More on immigration. (Wow, people are stupid and petty.)

So, I'm reading Arizona SB 1070, as amended (which makes me a minority among those discussing the bill). I'm actually kind of impressed at just how straightforward and clear-cut this is. It also makes me despair for the public discourse because of how much misinformation there is about it. Not only is this even more outrageous than normal political pandering, but it's actually far worse. It doesn't involve spin or political underwriting; instead, to argue against the provisions of AZ SB 1070, one has to be both disregard existing federal law (which is, in fact, more likely to result in ethnic profiling than AZ SB 1070), disregard a State's ability to enforce existing federal law AND be unwilling to represent facts. In short, to dismiss SB 1070 as fodder for racism and profiling is, if fact, to dismiss factual discourse.

Not only does the law REQUIRE that a CHARGE be present, but it is a violation of the enforcement clauses of the law for law enforcement officials who disregard that requirement. In other words, not only is it illegal for a cop to approach a group of individuals who are not BEING CHARGED with ANOTHER, PRIMARY OFFENSE for the purpose of verifying citizenship, but they will presumably be subject to fines and/or charges for violating the requirement. Perhaps the AZ legislature ought to enact a companion law that provides for a three-strike style reprimand system for officers who do not adhere to the enforcement clauses. This would surely resolve the national discussion, wouldn't it?

Of course the answer to that question is a resounding "no". It has become abundantly clear that the majority of the media, the political class and special interests whose interest pertains to illegal immigration (which is, even according to existing and active federal law, what it is, regardless of denial of deflection from current government officials) care little for the facts of the debate, and are entirely subdued by the emotional discussion, and the political capital they will gain by turning this discussion into something it has no business being. This is a discussion about the enforcement of existing federal law, expanding the existing federal law to include State-level penalties, and cleaning up an issue which has implications for our country that are entirely negative. How could anyone argue that AZ SB 1070 is anything but a good law?

The answer to that question is quite simple: it is politically expedient to deny the facts of the situation and ride the emotion to the public discourse. As Americans, we unfortunately have little desire to discover reality for ourselves, we get our information from those with an agenda that involves getting us to believe as they do, regardless of the cost. Listening to a politician for news is like listening to Phillip Morris for the health effects of smoking. It simply doesn't make sense, and will invariably leave the listener disillusioned. That is, undoubtedly, what is happening in this debate. President Obama is lying. Most opponents of the Arizona law are lying. They are either ignorant of the facts, or deliberately distorting them. Either way, they're wrong, and they oughtn't have the power they do. But, they do. And, unfortunately, they have a greater influence than their position demands. And, they are willingly misleading the public to disapprove of something that they not only know nothing about, but will actually cause us to both be safer AND enjoy greater freedom.

President Obama, please read the bill. Please instruct those in your Cabinet who desire to speak out regarding the bill to read it. Please cautiously consider the things you say to the public on all subjects, especially those about which you have no clue. Please stop putting our country in danger, and please stop attempting to allow hypocritical foreign leaders to attempt to influence domestic policy when their own countries' enforce their existing laws, which are significantly more strict, and lead explicitly to profiling (!!!).

For anyone else who desires to enter into a meaningful debate about any topic - especially something so emotionally charged as the immigration debate - PLEASE inform yourself before speaking out. You'll do yourself a great deal of good by allowing you to know what you're talking about and, most importantly, you'll avoid getting caught looking like a complete FOOL when you speak (unfortunately for most of our politicians, they've been unsuccessful at following this simple advice).

An interesting take on the immigration debate.

