Do you know all of the details in the energy tax bill that the House passed the other day? No? It's ok. Neither did they! Apparently, someone thought that it would be cute to submit a 300+ page amendment at 3 in the morning the day it was to be voted on (on top of the 1000+ pages already there). And in Obama's Age of Transparency, no less.
But fear not, my good citizens! There is a man with the audacity to not only read it himself so that he may understand it, but also to expect everyone else voting on it to understand it as well! [gasp!] And no matter how much Waxman may cry about it, he cannot stop...
John Boehner and the Bitchslap of Truth!
As you watch, keep in mind that all of this is ONLY THE AMENDMENT.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
I was surprised. Were you surprised? I was surprised.
Remember DDT, and how awesomely effective it was at wiping out malaria? Then remember how environmentalists ended its use, resulting in millions of deaths in Africa because the alternative methods weren't as effective? I do.
But here's something that I missed. Apparently, the WHO (World Health Organization) reversed their position on banning DDT and now endorses its use. And this happened almost two years ago! Wow! I'm glad somebody finally came to their senses.
Don't believe me? Check here (and its from NPR, so you know it's good!): WHO Backs Use of DDT Against Malaria
This is really good, because it's actually what the people of Africa wanted anyway: 'Condemned to die' by malaria, Ugandans plead for DDT use
I wonder if anyone thought to ask the people actually dying from malaria if they wanted to continue the use of DDT. Something tells me that no one did.
But here's something that I missed. Apparently, the WHO (World Health Organization) reversed their position on banning DDT and now endorses its use. And this happened almost two years ago! Wow! I'm glad somebody finally came to their senses.
Don't believe me? Check here (and its from NPR, so you know it's good!): WHO Backs Use of DDT Against Malaria
This is really good, because it's actually what the people of Africa wanted anyway: 'Condemned to die' by malaria, Ugandans plead for DDT use
I wonder if anyone thought to ask the people actually dying from malaria if they wanted to continue the use of DDT. Something tells me that no one did.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Fuel Efficiency: Good for the Environment (but not really), Bad for Not Killing People
I suppose that most of you have heard of CAFE Standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) and how they put restrictions on automobile mileage. Sounds good, right? The government is telling private companies how to make their product, because they know better. Right.
That's bad enough, but it turns out that this case of government meddling is costing lives. I found this to be quite interesting, if not infuriating: CAFE Standards Kill
Turns out that smaller, lighter cars are less safe to be in in the event of a crash. Who knew? As usual, I have a key paragraph for those who may not be interested in reading the whole thing:
"An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards."
I think that CAFE Standards may have killed more people than anthropogenic global warming. Pretty safe bet, considering that the latter is a myth.
That's bad enough, but it turns out that this case of government meddling is costing lives. I found this to be quite interesting, if not infuriating: CAFE Standards Kill
Turns out that smaller, lighter cars are less safe to be in in the event of a crash. Who knew? As usual, I have a key paragraph for those who may not be interested in reading the whole thing:
"An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards."
I think that CAFE Standards may have killed more people than anthropogenic global warming. Pretty safe bet, considering that the latter is a myth.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Stuff. But some things, as well!
A lot has been going on lately. I was laid off on March 31. Swank pulled out of the hotel, and basically gave up on the Cincinnati market altogether. I still have yet to find employment, but I have a couple freelance gigs lined up, one of which being with Swank, my former employer. They may be able to hire me back, but the closest location would be Columbus, and potentially anywhere in the country. And the earliest would be sometime in the summer. So, finding a job here would be sweet, cos I need the money in the meantime, and I'd like to not have to move.
But, there is some very awesome news to report, as well. Steph and I went to the doctor today for THE ultrasound. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...
It's a girl!
And a very healthy, well-developed, everything-in-the-right-place-and-the-right-size girl, at that. We're quite excited. Partially, because we had some good girl names in mind, but were having real trouble with boy names. So this buys us some time for that.
But, we still haven't settled on a girl name. So, much like Shannon, (but not in a copying her kind of way - ok, maybe a bit) we are opening it up to you, my faithful-ish readers, to suggest some names. Have fun!
But, there is some very awesome news to report, as well. Steph and I went to the doctor today for THE ultrasound. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...
It's a girl!
And a very healthy, well-developed, everything-in-the-right-place-and-the-right-size girl, at that. We're quite excited. Partially, because we had some good girl names in mind, but were having real trouble with boy names. So this buys us some time for that.
