Press this morning and if I understood him correctly, the most important thing Congress can do to get the economy growing again is to extend the payroll tax cuts.  That's all he's got?  Putting a few extra dollars in workers paychecks each week is going to get us back on track?  If only.  

He also said that now is not the time for austerity.  Tell that to the millions of Americans who are forced into their own personal austerity measures because of the current economic conditions.  Apparently, it doesn't matter to the government that its tax dollars are drying up.  Trillion dollar deficit?  No problem?  It can always print more money.  What I didn't hear David Gregory ask is when the heck is the time for austerity?  When people are rioting in the streets like the Greeks?  

Now David Gregory is interviewing Rick Santorum and "wants to focus on social issues".  Of course, David Gregory wants to focus on social issues with Rick Santorum.  Thankfully, Santorum doesn't take the bait.  

In Which I Wade Into the Murky Waters of Gay Marriage

I don't believe I have ever shared my views on gay marriage, mainly because they seem to be ever in flux.  A federal appeals has now ruled that California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in that state through a referendum is unconstitutional.  

Here are my thoughts as they stand at this moment (subject to change, but I think I'm on to something):

I personally believe that marriage is a religious sacrament to be entered into by a man and a woman and performed by a minister/rabbi/priest/etc.  However, the government is also involved as there is paperwork to be filled out, names to be changed (if applicable), tax-filing status, etc.  I think the solution is to take government out of the "marriage" business entirely and turn all marital unions as far as government recognition goes into civil unions and afford gay people those same rights.  

I do not care if the government recognizes my marriage as such.  The only person I need to recognize my marriage as a "marriage" is my husband.  And the only entity that I need to recognize it as such is God.  I can sympathize with homosexual couples who wish to enter into some sort of official union, publicly proclaim their vows to each other and be accorded the same rights as their fellow heterosexual married citizens.  They should absolutely have those rights.  This country was founded on the principle that citizens can enter into contracts of their choosing and marriage as far as the government goes is a contract.  

However, I also sympathize with my fellow citizens who oppose gay marriage for certain reasons.  The argument has been made that if gay marriage is legally sanctioned, then churches and private companies who operate in the wedding industry can and will be sued for discrimination for declining to perform their services for gay couples if it goes against their beliefs.  We live in a litigious society and those concerns are real.  It's a specific concern and it surely seems trivial to those who feel that their civil rights are being denied by being unable to be "married" in the eyes of their government.  Beyond the legal and contractual rights that come with being officially recognized as a marital union, I don't understand the sense that I get that people want the government (and everyone else) to validate their relationships.  I'm not sure I'm being clear on this -- basically, if you're in a loving and committed relationship that you define as a marriage and you are afforded the same legal status (in the form of a civil union), what do you care if your government or your neighbor calls it a marriage or a civil union or a banana or a decision you'll come to regret in ten years?  In the same vein, for people who oppose gay marriage -- what do you care if a couple says they're married even if you don't consider it a marriage and what's the big deal if the government puts it on equal footing with your own marriage if your church/synagogue/whatever reserves the right the maintain the traditional definition of marriage?

I'll do the obligatory "I have gay friends" caveat.  Because I do.  And some of them are in loving and committed relationships and I think that some of those couples characterize their relationships as marriages.  This does not trouble or offend me even though my faith precludes me from defining it as such.  Just as I hope that my private (except for this blog post, of course) belief that their relationship is not a marriage in the same sense that mine is does not trouble or offend them (and if it does, then I'm sorry and you shouldn't care what I think anyway).  

So, here's to civil unions for everyone.  Me and mine included.

One Man's Pajamas ...

Oh, geez.  A Parish Commissioner in Louisiana is seeking a ban on pajama-wearing in public.  Wearing pajamas in public should not be a criminal offense.  This is the type of behavior that calls for societal shaming -- it is behavior to be frowned upon, not to be legislated or otherwise officially banned by government.  

