Love, Life & Law

Calling a Spade a Spade: Anti-immigrant politics is nothing but Racism.

2010-07-30T23:24:00.000-05:00

I'll probably catch a lot of flack for this and may even lose some friends over it, but that has never stopped me from speaking the truth about what is plainly evident before me.

All the chest-thumping, posturing, and other grand standing about "the immigration issue" boils down to plain old racism.

Those taking the position that illegal immigrants are harming us, as a nation, have either let their racial animus overtake their reason or they have taken the pre-packaged rationalizations promulgated by bigots at face-value. Critical thinking is not an American strong suit.

Shame on you if you are too stupid or too willfully ignorant to see through the appeals to your unacknowledged bigotry.

You can't be a true capitalist and oppose illegal immigrants.

Why?

Americans are nothing if not cheap. That's why WalMart is such a success.

If you get two bids for construction work, one from a company that employs only American citizens and pays them minimum wage AND another, lower, bid from an American contractor who uses illegal labor...which bid do you take?

If you choose the lower bid (as most capitalists would...) then you encourage illegal immigration and are now a part of the problem.

How many check the immigration status of all workers used by a contractor when you hire one?

Failing to do so and then complaining about illegal immigrants taking American jobs, makes you a hypocrite, an idiot, or both.

Let's face it: If we truly want no illegal immigrants working in the U.S., we'll pay considerably more for more things we take for granted. We can't ignore our anti-immigrant values via denial when we use illegal workers or contractors that do so.

Anti-Immigrant politics is un-American.

How so?

Unless you're Native American, everyone in this country has immigrant ancestors. This country is a nation of immigrants.

Immigration gives us our character.

To deny this truth is to deny our history and heritage. To suddenly take a position against this central part of our heritage is to deny the core of what makes us a Great Nation, viz., Diversity.

Lastly, anti-immigrant politics is plain old racism with nothing more than air-brushed, pretext, rationales designed to make hate based on ethnicity socially acceptable.

How do I know?

Illegal immigrants are only making rational economic decisions when they come here. If you or I were in the same position, we'd make the same choices.

Illegal immigrants, by and large, avoid drawing attention to themselves from law enforcement. They avoid drawing attention to themselves by paying their rent on time. They avoid drawing attention to themselves by working hard and well at jobs few native-born Americans will take.

These are attitudes and values that improve our nation and to ignore these qualities, while focusing only upon their rational, but illegal choices to come here is to make fools of us all for some simple-minded, but all too backwards notion of what it means to be American.

Now, does the previous mean that I support opening the border?

Not hardly.

It only means that most people harboring anti-immigrant animus should truly examine what it is they advocate, in light of our history and in light of the economics if illegal immigration.

In the end, illegal immigration is about economics and not race...we shouldn't turn a financial issue into a social one, even if it helps some bozo to get elected.

Why we should thank Andrew Breitbart...despite his buffoonery

2010-07-21T16:35:00.001-05:00

Andrew Breitbart, that conspiracy theorist who believes everyone has a political agenda and that the media is a liberal whore, recently stepped in another pile of bullshit by publishing a video clip of a USDA employee supposedly making a racist remark to the NAACP.

Being ever-ready to jump the gun on any sort of "gotcha moment," Breitbart proceeded to advance the notion that the NAACP is full of racists. He did this all within the context of trying to prove that NAACP is racist and since they are racist it gives the Right cover to be racist also...despite the ludicrous reasoning behind such a proposition.

Such a position is logically and rationally untenable yet, Breitbart subscribes to the faulty assumption at the foundation of Fox News and MSNC, viz., since everyone has an agenda, then it's perfectly acceptable to double-down on a particular worldview as a filter for facts and call it "news".

My position on Fox News (who incidentally took Breitbart at his word and ran with the story without doing appropriate background...probably because it fed into their right-wing slant) and MSNBC, is that such assumptions about an inherent slant in every news source is faulty; it does nothing but undermine journalistic ethics and professionalism.

We have a name for that type of journalism and it rhymes with "mellow".

For example: If you had a choice of information between a source that felt entitled to color the reporting according to their own agenda

OR

you had a source that freely admitted innate, human, biases, but made a concerted effort to reduce those biases and report the facts---which would you choose?

I, for one, choose the latter. Going even one step further, I tap multiple sources for the same information, pitting bias against bias so I can get a better picture of the facts.

Some, Breitbart being one, prefers the arrogance of their own self-important worldview--even when it lays bare the laziness of the media and their own willful ignorance.

This, my friends, is why we should thank Andrew Breitbart:

Not only did he show himself to be the ideological and attention-seeking whore that he is---again.

He shined a light on the laziness and lack of professionalism in the media--more particularly of Fox News.

Thank you Andrew Breitbart!

The Perverse Incentives of Tort Reform and Liability Caps -- Good intentions gone awry.

2010-06-17T09:57:00.003-05:00

As a practicing attorney, I've seen firsthand the results of negligence on the lives of victims--lives destroyed by the carelessness of others.

When I hear that BP and other large corporations push for liability caps, I practically cringe at the perverse incentives of restricting damage awards.

When a tortfeasor knows they escape paying the full cost of the damages they visit on innocent victims, where's the incentive to maximize safety of their activities?

To the contrary, liability limits encourages maximization of activities leading to liability.

For example, if the law suddenly limited the penalty for robbing a bank to an overnight stay in jail, regardless of the amount of money stolen or injuries caused, then more bank robberies would occur. It's real simple.

By creating liability caps, we give corporations a license to engage in bad behavior. We don't allow our children to behave this way, so why do we let companies? What message does that send about our priorities?

Let's use an analogy:

When disciplining your child, you have a range of options, viz., corporal (spanking), grounding, and privilege withdrawal.

These punishments offer the full range of disciplinary choices. Their impact comes, not from using all of them, but in the uncertainty of which one will be applied.

Now, lets say your spouse hates spanking and he/she successfully dissuades you from spanking--what result?

The child knows for certain that any misbehavior results in only grounding or loss of privileges.

Similarly, with liability caps large tortfeasors gain the certainty of knowing the maximum cost of misbehavior. They can calculate the potential cost; they can now maximize their bad actions, knowing they will not pay the full consequences.

Unfortunately, those costs just don't disappear. They must go somewhere. They get pushed onto the innocent who are damaged by these large entities.

Back to our analogy: Say your child enjoys staying in their room.

In that case, grounding offers little punitive effect, since grounding equates to an enjoyed activity.

Your punishment options dwindled to one: Privilege removal.

If a child knows they only risk one punishment for misbehavior, irrespective of how bad that misbehavior may be, and that punishment is privilege loss, then where's the incentive to behave?

Likewise, capping liability awards, by law eliminates any incentive for corporate actors to behave in a socially responsible manner?

In fact, capping liability incentive-izes bad behavior. These entities rationally increase liability-inducing actions to offset their sum-certain liability?

Liability caps and liability limits do nothing but reduce the free market. Liability serves to place the costs of doing business onto the party actually incurring them.

We discourage our children from becoming criminals through discipline. Why would we, as a society, encourage corporations to ignore safety and push the costs of making profits onto the innocent and least capable of bearing those costs?

By limiting liability and by imposing liability caps, that is exactly what we do?

Calling Bullsh*t on British Petroleum's attempt to shelter its profits behind Independent Business owners.

2010-06-10T17:28:00.001-05:00

Many independent sellers of BP products are crying foul over the dramatic drop in business they are suffering due to the public relations disaster that is "The BP Gulf Oil Spill."

The common refrain: Boycotting small gas stations that happen to sell BP gas is really only "hurting the independent small business owner."

I call BULLSHIT! on that.

Here's why:

The small business owners made rational economic decisions to align themselves with and to sell BP products. Do they get only the benefits of the relationship, but none of the consequences? What fantasy world are they living in?! When you sign a franchise deal you take the good with the bad--simple business 101.

If BP is a popular brand, then these small business owners accrue the benefits of reflected glory by using the BP trademarks to advertise their businesses. These businesses gain added revenue by selling other non-BP items to customers attracted to the BP brand.

In grown-up business language it's called: Win-Win-Win --for BP, Independent Business owner, and customers.

Now, when the proverbial shit hits the fan and BP despoils its reputation, these independent businesses want to throw themselves on the mercy of the buying public's conscience for the "small business owner."

Frequently, I hear these guys bellyache that "they didn't cause the spill and shouldn't be punished for BP's malfeasance."

Again, BULLSHIT!

These small business owners made rational economic decisions to franchise with BP. Contractual relationships are like marriages--you take the good with the bad.

If consumers want to punish BP, the only way they can do so is with their wallets. Just because these small business owners made a bad choice in selecting BP, it doesn't mean the rest of the buying public has to bail them out; their whining is just that.

The real problem here is BP. If these small business owners want to complain about their loss of income, they should take it up with British Petroleum--not with those of us who want to take our business elsewhere.

These are the consequences of business decisions--small business owners need to grow up and live with the choices they make instead of expecting America to bail them out.

Climate change is more complex than global warming--Willful ignorance aside.

2010-03-20T12:05:00.001-05:00

There's a good reason why all the climate change deniers refuse to see human-made climatic change as real..instead they prefer to focus on "global warming" as their whipping boy.

By focusing on one extreme (global warming), it's easier to discount the impact human activity has on the climate as a whole. Rather than seeing the entire weather system as a whole and see the impact on climatic variability as the real issue, their cherry-picking of anthropogenic global warming becomes the easier straw man to tear down.

I've recently been in an argument with a bunch of deniers who, instead of examining the premise of increasing climatic variability (which is the real issue...) they prefer to couch their arguments in terms of global warming ONLY. Why would they do that instead of examining all the evidence?

As anyone who studies vast complex systems will attest: You cannot ignore the resiliency of the system, nor can you over-simplify the system and still have the capacity to understand it to the degree necessary to talk about it intelligently.

Climate is one of the most complicated systems we know of. Reducing it to one aspect (global warming) while specifically ignoring the other aspects (variability and climatic swing intensification) is to deliberately and willfully violate Occam's Razor--which means these idiots are distorting the facts for some agenda.

Why else would they choose to ignore ALL the evidence and ALL the facts and focus on only one area of climate research--to the exclusion of the entire body of work--UNLESS they cannot face the facts or cannot offer anything substantive against ALL the evidence?

I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin's quote: "We are all born ignorant, but we must work really hard to remain stupid."

These characters remind me of Ron White's quote: "You can't argue with stupid."

Texas seeks to advance the educational interests of the nation's children at the expense of their own. That's big of them!

2010-03-16T13:52:00.000-05:00

I am very excited about the prospect that the Texas Board of Education will get it's way in re-writing textbooks for that state's children.

I don't agree with the revisionism nor the content changes the conservatives on the Board are pushing to "balance" what they perceive as liberal slant to history.

However, I get fairly jubilant at the social darwinian experiment these conservative idiots are attempting to perform on the large number of students in their state.

If these bozos weren't so ignorant of survival of the fittest as a mechanism for advancement, they would realize the severe handicap they are imposing on the children of Texas--all in the name of their political agendas. It's brains in action!

The upside?

The rest of the country's children gain an extreme advantage over those of Texas-educated children when it comes to college and real-world information.

It's great that Texas is willing to handicap their children for the purpose of advancing a political agenda.

The mere fact that such a bone-headed move will inure to the educational achievements of all children outside the state only adds to the hilarity.

Kudos to Texas for giving the children of non-Texans a boost at the expense on their own children

That's what I call Texas hospitality.

The Return of Tories to America: Neocons

2010-03-08T09:56:00.003-06:00

If you examine closely the perspective of many neoconservatives on the operation of our Constitution, you will find their ideas scarcely fit with any modern strand of political thinking.

Specifically, you must harken back over two hundred years in our nation's history before you find an analogue to their political philosophy.

By way of example, take Dick Cheney and his spawn Liz. The Cheney's take the position that terrorists have no rights. Regardless of your personal feelings (mine are of the sort that terrorists deserve to be punished..) you cannot ignore the historical founding documents of our nation and also hold to the views advocated by the Cheneys.

For example: The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal and endowed..with certain inalienable rights". How can you follow those guiding principles by positing that certain individuals, irrespective of the heinous nature of the crimes against us, are somehow without those same rights?

To find the closest analogue in our history to this view on individual rights, you must return to the days prior to our Revolution. At that time, the political allies of the crown, those who supported the strong central authority of the King, the people without truck against the use of unfettered authority against all its enemies were the Tories.

