Ann-imosity

I'm so witty. *snort*
It was either THAT title or "The NEW and improved Rosie vs. Donald!"
I know that a lot of people jokingly refer to Ann as a man, but I don't think it would be fair to compare her or Ms. Edwards to Donald OR Rosie...

So. Ann Coulter, right?
Apparently, recently she made another comment about..what's his name? The one she referred to as a homosexual at CPAC (the conference I went to back in March)...Oh yeah, Edwards. I completely forgot that he existed.
Her books are really good reads--and provide a lot of entertainment, but I honestly don't respect most of the stuff that comes out of her mouth.
Before you read this blog the wrong way, I do not condone her comments at all. In fact, I believe that if she were a real representative of the Christian faith as she claims, most of the things she says would...well, not be said by her. I digress:

Well, Elizabeth Edwards called a TV show to attack Ann for her "politically debasing comments." (there's your first mistake. You DO NOT attack Ann Coulter unless you're just craving some eviscerating comments.)
Ann retorted with "I won't say anything else about John Edwards except that I wish he were killed by terrorists."
Elizabeth Edwards was quick to defend her husband (oh, what a man! Let's hide behind my wife that is fighting cancer...Meanie Ann Coulter wishing I were dead!). Ms. PresidentWannaBe said:
"John's campaign is about the issues — but pundits like Ann Coulter are trying to shout him down. If they will not stop, it is up to us cut through the noise. Help us fight back — please give what you can today." (sounds like a fund raising opportunity. Just like a demon-crat) **note: I accidentally pressed the "n" key whilst I was typing that, smirked and just left it there to continue with the word**
And:
"The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it."

I agree with her about raising the dialogue. But, if she wants to be FAAAAIRRRRR(!), she should also be pointing out Bill Maher's comment about the Mr. Vice President Cheney ( something to the effect of "If Dick Cheney had been killed in a car bomb in the middle east, people wouldn't be dying needlessly in Iraq.")
What? You didn't hear about that? Oh. Yeah..I forgot. Between trying to find the story about the NY airport terrorists on page 37 in the "Times" and Nancy Pelosi pushing a bill through that allows those people in DC to take their family on a free vacation whenever they're traveling on "business" (AKA--tax payer's paying for them to do "delegations" with a five star hotel and complimentary sight seeing). You didn't hear about that either?! Oh...What about Nancy Pelosi abusing her role as third-in-line (*shudders*) to try to silence the minority (AKA the conservative vote--or as close to "conservative" as you can get in the GOP these days) to make her job easier. No? Not that either?

(I should change my major to Journalism and Poli.Sci. Don't think I haven't thought about it. The world has too many corporate lawyers anyway.)

I digress again.

"It debases political dialogue," Edwards said. "It drives people away from the process. We can't have a debate about issues if you're using this kind of language." (!!!!)

So, Mr. Edwards, you can come out from behind your wife now. Let's HEAR your little platform, and then we'll shoot down anyone that disagrees with you or says something bad about you. No worries, we'll ALL play nice! What issues do you support?
What's that, Mr. Edwards? No platform?! And no, I wasn't talking about issues of magazines. Take your time on that, Mr. Edwards. It's not like the American people care. As long as you slap "Democrat" to your resume and say something about raising taxes to feed the poor and illegal immigrants, you don't NEED a platform.

So, let's look at a few things Mr. Edwards has said, shall we?

"Working people have been shut out by this president because he values
only one thing: wealth."
John Edwards

Wait...who is being shut out?
The last time I checked, a majority of working people are conservatives--that don't like paying more taxes, enjoy freedom, and don't appreciate people like Nancy Pelosi taking her spawn with her to France to compare her sunburt armpits with the French people (We call these "Surrender Conferences").
It is the DEMOCRATS that care about wealth. They RAISE the taxes and then RAISE their paychecks.
The last time I checked, Bush was the one that CUT taxes. Not increasing his own wealth.
If you want to talk about wealth, aren't you a fairly wealthy person? If you weren't so concerned about it, sell your multi-million dollar mansion and give that money to the government so they can keep 70% of it and give 25% to the poor. The other five percent is just "MIA."
It is Nancy Pelosi that shuts these working people out of the government and makes sure the non-tax payers more "say so" in the soon-to-be dictatorship.

