Ownership

One of the pillars of conservatism is ownership. What you produce is yours. It belongs to you. Sure, you pay your taxes with the general goal to have services provided by the government (defense, roads, schools), but what you produce is yours. Your employer (even if it is yourself) has provided you with some payment for the goods or services you provided.

But, somewhere along the way, our congressional representatives have forgotten that they are supposed to work for the people. The money the government receives in taxes is not theirs. Even members of the presumably conservative Republican party are now failing to recognize that the money the populace earns belongs to the populace.



There is a serious problem when more and more of our leaders think that all of the money earned belongs to the government.

"It's not your money." Those words should set us on alert.

New New Deal just End of Old New Deal

Very good article on the looming auto-industry bailout, and the bailout situation in general. I recommend you go read it.

Mr. Obama's one deeply false note during the campaign was his harping
on "deregulation" as if that were the source of current troubles. His
real problem is the crack-up of the world FDR built.

Of course, there was more than one "deeply false note" during Obama's campaign, but this was certainly one of them.

One of the most hypocritical lines coming out of DC during the beginning of the meltdown was that the free market had obviously failed, and government oversight was needed. (whereas in reality, government intervention had caused the problem, and they were now incompetently trying to solve it.)

Now it looks like more piles of taxpayer money will be thrown onto the bailout bonfire, this time to an auto-industry that has practically begged for bankruptcy and failure between its short-sighted strategies ("let's ignore the market and fuel prices, make the cars we want, and tell you to buy them") and stranglehold by the unions.

But:
I have great news... I just saved a load of money on my car insurance by switching-ok, ok. Sorry, couldn't help myself...

-()4|<.

Pirates!

Somali pirates have emerged as a threat...  to shipping insurance rates, at least.

Whereas the attacks on merchant shipping vessels had been sporadic, they have greatly increased in recent months. This latest attack seized a 1000ft oil tanker carrying 2 million barrels of oil. Ironically, the pirates have no refining capacity (and they would have a difficult time selling the oil), but they are holding the 25-member crew for ransom.

Apparently their plan of ransoming captured crew members has paid well:

The strategy is effective: A report last month by a London-based think tank said pirates have raked in up to $30 million in ransoms this year alone.

In Somalia, pirates are better-funded, better-organized and better-armed than one might imagine in a country that has been in tatters for nearly two decades.

This is surely only a testiment to my youth and idealism, but somehow the knowledge that there are pirates to be fought in some part of the world is very encouraging.

The British Royal Navy has been involved in anti-pirate operations as well:

Pirates caught redhanded by one of Her Majesty’s warships after trying to hijack a cargo ship off Somalia made the grave mistake of opening fire on two Royal Navy assault craft packed with commandos armed with machineguns and SA80 rifles.

Their success has been due partly to that quality which has always allowed pirates to succeed: elusiveness.

Having to patrol an area as large as that which the pirates are currently operating in is too expensive, which allows the pirates opportunities to strike in areas where the merchant ships must rely on their own security forces. (knowing that they will be ransomed instead of killed no doubt discourages them from fighting to the last man)

Man, that article was fun to write!

-()4|<.

Oversight? With tax dollars? psh...

Not only is money being passed out from the Fed while they refuse to reveal its destination, but the bailout itself in progress is proceeding with no oversight or accountability.

$290 billion of the package has already been committed, but:

"Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fillthe independent oversight posts established by Congress when itapproved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Norhas the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed,though the initial deadline has passed.

"It's a mess," said Eric M. Thorson, the Treasury Department'sinspector general, who has been working to oversee the bailout programuntil the newly created position of special inspector general isfilled. "I don't think anyone understands right now how we're going todo proper oversight of this thing."

Hm, now that is highly encouraging. But, then, this is what happens when you give the government billions of tax payer dollars to solve problems that they themselves caused. Somehow, the money isn't allocated just like they said it would be. Pretty soon, it's gone, and they need -another- stimulus package. So many industries to bail out, so many Americans to pay for it, so many politicians to make sure they get a slice as it passes by. It's like filling a kiddie pool one bucket at a time, with people dipping it out with cups to drink as you go.

There is a famous Latin expression:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
("Who will watch the watchers?")

That, as the American people, is our job. The government cannot be trusted to watch itself, especially with our money. In this case, they don't even have watchers, let alone anyone to hold the watchers accountable. Anyone still wondering why congress' approval ratings are lower than Bush's?

-()4|<.

For goodness' sake...

A new ad campaign is being initiated in the DC area. It's worthy of our attention:

Ads proclaiming, "Why believein a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on Washington,D.C., buses starting next week and running through December. TheAmerican Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holidayad campaign Tuesday.