What the neoconservatives represent is nothing more than a rebirth of the Tory tradition here in America. Many of the policies they pushed during their time in power resemble similar policies advanced by the allies of King George during the Revolution. Strong central power, unlawful detentions without trial or charge, abuse of the purse, etc.

The similarities are uncanny. Defining those who disagree or who decide to fight us as terrorists or other, does not objectify them to the point that they are without rights. To do so is to commit the same treason many Tories committed against the founding of our fledgling Republic two centuries ago.

Frankly though, the Tories lost. Giving them any credence now is to obviate the entire last two hundred years of history in the pursuit of freedom from monarchy.

I don't want a return to a unitary executive (monarchy). I don't want a return to the days when the definition of a rebel (or in this case terrorist) depended upon the whim and will of an executive (read: King) and not the force of law.

Am I classifying the terrorists as "rebels"? Hardly, just using that as an analogy. Terrorists deserve capture, public trials and conviction for their crimes against us...just like any criminal.

The Cheney's and their Tory allies have reached too far into tradition, well beyond the realm of reason and well into American prehistory for their values.

We live in a different world now.

Perhaps it's time to advocate values of freedom that correspond to who we are now and not to who we were before we became the United State of America.

Maybe the Tory principles of two hundred years ago lost the battle of ideas for a reason: They were wrong for America.

Bunning to the rescue of big money interests -- "Screw you little guys!"

2010-03-02T08:25:00.002-06:00

For the Republicans, Jim Bunning has created a mess with his principled, but seriously impolitic timing for declaring his fiscal conservatism.

The stakes are high. An outgoing Senator with nothing to lose can afford to be principled even if it underscores sensibilities akin to Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake."

Jim Bunning is not above using his power to award government money to his friends through the earmark process. When you see his sponsorship of unfunded allocations of our money to private contractors, his stand against government spending benefiting hundreds of thousands of workers in a time of great need becomes a study in hypocrisy.

I have a thought...if Bunning is so concerned about paying for the benefits that he claims to support, then why don't we rescind every earmark he's placed into law as a down payment? Check his earmark record; that'll be a good start.

Democrats can't believe their luck. Neither can I.

Health Care Summit

2010-02-25T17:31:00.002-06:00

I watched the Health Care Summit today on C-Span. Before I go further, I'd like to give kudos to the network. They did a fabulous job.

Here's my take on the Summit:

Republicans were intent on arguing for a reset. Getting a "do over" on the legislation would be a significant win for them. Not only could they claim credit for "stopping a government takeover of health care," (which incidentally is a misrepresentation..) they would gain more time to whittle away at any attempt for reform in an election year. Democrats would be fools to sacrifice their advantage at this stage in the game, so my money says the Republicans will be disappointed.

The President handled the matter very well today. He appeared very Presidential and kept himself above the fray. Throughout the day, he sought to keep the focus on solutions and grounds for compromise rather than political points.

John Boehner is a lying sack of shit. Not only does his proposed legislation do nothing to ameliorate the health care problem in any appreciable way, it would exacerbate it. The true beneficiary would be John Boehner and his re-election committee. Boehner outright lied through his teeth with his figures--his misuse of data was so extreme that calling him a liar is to defame real liars everywhere.

Dick Durbin nailed the problem succinctly. He asked everyone present if they would be willing to give up their insurance so they would understand the plight of millions of Americans. Wonder how many of those rich people would do that? I smell a "let them eat cake" obliviousness run rampant.

Jim Cooper acquitted himself appropriately. He reiterated that every delay in reform costs lives and pushes the debt onto succeeding generations. Excellent point. Jim doesn't photograph well though....

Some annoyances: John McCain needs to get a clue. Henry Waxman, although rather accurate, is no Mr. Personality.

My ultimate opinion: I think the Summit was a success. It forced everyone to put forward their ideas to be judged on the merits. It reduced the partisan advantage of health care reform.

The President and the Democrats have extended the olive branch of bipartisanship (moreso than the Republicans). I suspect they will push their agenda and pass reform, either with or without Republican help. If they're smart they'll push ahead.

We'll see.

Health Care Reform - Negotiating 101

2010-02-22T11:21:00.001-06:00

The President is playing the Republicans masterfully with his proposed Health Care Summit. Here's a Summary of Obama's Plan.

For too long the Republicans have complained about the lack of bipartisanship in the Health Care Reform business. Bipartisanship for those ideological windbags means nothing more than giving them everything they want and getting nothing for yourself. In my book that's not bipartisanship but being spoiled.

With the Health Care Summit looming, the Republicans, who've been nothing but obstructionist since the beginning of Obama's term, have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Here's why:

If they refuse to participate in the summit, then the accusation that they are the "Party of NO" begins to stick in an election year. The American People don't want obstruction, they demand real work get finished. Refusing to play ball makes the Republicans look more partisan than ever; that will not help in an election where the best way to get elected is to look more moderate.

Secondly, if the Republicans do participate, then their role of lobbing bombs is taken from them and they must contribute to a solution. This mean compromise is the order of the day. Unfortunately, this batch of Republicans is the most extreme bunch we've seen in a long time, so their ability to compromise is handicapped ab initio.

The net result: Obama and his team look reasonable and industrious while working for the greater good. The Republicans look like partisan hacks who are only in it for advantage, but really offer nothing substantive to the debate.

Fascinating and brilliant tactic if you ask me.

It's been a long time, but I'm back: Health Care Reform Screw up.

2010-01-20T11:51:00.003-06:00

I want to apologize for my dilatory posting. My focus has been on Health Care Reform and I wanted to see how the legislation fared.

With the election of Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, it appears as if the health Care Bill is dead in its tracks. Kudos to the Republicans for getting back in the game, but shame on them for ignoring the plight of real Americans to help their real constituencies, viz. Big Insurance, Big Hospitals, and Big Pharma.

You can't support policies that help fat cats and also claim to be working for the little guy. It's hypocrisy at its finest. Making it worse in my book is all the idiots who are little guys that believe the propaganda and not the results.

Health Care Reform

Health Reform was the driving issue for my vote during the Presidential Election. Obama promised to use his political capital (All of it I might add...) to get Health Reform passed.

The failure of the Senate and the House to pass meaningful Health Reform falls squarely at Obama's feet. Instead of leading the battle for this historic legislation, Obama chose to play it cool and stand back while the Legislature did what it does best: Screw up.

I saw this coming, but was hopeful that surely the Democrats wouldn't mess up something so vital to not only the nation's financial health, but also their political future over the venal scumbaggery so evident in the Republican Party.

But, alas it was not to be. With the likes of Ben Nelson holding up passage to get some special favors and other Democrats too worried about their political careers to concern themselves with the literal health of our nation, we got nothing but a lot of drama culminating in a loss of Ted Kennedy's seat.

Obama played it too cool on this issue and he "cooled" himself right out of success.

As a lifelong Democrat I am ashamed of my party. I'm a Democrat because I can't bring myself to support a party that advocates policies for the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyday folks. When you fight the well-financed and hypocritical forces of the right, you can't play fair because they won't--they're on a mission from God.

I said it before Obama was elected and I repeat it: You must fight assholes with assholes. If your aim is to protect the nation's working people and powerless, you must fight fire with fire. Politics is not the place for playing Jesus and turning the other cheek.

When Good Faith meets Bad.

2009-09-03T18:56:00.004-05:00

I've watched the Health Care fracas stunned by the ignorance, stupidity, and partisanship on display.

The Democrats, like they usually do, checked their spines at the doors of the Capitol and allowed themselves to be fooled into thinking the Republicans would actually exercise good faith.

The Democrats are fools for expecting the most extreme Republicans this country has seen in decades to act within the bounds of decency.

As a group, the Republicans have shown their complete dearth of intellectual integrity. They follow the lead of their demagogue-in-chief, Rush Limbaugh, and misrepresent facts (golly, a politician lying?!); they prey upon the fears of the elderly and rile up the stupid.

And for what?

Partisan advantage.

By their actions, the Republicans manifest their desire for victory over any sort of fiscal responsibility. Health Care reform will bankrupt us unless we make dramatic changes, but these bozos don't care. Their agenda is more important than the future of the country.

What about the President?

He's made the mistake of pushing for good faith bipartisanship--but with a group lacking any desire to participate.

He's been a chump.

The President is smarter than this. It's time for him to man-up and push the agenda WITHOUT Republican support.

You can't expect morons and partisans to act with reason and mutual regard for the country's best interest. It's not in their nature to compromise nor even to understand the complexities of the issue.

They've deliberately planted their flag on the dunghill over-simplification to rouse the nincompoops to their ramparts.

I knew that failing to pass the Health Care bill prior to the August recess was a mistake. You give a mouthy and trenchant minority an inch, they will take a mile. Stupid mistake.

Now, we have people crying "socialism" and other such nonsense. Those calling Health Care reform "socialism" when in fact it is the moral and fiscally responsible thing to do don't deserve a response. They clearly wear blinders to the failings of capitalism--failings that threatens to ruin us.

Does that make me a socialist? Not hardly.

Ignoring the failings of the private market or glossing over them doesn't make us immune to the impending collapse of our economic well-being brought on by the booms, busts, and fiscal failures created by completely unregulated markets.

I got a message for all the free-market, kool-aid, addicts out there: Free-markets don't always correct, free-markets don't always fix things. Don't believe me? Look at the most recent banking debacle.

I'm sick to death of idiots spouting ideologies adopted as a short-cut to certainty--all because they lack critical thinking skills and an inability to logically and effectively evaluate issues separate from a talking points memo.

It's time for the adults to show up and take charge of this mess and for the morons on the right and in the Republican party to sit down and learn something from us thinking folks.

I would like to see the President do his damn job and make the right thing happen, in spite of the Republicans. The Republicans lack the intent to engage in constructive bipartisanship. So quit trying to "play nice."

In the long run it will be better for the country if we don't allow a bunch of radicalized windbags and their fiscally idiotic constituents to run the table.

Disagree? Look to your history. The economy always does better under Democratic presidents. That's a fact. It's time the President give the minority party a bloody nose and push this through.

Passing of an Era: So long Teddy

2009-08-26T15:06:00.002-05:00

Teddy Kennedy passed away today after a struggle with brain cancer.

He had a long a storied career. Whether you loved him or hated him, it's undeniable that he left a mark on our country.

He lived his life in the public eye. Sometimes that made his foibles seem larger than life. His mistakes were tried in the pubic realm. Similarly though, I think his strengths must also be viewed as larger than life too.

Ted Kennedy stood for the positive impact that government could have on our lives.

Too many today live in a binary world where government is either all bad or it should be a nanny state. Either extreme is irrational.

Ted Kennedy attempted to straddle the middle. Sometimes he failed, but still he tried to bring about good government that works for the benefit of the people it's designed to represent. Ted Kennedy saw government as a tool for the betterment of people--he believed until the end in the edifying power of good government.

I met Ted Kennedy once. He treated me as if we were lifelong friends and with a graciousness far beyond what his position and history would suggest.

I'm moved for the loss that we all suffer by his passing.

So long Teddy.

Law Enforcement wants an end the War on Drugs.

2009-08-18T09:49:00.004-05:00

When you have law enforcement advocating for the legalization of drugs, in my mind it means that we have a serious problem without our drug laws.

Two longtime law enforcement officers submitted an editorial to the Washington Post providing gory, first-hand, details of the real War on Drugs.

If doctors got results like we've obtained from the War on Drugs, they'd be out of business. Not only is it morally questionable for the punishment for drug use to be all out of proportion the danger posed--it's also Constitutionally suspect via the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment.

Drug users are typically non-violent. Drug violence arises primarily from the dealer side or from users who commit crimes to support their habits--habits that if brought into the open could be treated medically rather than ignored by the criminal justice system.

Our War on Drugs forces users underground. In the past, lepers were forced from normal society because of a disease beyond their control. Drug users are marginalized similarly by our stupid War on Drugs, yet even worse is that nothing is really done to deal with the problem.

It's time to use our heads. Deal with drug use as a medical issue and not a criminal justice matter. The criminal justice system has never successfully treated a medical condition. To keep pouring the political snake oil known as the War on Drugs onto it won't fix it. Our political leaders need to man-up.

Health Care Protesters violating the spirit of the Constitution--shameful.

2009-08-11T09:17:00.004-05:00

I've watched the debate on health care with some interest. As a person denied coverage due to preexisting condition, I have a dog in this fight.

The protests occurring at town hall meetings have me alarmed. Not because I think they are wrong, but because of their tactics.

"Why would you want to deny citizens their 1st Amendment Right?" you may ask.