"They [Bush and Cheney] have led us from the edge of greatness when Bill Clinton left office
to the edge of a cliff."
John Edwards

Now. That's just too easy.
Sorry, Mr. Edwards. You're an idiot.
Futhermore, you're ignorant.
Go buy yourself a brain and a book on the Nineties.
I think that "cliff" was created when Clinton signed NAFTA....created MLOA, ADA, and FMLA policies (and as a business major, I've had to work a lot with these policies, and let me tell you, it proves how hypocritical Al Gore is even further: there is so much paperwork involved, I think I have already killed a small rainforest on just the FMLA, ADA, and MLOA paperwork)
And let us not forget that your exalted hero's form of vengeance was to bomb an aspirin factory. No wonder they're angry with us in the middle east.

"George Bush has a health care plan - pray you don't get sick."
John Edwards

No. No. No.
I pray that if your little Socialized Medicine thing gets passed, I have enough money to fly to Europe to get treatment.
(Someone I know asked someone they know from Canada if their Socialized Medicine thing works/is good and they replied "Oh yeah! It's great if you can afford to go to the U.S. for treatment!")

"The issue becomes whether you believe health care is an isolated problem.
For those in poverty and the struggling middle class, if one thing goes wrong
- if they have a health care problem - they go right off the cliff."
John Edwards

The same cliff that the Republicans sent the entire country over after Clinton left office?
If the US gets Socialized Health Care, they better pray they don't go right off a cliff and get hurt or they won't be able to afford health care period. Especially if they have to rely on the government to pick their health care provider...or travel out of the country to get open heart surgery (or some other surgery that can't wait for the demoncrats (I'm using it now) to decide if it's worth it.

"[There's] one America that does the work, another America that reaps
the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that
gets the tax breaks."
John Edwards

Yeah. Like Illegal immigrants that don't pay taxes but are somehow qualified for Medicare/Medicaid or WIC for their children.
Does he not know that (these percentages may be off slightly, but I don't feel like looking it up, do it yourself) 90% of taxes is paid by the 5% "wealthy" while the people who don't pay taxes PERIOD are reaping the benefits? If that's what he's referring to, he's right.
If you pay taxes, you'll get your "tax cut" back. If you don't, you won't get anything. Geez. How dumb do you have to be to not get that?


If Edwards happened to be killed in a terrorist plot, would anyone notice anyway?I know that is incredibly insensitive to say, but really, people.

What I believe, exactly.

I consider my father to be the smartest person I've ever met--especially in political matters. I've often told him that he should have a talk show or write a book or run for something, to which he always responds with "They're not ready for someone like me. They'd run me out."
I'm sure quite a few of you have met him and agree with me. He is very analytical, which, I suppose, comes with being an Electrical Engineer (or just an engineer period, if you're a good one). My father has a way of explaining things to a point where you cannot disagree with him. And trust me, I don't. Not about politics. Ever.
This morning, my father and I had a very long detailed chat about everything from global warming and Al Gore's overwhelming hypocrisy to the $3,600 spa trip I discussed in a previous post. I love talking to him about politics. He is a libertarian, although he has not established himself with the party because as Dr. Bateman and my father repeatedly say "it is very dangerous to establish yourself with one party over the other." (They have an amazing explanation, but I am not very good at fully explaining it, so I will leave it to them to explain.)
And he's right. Republicans and Democrats both seem to be forming into each other. They've become the same, only separated by a few social issues, which, again, as my father says, aren't social issues just like murder is not a social issue.

In high school, I was definitely ultra conservative...and like many people, viewed myself as such just by my social issues. I hate to admit this, but I was in the environment that automatically aligned you with the GOP if you claimed Conservativity, as I did and still do, or as a Democrat if you claimed liberality.
All based on social issues.
What I have come to realize in my short time out of high school, call it maturity, or call it a real job with real taxes, but there is more to this whole political thing than so called "social issues."
I have found that I am VERY close to libertarian on an overwhelming majority of my views, but I will not claim the libertarian party because I do not 100% agree with all of their policies and "official" party stances. Just like I refuse to claim Republican anymore...and I've never claimed the Democrat-status, and never will.
I've said all this to lay out a few things that I believe--to separate me from any specific party.