I should start out by saying I do not think these ads should be banned, or met with the outraged protests as these things sadly often are (exactly the response they are created to invoke). Free speech works both ways. Though it tends to be hypocritically invoked for one world view and not another, that is no reason to return flawed reasoning for flawed reasoning.

Also, the ad is so patently illogical that even people not accustomed to thinking critically must be given at least a pause.

"Be good for goodness' sake?" The line is, of course, from the song "Santa Claus is Coming to Town", but is here ironically twisted from the normal usage of the phrase. Normally the phrase "for goodness' sake" is used as an exclamation, or as an entreaty to correct behavior, as in "for the sake of all that is good...". It is also sometimes used as a substitute for "for God's sake", by those who do not wish to take His name in vain.

But the implication here is that one should be good for goodness' sake alone, or "be good, to benefit goodness". The statement is laughably irrational. One might as well say "eat food for food's sake", or "buy gas for gas' sake". We are not good for goodness' sake any more than we pay taxes for taxes' sake.

Goodness is behavior that conforms to a right Way, doing what we "ought" to do. In a Christian world view we acknowledge that way to be one that God has set forth for us to follow.

I am quite interested in hearing the American Humanist organization (the sponsor of these ads) explain on what basis they define the concept of good, and from what authority it is derived.

Of course, they can not do that, at least not with a definition that could hold water for five seconds.

But, the ad may actually accomplish alot of good. By phrasing the question "why believe in a god?" in this way, one is immediately by reflex drawn to defend the assertion. By extension the question quickly becomes "why do -you- believe in god?", and that opens up all kinds of productive lines of thought, especially for people who are avoiding the question, or who haven't thought about it. And for Christians, it reminds us to "always be ready to give a reason for the hope we have".

So, I actually see great potential in these ads. And the humanists are even paying for them for us. Thanks for helping out, guys!

-()4K.

Need-to-know?

The Federal Reserve has has granted almost $2 trillion dollars in emergency loans, and refuses to identify the recipients.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

The article goes on to say that the Fed is resisting disclosure because transparency might lead to lack of confidence...

"You have to balance the need for transparency with protecting the public interest,'' Talbott said. "Taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going, but one piece of information standing alone could undermine public confidence in the system.''

MAGICAL M.C. TRANSLATION TOOL:

"We're taking your money, and you're too stupid to appreciate how we're using it, so just sit tight and let us do our thing."


I am furious, and you should be too.
If your bank decided to take money out of your account, and not tell you why, what would you do? Change banks, at the bare minimum. Probably file a lawsuit, raise a ruckus, etc.

Now the Federal Reserve is doing essentially that, on a scale of billions. People have already given them the right to take money out of their accounts, as it were. Aren't you interested in knowing where your money that they're taking is headed?

World Changer - No more power shortages.. ever

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

If this isn't an April Fool's joke (and April is a long ways off), we are talking about absolutely world-changing potential here. Nuclear fission is the safest, and vastly most efficient power technology we currently possess. This puts it in the hands of everyone, in a non-threatening format.

It doesn't produce radioactive waste, making environmentalists (honest ones, anyway) happy, and it's extremely low cost and plentiful energy for everyone. No more rolling black-outs in California, no more summer strains on the grid. Actually, the grid power can be freed up to be shifted around to wherever it's needed, with enough of these puppies planted in strategic spots.

In the longer term, it reduces a large part of our dependence on foreign oil and other forms of energy, and is a potential solution to our current economic woes. (imagine the economic boom that would roar forth if energy suddenly became practically free) It also provides a source of electricity for charging fuel cells for electric/hybrid vehicles.

All this, of course, means that it won't happen. At this point I have become totally convinced that the powers-that-be do not have the happiness, success or freedom of Americans at heart, rather the contrary. A populace worried by a looming energy crisis is a populace that is easier to control.

Something will happen to make this legally impossible, mark my words.
I can even see us banning it in this country, but selling it to another country, basically guaranteeing them economic prosperity and a firm foundation of global prominence.

But, it's nice to think that American ingenuity did indeed solve most of the major problems the country is facing in one fell swoop, a fact that won't be changed whether or not it ever gets implemented.

-()4|<

China: Heads, we pollute; Tails, you live on less.

China proves yet again they are the masters of hypocrisy.

"Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and a top UN official urged industrialised nations Friday to alter their lifestyles and not let the global financial crisis hamper climate change efforts."

This from a country that is trying its best to become rich while shunning any forms of restraint in the way of pollution, and strongly resenting any outside suggestions that they should be held accountable.

Now, I think we've been rather schitzophrenic in our approach to being environmentally conscious in this country. One on hand, we rant about how we're destroying the world through carbon emissions. On the other hand, we pass enough regulations to make it nearly impossible to build a nuclear power plant, which is the cleanest and most efficient form of power currently known. It's as if our ancestors had spurned the printing press and kept us in the Dark ages because books are flammable.