I am the last person to argue for an abridgment of 1st Amendment rights. I think every citizen has the right to speak publicly their mind and opinion. I think the Constitution protects every citizen who endeavors to address their duly elected representatives.

The protests at the town hall meetings are different.

The purpose, it seems, behind many of the protests is not the free exercise of 1st Amendment rights. Citizens are exercising their 1st Amendment rights, not to engage in civil discourse, but to deny others the free exercise of their rights.

What do I mean?

Simply this: A person's 1st Amendment Right to flap their lips ends where it prevents me from exercising my 1st Amendment Right to flap mine.

By analogy: If I were to exercise my Right to Bear Arms in a way that prevented you from exercising your Right to Bear Arms, then my act would be outside the law.

Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins, so to speak. This utilitarian doctrine underscores many of our freedoms.

Now, if citizens wish to debate on the merits of health care reform, then by all means the law protects them in civil discourse. These protests are not civil and they are not designed to discuss, but bludgeon. Civil discourse demands respect for the rights of others.

But, if the purpose is to thwart discourse, then it defies Constitutional protections and smells of tyranny.

As a nation, we cannot allow the loud voices of a few to drown out civil dialogue necessary to the proper functioning of our Republic.

Crybaby complainers who lie and misrepresent because they can't get their way is not the American Way.

Adult discussions based on facts, based on civility, and based on reason--now, that's the American Way.

Apple in danger of Antitrust violations over App Store policies: The Rise of Cydia

2009-08-10T08:16:00.004-05:00

For those of you enamored of the Apple IPhone or its litte brother the ITouch, the App store provided by apple may be your only avenue for finding those beloved features to make you phone work.

Yet, Apple draws many complaints because of its often "tyrannical" App store policies. Some make it through, while many others do not. Making matters worse, those successfully lighting in the App Store rarely make enough cash to justify their investment of time and money to create the App. Apple makes money regardless of how well an app sells because they invest no money nor time (save the approval process) to create the app.

What to do when you blow your life savings to create an app that fails to curry favor with the gatekeepers at Apple? You go to market anyway--just down the street at Cydia.

Cydia is the marketplace for all the misfit apps.

This was bound to happen sooner or later. Apple established a system demanding high investment for entry, low chance of return, and they topped it off with a gate-keeping system known more for whimsy than for integrity.

The market will always find a way around monopolistic aggression. When the market doesn't Antitrust Law will.

Either way, Cydia is the result.

Republicans receive support from Al Qaeda

2009-08-04T02:09:00.004-05:00

How convenient. It seems that the Republicans have found an ally in Al Qaeda.

For a time, the Republicans have bashed Obama. Hell, there's a contingent of wingnuts claiming Obama isn't really American by birth.

Now, Osama bin Laden's number two is siding with the Republicans and their extremist leader (Limbaugh), their extremist hatchet man (Hannity), their extremist court jester (O'Reilly) and their extremist idiot (Beck).

Who'd a thunk it: Republicans and Al Qaeda on the same team!

A note on religious hypocrisy -- 500th posting!

2009-08-02T11:17:00.004-05:00

500th posting!!

Plenty of people in my life remain dumbfounded as to why I'm not religious. Aside from the fact that nothing positive in my life has ever been linked to religion, is the fact that many of those of the Christian stripe provide poor references for their faith because of their utter hypocrisy.

To quote George Orwell on Socialism: "As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."

George makes a good point. Adding more weight to this general antipathy toward faith of any kind, I give you the story of Tennessee State Senator, Paul Stanley.

Senator Stanley preaches evangelical values and a socially conservative agenda. He's a Republican.

What makes him a poor advertisement for evangelical Christianity is his utter hypocrisy.

Of course, many apologists will give bumper sticker responses to my claim: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. Hate the sin, love the sinner, etc.

I call bullshit on those sloganistic rationalization for bad behavior.

There's a real simple solution to all this hypocrisy: Don't be a hypocrite. Do what you say. Preach, not with your mouth, but with the example of your life.

I know many atheists and agnostics. Not a one engages in such immoral behavior.

So this begs the question: Maybe its faith that makes people morally weak? You gotta create a problem in order to sell the solution...right?

I don't know. I do know that such hypocrisy is what keeps many people from organized religion.

Corporate welfare is okay with Congress, but not health care reform? Explain that to me please!

2009-07-30T00:05:00.008-05:00

When it comes to welfare, it seems that our Congress has skewed priorities.

When health care reform comes up, we get gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes about the cost---from Democrats, no less. Republicans become apoplectic at the mere mention of government oversight of the system.

I recall Ronald Reagan--Republicanism's modern hero--advocating against Medicare in the 1960's saying that it would lead to socialism. Never happened--in fact, Medicare is a good model for health care reform today.

How soon we forget the lies of conservatives past when they recycle their deceits again to scare us from real reform.

But I digress...

Congress decries socialism when it comes to health care reform, but when lining the pockets of defense contractors, our fine legislature becomes a paragon of profligacy and wealth redistribution. Making it worse, the Pentagon objects to the excess, but does anyone listen?

No.

I'll be writing my Congressman and Senator about the disconnect.

The duty of our elected officials is to serve the needs of the many. Instead, they feather their beds by serving wealth and the will of a few.

Maybe it's time for a change from business as usual.

Congress, Senate, and the President should waive all health care insurance until they pass health care reform--it shows solidarity with America.

2009-07-23T01:06:00.007-05:00

I've watched the health care drama with close scrutiny.

As a working, middle class, American priced out of medical insurance, you can damn well bet I have an interest in reform.

As with most Americans, I think we need reform.

Insurance has failed in its appointed task: To spread the risk by covering as many people as possible. In fact, insurance companies reduce costly beneficiaries that cost them profits. In the short-term, their bottom line benefits, but it defeats the central premise of good insurance practice, viz., spreading the risk.

Policy makers have a conflict of interest. All of them... ALL OF THEM have coverage paid for with tax dollars. Their judgment is skewed since the sword of Damocles doesn't hang over their heads.

In order for the health care legislation to reach a suitable and equitable conclusion, I suggest a change for our policy makers.

All of them. Every last elected official with the power to vote for or against health care reform must waive any insurance coverage for themselves and for their dependents until every working American has access--real access-- to affordable health insurance.

I suspect that none of them will take my suggestion. That underscores the real point. None of them has a clue about the struggles and the fears that real Americans live with daily due to our current system of insurance and health care.

This isn't surprising though. My Congressman and Senator both come from money and have never done without, so they haven't a clue about the rest of us.

Political Porn: Television & Radio talking heads arouse emotions to short-circuit critical thought

2009-07-17T14:35:00.004-05:00

I make a point to ignore talking heads on television and the radio. I also make a point to avoid pornography. I keep clear of both for the same reason.

They arouse desire devoid of meaning and significance.

Do I think we should outlaw talking heads and pornography? Absolutely not. Free speech is protected.

Talking heads, of both the left and right, offer little in the way of substantive analysis or well-reasoned argument. Their purpose is to incite and arouse, much like agitators, who then sit back and decry their innocence when people act on their inflamed emotions.

It's nothing more than cowardice and bullshit, all concealed behind the 1st Amendment.

The problem with talking heads is like the problem with pornography: Both are legal, and they should remain so, but both degrade critical thought and honest emotion.

We recognize porn addiction.

Maybe it's time we recognize political porn addiction represented by talking heads and radio personalities.

As with most addictions, you can't reason someone out of it; the addict must first recognize their problem.

Your Recession: Economic theory taken to a religious extreme has put us where we are today.

2009-07-16T23:33:00.004-05:00

Finally, a reputable magazine is finally reporting on a problem that has festered for too long among the financial classes in our country, viz., the infection of ideology.

The Economist points out that much of the economic mess we find ourselves in results from slavish adherence by our financial and economic priesthood to the conceptual ideals of economic theory.

I regularly instruct my students on the conceptual assumptions of economics: supply & demand curves, the invisible hand, rational actors, self-interest. I go the extra step to remind them that humans aren't entirely rational. Markets don't always correct properly without some assistance.

The incentives of the financial world boil down to money. When the goal is to maximize the cash, an ideology justifying greed easily takes root. Like all good memes, the language of economics eliminates or hides any threats to its existence.

Those reifying economic theory to validate and justify their self-interest (greed) fell victim to the irrationalities that their faith ignored. They took us along with them.

Religions and ideologies provide ready-made concepts to explain events; it's a type of reductionism to avoid internal inconsistency--Economics As Religion is no different.

We--and by that I mean those pushing the economic levers of power--must disengage from the ecstasy of their ill-conceived, economics-driven faith.

It's time for a reality check. As a nation, we can't afford any more flights of religious or ideological fancy.

Tennessee Court rules against opponents of gun law change.

2009-07-13T18:07:00.003-05:00

I posted a few days ago about the hoopla surrounding a change in the criminal law in Tennessee removing the penalty for handgun permit holders who carry their weapons into restaurants.

I noted that it was a tempest in a teapot.

I got some flack from friends who disagreed.

It seems the court generally agreed with my assessment today.

My prediction was that restaurant owners could post a sign prohibiting patrons from carrying guns. The judge said essentially the same thing.

So the effect? The law goes into effect tonight.

The judge will entertain arguments in three months on vagueness.

The Law is the Law: No one is above it.

2009-07-13T13:47:00.007-05:00

Before people begin taking sides in the whole "failing to disclose to Congress" matter, perhaps we should examine the obligations imposed by law n the Executive Branch.

Specifically, 50 U.S.C. Section 413 reads in paragraph (a):

The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this subchapter.

I think the statute is pretty clear that the Executive Branch has an affirmative obligation to keep Congress informed.

I'm sure we can all agree that the Executive Branch is NOT above the law since it derives its power from said law.

For Dick Cheney to argue that his failure to disclose such activities was in furtherance of ostensibly protecting our national security is bullshit, plain and simple. This is an either/or situation: Either the Executive Branch followed the law OR they failed to do so. Where's the middle ground?

The Executive Branch lacks Constitutional and statutory authority to ignore this law. It does so at its peril to the law. Every good, law-abiding, citizen should demand prosecution for this illegal conduct.

Apparently, too many place party loyalty above the Constitution and the law, since they argue against prosecution.

Patriotism is not merely for our convenience.

AG Holder should prosecute.

Cussing has palliative value.

2009-07-12T13:04:00.002-05:00

These results are awesome!

Now, I have a scientific excuse for my foul mouth.

When you hurt yourself, it's good to let fly with a stream of expletives to reduce the perception of pain.

Cool!

Traitors in our midst--Cognitive Dissonance must give way to justice.

2009-07-10T14:25:00.004-05:00

For years I've complained of the illegality of warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration. My patriotism and my support for our War on Terror has been questioned because I exercised my duty as a citizen to question our government. The founding fathers would be aghast at the ideological demands of the right.

Now, it seems my criticisms of the Bush administration's flaunting of the law in an effort to thwart the Constitution were not so far off the mark.

When the executive branch of our government goes to great lengths to conceal illegal activities, regardless of the motive, then we have a serious problem.

Dick Cheney and his cronies skirted the law, much like Nixon. They violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution and to support the laws of our nation.

These traitors deserve justice.

Fudging the law to fight our enemies makes us no better than those who attacked us. If you ignore these crimes because of party affiliation or ideology, then perhaps you should read the Constitution again.

Health care rationing is a reality but Wall Street makes the decisions instead of doctors

2009-07-02T23:04:00.006-05:00

When I read this article, I became quite angry because the subject says what we already know to be the case, viz.,. Insurance Companies get rid of costly customers for their bottom line.

Our current system violates every moral fiber of my being. The subject of the article finally awoke to the immorality of serving Wall Street over Main Street.

The best point made by the article: Health Care rationing is a reality.

The reality: Insurance Executives do the rationing now to mollify their Wall Street masters.

This begs the question: Who would you rather ration your health care? An executive whose primary interest is to shareholders?

OR

A government that is subject to the will of the electorate at least every couple of years?

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a government beholden to me and my fellow citizens over an executive beholden only to shareholders.

I leave you with this: What's the moral choice here? Leave the greedy in charge or let doctors, patients, and elected officials decide?

Tennessee authorizes gun permit holders to carry weapons in restaurants---big deal.

2009-07-02T16:38:00.004-05:00

Tennessee has changed the law to authorize concealed carry permit holders to exercise their right to carry in restaurants.

Everybody is up in arms about this---to a ridiculous degree.

Even a Nashville restaurant owner has gotten in the act by suing to have the law declared unconstitutional.