But, we still haven't settled on a girl name. So, much like Shannon, (but not in a copying her kind of way - ok, maybe a bit) we are opening it up to you, my faithful-ish readers, to suggest some names. Have fun!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Shock and Amazement
Of all of the possible news outlets, I can't believe that I'm going to The Daily Show to properly explain the whole AIG bonus situation. But, surprisingly enough, they got it pretty close. Perhaps their best investigative reporting ever.
Facebook friends, look here.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| The Notorious AIG - Scorn in the USA | ||||
| ||||
Facebook friends, look here.
The part at 3:14 is important. As is the fact that congress knew about the bonuses and even allowed for them in the bill.
The guy at the top is always an easy target. Think before you accuse. Don't just go on a witch hunt. Sadly, that's what it looks like people are doing. Even though it isn't really helping them out (or solving anything), people just want to watch someone burn. Preferably, someone they are jealous of.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The more you knooooooow!
I've found out how our government figures stuff out! It makes perfect sense!
The kazoo just kills me.
The kazoo just kills me.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
I have a new hero.
Daniel Hannan, ladies and gentlemen:
Can we bring him here to talk to our government?
Can we bring him here to talk to our government?
Monday, March 16, 2009
I keep having to remind myself that most people believe this stuff.
Gaining an understanding of how nature behaves on its own before understanding how humans affect it? Brilliant!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Obama is a liar. Plain and simple.
"We are going to ban all earmarks."
~President Barack H. Obama, about the spending bill
In reality, the bill contains about 9,000 earmarks, totalling about $7.8 billion. Thanks, Barry.
I'm having trouble expressing my frustration. So, I'll let Glenn Beck do it for me.
First, a little info for those of you who think that we can just raise taxes on the rich to solve our problems:
Fantastic. Now about the bill at hand and the pork within:
So not only has Obama allowed earmarks in this bill, but he is actually directly responsible for requesting some of it. But it's ok. He's having his name removed from it.
*sigh*
~President Barack H. Obama, about the spending bill
In reality, the bill contains about 9,000 earmarks, totalling about $7.8 billion. Thanks, Barry.
I'm having trouble expressing my frustration. So, I'll let Glenn Beck do it for me.
First, a little info for those of you who think that we can just raise taxes on the rich to solve our problems:
Fantastic. Now about the bill at hand and the pork within:
So not only has Obama allowed earmarks in this bill, but he is actually directly responsible for requesting some of it. But it's ok. He's having his name removed from it.
*sigh*
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The War on Charity
I have learned to never underestimate President Obama's ability to piss me the hell off.
In his continued campaign of class warfare, he may be claiming another innocent casualty: non-profit organizations. He has proposed a reduction in tax deductions for charitable giving for the ever-maligned "wealthy." It's the latest in a stream of attempts to penalize the successful that the public just seems to love. But usually, it's not so apparent how these measures will actually negatively affect many of us beneath them - a negative trickle-down effect. Things like increased taxes and restrictions on large corporations may sound like justice to those of us who are less fortunate. But we don't realize that when the wealthy have less money and freedom, they have a harder time doing things like hiring people and expanding.
This time, it's different. We are being told point-blank just why this is a bad idea. When this takes effect, we know exactly how it will have a negative impact. If the wealthy, who are the ones who are able to give the most, get less reward for giving, when the reward is one of the biggest reasons they give in the first place, what do you think will happen to charitable donations? Amazingly, some people still think that it's a good idea.
But seriously, reducing deductions for charitable giving? That's his idea? There are so many other ways he could have tried to get more taxes out of the wealthy. And we're getting mixed signals here. He's also been talking about eliminating tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, which I have discussed earlier. So we're led to believe that he's increasing taxes for certain activities because they are bad and he wants people to stop. So, does Obama think that wealthy people giving money to charity is a bad thing? Apparently, he does. Why else would he be punishing them?
Seriously, folks. It's a pretty simple concept that has been proven over and over: the more you tax an activity, the less of it you get.
Here's a helpful article that does a good job of representing both sides. It also has some good comments from educated people, which you don't find very often on the internet.
Obama's Plan to Reduce Charitable Deductions for the Wealthy Draws Criticism
I just want to point out a few things from the article. First is this absolutely outrageous comment from Obama on why he's doing such a terrible thing:
"The plan is an effort to 'rebalance the tax code so that the wealthiest pay more,' the document says."