But, even if we threw restraint to the wind, and allowed companies to dump their waste in the nearest national park on a whim, we would have a hard time catching up to China, who is apparently building one coal power plant per week, and turning the Yellow River red.

Note the irony:

"China has long resisted calls to join rich nations in setting targets for emissions cuts, saying its relatively low per capita emissions and recent emergence as a major source of greenhouse gases should exempt it from action.

Scientists said in September that China had leapfrogged the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide (CO2), one of the principal gases that cause global warming."

They only manage the low per capita rate by having more than a billion people. All of whom are trying their best to attain the "unsustainable" lifestyle of their western counterparts.

This is also just one example of why our current policy of sucking up to China totally baffles me.

The rumors of a poll surge have been greatly exaggerated?

So, according to a story on CNN, the voter turnout this year did not increase significantly over 2004. That seems to run contrary to massive voter registration reports, and predictions of unheard-of (80%, perhaps) percent turnout. Why might this be?

The story itself suggests that a lack of Republican turnout (not excited, doubtless, by McCain's gutsy middle-of-the-roadness or mavericky unconditional support of the bail-out plan) is one cause.

This sounds reasonable, actually. McCain was not a candidate to be excited over. Nearly all of his support was generated by simply running against Obama. This is comparable to Kerry's campaign against Bush. If Kerry, a Democrat, could lose against Bush, who was by no means popular even then, by running a campaign that consisted mainly of "I am not Bush", then how on earth did McCain, a Republican, lose, who ran a campaign that consisted mainly of... "I am not Bush". Oh, wait.

-()4|<

The once and future Czar

Perhaps this is the beginning of the time of testing that Biden so notably proclaimed. The only way to deal with Putin is to trust him like you'd trust a venomous cobra, and Obama appears, at least from previous statements, to be all about showing some cobra-love.

But we shall see...

In other news, we mourn the passing of Crichton. Whether or not you enjoy his works, you must acknowledge the genius of the man, and his accomplishments. Had he only written State of Fear, he would have been worthy of celebration...

Change Indeed

Having just finished watching the election coverage, I have a variety of thoughts, which I will allow to cool and coalesce before I actually write them down. At the moment, suffice to say that we are in for an interesting few years. Hopefully as uninteresting as possible, but clearly Obama has been given what is generally termed a mandate; we will see what he does with it.

However, that was not the change to which I was referring. There will be plenty to be said about that later. At the moment I would like to announce I am actually finally getting serious about this blog, and thus the level of posting in here should increase dramatically in the days ahead. (the posting of articles, that is. I can't say anything about whether we will actually obtain commenting readers, that is up to whomever wanders in and decides to check back occasionally!)

Here's to the days ahead. It will surely be an interesting ride.

-()4|<

Change?

As we near that day of significance, when millions of Americans will go cast their ballot for bad or worse, it would befit us to ponder the future. On the one hand, we have a candidate who claims that he will 'change the world'. On the other, we have a candidate who is accused of being merely a continuation of the previous administration.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves: With all this talk of change, what exactly about our government suggests that they are to any extent capable of -improvement-? Indeed, change seems to happen regardless of promises; illegal migrants change into potential citizens, budget surpluses change into bloated and failing stimulus packages stolen from our own bank accounts, freedom changes into faux security and increased surveillance, and the list goes on. Clearly, our government is quite good at change already. Do we really want more change from them?

Perhaps it's time for us to be the effectors of change in this equation. Let's change the congressmen who voted for the illegal bailout with a side of pork. Let's change the national debate from ignorant, fear-based blathering to asking why no new oil refineries or nuclear power plants have been built in the last 30 years. Let's change from being sheep into being human beings, with brains and sense and character.

It may be too late to change the course of our nation, as it sags to earth like a latter-day Hindenburg, laden with incomprehensibly burdensome debt and regulation. But if anything can, it is individual Americans uniting together to solve the problems of this country. And let us not forget to list our government, ever eager to offer self-serving solutions to self-generated problems, in a prominent place among them.

-()4|<

Indignantly Unfree

Lately I have been hanging out on Vox Day's blog. (voxdaydotblogspotdotcom)
Some very interesting discussions have taken place there, I don't agree with Vox on everything but he can normally back up his opinions with hard reasoning, and being a Libertarian his issues with our current government and cultural situation are ones that I tend to have as well.

I want to share part of a comment I read there. It is one often heard, in various forms, and uttered by well-meaning people. It is also extremely dangerous, having the appearance of compassion but being in reality one of the quicker routes to tyranny that we are currently hurtling down.