My reading of the State Constitution at Article I, Sect. 26 tells me the lawsuit won't succeed. The legislature has plenary power to make laws related to the right to bear arms. They've done so here.

Here's why I think it's a tempest in a teapot: Nothing in the law requires a restaurant owner to admit anyone who carries a gun. The law only authorizes those with a permit to carry it in a restaurant.

Randy Rayburn needs to take a chill pill and just put up a sign on his door that reads: No Guns Allowed.

If he does so, the law will back him up if he wants to throw someone out. Simple enough.

Instead, everybody has to go all ape-shit over nothing just for press attention. Makes me sick.

I support the 2nd Amendment, but I also support the right of restaurant owners to bar those who wish to pack heat too. This law doesn't interfere with either right.

Climate change is undisputed. Deniers are liars.

2009-07-02T16:23:00.003-05:00

For all you climate change deniers out there, I'd like to provide you with a link to a study that shows just how stupid your asinine recalcitrance has become.

I suspect that climate change deniers (liars?) prefer sticking their heads in the sand because to admit error is tantamount to becoming a liberal.

For those of you with the spine to read the study, I half expect you to shoot the messenger by claiming it's some vast intellectual conspiracy.

For those of you afraid to critically examine the evidence, I suspect you'll believe the pseudo-intellectuals in the media who agitate and lie about a leftist plot to destroy the free market.

Either way, you're being an idiot unless you use your brain.

Oklahoma politician showing her stupidity through proclamation--what else is new.

2009-07-02T09:29:00.005-05:00

Politicians who do things like what Sally Kern from Oklahoma has done make a mockery of our political system.

Do I think she should be stopped from asserting her opinion? Absolutely not.

Do I think she's a bozo? Absolutely yes.

Bigotry and narrow-mindedness in any form is anathema to a free society. When a politician uses her position to advance an agenda of stupidity and ignorance, then maybe her constituency should reconsider their choice in representative. If they like Ms. Kern then it says a lot about her constituency.

Can't we get a proclamation against stupidity and bigotry please?

Closed-mindedness linked to insecurity in recent study---Proof at last.

2009-07-01T21:42:00.003-05:00

This study confirms what many of us already suspected.

Closed-mindedness travels in the same coach as insecurity.

When I read studies like this I'm reminded of my days in church--Baptist church--where so many were so quick to judge and so quick to dismiss any notion of tolerance.

Thankfully, the faith of my childhood was left to my childhood.

Bottom line: Closed-mindedness is a compensatory facade for chickenshit.

Capitalistic medicine defies the laws of economics and risks patient lives

2009-06-20T10:38:00.004-05:00

Our medical system has many problems. Greed is the worst feature of the system.

When the primary motivation for doctors or future doctors is money, patient health and well-being take a backseat.

When the demand for primary care physicians isn't being met, then the invisible hand of economics has broken down.

Capitalism is great, but to ignore its problems won't improve our system. It's time for a change.

Palin-Letterman donnybrook nothing but a tired attempt to remain relevant with irrelevant fake outrage. Please.

2009-06-15T23:41:00.003-05:00

The whole Palin-Letterman dustup shows how devoid of ideas the Republican party truly is.

Instead of working to improve our nation, Palin, her crew, and the Republicans would rather turn a joke by a tv host into the central issue of the week.

This is why the Republicans lost the election in large part. They have nothing but fabricated outrage over stupid stuff said by a tv personality that amounts to nothing more than a hill of beans.

What happened to substance over style?

Palin's a loser without any redeeming qualities except her attractiveness and moronic right-wing ruthlessness--isn't it time we call bullshit on that old style of repudiated politics?

I think so.

If Palin and the Republicans can't offer up more than an Atwater/Rove retread tactic, then they deserve exile. No wonder McCain has nothing to do with Palin now...he knows she lost him the election.

Good riddance.

Lies, damn lies, and agendas. Hoaxer causes more harm to her agenda by lying.

2009-06-15T13:25:00.005-05:00

When people with an "agenda" do things like lying to push their views on people then it bespeaks more of their lack of integrity and their dearth of intellectual honesty than in the value of their worldview.

Escaping those of faith who champion their particular religion through dishonesty and deceit is the fact that hypocrisy kills any legitimacy their particular beliefs might have.

This woman who blogged about a fake troubled pregnancy to garner sympathy did nothing more than anger those sympathetic to her plight. What was she thinking? How do you translate sympathy based on a lie into a change of heart in those who were duped by the lie?

You don't. Lying is counter-productive.

This is the problem with agendas. When agenda supersedes the truth, then we are left with nothing but an unfounded belief upon which to built a edifice of trust. All based on lies.

60% of Bankruptcies caused by medical bills--shocking!

2009-06-07T01:43:00.004-05:00

This story sums up the problem with health care, as it is currently run, in this country.

When our system prefers to send people to the poor house so that medical providers can rack up significant bank, then something is askew.

Explain why health care for profit benefits our country when we see results like this?

Things must change.

Think on this: If you had to choose between a doctor who practiced medicine because they saw it as a calling or doctor who went into medicine because of the income possibilities, which one would you choose?

Our medical system needs a lifestyle adjustment.

Study indicates our tendency to ignore news that conflicts with our worldview.

2009-06-02T08:48:00.004-05:00

Studies like this one underscore the necessity for reading or viewing a number of media sources instead of relying on one or two.

As we age, the danger of viewpoint ossification increases. We seek certainty. When a news story contradicts our particular worldview, then chances are good we'll minimize its value, criticize its source, or seek out other stories to offset the perceived threat to our cozy little worlds.

The Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, were acutely aware of this natural tendency, despite having no name for it. Jefferson felt so strongly about the dangers of narrow-mindedness and simple-mindedness in the electorate that he donated all his books to start a library (University of Virginia). Along with the other founders, Jefferson noted that the dangers of a free press were far outweighed by having no press at all.

We find ourselves in an awkward situation today. Our media strives for profit. Profit motive fuels the tendency of the media to feed consumers what they want instead of what they need, viz., real news and conflicting stories.

My prescription: Read many sources, take them all with a grain of salt. Don't parrot some bozo who makes his or her money from maintaining an audience instead of actually adhering to a code of journalistic ethics.

Customer service is making a comeback---thankfully.

2009-05-29T00:36:00.002-05:00

I'm of the opinion that automated phone systems are designed to thwart customers instead of addressing service issues.

Think about it: Who benefits from wasting your time and possibly frustrating you to the point that you hang up and maybe go away? You most assuredly don't benefit, but the companies do.

Service will differentiate the good from the bad. Price pressures from competition will keep price differences minuscule, so intangible--like good service--will inform the choices.

The internet makes it so much easier to hassle key decision makers so things will change.

It's time we get back to being Americans and live up to our Constitution

2009-05-20T17:06:00.004-05:00

Stories like this highlight the vast dividing line between rich and poor.

I've been fortunate to grow up middle class. I've had every opportunity to succeed. My parents were not so lucky. Both came from poor country stock and both carry the attitudes and proclivities of the poor.

Those attitudes impacted me in a significant way--making me sensitive the the plight of the poor and downtrodden. These lessons, more than anything, explain my tendency to support the many over the few--the weak over the strong. Essentially, growing up with middle class resources, but a lower class mindset shaped my political values.

For many decades now, a scary, class-ist, and ultimately aristocratic attitude has governed our society. Hopefully, its final expression in the Bush administration and their mouthpieces in the press (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck to name a few..) will be nothing more than a death shudder of a narrow and mean view of society.

Policies enacted over decades make it easier to exploit those with little social power. Greed--encouraged by an ideology of self-reliance and a laissez-faire agenda reminiscent of pre-Depression era government and country, has resulted in an exploitative society that is nothing less than predatory.

It's time we own up to meanness. It's time we live united as a people. Too long have self-interest and the narcissism of certain self-satisfaction governed our land.

We should begin by treating the poor as people instead of like peasants to be abused for our own gain.

If we fail, then it won't be too long before our aristocratic tendencies lead to our undoing.

Cafferty Agrees with me on dealing with Bush Administration...for what it's worth.

2009-05-19T11:59:00.004-05:00

As a charter member of the crotchety old fart club, of which I consider myself a member in good standing, Jack Cafferty of CNN calls for a special prosecutor for the Bush Administration.

Obama is making a big mistake by ignoring the crimes of the last administration. Until the matter is examined, publicly and fully, then our country won't be free of taint from the Bush years.

I say again that it's not a liberal/conservative or Republican/Democrat issue; it one of crime and justice.

It should surprise no one that two cronies from the Nixon Administration (Cheney & Rumsfeld) share a large part of the blame for the screw-ups and law-breaking of the Bush years. You can't teach old dogs new tricks. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld learned at the feet of the master--Tricky Dick. These two bozos retained the paranoia and the deceit that marked the Nixon administration. On top of that, they had something to prove.

I think Cheney and Rumsfeld went to great lengths to turn the Bush Administration into a continuation of the Nixon years. In some sick psychodrama, they sought redemption for themselves and Nixon by making policy indicative of their previous tenure. America is saddled with the results of these two geezers who couldn't let go of their ignominious service with Nixon.

Obama must excise this blot from our collective conscious. Pelosi, although a good conciliator, should own her failure to impeach Cheney and Rumsfeld; she could have stopped the tragedy of the Bush years caused by the Dicky & Donny Show.

Pelosi dust-up is tacit admission that Bush administration engaged in torture.

2009-05-18T09:16:00.006-05:00

In a display of "gotcha" politics," the Republicans have pounced on Nanci Pelosi's allegation that the CIA lied to her about torture.

I don't know who to believe in this dust-up. I'm inclined to think Speaker Pelosi was informed of the torture. Thinking back on my general complaint of the Democrats during the time in question, I suspect she was. Democrats displayed such spinelessness just prior to the mid-term elections in 2004, so it's in keeping with their character at that time.

What should result from this?

If the Speaker was informed, then she should admit her complicity in the torture for failing to act. On the other hand, if she was misinformed, then those responsible must account for their omissions.

In my opinion, the best approach to resolving this matter--the ENTIRE matter--is to seat a Truth Commission to evaluate and report on everyone involved in the torture issue--including Nanci Pelosi.

The Republicans, by attacking Pelosi, tacitly admit torture occurred by the Bush-led government. Owning up to their part in these sordid events instead relying on a logical fallacy (Tu quoque - "you did it too") to score political points would begin the process.

I don't expect that to happen.

Now's the time for the Obama administration to show some leadership and jettison the impunity granted by their "looking to the future" agenda. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue, but one of justice and criminal activity going unpunished.

The current administration shirks their responsibility by ignoring the criminality of those aligned with the previous administration. Looking to the future doesn't mean ignoring the crimes of the past; it means we must properly resolve issues of the past in order to move into the future.

Letting previous malefactors slide as a courtesy scarcely qualifies as responsible governance.

Morons on parade.

2009-05-16T00:04:00.004-05:00

The more I work with corporate America, the more I understand that the value of ....shall we call it VALUES!

For a time now, I've provided advice and other services to a corporation.

In the scant two (2) years of my association, I've experienced a caricature of corporate America.

First of all, this company (although one I hold deep regard for in my personal life...) seems to hire what I charitably call "flunkies" for their management staff.

These people spend most of their time avoiding responsibility, shirking work, and shifting blame rather than actually working.

Secondly, whenever I provide any advice, legal or otherwise, if it conflicts with their bottom line, I immediately suffer demonization and threats against my future tenure.

What I've learned from this experience?

Schmoes work in corporate America. They sacrifice integrity for their own self-interest.

I don't think the founding fathers had this in mind when they set up our great country.

I've also learned that the truth is really scary when money in involved.

Why?

It seems that every decision made by my corporate affiliate gets resolved in a fashion that results in maximization of their cash-flow NOW rather than for their long-term financial stability.

Such is the life of Mr. Brutal Honesty.

Obama has ticked me off! Military brass is a bunch a wusses.

2009-05-13T22:18:00.006-05:00

Obama has finally pissed me off.

I'm sorry that the troops might be put in danger over the release of the photos of abuse.

But all I have to say is "Tough shit."

If they're so damned worried about the effect it might have then perhaps they should have obeyed the Constitution instead of following the dictates of their Commander-In-Chief (Bush) when they had the chance.

Need I remind everyone that soldiers take an oath when they join the service. Every last one of them swears to uphold the Constitution before anything. Next in the oath is to follow the orders of the President. If the President gives an order that contradicts the Constitution then as I see it, every soldier has a legal obligation to disobey.