When did the automatic response to anything and everything we personally don't like become "there oughta be a law ..."?  It is said that in a democracy, people get the government they deserve and that certainly seems to be what has happened to us.  We did this.  We invited the government into our homes and it has rendered us powerless just like when you invite a vampire into your home.  Government intrusion into our lives is now so pervasive that it feels futile to fight it and that the battle has already been lost.  And maybe it has been.

Back to the matter at hand -- I personally cannot stand seeing women wearing shirts that are too short and/or pants that ride too low and which therefore expose their undergarments (usually of a thong variety).  Do I want there to be a law against this, does that kind of solution even enter my mind?  No.  That's what dirty looks are for.  Same goes for pajamas (and Florida Gators t-shirts).

Libertarianism (With a Side of Dumb Young Voters)

I certainly hope this is true, but I wonder if people really understand what a truly libertarian government will require of us:  personal responsibility, personal charity and sacrifice to help people in need, real tolerance of  different views and lifestyles, and real participation in our governing bodies and democratic process.  If we as a country suddenly embraced libertarianism, we can't deny that there will be a very real and painful period of adjustment for our citizens most in need.  We can't ignore that fact even though, ultimately, (I believe) greater freedom means greater prosperity for all citizens.  I do think we need radical change, but it's not going to be all sunshine and roses.

I think young people think of libertarianism as freedom to smoke weed and allow gay marriage, but it's really about the freedom to live your life and succeed or fail on your own.  Our government has been in the "safety net" business for so long that too many people have grown accustomed to whatever safety net the government provides to them, be it specific tax credits/deductions or Social Security or goodness knows what else.

Where the author of this article totally loses me is in claiming that these young people are now all about libertarianism, but still want "universal" healthcare supposedly paid for by the federal government.  (His argument that a universal health care system is a "libertarian approach" is laughable.)  Do people really not understand that the federal government's money is the people's money?  The government sells no goods, it generates no income other than what it collects from taxes.  There is no such thing as "free health care".  "Universal" health care is also a myth -- the people who can afford better care (i.e. those nasty, evil rich people) will always get better care than the people who cannot afford it.  And why people can't understand and accept that is a complete mystery to me.  

It Just Keeps Getting Better

Do you think they'll feature this story on a "Visit California" commercial?  A man was electrically shocked by a park ranger for walking his dogs off a leash and apparently, for failure to provide this ranger with the respect that she felt she was owed.  

I wish I could legally Taser people who bugged me and failed to show me respect.  You there, cutting in line:  ZAP!  Verizon:  ZAP!  Every human being at Wal-Mart last night:  ZAAAAAP!  (I'd make a joke about government officials I'd like to zap, but nobody seems to have a sense of humor anymore.) 

The Royal Presidency

What a buffoon.  The president participated in some sort of online forum and a woman asked a thoughtful question about the H1-B visa for bringing foreign workers to the US to do work when so many Americans -- including this woman's engineer husband -- are out of work.  And basically, the president's response boiled down to "get me your husband's resume".  Huh?  He really does think he's some kind of monarch handing out favors and patronages to his subjects.  It's totally bizarre.

Well, This is Embarrassing

A couple of visiting Brits were detained upon arrival at LAX and then ultimately denied entry to our lovely country and shipped backed home via Paris.  Their crime?  Joking on Twitter with a friend with the following message:  

"Free this week, for a quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America".

Too bad America doesn't seem to exist anymore.  The joke isn't even on us -- the joke is us.  Are these the kinds of leads that the Department of Homeland Security is tracking down?  Because I'm pretty sure there are actual terrorists still out there, and that our FBI and CIA were twiddling their thumbs in similar fashion to this in the years before 9/11.  What is wrong with us?  Someone should lose their job over this -- what a waste of time and resources.  What an unbelievable embarrassment. 

State of the Union 2012

Just realized what a blunder it was for the Bush administration to label our offensive against radical Islamic terrorists as the "War on Terror".  Of course Obama can't proclaim victory when he brings our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, no president could.  There is no end to a War on Terror.  It's like declaring war on evil.


He's still talking about 2008?  It's the 2012 State of the Union.  I know the last 4 years have seemed like one extremely loooooooooooong year because nothing has changed except to get just a little bit worse each day/week/month/year, like a frog being slowly boiled.


