Good enough for government work

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
The Notorious AIG - Scorn in the USA
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

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.

The more you knooooooow!

I've found out how our government figures stuff out! It makes perfect sense!



The kazoo just kills me.

I have a new hero.

Daniel Hannan, ladies and gentlemen:



Can we bring him here to talk to our government?

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!

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*

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."