In listening to and reading the debate about the Arizona immigration law, and the immigration debate in general, I've come to a realization. The debate unearths (not that it was very well buried) some of the worst things about our society, but also the best. Despite the definitive downward spiral we've been on economically, politically and otherwise in the past 3+ years, people still view America as the most desirable place to which to escape their current lives. People are willing to give up everything they have where they are in order to start with nothing here.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying - illegal immigration is illegal for a reason! It's no less wrong because of the nice things it says about us. As narcissistic as our country tends to be (or, at least, tends to be portrayed), we oughtn't allow people to break our laws (which exist for good reason, and the alternative method of entry isn't entirely inaccessible - more on that later), even if the breaking of those laws says something nice about us. And, Arizona is completely within its right to make something that is already illegal, illegal. Their law doesn't supercede or alter federal law - in fact, it is less strict for the aggressor, and more restrictive to the enforcer (but you wouldn't know that if your information comes from the people talking about it... who haven't read it... like most of President Obama's cabinet). We need to enforce our laws. Perhaps (maybe "perhaps" is too weak a term) we need to make it easier to enter legally, but the difficulty of immigrating legally is no reason to break the current laws.

But, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of people looking to escape their current country would choose ours. It's because ours is a land of opportunity. It's because ours is a land of freedom, of wealth, of the ability to make for yourself a life that you wish to have - normally without fear of government reprisal or confiscation (to a certain point). It almost makes you shift your paradigm when it comes to our current status as a country.

Don't get me wrong, we're still struggling - but less so than pretty much everyone else. We aren't all that we can be - but we're still better than everyone else (and have been for quite a while). We have to make progress (in a "moving forward" sense, not in a "let's destroy wealth and follow fancy pseudo-scientific ideas about phenomena that aren't actually happening and pay higher taxes if you work harder so you can support all of the lazy asses who are 26, living at home and using their parents insurance - thanks for that, BTW, BHO!).

But, we are still that shining city on a hill. Despite the fact that some of that shining is from the ever dimming torches of the liberals showing up on the doorsteps of Wall Street execs, or the ever brightening torches of the Tea Party activists who are outraged at the radical expansion of government and villification of wealth, we are still the "gold standard" in terms of countries. We are still what everyone wants to be, we are still the society of which everyone wants to be a part.

No other experiment in history has so fully succeeded in balancing personal freedom with civility - so much so that the individual citizens can be so outraged that they take to the streets and, generally with amazing civility, protest their government. And, in no other country can we, the people, assuage our fears and criticisms in knowing that the chance to change the course is but a few months away before the next election. Others around the world can only DREAM of a country where their voices matter in any capacity.

Despite our disgusting, vile and seemingly inhuman politicians who largely represent the worst of us, our people are enviable. Our standards are enviable. Our freedoms are enviable. Our lifestyles are enviable. Our prosperity (even now) is enviable. Despite all of the problems, the ugliness, the disagreements, the scandals, the nepotism and all of the other vices in our government and our society, we are still the envy of the world.

If nothing else, we ought to celebrate this. God truly has blessed America.

Rand Paul is right. (And Rachel Maddow is still Keith Olbermann with male genitalia)

Before I begin writing this, let me say that my position is rooted in the inability of government to effectively regulate anything, and in the ability of person-composed companies to do what is right for their business. I believe, in fact, that government's inactivity in something is the road to the best-case scenario. I am, in no way, encouraging racism or any other type of prejudice.

Rand Paul was asked by Rachel Maddow if he would have voted for or against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul attempted to explain his position. Dr. Paul explained that he in no way supports racism, institutional or otherwise. He admitted that many of the provisions of the act were necessary. He also asserted - and was cut off - that there were things that government ought not be able to restrict, regardless of the moral implications.

Allow me to explain my interpretation of what I would hope he would have said.

People are generally followers. People also tend to be altruistic when their actions are broadly judged by society. Unlike at the beginnings of this country's history (or the current statuses of other countries), the larger majority of people recognize the general equality of all people - regardless of [insert the government required fine print non-discrimination verbiage... blah blah blah]. Paul's arguments are rooted in the elimination of institutional racism, and allowing the people to do with their businesses what they will.

If a business owner chooses to allow whites-only to patronize their establishment, they are necessarily limiting their customer base. This is not only because of the non-whites who will not patronize the establishment, but also because of the whites who value diversity and/or detest discrimination. Likewise, if a bar owner limits their customers to straight males, they will not only exclude females and gay males, but they will also lose the business of men who enjoy the company of women at such an establishment.