If this guy is touting GM as a success story, then it really is as bad as it seems.  "The American auto industry is back."  Yeah, sure buddy.


"We will do everything we can to help you succeed."  To my ears, that sounds vaguely threatening.  What was that Ronald Reagan said?

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." UPDATE:  Every state must require that students stay in school until they graduate or turn 18?  That means we really are wards of the state.  You are not your own person.  The state owns you. [Something funky is happening with this formatting, but I can't figure out how to stop it.  My apologies.  It bugs.]   UPDATE II:  Any person who serves in our military should be granted citizenship ASAP.  Why we don't already do that is a mystery.  The student issue is much murkier to me.   UPDATE III:  What about Keystone?!   I think he is full of natural gas. "Thousands of Americans have jobs because of [renewable energy]."  That sounds about right.  Thousands of Americans have jobs while millions are unemployed or underemployed. UPDATE IV:  How about you and your wife stop taking separate Air Force 1 flights everywhere?   "Send me a bill that creates these jobs."  Um, bills don't create jobs.  People do.  Seriously. "Nation-building at home."  That is a good line.  I wish he understood how that was done (see above). "Americans who play by the rules everyday."  That's getting harder and harder to do as government creates evermore rules.  UPDATE V:  Still talking about Bush!  It's 20-f***ing-12!  Too bad you were in office when the BP oiled spilled and you didn't do anything about it. We're not bailing you out ever again.  No, we'll just set up the system (as we did before -- and by "we" I mean the government at large, both Democrat and Republican) so that you get preferential treatment in the formulation of our regulations.  UPDATE VI:  Class warfare -- here we go!   Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate because he is primarily being taxed now on his investments, the money he earned to make those investments was already taxed at a higher rate.  People need to understand this. I can and do call it class warfare, sir.  Just because you're picking on millionaires and billionaires (which apparently, people making over $250k are) doesn't mean you're not preying on the politics of envy and penalizing people for their success.  Just because someone can pay something, doesn't mean they should be required to.  Where does that end?  A person making $250k is now a millionaire by Obama's standards, how long until they lower that again?  Like a slowly boiled frog ...  "Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress."  Now, that is good.  Get him that bill tomorrow. Now he's getting into stuff that bores me.  "Ask the Congress to grant me the authority ..."  I don't like much that grants anyone more authority. Let's all stop pretending that Abraham Lincoln is the father of the Republican party of today.  Things have changed so much and both political parties have changed their ideological stripes in the 100+ years since the Civil War that these statements are ridiculous.  We should all take note there have been few, if any, principles which tie our political parties together.  The political parties exist to maintain and grab power in our government.  Their ideology is to get elected.  America is not in decline.  America is not in decline.  If you wish it enough, it might come true.   "As long as I am president, I intend to keep it that way (as the most important country or some such)."  Please let us only have a year left.  Then what he says could be true. I'm only staying up to see Mitch Daniels give the rebuttal in the hope that he announces his candidacy for president.  I realize that I once wished for Rick Perry to get into the race and we know how that turned out.  I think when you're in battle you'd probably look out to where the enemy is, but I know as much about being in battle as President Obama does. UPDATE VII:  Was Hillary Clinton just reduced to "a woman who ran against [Obama] for president"?  She can't be pleased by that. I think he thought he was going to get applause lines after each "This nation is great ..."  But I bet everybody is sitting there thinking about how pissed Hillary is right now. Thank you and good night. PS.  Run, Mitch, run! PPS.  "A government who serves the people, not supervises them."  Just so.  Run, Mitch, run!  For the love of God, man.  Run.

Warren Buffett: Obama's Puppet(eer?)

Why do people think Warren Buffett is so altruistic and pure and only interested in helping his fellow Americans?  The man is interested in money -- that's it.  (And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that except that he's trying to pretend otherwise and too many people have fallen for it.)  