I believe the government was established to provide for the common defense, build roads, and secure our borders. Nothing else.

I believe that Social Security should be privatized.

I believe that the government should reduce its size and not infringe upon anyone's beliefs, way of life, or happiness.

I believe we are taxed too much as a country.
I want the FairTax.

I believe the school system should be privatized. Get the government out of it. School should have to compete the same way I have to compete to keep my job in the future.

I also believe that utilities should be privatized.

I believe that marriage is sanctioned by religion, not the state. Marriage is an ideal created and established by religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam..etc. All of these religions (to my knowledge) do not tolerate homosexuality (and don't you dare bring up the gay priests in Christianity. If you want to bring this up, do so on another blog and I shall respond there). Why would a homosexual want to be married by something that condemns their lifestyle?
However, I do believe that if they want to call themselves married, that is their prerogative. What happens in your bedroom is your business. Don't force it on me, and I will not force my religion on you. It's your life, do what you want with it. Everything is a choice.

I believe this country's biggest problem is personal responsibility.

I believe that the welfare system should be rewritten. Stop giving welfare recipients a check every time they reproduce; there will be less babies born in poverty, and less mouths to feed later down the road. Also, implement a time limit and set up a trade-school training program.

I do believe that abortion stops a beating heart. It is murder.
I do not believe that abortion should be implemented as a form of birth control. However, let me explain this the way my very wise father does: If someone is holding a gun to your head, threatening your life and you have the means to defend your life and kill them first, it is what the justice system refers to as "justifiable homicide." Just as a mother, after the doctor has determined the baby is a threat to the mother's life, should be allowed to decide whether to defend her life through justifiable homicide. If she decides to go ahead and have the baby, even though her life is in danger, that is her choice.

I believe that Hilary Clinton is not socialist or communist. She's fascist. (Look up the definitions, it's true)
She, and the rest of the democratic party, unlike socialists and communists, want there to be incentive for people to succeed..to create more money to put in their own pockets.

I believe there should be term limits for the Congress and House. Being a "politician" was never meant to be a career.

I believe that there should be no governmental pension.

I believe that labor unions don't care about the worker, only the money.

I believe there are more problems than just "Liberal vs. Conservative" or "Red vs. Blue."
We have politicians that get away with drowning people in lakes, having oral sex in the oval office, not representing the people they are obligated to serve.

I believe that I am too conservative for the Republicans and too smart for the Democrats.

I think I may have hit a trigger with quite a few people, but hey. I'm allowed to.
It says so in that little unimportant document sitting behind glass casing in DC.
Unless, of course, Nancy Pelosi has decided to rid of that, too.

Nuclear Angst

Alabama honor: Bush visits first new reactor to open for decades

We may be thanking God for Mississippi in most state comparison rankings, but Alabama is currently leading the way in the quest for sane and efficient power generation. President Bush will be visiting the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens on Thursday, where the Unit 1 reactor has recently been restarted. While this may not sound significant, it is the first reactor to be started in the US in 20 years.

You may be asking yourself why this is, considering that nuclear power is the most efficient power generation means available to us by far. The only by-products are hot water and small amounts of very radioactive but containable material. (Yes, this material poses an obvious and enduring health hazard until it's safely under Yucca Mtn., but not nearly as much as the lack of power infrastructure will cause in the event of a national emergency, or even just an over-stressed power grid.) Those situations involving mishaps and the threat of radiation leaks, most notably Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in the Ukraine, are irrelevant at this point: Chernobyl is a nightmarish scenario that is not possible with modern US reactors, and the lessons of Three Mile Island have been well-learned and taken into consideration.

I have noted that Browns Ferry Unit 1 is the first reactor to be started in the US in 20 years, making it unit number 103 in the US as a whole. Contrast this to nuclear efforts in China:
(info from http://www.world-nuclear.org)

* Mainland China has nine nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, a further two units grid connected, four more under construction, and at least four more about to start constuction in 2007.
* Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a fivefold increase in nuclear capacity to 40 GWe by 2020 and then a further three to fourfold increase to 120-160 GWe by 2030.
* The country aims to become self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

To summarize, China has plans to increase their nuclear power capacity by 15-20x its current level in the next 27 years.
By contrast, in the past 20 years, we have only shut down or paused the construction of plants, not opened any.
Now, lest I be accused of sinophobia, I will call attention to the fact that China only has 11 working reactors at this point, so it will take some time for them to catch up, even at the rate they are building.