For those of us who know that communism is bad (a sliding tax scale is one of the tennants of communism), realize that the wealthy are already paying more and understand what the word "balance" means, this is one of the dumbest statements ever.
Here's a little lesson for Obama on the concept of balance. When one group of people is paying more than other groups, that is the opposite of balance. Balance would mean that everyone pays the same.
The tax code is already way out of balance, anyway. If you didn't already know that, just read this: The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)
Here's another point for those who enjoy sticking it to the rich: the only rich people being punished by this measure are those who give to charity. Those scumbags who give nothing are getting away scot free (in this case, anyway). This is just a horrible, horrible idea.
And to those of you who like this whole class warfare thing, answer this: have any of you benefitted one dime because of what has been taken from the wealthy? Anyone? Has your life improved because they can't fly their private jets as much or can't go on lavish retreats? I'll tell you whose lives have NOT improved: the companies who would be getting more income and the workers who would be getting more tips if they could take more retreats and upgrade more offices.
This whole thing is an attack on one of the main principles that I hold that keep me a conservative: non-profits, especially Christian-based, are way better for the people than government programs. Why? One main reason, really. What do the poor (like all of us) need the most? They need Jesus. And they aren't going to get that from government. That isn't allowed.
"Unless the LORD builds the house,
its builders labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchmen stand guard in vain."
In his continued campaign of class warfare, he may be claiming another innocent casualty: non-profit organizations. He has proposed a reduction in tax deductions for charitable giving for the ever-maligned "wealthy." It's the latest in a stream of attempts to penalize the successful that the public just seems to love. But usually, it's not so apparent how these measures will actually negatively affect many of us beneath them - a negative trickle-down effect. Things like increased taxes and restrictions on large corporations may sound like justice to those of us who are less fortunate. But we don't realize that when the wealthy have less money and freedom, they have a harder time doing things like hiring people and expanding.
This time, it's different. We are being told point-blank just why this is a bad idea. When this takes effect, we know exactly how it will have a negative impact. If the wealthy, who are the ones who are able to give the most, get less reward for giving, when the reward is one of the biggest reasons they give in the first place, what do you think will happen to charitable donations? Amazingly, some people still think that it's a good idea.
But seriously, reducing deductions for charitable giving? That's his idea? There are so many other ways he could have tried to get more taxes out of the wealthy. And we're getting mixed signals here. He's also been talking about eliminating tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, which I have discussed earlier. So we're led to believe that he's increasing taxes for certain activities because they are bad and he wants people to stop. So, does Obama think that wealthy people giving money to charity is a bad thing? Apparently, he does. Why else would he be punishing them?
Seriously, folks. It's a pretty simple concept that has been proven over and over: the more you tax an activity, the less of it you get.
Here's a helpful article that does a good job of representing both sides. It also has some good comments from educated people, which you don't find very often on the internet.
Obama's Plan to Reduce Charitable Deductions for the Wealthy Draws Criticism
I just want to point out a few things from the article. First is this absolutely outrageous comment from Obama on why he's doing such a terrible thing:
"The plan is an effort to 'rebalance the tax code so that the wealthiest pay more,' the document says."
For those of us who know that communism is bad (a sliding tax scale is one of the tennants of communism), realize that the wealthy are already paying more and understand what the word "balance" means, this is one of the dumbest statements ever.
Here's a little lesson for Obama on the concept of balance. When one group of people is paying more than other groups, that is the opposite of balance. Balance would mean that everyone pays the same.
The tax code is already way out of balance, anyway. If you didn't already know that, just read this: The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)
Here's another point for those who enjoy sticking it to the rich: the only rich people being punished by this measure are those who give to charity. Those scumbags who give nothing are getting away scot free (in this case, anyway). This is just a horrible, horrible idea.
And to those of you who like this whole class warfare thing, answer this: have any of you benefitted one dime because of what has been taken from the wealthy? Anyone? Has your life improved because they can't fly their private jets as much or can't go on lavish retreats? I'll tell you whose lives have NOT improved: the companies who would be getting more income and the workers who would be getting more tips if they could take more retreats and upgrade more offices.