He opposes the repeal of the estate/death tax -- do you know why?  Because much of his fortune comes from life insurance companies.  Life insurance benefits aren't taxed, so it's in Buffett's best interest for our country to have an estate/death tax, so that people will funnel more money into life insurance so their beneficiaries can avoid taxes on their inheritances.

You know who is one of the few people to benefit from Obama's rejection of the Keystone pipeline permit?  Warren Buffett.  He's got a railroad out in those parts which will likely be used to haul Canada's new oil from the extraction site to their ports where it can be sent to China instead of to the US.  Funny how that all works out for him, isn't it?  

I thought it was difficult in 2008 to separate fact from fiction while I was reading Atlas Shrugged, but it's only getting harder and harder.  This is the type of crap that the Occupiers are allegedly protesting, but they're too stupid to articulate it and probably too stupid to even realize it.  This is how crony capitalism works and how it leaves out all but the few who have the right connections in Big Government and Big Business.  

My Hero

I think I have a new crush and his name is Rand Paul.  And he is not afraid of the motherf***in' TSA.  We could grind them to a halt if we all followed Sen. Paul's example.  Say no.  Do not submit.  I know it seems a little scary, but isn't it scarier (more scary?) that our civil rights are being so brazenly disregarded by our government? The fear we feel over demanding our rights be respected is real because our government has become almost tyrannical -- and in the limited instance of the TSA, I feel completely comfortable characterizing their behavior as tyranny.  See below -- that first definition there. 

What is the TSA's behavior if not arbitrary and/or unrestrained?  How can the molestation and humiliation of kindergarteners and nonagenarians be anything but arbitrary and devoid of restraint?

tyr·an·ny

  

noun, plural -nies.

1.

arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuseof authority.

2.

the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.

3.

a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.

4.

oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of anyruler.

5.

undue severity or harshness.

Not Something I Expected to Write About

Nevermind how this crossed my path on the internet, but instead focus your mind on why the US government has an official position on douching.  That's right.  At www.womenshealth.gov ("empowering womem to lead healthy lives!"), you can find a "Douching fact sheet" with all sorts of helpful information.  In this day and age when one can find countless websites devoted to all manner of things, why are we as taxpayers spending money for the government to provide information (on douching!) that we can easily get from other places?  Might their time and our money be better spent elsewhere?  

Interestingly, there's no counterpart Men's Health website provided by the government. Instead, "Men's Health" is relegated to a sub-section of the Women's Health website.  I guess men don't have to worry about their health.

Laws, Schmaws

I'm watching Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace is questioning John Boehner on the "do-nothing" Congress and cited the fact that Congress only passed 80 laws in 2011 as evidence of their lack of action.  Thankfully, John Boehner made the completely valid point that the people don't necessarily want Congress to pass more laws.  There are plenty of laws already!  Amen, brother.

Can you imagine what they would come up with if there was some sort of quota for laws passed each year?  I judge Congress by how many laws they repeal each year.

Shocker

The TSA in Dallas missed a gun in a little old lady's handbag.  When I read the headline, I thought that their super-duper scanners had malfunctioned in some way and failed to detect the gun.  But no, the gun showed up on their screen, the scanner just took his (or her) sweet time in detaining the woman.  Ninety (90!) minutes, in fact.  And she was actually already on her plane and away from the gate.  

What purpose does the TSA serve?  I have said it before and will say it again, if we are relying on the fools at the TSA as our last line of defense against a 9/11-style attack, then we're toast.  The people who work for the TSA will do anything for a paycheck.  They strip search and molest their fellow citizens on the orders of some government bureaucrat, just so they can collect their paycheck.  They humiliate us and strip us of our 4th Amendment rights and it seems as though they kind of like it.  

If they had any honor, they would refuse.  And if we still had any honor or remembrance of the freedom and liberty we used to have, then we would refuse.  But we're sheep, so we stand in line, we put our makeup and our toiletries into government-approved bottles, we remove our tweezers and nail clippers and nail files from our suitcases, we take off our shoes and humbly shuffle along to either possible exposure to radiation or a violation of one of our most basic rights.  What a $%&*ing country!

Great! Now Where's the Rest?