"As I said, this depends on how you define liberty... ...Does it mean having no accountability? No obligation to anyone? Does freedom mean being able to conduct free enterprise without regard for how it impacts the world and other people. Does it mean being free to step over other people dying in the gutter?"

I picked this one statement because it encapsulates the entire argument.

The answer to this question is a resounding YES.
In fact, it is imperative that the answer is yes. The fact that it is asked indignantly, as if it is a rhetorical question that could have but one answer, shows that the asker does not understand the concept of freedom.

Please consider:
Without the freedom to step over the dying man in the gutter, aiding the dying man in the gutter has no moral value. If you did not do it as a free, personal decision, you did it under compulsion. In so far as I am not free to refuse an action, that action ceases to be a morally commendable one when I do it.

Freedom gives us the ability to make moral choices. Morality can only exist in proportion to freedom. If I have infinite choice, I can be (potentially) infinitely good. If I have zero choice, I am neither good, nor bad, I merely follow directives.

This is how animals live. Apparently many people are more comfortable with the idea of us living a harmonious life in the zoo, with the government as our kind caretaker, always ensuring we play well with others, have enough food, and live happy lives.

Well forgive me, but I could never stomach the Soma.

-()4|<

I can't believe I'm even writing about this. (My letter to Lindsay Lohan in response to her and her Girlfriend's blog)

So. It should come as no shock to you that most of the celebretards out there are Obama supporters. They usually come across as ignorant, biased, and...did I mention ignorant? I came across a blog online--and I can't believe this even made news...but let's dissect it for a second, shall we?

"I find it quite interesting that a woman who now is running to be second in command of the United States, only 4 years ago had aspirations to be a television anchor. Which is probably all she is qualified to be… Also interesting that she got her passport in 2006.. And that she is not fond of environmental protection considering she's FOR drilling for oil in some of our protected land…. Well hey, if she wants to drill for oil, she should DO IT IN HER OWN backyard. This really shows me her complete lack of real preparation to become the second most powerful person in this country."

Where to begin?
1. Aspirations to be a TV anchor. As an Obama supporter, I believe you're shooting yourself in the foot with bringing up the qualifications topic. Do you know how long the man you're sending your vote for was a senator before he decided to run for President of the US? One hundred and forty three days. That is less than half of a year, in case you can't do the math either.
2. She just got her passport in 2006. Kinda sad, I know. Especially compared to Obama...who has had his his entire life because...he hasn't lived in the US his entire life. Was he even born in the US? I haven't looked that up for sure. I don't want to make that claim...but just sayin'.
3. "She should DO IT IN HER OWN BACKYARD" Wow. This definitely shows how ignorant and idiotic you are. I recall that the House was having a vote on whether to do roll call vote to release the right to drill offshore (which, by the way you morons, is restricted heavily by the government. She could not start drilling due to endangered species ( " " For example, a rare ice worm that can maneuver through layers of ice! Too bad it's too small for the naked eye.) Anyway, yes. Roll call vote. And guess what the perfect uterus-bearing Speaker of the House "Third in Line" did? Yeah, she shut the House down, removed the Media, and shut off the lights. She did not even give the "narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe" Republicans you speak of (direct quote from later on in the blog) a chance to present the case or a chance to vote.
Now, being a celebrity, I'm sure the high gas prices haven't had any effect on you or your lifestyle. Heck, you definitely don't fill up your car much less drive it. (as you should considering the condition you've been in after a hardcore night of partying before you return to rehab the next day!)
There are environmental friendly ways to drill, you silly little actor...and whatever your girlfriend is. You should stick to what you know best--deceiving people and spending money. Not trying to sway people to vote.

"Hmmmm-All of this gets me going-Fear, Anxiety, Concern, Disappointment, and Stress come into play…"

4. You said it for me. Thanks. I know EXACTLY how you feel.

"Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?"

5. Media Obsessed?! MEDIA OBSESSED?! What in the world?!
First of all, I think you might be a little jealous that another woman has taken a tabloid cover from you. Second of all...Obama. Have you seen how much of a media whore he is? Ignorant.

"I know that the most important thing about this election is that people need to exercise their right to vote, regardless of their choice… I would have liked to have remained impartial, however I am afraid that the "lipstick on a pig" comments will overshadow the issues and the fact that I believe Barack Obama is the best choice, in this election, for president…"

6. People do need to exercise their right to vote. The most intelligent thing you've said in the blog. I agree. Let's get down to the issues. What are Obama's? Let's discuss it.
"Change!"
Uh...is that really an issue? What does he believe? What does he stand for? Does anyone know?
I bet William Ayers, Reverend Wright, Sam Graham-Felsen, Senator James Meeks, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, The Black Panthers, Hezbolah, and countless other liars, extortionists, and terrorists know what he stands for.