The market does work, despite the constant drumbeat of regulators blaming the market for their failed regulations. People will only purchase products or employ services in which they see value: that is, it is something they agree with, need or want and would not be embarrassed to employ (with some exceptions, but I'm talking about physical businesses here). If a business owner, regardless of their personal feelings about diversity, desires to maximize profits, they need to maximize their customer base. In fact, in most communities, an establishment of any kind wouldn't survive if they discriminated in their customer practices (or hiring practices, for the most part) even without government regulation.

As I write this, I'm watching the Flyers vs. Canadiens in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. It brings to mind a time when non-whites were completely disinterested in the sport. In the past decade, the NHL has seen more "minority" players on the ice, which has broadened the interest-base of the sport. What does that mean? Inclusiveness has actually increased profitability. Government didn't have to step in and institute a racial quota. The league and its teams see the benefit of racial diversity (taking talent into consideration, obviously) and now go out of their way to employ non-white players where talent allows.

Contrarily, professional basketball has been consistently thought of as a "black" sport in recent decades. Most of the superstars are black - and most non-black players do not make waves - so most of the fans of the league are black. Viewership of NBA games has decreased in the past several decades because of the perceived lack of diversity (and its decline). When it comes to basketball, most non-black "customers" prefer college ball, likely caused at least in part by the diversity of college basketball teams, as opposed to NBA teams. Don't even get me started on the WNBA.

If something is not profitable, a business will likely not do it. For instance, a company that employs only one classification of people (based on gender, ethnicity, etc.), is significantly less likely to garner the business of the community at large. Forced diversity solves nothing - it's faux altruism that instills racial quotas, costs beyond what are reasonable and penalties for not complying with some bureaucrat's idea of diversity. It fosters negativity in the marketplace, the workplace and the community. Supporters of quotas are angry with the perceived lack of concern for diversity in those who disagree, and those who seek talent regardless of classification are derided for their insensitivity, and punished for their disdain for diversity.

In reality, people are most satisfied when they accomplish something on their own. When they are compelled to do something, they do it solely for the reason of compulsion. Think about when you were a child. If your parents let you pick your friends, you were satisfied with your choice and enjoyed yourself - and tended to have a modicum of diversity in your social circle. Contrarily, if your parents told you with whom to be friendly, you likely held an amount of disdain for the friends, for your parents and for the ends that your parents attempted to accomplish (that is, no matter what reason, the compulsion caused disdain that may not have been there prior).

The argument isn't about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other meaningless classification. The argument is rooted in the difference between government compulsion and personal freedom. If we look through history, the most successful societies are the ones with highest degree of person freedoms. Governments only work when they have an enemy. Who is the enemy in the argument about compulsory inclusion of minorities? It ends up being the majority - regardless of culpability - especially those who are perceived as having been favored. For example, let's imagine that I am a candidate for a job, and the only other applicant is a similarly qualified minority applicant. I have a little more experience than the other applicant, and minimally higher results in my pre-employment testing. In some cases, an employer will - usually for fear of reprisal by the government, the other applicant, or both - choose the less qualified applicant to avoid potential consequences.

This doesn't happen as often as it's purported. However, it does happen, and it's detrimental to everyone involved. There is also a double standard. If a company employs mostly "minorities", there is no obligation (theoretical or actual) that they hire a white person, or a male. For government to impose penalties for ideas that do not cause physical harm is government overreaching.

People are more content when they are empowered to make their own decisions. When a person is compelled to do something, they gain little satisfaction from their actions and, as I stated, often disdain both the authority compelling them and the action they're forced to perform. It is not beneficial in a society such as ours (where people are free) to exclude people from employment or being able to patronize a business; in fact, to do so is most often detrimental. Wouldn't it make for a better society to allow qualifications - not genetics, physiology or personal choices - to determine someone's eligibility to participate in something? Wouldn't it lead to a better workplace environment if everyone there knew that they were there because of their fitness for the job and not because of some government regulated quota? Would it reduce - or even possibly eliminate - certain tensions in society if things were based on the wants, needs or practicalities of that society, and not based on government compulsion?