However, my point is not to worry lest we be overtaken in numbers by any specific country, but that we have irresponsibly neglected to keep a robust power infrastructure in place. Remember the rolling blackouts in California? They were at least partially responsible for the referendum that kicked Gray Davis out the door and ushered in the era of the Govinator.

And it's not as if we can solve the nation's energy crunch with the ongoing boom in windmill construction either. Though they may alleviate problems in some areas, as a whole you're not going to help lighten the load on the nation without a veritable sea of them covering vast sections of the Midwest, and the energy required to create and construct said sea of windmills would make such an effort counterproductive.

In the end, nuclear power is the only option that makes sense. There are no coal-based clouds of smoke, no swirling windy blades of death, no acres of solar cells with meager power returns. Though these (coal-powered, wind-powered, solar-powered) solutions make sense in certain locations and contexts, the only technology that makes sense to use as the backbone of a heavily loaded power infrastructure in great need of shoring up is nuclear power. Even France has figured this out.

(That, or we can wait for the even cleaner and more efficient process of nuclear fusion to be perfected. But even setting aside the fact that it is the technology of the future and probably always will be, why do I have this sneaking suspicion that the drinkers of Gore-aid would find some reason to scream out against them too?)

If we continue to allow regulatory dead-locks and people who oppose the idea of power plants on principle (often the same people who think the fewer humans living and disturbing nature's tranquility the better) to prevent the responsible and practical process of increasing our grid capacity, the problems will only get more severe. Let those who complain of global warming go without air conditioning for a summer, and then decide if a few more reactors aren't worth it...


-Oak

Pay more taxes so I can go to a spa.

While the Madison County School board is out promoting their sales-tax increase (by sending threatening letters home with children saying that the education of the Madison County younger generation will suffer if the sales tax legislation does not pass. You know, the usual propaganda approach that these lovely teacher unions take), they decided to take a retreat...to "get away from their cell phones and family to get to know each person on the school board...as a character building activity." They decide to spend $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) to go to a spa. I shall outline my thinking on this in numerical form...so I don't mix thoughts and jump around.

1. They don't have enough money to fix falling ceiling tiles and broken A/Cs in the county/city high schools, but they have enough money to spend $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) on a spa trip? I say forget the sales tax increase. Let's put everything set aside for these little trips...for their food...for anything that comes on the tax payer's tab BACK where they say it should go: the schools.
I was talking to one of my friends whose grandfather was on the schoolboard when her father was in grade school. Back then, the school board people had other jobs and didn't have three or four personal secretaries. Being active in his son's educational experience was his duty...a hobby. He wanted to make sure the school system was looking out for his son, not getting matching Brazillian bikini waxes and complimentary facials with your fellow school board pals.

2. I say we take 20% out of the school board's salary and make them pay for their little excursions. You don't have to be best friends to be on a school board. In fact, I'd prefer you NOT be...that eradicates any "special treatment" (no pun intended) and favoritism. Also, I think that if we take enough out of their paycheck, they'll actually have to care about the work they're doing to be interested in it...not to use the system for a spa trip.

3. I have a problem with the "get away from family and hang up cell phones."
Just turn your cell phone off during meetings. How hard is that? (Yes, I know, coming from me...) But if the education of the children is REALLY that important to them (I think
I hit something here. *note to self, harp on this later*) , they can sacrifice replying to a text message for an hour-ish. I bet it didn't take them an hour to decide to go on that spa trip. I bet it took them less than that to think about putting it on the Madison County taxpayers' tab. And even less time for them to say "Hey, let's just increase the sales tax and it'll break us even so we can do this again next year!" (Or month.)