"I feel it's necessary for me to clarify that I am not against Sarah Palin as a mother or woman."

Of course you're not. You're both lesbians.

"Women have come a long way in the fight to have the choice over what we do with our bodies… And its frightening to see that a woman in 2008 would negate all of that."

7. Yeah, that's where you get me. Palin is a woman. Palin is an attractive, intelligent, and strong woman. She is standing up for what she believes. I can even respect Hilary Clinton for that. Putting a woman down for believing something and taking a stand is negating it even more, you idiot. Why should you say "you're only helping the cause of women if you support abortion and the killing of innocent life and the numbing of an entire culture as to responsibility and motherhood." It's not okay to choose not to be a mother because it's inconvenient for you.

"Oh, and…Hint Hint Pali Pal- Don't pose for anymore tabloid covers, you're not a celebrity, you're running for office to represent our, your, my COUNTRY!"

8. Again, I reiterate, Have you seen how many tabloids your man has been on the cover of? Just because she's a woman...means she has to stand behind McCain? Why aren't more people complaining about the Obamamania media craze?!

"And in the words of Pamela Anderson, "She can suck it".."

9. Wow. Not only are you ignorant, but you're very classy, too.

" Lindsay- "I have faith that this country will be all that it can be with the proper guidance. I really hope that all of you make your decisions based on the facts and what feels right to you in your heart-vote for obama!"

10. Yes. Our country is great. Make decisions based on your heart feeling. What a liberal statement. Why is it that most liberals I know consider themselves free-thinkers (most are atheists / agnostic / "logic tryer outers" / extreme open mindednessers) are so careless with the big stuff? They claim to be open minded and logic users. But then they ruin it by saying they're using their hearts to vote. No. If you thought about this man. His associations. How he can't speak without a teleprompter or a speech. His lack of experience. Logic would tell you to run the other way!
Obama is a socialist, by the way. If you want this country to go to ruin, go ahead, cast your ignorant, non-researched vote.


"Samantha- "I love this country- however i wasn't born here and don't have the right to vote- so i beg of you all to really do your research and be educated when you cast your vote this coming november…. and if you're in doubt- vote for obama! Mainly because if she gets elected my green card probably won't get renewed!!!" "

11) Thanks for giving me another reason to HAPPILY cast my vote for McCain / Palin.
Too bad you or your little girlfriend haven't fully done any research to be educated for this vote. I am grateful only one of you is allowed to vote.


"xoxo
Lindsay and Samantha

Currently listening :
Obama for President 2008 Portrait Keychain
By Barack Hussein Obama" "

12. I thought his middle name was outlawed? Why is it you can use it, but when I say it, I get shushed?



Eh. Okay, I don't know why I wrote it, but I did. Mainly because I'm tired of hearing about it, and this was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
Hope it either angered you or provided you some entertainment.
-W

A bit about global warming

It is true that the majority of scientists support the theory of global warming being primarily anthropogenic in nature. Now let's look at that fact for a minute.

1. The majority of scientists are not climatologists, or in any way qualified to comment on the efficacy of that theory one way or another.

2. There are obvious political and social (and by connection, financial) benefits to supporting this conclusion. We should look carefully at a scientific claim with such strong motivation to come down on one side.

3. I do not accept research that is published merely to justify a foregone conclusion. If I had publicly stated that anyone who disbelieves in my theory is a moron and not a scientists, and then happen to produce a study the next year that claims to scientifically state the same thing, my claims should not be swallowed blindly.

4. That the UN and other organizations have proposed a global tax to deal with this problem is very telling. Vaclav Klaus has brought this issue to light in a very articulate manner.

All these things do not say that humans are not contributing to global warming. I suspect to some extent we necessarily must be. But collectively, when considering all these things I must pause before I jump onto the bandwagon that says the climate is controlled by us, we have broken it, and we can fix it.

-()4|<

Alabama Legislature is....well, retarded

There is an Alabama politician (I use that term instead of legistlator because politicians seem to have more selfish motivation than those that actually do their jobs) that wants to ban "obese" people from eating at restaurants.

....?!

First of all, let's get to the logistic law side of this matter.
Many of our restaurants (pretty much all of them) are not self operated. They use produce from other states or are near major roads. We have fast food chains whose bases are not located in Alabama. Because of this, I would say almost 100% of our restaurants fall under jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Clause. This clause protects individual rights as far as the "protected groups" (the most protected group being race, religion, nationality, orgin, etc., the second protected group would be age and sex). Businesses cannot, under ICC, discriminate against said protected groups or deny their patronage because of their place in first or second protected group.
I said all this to ask the question:
Businesses are not allowed to discriminate on basis of aforesaid. Why should we then allow our government to create laws that not only limit patronage (I'll get to this in a second), but discriminate against a "new protected group" (being size/weight)?