Why? Because the Constitution governs all of us, including the President. Otherwise, we are no longer a nation of laws, but one of tyranny.

The way I see it, if the military want's to act like a bunch of pussies and worry about the effect that photos of their malfeasance and broken oaths might have, then perhaps they should have thought about that before they violated the damn law!

I may get hate mail for this, but one thing I am not is a wuss. I speak the truth and when Obama wimps out on the truth because some pansy-ass Generals are worried about hurt feelings and the potential consequences, then I draw the line.

These Generals are more worried about their careers than they are about their oaths to uphold the Constitution and defend our county. If they aren't smart enough to follow the law then they need to be replaced.

Sometimes to the truth hurts. Grow a spine you sissies.

Obama administration is restoring competitiveness to the marketplace.

2009-05-11T23:17:00.004-05:00

Upon reading this story all I could say to myself is this: It's about time we restore some real competition to the marketplace.

Despite all the blathering about the "free market" and "capitalism", the Bush administration did more to undermine real competition than many previous administrations by gutting anti-trust law.

You can't call yourself a capitalist unless you support strong anti-trust enforcement.

Anti-trust law, when properly applied, eliminates monopolies and punishes those profiting from anti-competitive contracts. Basically, anti-trust law punishes croneyism--a hallmark of the Bush years.

For a market to work properly, concentrations of market power must be thwarted; that's what anti-trust law does--it prevents concentrations of power and greases the wheels of commerce.

Easy commerce makes for cheaper stuff.

Excellent!

Williamson County Tennessee--Home of Right-Wing Douchebags

2009-05-10T23:49:00.004-05:00

People amaze me. Rarely am I astounded by depth, intellect, wisdom, or grace. Usually, people astound me by their utter stupidity and willingness to expend precious energy being assholes.

While roving the aisles of a bookstore in Brentwood, Tennessee (Brentwood is in Williamson County--home of Marsha Blackburn (R)), an employee mentioned that he and his fellow workers devote many man-hours to fixing the displays when right-wing bozos mess them up.

How? You may ask.

This guy, whose name is Evan and is nicknamed "McLovin" (a bit of humor to this story..) mentioned that some cretins enter his establishment and cover or hide any book with Obama on it.

I suppose this small gesture, or little rebellion on the part of Williamson County and it's mass of rich, Republican, idiots passes for "counting coup" on the Right. What else is a Limbaugh sycophant, Glenn Beck fan, or Bill O'Reilly nimrod supposed to do when their ideology, their whole raison d'etre is repudiated by a majority?

For those of you unaware: Williamson County Tennessee is one of the richest counties in the country. It's offers exceedingly large homes, expensive shopping, Land Rover driving housewives whose only work involves keeping up with the Joneses and who lack any capacity to yield while in traffic (why should they? It's all about them anyway...), and predominantly white, Republicans who believe Reaganism is still a viable political ideology (if it ever was one).

Sometimes, it's the little douchebaggeries that stick in my craw.

Rather than examine their own failings, these nitwits make life harder for the low-paid employees of a bookstore.

Suppose that's the price paid by a business that caters to the educated and well-informed. God knows no self-respecting right-winger would be caught in a bookstore that wasn't LifeWay unless they were up to mischief.

Miss California may lose her crown over nude pictures---but she's still against Gay Marriage.

2009-05-06T09:40:00.005-05:00

You'd think that after repeated displays of hypocrisy throughout time, that those positioning themselves as "moral" paragons, taking a stand on some controversial issue would realize what idiots their actions bespeak.

What am I blathering about?

Miss California and her stupid public statement against Gay Marriage.

Why is it hypocritical?

Because she is positioning herself as an upstanding Christian, but has posed nude.

If you'll recall, Vanessa Williams lost her crown for posing nude back in the '80's.

Now we have this Prejean woman claiming to be an upstanding Christian, and asserting (much to Perez Hilton's chagrin...) that Gay Marriage is wrong.

I don't get it. If you plan to take a moral stand, shouldn't you have the brains to make sure you've not done something stupid in your past? When the Moral police complain that the "liberals" call them stupid, maybe it's because they do stupid things like Miss Prejean.

Irony---it's what makes life worth living sometimes.

Murtha's nephew may have gotten $4 million in no-bid contract---Drop in the bucket compared to Halliburton.

2009-05-05T11:24:00.004-05:00

Graft on the federal level--hell, on any level--is serious business.

When John Murtha's nephew gets a no-bid, defense contract worth $4 million, then it must be investigated. If anything wrong occurred, then the offending parties should pay the price.

But before we start jumping on $4 million, we must first investigate and prosecute the billions of dollars spent on no-bid contracts that went to Halliburton. We all know that Halliburton was the former employer of Dick Cheney and that Rumsfeld's defense department awarded those no-bid contracts.

Making matters worse is that Halliburton allegedly over-charged after short-circuiting the contract process.

I suspect that Republicans are doing everything they can to neutralize Murtha since he has a distinguished military career.

Let's do investigations all around.

Supreme Court wants to review the Janet Jackson breast video...again. Guess Justice Thomas' porn subscription ran out....

2009-05-04T22:07:00.006-05:00

Apparently, the Supreme court wants another look at the Janet Jackson Superbowl wardrobe malfunction.

My suspicion is that Justice Clarence Thomas was behind the need for the male-dominated Supreme Court "needing to review the case again."

In the real world, I suppose it's hard (no pun intended) for the Justices to get their porn fix, so they gotta do what they gotta do.

Too bad this issue is really stupid. It highlights the inane things the Court finds itself being asked to resolve.

RNC attempting to set Steele up for failure because they're devoid of ideas.

2009-05-03T23:48:00.005-05:00

After the election of Michael Steele to the chairmanship of the RNC, I thought that maybe, the Republicans were beginning to turn a corner.

Apparently I was mistaken.

The RNC is attempting to hamstring Mr. Steele by limiting his ability to spend RNC cash without a permission slip.

Even Newt Gingrich calls the RNC a bunch "ego maniacs."

Here's my two cents: Many of the RNC want a fall guy. Mr. Steele is the guy out front, he's also African-American. Limiting his ability to spend money is the quickest route to setting him up for failure. The RNC will have someone to blame (Steele) and it will further their pretext racism by having the stool pigeon (Steele) be African-American too.

Let's watch and see if I'm right.

White Collar criminals should go to the same prisons as the hard cases.

2009-05-03T14:27:00.003-05:00

I don't know how I feel about this.

I have a serious problem with dividing the prison system into two camps--one for the hard criminals and one for the soft criminals.

Personally, I think all criminals should go to the same jail.

It doesn't matter to me that someone has an education and committed embezzlement of $50 million dollars as opposed to knocking over a liquor store for $200.

Crime is still a crime. Criminals should all pay the same penalty at the same venue.

Bigots alive and well and blaming Mexicans for Swine Flu--Dumbasses!

2009-05-01T14:05:00.003-05:00

Among the various reasons I have for not listening to talk radio or watching Fox News, one has to be the bigotry and racism prominently displayed.

When Michael Savage gets fired because he blames Mexicans for the Swine Flu and says things like "they wipe the butts with their hands" (what else would they use their feet?) or Michelle Malkin of Fox news uses the Swine Flu to justify closing the border, then I draw the line.

In an effort to show my contempt for this slag that passes as media, I plan on eating Mexican food today, prepared by real Mexicans.

Screw you bigots! Screw you too if you support such drivel.

Relgious more likely to support torture...so much for forgiveness.

2009-05-01T00:09:00.004-05:00

All I want to know: What exactly do they teach these people in church that causes them to be more likely to support the use of torture?

I mean, the Bible says nothing about supporting torture. In fact, the Bible says to forgive and turn the other cheek.

It's been awhile since I've been to Church, but if the results of this study provide a glimpse into what passes as Christianity these days, then I don't want to go.

Crappy broadband a legacy of Bush policy against enforcing Anti-Trust law.

2009-04-30T23:37:00.005-05:00

Surely most of you get tired of me bashing the last President. Yet, there remain so many screw-ups by Bush, some intentional and many a result of his ideological blinders, that I must point out what his penchant for laissez-faire boob-ism wrought.

The Justice Department under Bush instituted a policy of refusing to enforce anti-trust law. You know, the laws enacted to prevent monopolies and anti-competitive practices. Ashcroft dropped an Anti-Trust lawsuit against Microsoft during the early years and it set the stage for later malfeasance.

This whole atmosphere of ignoring anti-competitive business practices in the name of--wait for it--free markets has actually reduced our supply of market-friendly internet.

For example: In Tennessee, when municipalities began looking at providing free wi-fi, the cable companies cried foul and spent a lot of cash greasing the General Assembly's palms to pass a law prohibiting cities from competing with cable. The Justice Department did nothing.

Now, it seems the lack of competition and the virtual monopoly on broadband by a number of providers means we have to suffer with crap for speed, crap for customer service, and crap for expense.

If Bush had really been in favor of business, his policies would reflect the value of maintaining competition instead of encouraging monopolies.

We all would have the best broadband in the world instead of the 15th best.

When Republicans talk of capitalism they can't ignore the dangers monopolies create.

Green means NO MEAT.

2009-04-29T00:38:00.003-05:00

I'm gonna make a bold statement.

You cannot be green unless you avoid the consumption of meat.

Those of you who know me, understand that I've been a vegetarian for over two decades. My reasons are ethical, but my decision to avoid meat for all these years accords with my personal belief that the environment deserves our protection and not our continued exploitation for our personal appetites.

For more evidence supporting my personal view, look at this article and the links found therein.

Using Rove arguments to support Obama--try it for fun.

2009-04-26T22:56:00.005-05:00

I've decided to try a thought experiment as an homage to the last administration.

I want to trot out some of the same arguments used by the Bush administration and followed by McCain & Palin during the '08 election.

If you supported McCain/Palin or Bush you will remember these. As a point of consistency, they should apply equally well to Obama.

If you find yourself incapable of applying these same chestnuts to Obama, without caveat, then you need to ask yourself if you're not being a little intellectually dishonest.

1. Since Obama's been in office, the terrorists have not attacked us. Therefore, Obama's policies on national security are working. (You'll recall Bush used this same argument as validation for the efficacy of his presidency despite the fact that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence--it's sophistry, specifically argumentum ad ignorantiam --Glenn Beck's stock in trade).

2. Don't change horses in the middle of the stream. Even if Obama's not doing such a good job, things are so bad right now that we shoudn't go messing up things by replacing him because during a crisis, we need stability more than change. (Bush used this and McCain/Palin tried to link into the whole stability of vision thing to keep the Republicans in power--again, this is nothing but Bullshit and the results of the Bush years show it to be the case.)

3. Obama's a secret Muslim and is going to turn us into a communist state. (This doesn't pass the laugh test so I won't even diginify it with an answer except to say that if you believed this crap, you're an idiot.)

I'll stop here. Once I've gone through my Rove file, we can talk about it some more.

The same arguments used in the past must work equally well for the other side. if they don't then perhaps the arguments are suspect to begin with.

Night owls have advantages over early birds.

2009-04-26T22:41:00.002-05:00

The results of this study add fuel to a fire that's been burning for awhile with me.

I've always taken issue with those who point to my tendency to rise late and stay up late. Our society, due to its Calvinist legacy, puts great stock in the dictum: early to bed early to rise.

My point is that late risers and early risers each have something to offer and to force one into the mold of the other is prejudice.

This recent study offers proof that being a night owl gives certain benefits.

Good.

Greed of executives may kill Chrysler.

2009-04-20T21:08:00.003-05:00

I blogged about this earlier when I noted that the auto manufacturers were shunning bankruptcy because of the executive compensation issue.

Now, it seems my prediction was true.

Chrysler, a company in danger of dying, has turned down federal loans to keep itself afloat because of...(drum roll please) EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.

Sometimes the greed of a few can kill the livelihood of thousands.

Too bad.

Pill could kill Alcoholics Anonymous and Doctor Drew's Business

2009-04-15T16:43:00.004-05:00

This story is encouraging. A pill that can help addicts kick their problems.

Love the idea.

More troubling though is the recalcitrance of the Rehab industry and the AA crowd to using a pill to stop addiction.

Why would anyone holding themselves out as a professional or support group for addicts take issue with a medication showing such promise?

Money. For the rehab industry, a pill eliminates the thousands of dollars billed for treatment.

Even if it works.

For AA: The whole edifice of AA is built around the disease model of addiction. AA operates like a cult whose success at treating addiction is no better than chance (50/50). That's the level of remission among alcoholics WITHOUT AA.

When a pill stops addiction, what use would anyone have for a twelve step system?