This whole thing is an attack on one of the main principles that I hold that keep me a conservative: non-profits, especially Christian-based, are way better for the people than government programs. Why? One main reason, really. What do the poor (like all of us) need the most? They need Jesus. And they aren't going to get that from government. That isn't allowed.
"Unless the LORD builds the house,
its builders labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchmen stand guard in vain."
Monday, March 9, 2009
Time to party like it's 1773
As you may have guessed, I am not too happy with our government right now. Turns out that I am not alone. In response, people all over the country have been organizing protests that hearken back to the Boston Tea Party. This Sunday, I will be attending the Cincinnati Tea Party.
If you are interested, check out the website: www.cincinnatiteaparty.org
Hope to see you there!
If you are interested, check out the website: www.cincinnatiteaparty.org
Hope to see you there!
Monday, March 2, 2009
It's a child AND it's making choices
Most of you know that I am vehemently pro-life/anti-choice. But, like most views on important matters that I have held, there were times when I was not so sure. I've had a lot of discussions/arguments and have heard a lot of good points on both sides. I even thought that I had come up with definitive answers for why abortion is always wrong.
That was until I saw my child for the first time on the ultrasound. Now, I know what you're probably thinking. This is going to be another one of those ultra-emotional type arguments you hear from expectant parents just gushing over what a miracle their little unborn baby is. Though, I did feel a little of that. But this is a conclusion that I would come to after seeing any child in the womb.
What I am talking about was actually something that didn't occur to me until we were driving home from the doctor's office. It was actually almost purely cerebral. One of the main talking points you hear from the pro-choice side is how the unborn child is really just a part of the woman's body. This does seem to have some merit on the surface, since it is inside the boundaries of the woman's body and is actually directly connected to it. But what I saw there seemed to be in contradiction to that idea.
What I saw was a little child who was making a lot of movement. Now that probably doesn't sound too profound, since there are all sorts of internal parts of the body that move without the person consciously commanding them to. But the difference here is that the child was moving completely independently of any control from Stephanie's brain or any other part of her, conscious or unconscious. There was no message being sent from Stephanie's brain or any hormones from any glands making that little kid dance the fanciful jig that we saw it dance. Since it was in control of itself, it must be a seperate being. And since its DNA is human, then it must be a seperate human being.
Period.
That was until I saw my child for the first time on the ultrasound. Now, I know what you're probably thinking. This is going to be another one of those ultra-emotional type arguments you hear from expectant parents just gushing over what a miracle their little unborn baby is. Though, I did feel a little of that. But this is a conclusion that I would come to after seeing any child in the womb.
What I am talking about was actually something that didn't occur to me until we were driving home from the doctor's office. It was actually almost purely cerebral. One of the main talking points you hear from the pro-choice side is how the unborn child is really just a part of the woman's body. This does seem to have some merit on the surface, since it is inside the boundaries of the woman's body and is actually directly connected to it. But what I saw there seemed to be in contradiction to that idea.
What I saw was a little child who was making a lot of movement. Now that probably doesn't sound too profound, since there are all sorts of internal parts of the body that move without the person consciously commanding them to. But the difference here is that the child was moving completely independently of any control from Stephanie's brain or any other part of her, conscious or unconscious. There was no message being sent from Stephanie's brain or any hormones from any glands making that little kid dance the fanciful jig that we saw it dance. Since it was in control of itself, it must be a seperate being. And since its DNA is human, then it must be a seperate human being.
Period.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away.
Things have been hectic lately, to say the least. Some of you knew that my cousin, Hannah, was expecting to deliver her first child about now. They were hoping that the child would come before they moved, but hadn't yet as of a couple days ago. So, on Thursday, they did a cesarean, and little Adison (or Addison?) Louise Wessel was presented to the world for the first time. All 9 lbs. 15 oz. of her. Hannah's probably glad they did the cesarean. And baby and mother are doing fine, so that's pretty sweet.
Things were not so happy yesterday. My paternal grandmother passed away at 11:30am. She had some condition since about a year ago that caused muscles around her eyes to weaken, and they looked droopy and it was hard for her to keep them open. They put her on meds that seemed to be working until early last week. The flap that closed her wind-pipe when she swallowed stopped working, so she couldn't really swallow very well. They took her to the hospital, but still didn't think that it was too serious. Then it moved downward and her lungs stopped working. She didn't last long after that. It was pretty sudden. Sure, she was 88, but didn't seem anywhere near death. The funeral will be this week. Prayers would be appreciated, especially for my grandfather. The two of them were as close as any married couple I've known.