This also limits the rights of the individual AND the rights of the business.

Individual rights:
How are they going to determine who is obese and who is not? Are we going to have to carry around a BMI card as well? Take a BMI test in the restaurant? Step on a scale to determine whether we are fat? What will the BMI be set at to determine whether or not you are obese? Or will you just be able to tell by looking at someone?
Whoops. That last question...aren't we told over and over and over not to be prejudice because of what a person looks like? What about pregnant people? Where do they stand in this issue? If I looked at a pregnant lady, she wouldn't exactly be a twig. Would they allow "fat" pregnant ladies to eat in the restaurants?
If you think those questions were slightly ridiculous let me give you something a lawyer would say...lawyers seem to make crazy outside the box claims, but if you think about them, they're somewhere in the realm of true:
Knowing someone's BMI, or requiring it for the person to do patronage, violates that persons guarded personal medical rights as protected under HIPAA of 1996. In effect, forcing a patron to release information regarding their health and using it to determine whether a person should be allowed to contribute to a business governed by ICC that is not a place of medicine, violates the patron's right to privacy and protection of health records and current health status.
(I love being a pre-law student...)
Besides. Wouldn't it just be embarrassing to have to stand on a scale in order to get into McDonalds?

Business infringement of rights:
I believe that even under issues of smoking in restaurants, it is up to the restaurant to decide whether they prevent smokers, or even fat people from being patrons in their restaurants. While I do love eating my meal without choking to death from clouds of cigarette smoke, it is not the right of the people to smoke wherever they please, but the right of the business to decide whether they allow it or not.
This government-imposed infringement on behalf of restaurant owners violates their rights to run their business as they please. As long as they are not violating ICC, why should they have to let the government decide whether or not someone is healthy enough to eat in their restaurant?

Not only this, but (to be quite honest and frank) "obese" people are the ones that eat out the most. Without their patronage, many restaurants/places of food business would cease to exist. Also, if you want to get really deep in this, the governement will lose money because less taxes are being paid.

Last time I checked, there are some pretty heavy set politicians...Maybe we should pass a law that all policicians have to have a healthy BMI before running for office.
Or better yet. An IQ.

Where Immigration Reform SHOULD Start:

As many of you know, I work in Human Resources at (I removed my place of employment because I realized some of the things I said about HR..). My main project right now is making our I-9s (the citizen/employment eligibility form you fill out once you're hired) compliant and working with headquarters to outsource our paperwork and E-verify (which is send it to a third party, have them run the Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, birth certificates, green cards, etc. through the government.)
Arizona passed a new bill requiring all businesses to E-Verify all of their employees--and terminating those that do not meet the verification criteria on threat promise of fines and loss of business license (10 days for every illegal worker/unverified worker).
Personally, I think this is a great thing. This is definitely a step in the right direction.
Why?
Well, see...what happens when you fill out an I-9 is as follows:
HR representative makes a big deal about you having all of your information on the date of hire.
You fill out the form.
You give said HR rep. your completed form and specified identification. If you do not have your identification, your HR rep. tells you to bring your identification (by law, has to be by the third day of employment or you can be terminated).
However, that's not the way it works most of the time. If you didn't bring your employment information, your paperwork is placed in a drawer somewhere among other neglected HR paperwork. HR rep. forgets.
However, if you are the good employee, you bring your identification on the date of hire/orientation date or within the alotted three days.
Copies of your identification are made.
Copies of identification are stapled to original paperwork.
Paperwork is then holepunched and placed in a binder (hopefully in alphabetical order, although obviously...not all the time -- ugh) and forgotten.
Those papers in the drawer...are eventually found covered in cracker crumbs and leftover strands of white out tape. But then to realize that the employee was terminated a year ago and the proper paperwork was never filled out.

So basically, this paperwork is never 100% verfied. Why go through the task of filling it out if the company could have illegals/unverified workers for several years and not even know about it until an audit--which rarely happens.
Why should we (as HR and employees) have to fill out paperwork that is never checked? The E-verification process is very helpful and very much needed in the workplace.

How the E-verification process works:
The company sends the paperwork that is already existing to a third party.
Third party types everything in.
New hires transmit everything electronically, and copies of identification are emailed or faxed to third party.
(This cuts out a lot of work on the HR end...(haa. opening the drawer, hole punching, and eating those crackers to leave crumbs on the discarded I-9s is a lot of work...)
The third party then submits all numbers to the government.
If employee is approved and verfied, they continue working.
If employee is not verified (aka red flagged as an illegal), they are then placed in limbo and their information is again put through ten days later.