None.

I think this work is great.

Bullets to the head will stop the piracy--Violent, but effective

2009-04-15T16:26:00.004-05:00

I'm not one for violence as a policy. In fact, I think too many people are quick to use the gun when other tactics might work better.

Too many advocate government sanctioned violence, especially if they're not the one doing the actual killing. Somehow the sanitary nature of government violence makes it more palatable for the rest of us to tolerate.

But then, there's the piracy issue.

Three issues fuel the piracy mess off Somalia:

1) No strong government in Somalia to put the smack-down on those exploiting the territorial waters.

2) Willingness of commercial shipping companies to pay ransom because it's less expensive than to pay the families and customers should the results become dire.

3) Willful ignorance by countries with the capacity to stop it militarily.

We're seeing a sea-change (literally) off Somalia. The U.S. under Obama has manned up at sent the pirates to Davey Jones' Locker for messing with us.

A few bullets to the head will stop the lawlessness caused by shipping companies cowardly, albeit capitalistic, ways.

Morality may just be post hoc rationalizations for what we feel.

2009-04-14T08:17:00.005-05:00

Apparently, we are all moral hypocrites. Recent research indicates that most of us use our emotions to guide our morals and devote considerable time to justifying our morality to fit our emotional state.

No surprising about this work: Conservatives spend a lot of time thinking about sex while liberals think mostly about food.

One look at the Moral Majority could have told you that.

As for me: I still think it possible for people to behave with cool rationality, but only if they exercise extreme effort and realize that emotions are to be compartmentalized instead of followed as the ultimate guide to truth.

Stress from poverty undermines children's mental development. Time to change that.

2009-04-03T20:06:00.003-05:00

The results of this study are stunning.

When science finds significant evidence that poverty diminishes a child's mental capacity then we have no choice but to eliminate poverty for the sake of the children.

The study showed that the central factor--the only cause--was stress caused by poverty.

Can we afford any philosophy or attitude that undermines the mental capacity of our nation's children?

I say "No".

Poverty is probably one of the last conquerable social evils. Alleviating poverty is within our grasp, but we must willingly give up outdated dogmas that serve only a few at the expense of our future.

New Technology takes away our privacy to our own genitals for the sake of "Stopping the Terrorists" No way.

2009-04-01T21:04:00.004-05:00

Okay, this technology, although really cool from a technical point, is extremely scary from a Constitutional standpoint.

When you can see genitalia from a technology then it's too much.

I don't care about thwarting terrorists if it means I have to show my business.

The company making this scary piece of equipment says that there's zero storage of images and it's viewed at a remote location.

SO WHAT!? Look at the detail.

My mantra about the shifting nature of our rights (primarily away from our best interest) is this: Just because we can do something doesn't make it alright.

I can buy a gun and shoot someone in the face, but that doesn't make it okay. Similarly, this x-ray technology is not okay.

It won't be long before someone would offer to sell nude pictures of celebrities and politicians from this technology, despite all the safeguards.

Hell no!.

Crazy often defined by proximity in time. The farther away in time, the less crazy it seems to be.

2009-03-31T16:15:00.004-05:00

Will someone please explain this to me?

A Maryland woman made a plea deal that includes a "resurrection" clause.

Her request was that when and if her son is resurrected from the dead that all charges against her will be dropped for allowing him to die.

Of course the D.A. agreed because the resurrection of the victim from the dead means no crime happened. Kind of a moot point.

Most of us agree that this woman is a little crazy.

My next question will probably tick off a lot of people: Why is her belief crazy but the belief in the resurrection of a man thousands of years ago not a little insane?

I'm just saying. If resurrection is possible thousands of years ago, why not now?

Universal health care the cure for foreign competition in medical treatment

2009-03-27T13:51:00.006-05:00

Failings in the U.S. health care system are highlighted by the plight of the uninsured.

Our profit-driven system benefits the vendors of medical care (doctors, hospitals & pharmaceuticals) at the expense of patients.

Many, myself included, find a system where lives are placed at risk primarily for profit immoral and scandalous. A supposedly advanced society doesn't place a price on lives like we do to profit certain industries.

Our profit-driven system generates one side-effect: Lower cost providers will always pop up to push prices down. That's the nature of market economics.

In the case of foreign doctors and hospitals, these low cost competitors are rising to fill a long-felt need in American health care.

It's a good thing too.

American doctors and hospitals need competition from their American-trained foreign brethren. Foreign competition will encourage the American medical industry to get on-board with universal health care because that will be the only thing to save American medicine from overseas competition.

Universal health care will take the form of protectionism for U.S. medicine. There's no way to maintain the best health care system in the world with the highest individual cost to consumers when the customer base shrinks as a result of the insurance industry policy of excluding people from coverage who most need treatment, leaving these externalized costs for the rest of society to pick up.

Something's gonna have to give in our health care system. I suspect that doctors will realize that insurance providers don't have the public's best interest at heart and will protect their own bottom line by preferring a universal plan insuring payment over the headache of dealing with private insurance companies.

Better late than never.

Tesla Sedan finally makes its debut

2009-03-27T08:35:00.003-05:00

Tesla, the electric car starup that made out mouths drool over their roadster, has bitten the bullet and produced a sedan for the mass market.

The price is around $50 k. More reasonable by comparison to the $100 k price tag of the roadster.

The car looks great.

I just hope the hype meets up with reality after a poor showing of the roadster during a BBC road test. I blogged about it previously.

Drug warriors asking for more money to fund ineffective approach to drug problems. Just "Say No" to misspent cash.

2009-03-26T16:55:00.004-05:00

Here's where the disconnect occurs in our efforts to combat drug abuse and the attendant crime associated with illegal drugs.

Those from law enforcement always want more resources and stiffer penalties. Just like this bozo advocates.

The problem with the education angle is that programs that historically receive government funding have shown little to no effect--in essence they are a waste of money.

I give you the D.A.R.E. program. D.A.R.E. has never been effective. If you don't believe me, then look at the government's own scientific study supporting my claim.

Law enforcement and its apologists and advocates have no credibility when it comes to treating the drug problem in the U.S. They've had three decades to prove themselves and have FAILED.

The criminal justice system has never successfully treated what amounts to a health issue.

Until our policies reflect the health aspect of drug problems, we'll endure further demands for cash from the law enforcement lobby.

It's time to stop the police-industrial complex our drug policies have created.

Secretary Clinton speaks the truth about U.S. Drug Policy--Good for her, good for us.

2009-03-25T16:37:00.004-05:00

Here's a positive sign. Someone in the Obama administration actually speaking the truth about U.S. drug policy.

Secretary Clinton stated publicly that the War on Drugs has been a failure.

She noted this while in Mexico.

In my previous post I noted how we must honestly address our failures and look to alternative policies.

Excellent.

Time for a new approach to this failed drug war.

2009-03-24T22:48:00.003-05:00

The escalating violence in Mexico and the potential for spillover into the U.S. highlights the failings of our decades long drug war.

Prohibition enforcement has not worked. Every angle has been tried and yet rates of drug addiction and drug use are roughly the same as they have been every year since the 1920's--the first decade to see good records on drug use and addiction.

What's been the result of enforcement? More prisons, more cost to society in lost economic potential and a law enforcement boondoggle.

Drug abuse isn't pretty, but one thing is clear: Continuing down the same path of failed policies, increasing corruption and wasted capital is not the better choice.

Trying alternatives is our best option. We know prohibition doesn't work. Admitting our failures is not giving in; it honesty in policy. Aren't we due for some integrity in our drug policy?

The Obama administration is trying the same old failed approach to the Mexican drug problem, but it won't work. You can't target Second Amendment rights when the real problem boils down to failed drug policies that have no effect on demand.

Ending the violence means hitting the drug cartels where it counts: Their cash flow.

Demand is not affected by prohibition, that much is proven by our history. When a product has consistent demand over decades, someone will always try to meet that demand, despite the legal obstacles our policies might place in the way.

What are we left with?

Legalization and regulation.

By legalizing drugs, we remove the financial incentives. Legal substances have lower margins. Legal substances have better quality. Legal substances are subject to taxation and oversight.

The costs to society for legalization are far less than what's been paid thus far for prohibition. The benefits are incalculable and might just deal a fatal blow to those organizations inured to the profits prohibition has created, namely the Drug Cartels.

Dramatic times call for dramatic measures.

Meat consumption linked to dramatic risk of cancer and heart disease. Just say no to meat.

2009-03-24T09:48:00.004-05:00

A fun new study paints a grim picture of the long-term consequences of red meat consumption.

Apparently, eating red meat increases the risk of cancer and heart disease dramatically. Women suffer an increased likelihood of death as a result, moreso than the risk men face.

Men increase their risk of cancer by about 25%. Women increase their risk about 50%.

This is dramatic.

Another call for vegetarianism.

Obama giving up the macho in favor of the smart approach to Iran.

2009-03-24T09:30:00.006-05:00

I would like to point out that President Obama's approach to Iran is exactly what is needed.

For far too long the U.S. has tried to bully and threaten its way to a solution with the Islamist nation--all to little effect.

I would also like to point out that I suggested just such an approach in an earlier post on this blog.

Being the big dog on the block gives us ample strength without us needing to strut around and tell everyone about how great we are. Previous administrations and our most recent Republican nominee for president pursued the same agenda: Talk tough and be tough.

It didn't work, except at the polls. The message lost on all the talk tough crowd is that being macho and being smart are mutually exclusive endeavors. This is why you don't find big tough rednecks on Jeopardy and why you don't find pointy-headed nerds on the football field.

Obama's nuanced approach to Iran creates an untenable situation for the mullahs. The "Great Satan" ceases to motivate when the U.S. is extending a hand in peace. The youthful Iranian population wants to participate in the world at large. The restraints placed on them by their reactionary leaders generates increased discontent when the "Great Satan" is perceived as the "Great Peace-Maker".

Obama's approach boxes in the Iranian leadership between moribund rhetoric and youthful population bristling under the reactionary yoke of oppression. Strategically, it's brilliant.

Kudos to Obama for being smart instead of macho.

Running may be better for us than once thought. Good news.

2009-03-23T16:21:00.004-05:00

Here's some very good news for me and the millions of other runners out there.

I've been a runner for over 20 years. Running keeps me sane and stable.

For the past few years, I've worried that I must give up my running to preserve my joints and bones.

This study suggests that I need not worry and keep to the road.

I think I'll celebrate by running.

Legal profession fills in the gap where government oversight is scant

2009-03-22T11:09:00.006-05:00

When politicians complain about lawyers ruining America or some right-wing idiot blathers about trial lawyers hurting the medical profession or so on, stories like this provide the real value lawyers bring to society--quasi-regulators.

I'll be the first to complain when some lawyer goes too far. However, the legal profession is not defined by some outlier of a lawsuit, regardless of how newsworthy it may be. Lord knows that the media reports the stupid lawsuits, but ignores the millions of stupid cases most lawyers refuse to file.

This present case highlights the legal profession's role in protecting the public.

Who else protects the public from unscrupulous sorts when government neglects its obligation to protect consumers taken in by unfair trade practices?

Lawyers stand as society's safeguard against companies and individuals that profit by externalizing costs to the public's detriment.

You'll note that those complaining about trial lawyers do so as a pretext for complaining about the true costs of doing good business. Good business factors in all the costs of doing business, not just the quickest way to make a buck.

If a business can't survive without externalizing their costs, then, economically, it loses any claim as a viable concern and more resembles organized crime--the height of extreme cost externalization.

Profitability based on cutting corners is artificial. The rest of society must absorb those costs to ensure the continued existence of extreme eternalizers.

The complexity of our economy militates against a purely caveat emptor business system. Demanding that every consumer evaluate fully every commercial decision to maintain profitability defies reason and can't possibly be an effective approach.

Arguing otherwise is tantamount to arguing for a dog-eat-dog world where only the strong survive. Fortunately, social darwinism as a social model has long been discredited as an effective policy. Besides few people want what amounts to plutocracy anyway.

Lawsuits re-balance the equities created when producers exploit informational inequities in society for profit by taxing the costs to those best able to prevent them and those best able to bear them---the producers.

China will learn the meaning of good business after our legal profession gets done with them.

Good thing too.

AIG can't seem to learn its lesson.

2009-03-20T23:55:00.003-05:00

AIG really screwed the pooch. They can't seem to learn.

Not only did they help create the mess that is our economy, but through their government allies, they managed to profit from it at the expense of taxpayers.

The public is understandably upset. In days of yore, this would be a tarring and feathering event.