But I'll end here on a lighter note with some news that many of you may know, but some do not. Sorry if we haven't been able to tell you in person, but here goes.
STEPHANIE IS PREGNANT!!!
There. She's about 12 weeks along and the due date is September 14. We're very excited, obviously. She had her first doctor's appointment last week and they did the first ultrasound. I was surprised how expressive and full of movement the baby was. And it seems to already have my dance moves. Steph even had the doctor make sure that there was only one. I had her make sure that there was no tail. Both of us were pleased. We also got to hear AND see the heart beating.Wanna see? Here you go:
Blessed be the name of the Lord.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The return of well-timed suspense
So 24 has come back, and I'm excited. It's about the only non-comedy TV show that I follow. This season looks pretty good so far.
But it seems like they just don't want to let go of the subject of torture. And it gets me thinking. I understand both sides of the argument. Some situations call for drastic measures. At the same time, torture can produce false positives, ie, the interegation subject just saying what the interegators want just to get them to stop. And there are certain civil rights issues. But I understand where people are coming from when they argue that some of these people that we may torture have forfeited any civil rights.
One thing that I certainly do not agree with is extending Constitutional rights to detainees who are not American citizens. The Constitution is for Americans. Now, can we argue that these people have basic human rights? Yes. But they have no Constitutional rights. If they are in any way responsible for acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, I don't see any reason to go to any extreme lengths to make sure that they are all nice and comfy.
I'm still on the fence about the issue because of what I mentioned before. But I do think that some people who are against torture dismiss the issue too quickly. I can totally understand the thinking of people who are in favour of its use, and of those who actually use it.
Just think about this situation. You have this prisoner and you know that he is hiding information about an attack that could cost thousands of lives, and he's not talking. You also know that there are people who are close to you who are in danger. You know that torturing is wrong. But time is running out, and you know some very good ways of inflicting non-lethal pain on this person. No cameras, no one who would punish you will know about it. What would you do?
I'm just trying not to be so quick to judge people. We are all people, after all. We are all capable of doing the same horrible things.
But it seems like they just don't want to let go of the subject of torture. And it gets me thinking. I understand both sides of the argument. Some situations call for drastic measures. At the same time, torture can produce false positives, ie, the interegation subject just saying what the interegators want just to get them to stop. And there are certain civil rights issues. But I understand where people are coming from when they argue that some of these people that we may torture have forfeited any civil rights.
One thing that I certainly do not agree with is extending Constitutional rights to detainees who are not American citizens. The Constitution is for Americans. Now, can we argue that these people have basic human rights? Yes. But they have no Constitutional rights. If they are in any way responsible for acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, I don't see any reason to go to any extreme lengths to make sure that they are all nice and comfy.
I'm still on the fence about the issue because of what I mentioned before. But I do think that some people who are against torture dismiss the issue too quickly. I can totally understand the thinking of people who are in favour of its use, and of those who actually use it.
Just think about this situation. You have this prisoner and you know that he is hiding information about an attack that could cost thousands of lives, and he's not talking. You also know that there are people who are close to you who are in danger. You know that torturing is wrong. But time is running out, and you know some very good ways of inflicting non-lethal pain on this person. No cameras, no one who would punish you will know about it. What would you do?
I'm just trying not to be so quick to judge people. We are all people, after all. We are all capable of doing the same horrible things.
Friday, February 13, 2009
It seems that Congress shares my study habits...and that's freakin' scary.
The situation with this "stimulus" bill just keeps getting better.
Did I say "better"? Because I meant ridiculous to the point of outrage.
Remember Obama's pledge to make sure that any bill he signed will be given five days so that we, the People, have a chance to look it over ourselves? Apparently he doesn't. And even the Dems in Congress don't seem to be able to keep their promise of having this new bill available online 48 hours before the vote. It was finally posted last night at 11pm. The vote was scheduled this morning for 9am. Good try. F for effort.
You can read some details here.
The scary thing is that our Congress is now voting to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without even knowing all of the details. How do I know that? First, no one can read and retain over 1,000 pages and have a good enough grasp on it to give an educated vote in only ten hours, especially when they are hopefully sleeping during some of those hours.
Second, that's exactly what members of Congress are saying themselves.