Rand Paul has returned $500k to the treasury department.  The article states that this money comes from his operating budget and represents 16% of that budget.  Only 16 percent!  I did the math and that means that his budget as one senator is $3,125,000.  Ka-ching.  Assuming that each senator has an equal budget (and I'm not sure that's true because they seem to be real big on seniority and other perks in that body and Rand Paul is a newbie), that means that the senate has an operating budget of roughly $312,500,000.  Over 300 million dollars.  What the &%$# do they do with all that money?  Seriously.  And don't forget that's our money.  We earned it and they took it.

What a country!

Disturbing

This is a very sad and disturbing story about police misconduct and abuse that led to a man's death.  The district attorney, of course, decided not to press charges against the police officers involved.

Growing up, we're taught to respect the police and honor them for doing a dangerous job -- and probably a majority of officers are honorable men and women.  But they aren't superheroes and they aren't infallible.  They are human beings and are just as capable of cruelty and evil as the rest of us.  It doesn't help our society to put our police officers and other public servants up on a pedestal, safe from scrutiny and criticism and above the law.  When we create a protected class of citizens like that, then people who are prone to misdeeds and criminal behavior will seek -- and often succeed -- to be part of that protected class.  (Which, incidentally, is why I think the Catholic church had such an issue with pedophiles in its priesthood, but I digress.)

If our great experiment in democracy is going to work, then we the people must pay attention and scrutinize the behavior of those in power, whether they're police officers, city councilmen, congressmen,  or the president (among many others).  Democracy requires the responsibility and participation of the governed.

Back to the story at hand:  the cops involved should be charged with murder.

Compare and Contrast

I had a conversation with a dear friend recently -- a friend who is almost certainly more liberal than I am, but also probably more apolitical than anything else -- and she made an off-handed comment comparing the Occupy Wall Street crowd with the Tea Party as though they were cut from the same cloth.  Obviously, I personally hold the Tea Party in much higher esteem than I do the Occupy Wall Streeters just based on my politics.  But let's take a moment to compare (or rather, contrast) the behavior of these two groups and the ludicrousness of thinking they are anything alike.

In the Occupy movement, we have a man pooping on a police car, reports of assault (both regular and sexual), rape and attempted rape (and I believe this just covers the actual protest in NYC), there was also that incident of arson that I blogged about here, and finally the news this week of a baby being found alone in a tent at the Occupy DC protest.

For the Tea Party, we do have an alleged incident of protesters spitting at my congressman John Lewis and yelling racial slurs -- I don't think it happened, but others can and certainly do disagree (but in the age of near ubiquitous video by phones, it's telling that to date, no video has surfaced of this alleged incident).  There was some violence in Ft. Lauderdale when the ANSWER folks staged a counter-protest to the Tea Party and rallied their troops with the all-too-familiar charge that people who hold conservative beliefs must be racists.  A man named Kenneth Gladney was also beaten at a townhall meeting in St. Louis where many Tea Partiers had turned out to protest the healthcare act -- except that he was beaten up by union thugs, not by the Tea Partiers.  There were also general reports that those attending Tea Party protests picked up after themselves and left behind little trash, in contrast to the major cleanups needed for the Occupiers.

So, to recap:  comparing the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street is like comparing apples and rotten apples.  Or comparing oranges and oranges that rape, assault and poop on other oranges.

What frightens me about my friend's comment is that for people who don't pay a lot of attention to these things -- but who still vote every four years -- the Tea Party and OWS are one and the same.  It's depressing.

What the ... ?

I flipped past this story on the news the other night and have only now understood what a magnificently horrible idea this was:  "Georgia School Math Assignment References Slavery, Beatings".  Who are the teachers that came up with this doozy?  Are these the kind of teachers we're supposed to revere and respect because they're so smart and noble?  Because these teachers are dumbasses -- plain and simple.  I doubt they're racists, just possibly too dumb to function in 21st century America.

“We’ve been working with human resources to determine what staff development is needed for the teachers and what actions may be warranted,” [District spokewoman Sloan] Roach said. 

Staff development?  I believe that ship has sailed.    

“If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in one week?”