Seems good enough. I like this idea.

However. (you knew that was coming)

We cannot verify employees before their hire date. So, the employees are trained regardless if their citizenship status/eligibility is confirmed or not. Meaning, they are trained, the company is notified they have been rejected, and then the employee continues to be trained until the second run through ten days later?
I say if the employee didn't run through the first time, send them home.
WHY ten days? Why not a month? A year? Never?
We run prescreening background checks and drug tests. Why can't we check their eligibility to work in this country before they're hired, too?! Is THAT not important? Yes. That's right. BY LAW no employer can run a check to see if someone is a citizen of the United States BEFORE they are hired...but employers CAN run drug tests and background checks.
Why is this? Does this make sense to anyone?

No frickin wonder so many businesses have illegal immigrants. Some companies sincerely do NOT know they do.
Even WITH the I-9 E-verify system, they cannot send the employee home during the 10 day waiting period, so they not only have to compensate the employee for the 10 days, but can be held responsible for hiring an illegal worker?
That's a complete waste of time and resources. And a breeding ground for lawyers. *shivers*
If every company would actually get their I-9 forms confirmed, illegal immigrants would go elsewhere for jobs. They're already leaving Arizona.

Liberals Being Fiscally Responsible (aka Fiscally Conservative?)

I am watching the Democratic debate in Iowa (I watched the Republican one yesterday, so I thought that it's only fair that I waste another hour and a half of my life on the rest of the liars.)

Right now, the Dem-wits are talking about how democrats make The US more fiscally responsible ("Take a look at the nineties!" <--if I had a dollar for every reference to the nineties Hitlery makes...). How do they do this?
The ideas suggested so far:
-Increase taxes on the wealthy
-Look at the nineties
-Create tax cuts for big businesses
-Take the troops out of Iraq
-Look at the nineties!!!
-Military reductions
-Stop letting the Iraq war drain our military!!!
-We've gotta grow! Let's make the middle class bigger.
-Obama: "Put money back into the pockets of hard workers" (aka-- Medicare programs, Socialized Medical care etc...)
-Reforming Medicare
-Give Medicare the right to negotiate lower drug costs for companies (aka allow Big Brother to take over Medical companies)
-Check the nineties. Yep. That was my husband. I'm going to use the same policies!
-Check my proposed Socialized Medicine. It's a right for every human. Free health care. (...)
-We're overpaying HMOs!!!
-Modernize system! (how vague)
-You gotta act!! (Not vague at all. Thanks, Biden.)
-Take the money from my crack dealer. He could save a few lives. --Obama. No, he really didn't say that...but...it was fun.
-We spent $xx million on cancer! That's two months of the Iraq war. That shows how misguided and misplaced our priorities are!! (...did he just say that??)

Um..How about we get rid of House Speaker Pelosi? Who has spent ~$16,000 on flowers and ~$3million to move her office (and for the nine months she has been in office (compared to Hastert's 1.8 million(which is still a lot to me, but what do I know?)))
Fiscally responsible?! No, I think not.
(Pelosi hasn't even changed the curtains like she promised...I guess that's why her approval ratings are at 22% (lower than Bush's).

(I posted this and reread it and came back to say:
FLOWERS!!!!!!!!! 16000!!!!!!!! ON FLOWERS?!!!!)
I think we could save a few...umm...million if we get rid of the Congressional pension. Politics was NEVER meant to be a profession. Let's stop paying them for the rest of their lives. (all of them. Not just the democrats)
Instead of letting them sit up in their offices and in the Capitol without accountability, let's elect people who actually care.
Oh. No one like that is running? Shame.

Why would this moderator ask these idiots so many money questions?


...and did anyone else catch Hillary say "WHEN I'm president..." ???
I think my heart stopped briefly...




(and..go Huckabee!)

What these stupid legislators don't want you to know.

http://www.truthabouttoyota.com/
^ go there. (And, before you think I'm trying to pass on this message, know that I am trying to 100% disagree and call these people liars)

If you don't want to, let me explain what this is about.
There is a legislation that Congress or somebody is trying to pass that would mandate all motor companies to keep an average of 35 mpg on all vehicles.
Sounds good, right?
Let me explain why it's not.

First of all:
Of course Toyota opposes it. In fact, The Detroit Three oppose it, I'm pretty sure Honda and Nissan oppose it as well. Actually, I'm almost certain every car company opposes it. It's not just Toyota.
I'm surprised Toyota opposes it..considering Toyota has the most fuel efficient cars out there. Toyota is pretty much already at the average 35 mpg. With cars like the Prius (that gets an average of 60 mpg already, and the future models have been rumored to reach ~100 mpg) and the hybrid camry. I drive a Corolla, and I get ~40 mpg.