This is so mind-blowingly...something...I can't even find words.
Oh, and Chuck Schumer is a douche.
Do you care? I care. Let them know.
Did I say "better"? Because I meant ridiculous to the point of outrage.
Remember Obama's pledge to make sure that any bill he signed will be given five days so that we, the People, have a chance to look it over ourselves? Apparently he doesn't. And even the Dems in Congress don't seem to be able to keep their promise of having this new bill available online 48 hours before the vote. It was finally posted last night at 11pm. The vote was scheduled this morning for 9am. Good try. F for effort.
You can read some details here.
The scary thing is that our Congress is now voting to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without even knowing all of the details. How do I know that? First, no one can read and retain over 1,000 pages and have a good enough grasp on it to give an educated vote in only ten hours, especially when they are hopefully sleeping during some of those hours.
Second, that's exactly what members of Congress are saying themselves.
This is so mind-blowingly...something...I can't even find words.
Oh, and Chuck Schumer is a douche.
Do you care? I care. Let them know.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Sometimes, pork is a bad thing.
I hope that all of you have at least heard of this so-called "stimulus" package that President Barry has been pushing, and that Congress has voted to pass (though in slightly different forms in each house). We're being assured that it's necessary, and that only government can save us now. That's a pretty scary thought. Not because it's actually true, but because they're trying to make us think that it's true.
I saw some of Obama's press conference on the matter last night. Someone needs to tell the man that he doesn't need to be campaigning anymore, at least for a couple years. Someone asked him a question involving where blame should be cast for our current predicament. Obama was sure to not place any on the American people, but instead blamed banks for making risky investments. Essentially, he's talking about loans and credits that banks made for people that defaulted. Apparently, it's the banks' fault for making those loans, and not the people who defaulted. And it's also definitely not the fault of the US government who, back in the '90s, imposed regulations on banks to make loans to more and more underqualified people in the name of increasing home ownership, "fairness" and "justice" and all that. They had to make loans to people who didn't even have to prove that they had a source of income! But seriously, it's all the banks' fault. People (except rich people) and government are good.
I could go on and on about this bill: all of the pork, how the first one didn't work so this won't either, government can't create wealth but only re-distribute it, the dangerous implications in it for health care - if you're old and need treatment, it's up to the government to decide whether it's worth it based on how much longer you're expected to live. Seriously. That's in there. (Thanks, Daschle!)
But I'm no expert. And according to Obama, many economic experts agree with his plan. He claims a concensus, in fact. I've learned never to trust 2 big things. One, any news story about anything that Rush Limbaugh says. Always out of context, always mis-interpreted. And two, any time a politician says "consensus." They were wrong about the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, and they're wrong about this consensus.
Proof? Of course. Here you go.
But if you would like to hear more from an expert, you can read this interview with Prof. Mike Munger from Duke University, one of the many economists to sign that add. It's really good, and he's much smarter than me. But it all makes sense. And no, he's not Republican. Just correct.
I saw some of Obama's press conference on the matter last night. Someone needs to tell the man that he doesn't need to be campaigning anymore, at least for a couple years. Someone asked him a question involving where blame should be cast for our current predicament. Obama was sure to not place any on the American people, but instead blamed banks for making risky investments. Essentially, he's talking about loans and credits that banks made for people that defaulted. Apparently, it's the banks' fault for making those loans, and not the people who defaulted. And it's also definitely not the fault of the US government who, back in the '90s, imposed regulations on banks to make loans to more and more underqualified people in the name of increasing home ownership, "fairness" and "justice" and all that. They had to make loans to people who didn't even have to prove that they had a source of income! But seriously, it's all the banks' fault. People (except rich people) and government are good.
I could go on and on about this bill: all of the pork, how the first one didn't work so this won't either, government can't create wealth but only re-distribute it, the dangerous implications in it for health care - if you're old and need treatment, it's up to the government to decide whether it's worth it based on how much longer you're expected to live. Seriously. That's in there. (Thanks, Daschle!)
But I'm no expert. And according to Obama, many economic experts agree with his plan. He claims a concensus, in fact. I've learned never to trust 2 big things. One, any news story about anything that Rush Limbaugh says. Always out of context, always mis-interpreted. And two, any time a politician says "consensus." They were wrong about the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, and they're wrong about this consensus.
Proof? Of course. Here you go.