That's Frederick Douglass they're talking about.

Pardon Me, Homes

Microsoft patents its "Avoid Ghetto" feature for GPS systems.    Awesome.

Justice

Two stories in the news this week should give all lowlifes, punks and other criminals pause.

In Naples, FL we have a young man (a 14-year old boy, actually) who killed the bully who attacked him by stabbing him with a pocket knife 12 times.  The judge dismissed the case citing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law which allows you to use deadly force to defend yourself against harm.  It's a sad story -- the bully was 16 years old and certainly wouldn't have been punished by death for the attack on his victim, but I can't say that I'm bothered by the message that if you seek to do harm to others, you are putting your own life in danger.  If this kid hadn't instigated the fight against his would-be victim, then he'd be alive today.

In Oklahoma, a woman successfully defended herself, her baby and her home against two intruders by blowing one of them away with a 12-gauge shotgun.  Well played, madam.  She called 911 for help and the operators seem to have done their job and helped her as best they could.  It took the cops over 20 minutes to get to her.  You know what they say:  when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.   This story ends awesomely with the second intruder -- the one who got away that night -- being charged with first-degree murder of his fellow criminal because if a death results from the commission of a burglary, that's felony murder.  Tough luck.

Georgia in the News

Georgia has been in the news quite a bit lately for a wide range of stories.  Where to begin?


How about with state Rep. Judy Manning?  Quoted in my hometown newspaper, she says the following:

“I think Mitt Romney is a nice man, but I’m afraid of his Mormon faith,” Manning said. “It’s better than a Muslim. ..."

For the record, I personally find the Mormon religion to be strange.  I say that with the recognition that many people find the Christian religion to be strange -- along with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and pretty much any religion to which one is not an adherent.  I also don't think it's necessarily bigoted to vote for a candidate based on his or her religion.  The presidency is an important job and if your faith is important to you, I'd imagine you'd want someone of similar beliefs in the Oval Office.  That being said, I would not have characterized my reservations about Mitt Romney's religion so carelessly in a newspaper article.  "It's better than a Muslim" -- that is quite a tag line for Mitt Romney's campaign and I'm completely sincere when I say that he should use it, he needs a little pizzazz.

Up next:  Georgia's war on fat kids.  There was an article in Salon this week about the anti-fat kid billboards that have popped up all over the metro Atlanta area recently.  This is apparently an effort by Children's Healthcare of Atlanta (CHOA) to let us know that "fat isn't cute" and fat kills and being fat is awful and unhealthy and just sucks all-around.  I think a better use of the money CHOA  spent on this marketing campaign ($50 million!) would have been a lobbying campaign to the state Board of Education about restoring recess (and lots of it) to elementary and middle schools.  Or what about going all Jamie Oliver on the people who set the menu for school cafeterias?  Doesn't that seem like a better way to promote healthy eating and practices in kids than to put up a bunch of billboards calling kids fat and telling them to be embarrassed and ashamed about it?

Georgia has its very own Solyndra with a failed ethanol venture costing US taxpayers $64 million and Georgia taxpayers an additional $6.2 million.  Sweet.  Do you see how easily the government throws money around?  Do you see how careless they are as stewards of our hard-earned paychecks?  It should make you sick.  We fought a revolution for transgressions less egregious than this.  Bring back George III!

And finally, the Birther debate continues in the Peach State.  A Georgia judge is allowing a case to move forward that would prevent President Obama from being listed on the ballot in November because he's not a US citizen.  Okay.  I'll admit that I thought something was funky with his birth certificate based on the fact that he refused to release it, but I always thought it was a stretch that his parents had an inkling at his birth that he might want to be the President of the United States one day, so they needed to hide the fact that he was allegedly born in Kenya (that's what the Birthers think, right?).  I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm confused about another part of this saga as well:  Obama's mother was a US citizen, doesn't that make him automatically a US citizen regardless of where he was born?  If I had been born when my parents were traveling out of the country, does that mean that I couldn't be president?  Seems a little unfair.

To top all of this off, the Dawgs lost their bowl game for the second year in a row.