I am utterly stunned at the audacity of AIG. They have little concept of the political nightmare they've created--and for what? Money.

What astounds me more is the political response. Republicans are blocking the political backlash against AIG's stupidity and greed. In essence, Republicans are advocating stupidity and greed at the taxpayers' expense.

My suspicion: Republicans are guarding their Wall Street constituents. If the previous administration and its cronies in the legislative branch had not set the environment for this greed and de-regulation, AIG might never have gotten away with this. Besides, those on Wall Street are notoriously Republican-leaning and to hurt them would cause campaign coffers to dwindle, despite any pretexts offered to the contrary.

Arguing that failing to pay these bonuses will be bad for the economy is what most of us clearly see as bullshit clothed in fearmongering. It's nothing more than a bunch of greedy bastards using that old Bush tactic of scaring us out of wits so they can sneak up and screw us when we're not paying attention.

I got a news flash: The economy is already screwed so these bozos need to come down to reality.

The public outrage is justified. The rapid Congressional response is exactly what the founders had in mind when they created the House, viz., a body to reflect the passions of the electorate.

Making matters worse: The previous administration orchestrated this with the complicity of Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. Can anyone please explain why Bernanke neglected to mention these bonuses months ago when he learned of them? He should be fired over such a colossal blunder, since he is touted as the wizard of our economy.

AIG should be forced into bankruptcy. Every entity getting paid by AIG needs disclosed.

Until all the greedy cockroaches see the light of day, this mess won't be clean and our economy won't heal.

We can either drag this out to our detriment or we can make it quick and clean.

I opt for Robespierre's method: Off with their heads.

Employer-provided insurance hampers labor mobility.

2009-03-19T16:55:00.003-05:00

Home ownership and employer-sponsored insurance may play a bigger role in unemployment than taxes or other alleged issues.

I've noted this for a time, that without some form of universal health coverage, people were tied to their jobs due to employer-provided insurance. When a health crisis hits, people can't just leave a job and lose their insurance, COBRA be damned.

Our system cements workers to their jobs when it might make better economic sense to move.

With the downturn in real estate, home owners are given a double-whammy with the loss of home value. They can't sell and they can't lose what they have sunk into their houses either.

The country may not be ready for this, but portable, universal health coverage would be a boon to labor mobility. People could move to where the jobs were instead of suffering with a job for the sake of the insurance and the house.

Faith eludes the faithful when death comes knocking

2009-03-18T09:30:00.005-05:00

This study tells me one thing: The religious aren't less afraid of death and neither are hey more certain about an afterlife. It's just a show.

For awhile, I suspected that religion fills a need for certainty in an uncertain world.

Certainty is a pipe dream. Nothing is fixed and no one knows what happens after death, despite what religion tells us.

Too many willingly believe in an afterlife, but studies such as this give credence to the fact that those beliefs provide little guidance when death calls.

It takes great courage to face death with the knowledge that the end is near. Holding onto beliefs in spite of supporting evidence may be fine while death seems distant, yet when those beliefs get tested the truth hits like a slap in the face.

True courage requires no fantasy of an afterlife to soften the possible truth of existence, viz., that this is all there is.

California to legalize and tax marijuana to fix budget crisis. It's about time.

2009-03-14T21:07:00.005-05:00

California is at the vanguard of new taxation strategies. The state is the 8th largest economy in the world--meaning that California has a greater GDP than the vast majority of the world's countries.

Yes, you read that correctly.

I've frequently noted that as California goes, so goes the rest of the country in ten years.

California is suffering a serious budgetary crisis and needs new revenue streams. A state legislator is offering up a bill legalizing marijuana.

In my opinion, California is taking steps that should have occurred years ago. The proposal would allow adults to buy cannabis and pay a tax.

Since marijuana is one of the highest cash crops in the state, the treasury will have scads off cash.

I see marijuana legalization as the next lottery or casino for many states.

We'll see.

Intelligence reduces risk of death--Duh.

2009-03-14T11:00:00.006-05:00

Sometimes scientists find results that most of us already know intuitively.

This study links High IQ with reduced risk of death.

In my opinion, stupidity is nothing more than "Darwin in Action." You know, the human version of natural selection or survival of the fittest.

We all shake our heads when some idiot decides to play chicken with a train.

In my mind, stupidity serves a very useful purpose. It weeds out the weak and unfit from our gene pool. The immediate result may suck, but over time, the accumulation of stupid actions by many individuals improves the quality of our species leaving only the best and brightest around to reproduce.

Darwin was right.

These results may be a no-brainer, but sometimes it helps to verify with reproducible results.

Rihanna is apparently willing to sacrifice her career to save Chris Brown's--huh?

2009-03-12T13:24:00.004-05:00

I normally stay away from items featured prominently on TMZ.com or PerezHilton.com, but I must add my meager voice to the growing throng against this mess.

As a former victim of domestic abuse, I cannot help but think this crap Rihanna is purportedly doing, like recording a duet or staying at Sean Combs house, is just further evidence of Chris Brown's abuse.

It is no secret that abusers exercise considerable control over their victims. They cajole and apologize and use everything to prey upon the low self-esteem of their victim. The victim often falls for it and forgives. Sometimes when it's too late.

Rihanna is obviously being further victimized by Brown and his camp because it helps his case.

I think she needs to wake up.

Furthermore, I think her father and brothers should have an aggressive conversation with Mr. Brown behind locked doors. If you catch my meaning. This may be why Rihanna has apparently cut all ties from her family. It's common for abusers to isolate their victims from family and friends; it's the same thing a cult does when they gain new recruits.

I'm calling out Sean Combs on enabling this mess. He's an idiot and deserves an ass-whipping too for being such a moron. I thought he billed himself as being smart? This doesn't seem to bright to me.

Rihanna is going to kill her career and for what? To save Chris Brown's? How stupid is that? Why is his career worth more than hers?

World economic downturn shows political fragility of some nations.

2009-03-11T08:26:00.002-05:00

Failing U.S. economic health has unintended consequences on immigrant labor. Without the steady flow of cash from a booming U.S. economy, many Central American immigrants are forced to return home for the security of family.

Jobs often filled by immigrants, legal or otherwise, are the first to go when times get tough and the economy shrinks.

Wholesale job losses by immigrants reveal just how dependent their home countries' are on U.S. dollars.

Currently, Mexico is in danger of becoming a failed state. Right next door, we have a country that has depended upon direct infusions of cash by immigrant workers in the U.S. sending money home.

Without any thought for economic security and future prosperity, Mexico has maintained a status quo for years and the corruption resulting from its inability to change its policies is beginning to show.

Drug cartels are the primary power source operating in the country. The government has little ability to stand up to the demand for drugs in the U.S. so on the one hand it needs the cartels, but on the other the drug cartels threaten the legitimate power in the country.

I'm afraid the failed policies began by Nixon, promoted by Reagan, and endorsed by all succeeding presidents are coming home to roost in a major way.

Survey highlights the fall of religion in America due in large part to the Religious Right--Ironic isn't it?

2009-03-10T06:47:00.005-05:00

The results of this recent survey underscore the same trend that has happened in Europe. It also highlights the founding father's warning in the Establishment Clause to the Constitution.

When politics and religion mix, religion loses.

The Germans have a state supported church and few Germans identify themselves as Christian or even attend service anymore.

In our country, the Religious Right have driven many people from religion altogether with their emphasis on prosaic matters above that of the spirit. Their striving for worldly power leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Even the bible says not to cast your pearls before swine, but that's exactly what happens in the marriage of politics and religion.

Personally, I welcome the decline. I've predicted it for years. You can't push a religious political agenda in a country with a long history of separation between church and state and expect faith to come out ahead.

Science regains its rightful place--being unmolested by politicians.

2009-03-09T18:43:00.006-05:00

Obama is undoing the anti-intellectual crap spewed all over science by the Bush administration.

All I can say is: "Thank God!"

Irony is intended.

My problem with the whole selling out to the Religious Right boils down to this:

Insecure faith is the cause of the anti-intellectualism and fear of knowledge that governed such policies.

There, I said it.

Those intolerant of conflict with their world view are the last people to consult when making science policy. Bush screwed the pooch big time with that policy and it's time for the Galileo's of the world to be set free from the yoke of faith.

Despite what the faithful might think, the world isn't constrained to one particular worldview.

The rest of us adults realize this and accept that forcing others into our own circumscribed reality might just be the worst "tyranny over the minds of men" that Thomas Jefferson was referring to when he said it two centuries ago.

Reason has returned and the idiots are being shown the door. Our forefathers saw the dangers of mixing religion and politics, but for the past eight years we've had to endure the result they warned against.

High time for secular society to return to American politics and government.

New service may be the answer to little choice in cable television

2009-03-05T08:15:00.003-06:00

Here's new service that I would definitely jump on.

Any opportunity I can find to get rid of cable while keeping a good supply of tv entertainment on the cheap is my kind of product.

The only thing keeping me from dumping cable is the broadband.

DSL sucks because you must have a phone line.

Since Tennessee passed a law prohibiting municipalities from putting in free, citywide, WiFi (thanks to the generous contributions to our venal state legislature by wireless providers who didn't want the competition...) we've been left with cable broadband (from one provider!) dsl, dial-up, or wireless broadband with low download limits. None of the above cut it except the cable broadband, but then you have only one choice.

I don't know about you, but I'm a big fan of competition in communications and any service that gives me the choice of paying for shows or accepting advertising sounds good.

Sign me up.

Morality is a primitive emotion without need for a higher power.

2009-03-03T08:00:00.005-06:00

A new study mentioned in Science Daily shows that morality might arise from rather primitive brain functions.

The importance of this find cannot be understated for the simple fact that some philosophers and theologians have contended for centuries that morality comes from some higher source.

I've been in arguments with people who argued that morality couldn't exist without some higher authority, viz., God. I always found that position weak and opted for the more parsimonious view, viz., morality is innate.

The argument goes that without God, one can't be moral with the implication that atheists and agnostics lack morality.

I call bullshit on that view because the facts show otherwise. Furthermore, is it moral to be scared into doing right or doing right because it's the right thing to do? I think the latter is the higher morality, while the former is the view of the religious moralists.

Many of the atheists and agnostics I know have a better grip on morality than a lot of the religious folks running around.

Interesting study that scores another point for secular humanism.

NationaL Rifle Association's ideological blinders leads to alienation of Democrat allies--idiots.

2009-02-27T13:37:00.008-06:00

Here's a new fun fact that I'm sure will get few mentions from the bloviators in the Right-wing media.

Pelosi and Reid both oppose the Assault Weapon Ban.

Personally, I agree with them. Who gives a crap about some guy with a cache of AK-47s? Hell, I'd like to have a few machine guns myself.

If you'll note, the National Rifle Association says nothing about Pelosi and Reid on their legislative website.

Their failure to support politicians who support the 2nd Amendment begs the question: Is the NRA really in favor of politicians that support the 2nd Amendment or is their ideology so strong that they cannot imagine a Democrat actually being in favor of gun rights?

Who knows. I do note that most of the bozos touted by the NRA come from the right-wing of the Republican Party, so the NRA isn't exactly a paragon of balance.

Why do you suppose that is?

Personally, I don't think either party has a lock on the personal freedom and protection of rights agenda.

Personal beliefs cannot trump quality of medical care--ever.

2009-02-27T11:41:00.005-06:00

Finally, the President is bringing some Constitutionality back to health care.

The Bush administration pushed through a regulation that allowed health care workers to refuse health care that violated their beliefs. Now, Obama is proposing to rescind such a reactionary, unconstitutional, and morally suspect piece of right-wing pandering.

Why do I oppose this regulation?

Health care professions are similar to the legal profession in that we assume the duty to perform to the best of our skills and to subordinate our personal interests to those we serve--it's known as a fiduciary obligation. Someone entering a field where people's lives are on the line has a fiduciary duty to subordinate their personal feelings and beliefs to the standard of care required in their field.

As a lawyer, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I represented defendants in criminal cases that I found personally repugnant, but I took an oath to uphold the law even for those I thought should be locked up. The law is not some suggestion to be discarded in favor of our own predilections despite what medical school may teach.

Health care workers incapable of providing the highest standard of care due to personal beliefs have a moral obligation to leave the profession, since they obviously cannot give the best quality of care due to a personal issue.

Similarly, if I could no longer uphold the law because I disagreed with it, even for those most deserving of its punishment, then my fiduciary duty is to remove myself from its practice in order to protect the law from my personal failings.