But if you would like to hear more from an expert, you can read this interview with Prof. Mike Munger from Duke University, one of the many economists to sign that add. It's really good, and he's much smarter than me. But it all makes sense. And no, he's not Republican. Just correct.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Update to previous post
So it looks like the final price tag for Obama's inauguration was $170 million, not $150 million. That puts it at over four times as expensive as Bush's, not three.
Personally, I thought that it did a poor job of living up to the hype. His speech was supposed to be like no inauguration speech we have heard before. In a way, I guess that's correct, but not how they intended it. It wasn't really like an inauguration speech, but more like another one of his campaign speeches.
But that's just my opinion. I haven't really seen many inaugurations. This was only my second, actually. The first was Clinton's back in '92. We watched it at my elementary school. I had to run laps at recess the next day because I yawned during his speech (sure, it was on purpose and in a mocking way, but still).
But then there was the benediction delivered by Rev. Joseph Lowery. It was, well, I'll just let you read:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen."
What decade is this guy still in? And why is it that "white" is the only group that must still "embrace what is right"? Didn't we prove already, by electing a black man to be President, that we do that? I thought that was the idea. Oh, well.
He should tell Miami University that it's ok to call American Indians "red" again, so they can go back to being the Redskins. Being a minority himself, he is apparently allowed to decide what all minorities can be called without being offended.
Well, congrats, Barry. Don't screw the pooch.
Personally, I thought that it did a poor job of living up to the hype. His speech was supposed to be like no inauguration speech we have heard before. In a way, I guess that's correct, but not how they intended it. It wasn't really like an inauguration speech, but more like another one of his campaign speeches.
But that's just my opinion. I haven't really seen many inaugurations. This was only my second, actually. The first was Clinton's back in '92. We watched it at my elementary school. I had to run laps at recess the next day because I yawned during his speech (sure, it was on purpose and in a mocking way, but still).
But then there was the benediction delivered by Rev. Joseph Lowery. It was, well, I'll just let you read:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen."
What decade is this guy still in? And why is it that "white" is the only group that must still "embrace what is right"? Didn't we prove already, by electing a black man to be President, that we do that? I thought that was the idea. Oh, well.
He should tell Miami University that it's ok to call American Indians "red" again, so they can go back to being the Redskins. Being a minority himself, he is apparently allowed to decide what all minorities can be called without being offended.
Well, congrats, Barry. Don't screw the pooch.
Monday, January 19, 2009
I have made beer!
As you may or may not know, I received a home brewing kit for Christmas from the wife, her sisters and their husbands. And a little over a month ago, I brewed my very first batch, an IPA. Very exciting times.
Yesterday was the day that it was finally ready. I was nervous about how it would turn out. I knew the whole process and, therefore, knew how many things could possibly go wrong. I tried to take care to do everything right, but there were a few times when I just wasn't sure.
But my fears were alleviated yesterday. I cracked open some bottles for myself and some guests, and it was delicious. Not as good as it could have possibly been, but very good for my first attempt. I am pleased. So if you didn't get any yesterday, or want more, come on over. There's plenty.
Now, I have the task of coming up with a name. On her blog, Shannon asked her readers to come up with fun names for her kid. I like the idea, but I am not yet in the market for needing baby name suggestions. So, I am asking for beer name suggestions for my IPA. And possibly a name for the whole brewing operation.
Go!
Yesterday was the day that it was finally ready. I was nervous about how it would turn out. I knew the whole process and, therefore, knew how many things could possibly go wrong. I tried to take care to do everything right, but there were a few times when I just wasn't sure.
But my fears were alleviated yesterday. I cracked open some bottles for myself and some guests, and it was delicious. Not as good as it could have possibly been, but very good for my first attempt. I am pleased. So if you didn't get any yesterday, or want more, come on over. There's plenty.
Now, I have the task of coming up with a name. On her blog, Shannon asked her readers to come up with fun names for her kid. I like the idea, but I am not yet in the market for needing baby name suggestions. So, I am asking for beer name suggestions for my IPA. And possibly a name for the whole brewing operation.
Go!
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Hypocrisy, thy name is Columnist
Almost Inauguration time. Makes me kinda sentimental. I remember when Bush was being re-inaugurated back in 2004. Oh, how Democrats complained about how expensive it was. Something like $42 million. Seemed like an expensive party, especially with all that was going on in the world. Natural disasters, epidemics, poverty and hunger all around the world, not to mention the war. All that money just being thrown away when it could be doing so much good. Many politicians and columnists were quite upset, even outraged. Some Democratic congressmen noted how past Presidents, in times of war and other hardship, scaled back the celebration dramatically out of good taste. And I suppose I understand what they were saying.