Wanna know why they oppose this legislation?

1. It would kill American car companies.
The American car companies have already had a hard time keeping up with Honda and Toyota. Raising the standard to 35 mpg would only hurt GM. It would force them to spend more money that they don't have. This legislation would put the last nail in the coffin for GM, Ford (who is losing $5000 per vehicle already!), Dodge, Chrysler, etc.

2. People would lose jobs.
Instead of this legislation HELPING our economy, it would cripple it. (See reason number one). People would be out of work, and the jobs won't be readily available when they do get laid off.

3. You can't force technological evolution. The car companies are slowly getting there. They will arrive there eventually. Forcing progress has never helped civilizations.

4. This average of 35 mpg also applies to BIG trucks. What about the car/motor companies that only makes/specializes in the 18 wheeler trucks? How are they going to make them to get an average of 35 mpg?!

5. There will be more fatalities on the road.
Car companies will start making their cars lighter, smaller, and...unsafer to meet the 35 mpg requirements. They will cut corners in the name of saving oil.

6. The people who drive long distances to commute, or drive a lot, most likely have already invested in smaller cars, hybrid cars, or more fuel efficient cars. The market already exists. Most of them aren't even that expensive. You can get a nice Hyundai with decent gas mileage for the cost of a used Honda or Toyota. This legislation would only increase the cost of these already fuel efficent cars. (If you think they're expensive now...!)

7. Car costs would go up. Even if the car manufacturers start cutting corners, the engines will still be more expensive to make, additional labor may be required--specialized labor, and even more plants will be built. I know how this works. I work for Toyota--where we make the engines for the Sequoia, Tundra, and Tacoma. Toyota is even making an ethanol engine in the plant effective 2008. The car companies are getting there!

8. Many cars would have to be retired--done away with. Even best selling cars like the Hummer, Lexus cars (big engines), and entire lines of trucks. This, also, would cause the loss of American jobs.

9. When this legislation passes, if they don't give the car companies a time frame to begin working, it could seriously cripple them.
Car companies can't take every single car and make it have 100 mpg overnight. There has to be research, development...You have to give TIME for development.

10. GM/Chrysler, Dodge, etc..are just now recovering from negative profits. They need time to get back on their feet.
GM was once the biggest car maker in the world. Toyota has recently replaced them.
As a capitalist, I love competition. If this bill/thing goes through, it would completely cripple competition, and Toyota would stay on top (being the closest to the average 35 mpg legislation--Toyota would be there if they drop...two car lines--Sequoia and the V8 Tundra).
So, if these legislators are really American, they would recognize the pride of GM/Ford as the biggest automakers in the world. The first automakers. AMERICAN created. Do they really want to shut down Ford and GM?
Those are questions we SHOULD be asking THEM.

A smoking gun? Not inside, it's not.

To all of you who smoke out there, I have a message:

Stop. It's bad for you.

Ok, that being said, I can now cheerfully acknowledge that you have been warned of the consequences of your actions, and have every right to continue to smoke as you please.

Unless, of course, I am the Decatur Alabama city council.

They have decided, in their lofty wisdom, that smoking shall not be permitted in public places.

To be more specific:

(from http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070923/week.shtml)

On Oct. 1, Decatur will become the largest Alabama city to ban smoking in all public places, including bars, restaurants, outdoor sporting arenas, businesses with employees and enclosed spaces frequented by the public. Decatur is just the seventh city in Alabama to do so.

"Enclosed spaces frequented by the public" is vague enough to include just about anywhere short of a cow pasture or cotton field, so we can conclude that what really it boils down to is the ability to fine you if you are smoking, and they feel like it.

Apparently this bit of Orwellian small-town politics was proposed by councilman Ronny Russel, who claims he was forced to quit a job (unfortunately not his current one) because he was allergic to secondhand cigarette smoke. (I have also heard that it was because someone blew smoke on him in a restaurant, but cannot verify the accuracy of that statement)

I understand his affliction, given that I am also allergic to cigarette fumes. However, unlike him, I appreciate the liberty we enjoy as American citizens, and am rather in favor of expanding it in the face of government encroachment, as opposed to spearheading the assault on our freedoms.

If you want to smoke, you should be able to do so. For that matter, if you choose to chain smoke your way through as many packs a day as you can, go right ahead. It may not be an intelligent or healthy decision, but I don't recall the Constitution making that distinction.

I can only predict that the next step will be to ban seafood in Decatur, when one of the councilmen gets food poisoning from a bit of aged shrimp. And deus avertat they should choke on some barbecue, or we can say goodbye to Bob Gibson's and the best pork stuffed potatoes this side of heaven...

-Oak