No one argues that medical providers should sacrifice their beliefs, but they have a legal and moral duty to avoid placing themselves in situations where they will be forced to choose between their beliefs and the highest quality of care for their patients.

No one, even a doctor, has the authority to elevate their personal beliefs above that of their patients' well-being. That's the height of arrogance and self-righteousness.

Welcome back to some sanity.

Eat less, exercise more: The only true diet that works.

2009-02-27T09:53:00.003-06:00

This study confirms what most of the world has known for years.

Fad dieting and tricks to lose weight don't really work.

Losing weight depends on a simple formula: Eat less and Exercise More.

Weight loss boils down to burning more calories than one consumes.

Diets don't work. Lifestyle change does.

Cut calories by changing what you eat and how much you eat. Burn calories by increasing activity.

Simple huh?

There are no quick fixes to years of overeating and inactivity.

Bankruptcy for automakers would make public executive compensation: The Real Reason for avoiding bankruptcy

2009-02-27T07:54:00.005-06:00

For the past few months I've been wondering why the Big 3 automakers have assiduously avoided any thought of filing bankruptcy.

The stated reason is that it would undermine their market share since consumers wouldn't buy cars from companies in bankruptcy.

I find their reasoning a little off and have for awhile. Bankruptcy would allow the auto makers to renegotiate ALL their contracts with the unions while providing some protection for the already retired workers. This falls under 11 U.S. C. Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code.

After thinking about it, I've figured out the real reason the car companies don't want bankruptcy.

Executive Compensation.

Under the bankruptcy code, when a company enters Chapter 11, all executive compensation must be approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Insider compensation must be disclosed in the bankruptcy too so the public would find out the extravagant pay packages paid out.

With the economy in such shape and their companies in such a state, these executives know the court will deny them millions of dollars a year after balancing that with layoffs and bad business decisions.

Of course the public would rise up in anger over the millions of dollars paid for executives who made bad decision. That's ultimately the reason why the big 3 would lose market share. I'm sure the creditor's committees in these bankruptcies would also complain about the excessive salaries too.

This begs the question: What's more important? The bottom line for the executives or their fiduciary obligation to their companies and the economy as a whole?

Privatization of exclusive government functions leads to corruption and erosion of our rights.

2009-02-21T21:28:00.006-06:00

This story underscores a basic fact about privatization of government functions, viz., that it leads to corruption and rights violations for our citizens.

When companies, like private prisons, make their profits based on the number of beds they fill, then increasing the number of inmates becomes incentive-ized.

It's that simple.

In my opinion, there are three exclusive government functions that are non-delegable:

1) Administration of justice

2) Collection of taxes

3) National Defense.

If you'll check your recent history, and by that I mean since Bush was elected, then you'll note an increase in privatization of all those functions. The news stories of those failures are ample.

Privatization is code for tolerable corruption.

Keeping our government answerable to the people means that privatizing certain functions intimate to the running of our country must never occur.

This case is a prime example of why. These judges give law and order a bad name.

Venality of this sort deserves public flogging.

Weed use linked to lower rates of workplace injury.

2009-02-21T21:21:00.005-06:00

Here's an interesting scientific study that produced some counter-intuitive results.

(It's a pdf..)

Basically, the Swiss study showed that alcohol use while on the job led to greater workplace injury.

Here's the kicker: Marijuana use on the job was linked to lower rates of workplace injury even lower than that of workers not under the influence!

My suspicion is that the stoners are avoiding work while on the job so they have overall lower risks on the job.

Guess we'll need another study to find out.

Government is getting out of faith-based funding--The Constitution is finally on top again.

2009-02-20T11:58:00.006-06:00

This story is good news.

I've always had my doubts about the Constitutionality of government funding of faith-based organizations. It violates the Establishment Clause in my opinion.

Furthermore, I don't think it fair that organizations who get tax-exempt status under the 1st Amendment should get tax money from those of us without the same benefits. Why should those groups who don't pay expand at the expense of those who do?

It's unfortunate for the populations these organizations serve, but we can ill-afford to fudge even a single time on the Constitution. It is inviolate.

The law is the law and to allow any exceptions sets a bad precedent.

Holder calls the nation out on matters of race--Excellent!

2009-02-19T07:45:00.002-06:00

I give kudos to the Attorney General for his blunt assessment of race issues in America. We needed calling out on it.

For too long we as a nation have tiptoed around race, when what we need is an open and honest discussion. No group has a claim on being correct on this.

Here's what I know: Every single person has a race issue on some level. Failure to acknowledge that keeps our head in the sand.

Refusal to accept that simple fact will get us nowhere.

The mere fact that all of us suffer from prejudice is what makes us more alike than different.

Racism is inappropriate, but until we openly discuss matters of race without fear of political correctness or fear of labeling then we cannot grow as a nation.

Race is an outdated concept and I think most people are willing to explore the opportunity to move beyond it.

New drug shows how stupid pharma can be with their cash

2009-02-16T15:28:00.005-06:00

Stories like this make me wonder why all the money spent to develop such a drug wasn't spent on things like, oh let me think...CANCER!

I have few problems with drug companies making a profit, but this takes the cake.

I have restless legs, but I don't take drugs for it. Likewise, why do we need a drug for improving eyelashes?

Screwed up priorities if you ask me. I'm sure they'll claim it's to help those who lost eyelashes and so on to give it some veneer of medical necessity.

So many people can't afford such a drug in today's economy that I doubt the market will support such a stupid call from the drug company who makes it.

Aggregate unemployment will result in widespread chaos.

2009-02-16T08:18:00.005-06:00

Jobs are the fundamental resolution to our global problems.

Failure to realize this simple point will doom us all to chaos and diminishing returns in any of our attempts to fix the economy.

When companies make micro-economic labor choices, viz., layoffs, etc. then it may stave off that particular company's demise. When many companies do so globally, then it aggregates to profound effects. This is the micro-economic decisions having macro-economic effects.

Keeping employment up is the best prophylactic against protests and social turmoil. Working people have no time to protest and worry about the precariousness of their economic position.

We're in for trouble on a global scale because out-sourcing of labor will not save companies when the market is full of the unemployed. The unemployed have no means to purchase even cheap goods and services.

We're now in a time where the global economy is a zero-sum game.

Court finds no link between vaccines and autism--Jenny McCarthy needs to move on.

2009-02-12T14:52:00.003-06:00

Finally a court has evaluated the evidence presented by parents of autistic children about the alleged link between vaccines and autism.

The findings?

The weight of the evidence shows no link between autism and vaccines.

That's what the science has said for years, but despite the evidence and the facts, many have continued to believe in a fantasy.

I suppose a fantasy is better than accepting the truth, when the truth is unpalatable.

My concern: As long as people prefer their delusions to facts, then we'll get nowhere.

Jenny McCarthy will probably complain about conspiracies and such.

Suppose time will tell.

Science gives men help for Valentine's Day.

2009-02-12T08:05:00.003-06:00

In the run up to Valentines Day--that most dastardly event created by greeting card companies and florists--many outlets are publishing stories about love.

It seems Science news sources are no different.

Recent studies have shown what it is men need to know about women.

All I seem to know is that women never lose an argument, even when they're wrong.

They place much emphasis on grand gestures rather than the small and steady dependability some of us show.

Happy Valentine's Day.

See "The Wrestler"

2009-02-08T01:14:00.004-06:00

I saw 'The Wrestler" this evening. I was blown away

The movie is sparse, but excellent.

It shows blue collar entertainers (wrestlers & strippers) and their troubles.

Loved it.

Marisa Tomei doesn't look 44.

Republicans engage in economic brinkmanship with country's health and future.

2009-02-06T09:32:00.005-06:00

I'm utterly dumbfounded and disturbed by the Republicans' obstructionism on the stimulus.

In the face of a declining economic picture, they continue to push an agenda that has done nothing but worsen the jobs picture and the overall economic health and future of our nation.

The Republicans are like Nero fiddling while Rome burns; they fiddle around by playing economic brinkmanship with our nation's economy.

And for what? Short-term political advantage.

Shameful.

I'm afraid Obama will be forced to fight back publicly by calling them out. He's already starting to.

No one wants to spend all that money, but what's the alternative? Tax cuts?

That's been tried along with rebate checks and neither of them have worked.

The tax cut agenda is like drinking more alcohol to cure alcoholism: It only makes things worse and provides no incentive to recover.

The federal government is the only one capable of spending in the amounts necessary to affect the economy as a whole. Giving tax cuts to businesses and wealthy individuals encourages savings because of the bad economy.

We need spending, not savings so we are thus left with stimulus spending.

Bank bailout is nothing more than a large wealth transfer to the already wealthy

2009-02-03T07:44:00.005-06:00

Here's the problem with the first bailout of the banks.

If you'll recall, I opposed the first bailout because banks were the primary benefactor.

My opposition stemmed from the fact that taxpayer provided cash was going to banks who had made poor decisions. Additionally, the targeted banks were investment banks that dealt primarily with wealthy investors and institutions.

My concerns were twfold: 1) Banks were rewarded for bad decisions and prevented from suffering the fate of businesses in the market who fail because of those decisions. 2) The wealthy investors were getting a handout from the government while the rest of us footed the bill.

Well, it seems my fears are being borne out.

The banks used the TARP money to prop themselves up and secure their viability at the taxpayer's expense.

This is yet another reason why Bush was wrong for America: He rewarded the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Thanks.

Illegal drugs only responsible for 10% of drug-related fatalities.

2009-02-02T08:00:00.004-06:00

Here's yet another reason why the so-called War on Drugs is irresponsible and wrong-headed.

To hear the press and law enforcement talk about it, you'd think illegal drugs are killing vast numbers of our youth.

But you'd be wrong. That's merely the propaganda.

The reality: Over 90% of drug related fatalities are caused by alcohol.

Alcohol is a legal drug.

This begs the question: Should we spend the money we currently allocate to fighting what is essentially a War on Americans when the greatest threat to our youth is from readily available and legal substances?

Can we, as a nation afford such a boondoggle? Even if it sends to wrong message?

Hardly.

It's time for fiscal discipline in law enforcement. Who came up with the notion that law enforcement is outside budgetary constraints?

ALL publicly-funded entities must be measured by the same economic benchmarks or else we've lost our economic sanity.

Tragic story of police stupidity and Constitutional violations.

2009-02-01T11:40:00.004-06:00

This is a tragic story of law enforcement gone wrong.

The police botched a search and raided a mayor's house, terrorizing the mayor, his mother-in-law, and shooting both his dogs in the process.

The police lied about the raid in an effort to shift the blame to the innocent victims of their stupidity.

The founding fathers turn over in their graves when the government does things like this. The Constitution was designed to protect citizens from the government.

The 4th Amendment has been eroded over the years by the right-wing appointees to the court, who operate under the assumption that law enforcement should be protected from the rights of citizens. This is contrary to the Original Intent of the founders so it should be repudiated by the proto-fascists on the bench.

I would like to point out that the Constitution makes the people sovereign. What does that mean?

It says that when government goes too far the citizens have a right to defend themselves and shoot back. The Cato Institute offers up a good example of botched raids resulting in tragic loss of life.

Law enforcement has no room to complain about lack of respect when they do things like this and then lie to cover their asses. Basic police work would have prevented this, but they were more concerned about getting their adrenalin rush than in protecting the Constitution.

So much for their oaths.

150% investment return still isn't good enough for Congressional Replublicans--I'll take it!

2009-01-29T13:52:00.007-06:00

I have a thought experiment for you. Better yet, let's call it an investment game.

I offer you a chance to make an investment. Say I provide you good, strong figures from a reputable expert on the investment that says for every $1 you invest, you will get $2.50 in return.

Simply put: If I offered you an investment opportunity where you could make 150% return and you trusted a third-party expert who said as much, would you take the bet?

Would you?

I know I would.

If you make 10% return on a typical investment that's pretty good in this climate, but 150%?

Sounds too good to be true doesn't it?

Well, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that for every $1 invested in stimulating the economy, the return will be $2.50 to the economy as a whole.

What I don't get is this: The CBO is non-partisan and has the resources to make this determination. In fact, they are legally obligated to tell the truth based on their best evidence.

With that being said, why is it that Republicans ignore such good investment advice by voting against the economic stimulus?

Maybe they're stuck in the same stupidity loop that got us into this mess in the first place. There's medication for those who continue to believe things contrary to reality; it's called Thorizine. A good dose of therapy couldn't hurt either--let's call it minority status.

If the economy doesn't improve in the next two years, I'll eat my words. I'll own up to being wrong, but until then, more of the same won't get us out of this mess.