4. $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) is a lot of money to me. It's not an insane amount, but it would be nice to have $3,600 (that's Three Thousand, Six Hundred dollars) to go to a spa with...or pay for college with. For my apartment. To invest. In fact, let me steal money from you, and I'll take a few of my close friends on a "character building" adventure to a spa to discuss the future of the Madison County educational system. (How much talking can you get in during a spa trip, anyway? I don't know about you, but when I'm relaxing, I don't want to talk about stressful issues like forcing taxes on people so they can pick up my tab.)

5. "Character building." COME ON. Don't we want to elect people that have character already?

6. I think that whomever is elected to a school board position should have a child in one of the schools. I don't personally know any of the Madison County schoolboard, but from what I see in Morgan County's are men and women with sons and daughters that have long graduated. Also, I see too many incumbents. Too many people have been riding the tax payer's money for too long. Why? It's an easy check. Just go to the meetings, pretend you care about the kids, and you get a couple secretaries and a spa trip out of it. Sign me up! I think the education boards are too "stacked."
Get rid of the useless positions, cut some of their pay, cut the trips, and maybe, just maybe, the surrounding high schools will be able to afford their new ceiling tiles and A/C units.

Oops. Retraction.

It was page Thirty-SEVEN (37), not Thirty (30).
My bad.

Not that it disproves my point at all.

(I knew it was page thirty seven (37) for a few days after I wrote that blog, I was just too lazy to fix it.)

Page Thirty (30)

So. The New York Times published an article about the terrorist plot that was avoided.
It was on page thirty (30). As in the back half of the magazine.

So, in case you didn't hear about it because it was buried in an overly liberal exaltation of Paris Hilton's great example of reporting to jail early:

Four (4) men have been confirmed as suspects in a terrorist plot against the JFK airport in New York. They were going to blow up one of the main fuel lines that also supplies other airports...creating a nice little chain reaction, taking lots of lives, and in their own words "killing JFK for the second time."
(What the New York Times didn't tell you: these men were Muslim. Yeah, like the terrorists that blew up the WTC. Long beards, like hiding in caves. You know the type.)

(And. Let me stop right here for a second. WHAT? JFK Airport is in New York? And their own LITTLE magazine can't make this HUGE story front page? They just blow it off as "Oh, yeah right like they could do something like that. It was ill planned! It was infeasible for these men to do that! They weren't secretive enough about it!" Right. That's what the really left wing (insert: idiots) would've said before 9/11 if the terrorists had been caught the day before. Oh. WAIT. 9/11. Wasn't that in New York, too? Am I wrong? Or...if someone tries to hit your city twice (2 xs) with blowing stuff up, and you're in charge of reporting the news...wouldn't you make sure EVERYONE knew? Wouldn't you be the slightest bit PISSED? Would you NOT hide the story on page THIRTY (30) in your reporting-device?! Furthermore, would you not be proud that your city avoided a second (2nd) "9/11"? That our (the United States of America) intelligence has increased that much that we are able to avert these kinds of activities from happening? "No. We're more excited that Paris Hilton's in jail. We don't care that four (4) Islam extremists tried to blow up our city for the second time and kill our already dying air-travel market!" Wasn't JFK a democrat? Is he not their sainted, sanctified hero!? If someone wants to kill your hero a second time, would you not be, again, pissed? What the heck does Uncle *hiccup* Ted have to say about this?!)

Now, that was a really long parenthetical. I bet I gave the averted attack at JFK more attention than the Times, though.

I know, I know: "Whitney, you're ridiculous. There's no way the Times thinks that Paris Hilton going to jail is more important than the JFK almost-bombing!"
No. I know they don't think that. They're scared. They're cowardly. They're BAD journalists.
They're afraid to give Bush ANY credibility. They're scared that he may be somewhat RIGHT about those people (x^z) in the middle east. They're TERRIFIED that Bush may be vindicated about his "horrid wire tapping!".
And they should be.
They should be scared as hell. Because when a democrat gets into office (and I HATE that I said "when," but I've lost faith in the GOP), the Democrat party will realize that you can't just sit down and "negotiate" with these people. They don't want to roast marshmellows and sing "Kumbaya" (to paraphrase the great Sean Hannity's speech I heard live in DC at CPAC). They want to kill us. And if we let the donkies (insert: asses) have their way, they will.
Why these crazy evangelical, closeminded liberals don't want to do anything about it, I don't understand.