Obama's Inauguration is costing more than three times that amount ($150 million). Our economy is even worse now. We're still at war. People around the world are still poor and starving. And no one is saying a damn word.
Obama's Inauguration is costing more than three times that amount ($150 million). Our economy is even worse now. We're still at war. People around the world are still poor and starving. And no one is saying a damn word.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Bowls and Ball-Busters
I just want to say this about the Fiesta Bowl last night between Texas and Ohio State: The Buckeyes played a good game and simply lost to a better team. Period. If anyone says anything contradictory to that, or anything about OSU being embarassed, "here we go again," "didn't deserve to be there...again," etc., they're just trying to jump on the Buckeye-hater bandwagon. Though still a loss, it was a completely different story this time. They can win the big game, and almost did.
Ok. That's better.
So this is my 100th post on Blogger. Pretty nifty. Figured I'd write about something that I've been wanting to for quite some time. That's the whole feminism/house-wife vs. working woman thing. I just think that feminism kind of started on the wrong foot. And I'm talking about sensible, woman is equal to man under the law type feminism. Not the crazy, woman is actually superior to man variety. But I even think that "equal" is maybe not the best term. There are things that each sex is better than the other at, and they are different in numerous ways. But I think that people should have an equal chance to do things with no discrimination. But that I believe this should go without saying.
Anyway, here's where I think that things went awry. For centuries, women had been relegated to the home and it was believed that housework and birthing children was about all that they were good for. They were often seen as being less than men, and therefore, their tasks in the home as less respectable. So, naturally, women just didn't want to take it anymore and sought to get their gender some respect. But, we are told that this respect is achieved only by women entering what was the world of men and doing what they do. But I think that they missed something very important: bringing respect to house-wives.
We have bought into the idea that the home is just a place that women settle for. Obviously, women should have the same right as any man to persue whatever career or lifestyle that they want. Women have proven that they can perform just as well as us men in the workplace. But there is nothing wrong with being a housewife if that's what you really want to be. In fact, I have trmendous respect for housewives. It's a freakin' tough job. Definitely worthy of its own respect.
We just need to respect people for doing their job in whatever field they feel called to be in, whether in the home or outside. Cos men can be house-husbands if they like. Homes need work. Food needs cooked. Kids need care. Someone has to do it, and they deserve respect and thanks.
So, to some of you feminists: don't drag the honorable position of being in the home through the mud. Pisses me off.
Ok. That's better.
So this is my 100th post on Blogger. Pretty nifty. Figured I'd write about something that I've been wanting to for quite some time. That's the whole feminism/house-wife vs. working woman thing. I just think that feminism kind of started on the wrong foot. And I'm talking about sensible, woman is equal to man under the law type feminism. Not the crazy, woman is actually superior to man variety. But I even think that "equal" is maybe not the best term. There are things that each sex is better than the other at, and they are different in numerous ways. But I think that people should have an equal chance to do things with no discrimination. But that I believe this should go without saying.
Anyway, here's where I think that things went awry. For centuries, women had been relegated to the home and it was believed that housework and birthing children was about all that they were good for. They were often seen as being less than men, and therefore, their tasks in the home as less respectable. So, naturally, women just didn't want to take it anymore and sought to get their gender some respect. But, we are told that this respect is achieved only by women entering what was the world of men and doing what they do. But I think that they missed something very important: bringing respect to house-wives.
We have bought into the idea that the home is just a place that women settle for. Obviously, women should have the same right as any man to persue whatever career or lifestyle that they want. Women have proven that they can perform just as well as us men in the workplace. But there is nothing wrong with being a housewife if that's what you really want to be. In fact, I have trmendous respect for housewives. It's a freakin' tough job. Definitely worthy of its own respect.
We just need to respect people for doing their job in whatever field they feel called to be in, whether in the home or outside. Cos men can be house-husbands if they like. Homes need work. Food needs cooked. Kids need care. Someone has to do it, and they deserve respect and thanks.
So, to some of you feminists: don't drag the honorable position of being in the home through the mud. Pisses me off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