I would posit that our society would actually be more vibrant, that racial tensions would decrease dramatically, that businesses would be more successful and individuals would experience a greater amount of satisfaction with themselves and others around them if we allowed society (and the market) to regulate itself. Government intervention is like overuse of antibiotics - it decreases the ability of the body's natural immunity to fight off infection, and creates dependence on an external force to do a job that the body ought to be able to do on its own, as well as disables the body from adapting to future infections. In the end, the perceived altruism of government intervention is actually one of the most dangerous things for society.

Again, racism is a disease. Sexism is as well. There is no place for them in society. The point of my writing this is exactly that - society will dispel of them on its own, as long as it isn't dependent on government to do it for them. Rand Paul is right - the concept of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a great one, and the goal the same. But, in practice, it does more harm than good, fosters continued hatred and disables society from acting on its own.

Richard Dawkins is a mean mean man...

I read Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion". And to clairify, by read, I mean listened to as read by the author. This is an extremely important fact which I'll comment on later.

Admittedly, I am terrible when it comes to reading a book. I read slow, I stop reading and have a hard time picking the book back up. This is why I love audio. It gives me the opportunity to listen while I'm driving, while I'm shopping, while I'm doing the dishes... I love my Blackberry.

As a brief background, Mr. Dawkins is the modern day champion of Darwinian natural selection. He also holds atheism as a virtue of the highest regard. That is all I will comment on his background, because his background has very little to do with the content of my rant.

Mr. Dawkins has made several fatal mistakes to his case which are so numerous I cannot faithfully go into them here without missing key points. If you would like to discuss/debate me on this topic, please mail mrprmiller@gmail.com or post your comments. This, also, is not the reason for my rant.

I will also say that something he does in most of his philosophical arguements and many of his ontological arguements is to use weak and mediocre examples that have very little to do with the topic he is discussing. I believe this is intentional. While this is not the topic of my rant either, it does have a least something to do with it. He's dumbing down his talk for his percieved audience.

Mr. Dawkins believes that all believers are stupid for their belief, not delusional. This is the reason for my rant. Roughy a third of the content of his book consists of quotations of many immediately unrecognizable people except to those who have knowledge and background in scientific fields. This is not the majority of readers. My question then is this: who was he writing this book for?

The next third or so of content is an onslaught of attacks aimed directly at the intellect of believers in God. (I can't specifically say Christianity as I would like, because he does attack all religions.) This seems to be in direct contrast to the title of his book.

Now, if I had read the book, I may be able to shrug it off as bad context. If another person read the book for the audio edition, I could say that he took it out of context. But it was read by Mr. Dawkins himself, and it is his ability to put the right emphasis in his sentences.

His audience then, by default, is atheists and "the scientific elite". Only a truly stupid man would write a book for agnostics and believers and proceed to insult over and over again one of the chief targets. People are, by nature, sympathetic to the plight of another, especially in America. We take a particular joy in championing the cause of the oppressed. And there is no mistaking the tone of Mr. Dawkins' book. Agnostics, I hope, see the mean-spirited writings for what they are: malicious and insulting in the best light.

With that said, I can draw a conclusion: this book is useless for the purposes of science or debate, but only good for the insulting of those Mr. Dawkins believes are unintelligent. But this also flies in the face of his title...

Which is it, Mr. Dawkins? Are we all delusional, or are we all stupid?

---

Simply using quips and mean-spirited attacks does not prove your case. I intend to do it the right way, in regards to morality.

I will agree with Mr. Dawkins that atheists are much more effective that theists when it comes to a few matters.

When I combine the highest expected death tolls in the Spanish inquisition (110,000 from torture, but prision and malnutrition mainly), the European witch trials (110,000, which were much worse than the Salem witch trials double-digit worst case value) and the Crusades (5,000,000, which ALSO includes Christians), I come up with a number of 5,220,000. I'm sure there were more. I'm not naive to think there weren't more. So for arguments sake, let's double the value to 10,440,000. All these happened over the course of about 1,000 years. We will NOT double the time period, because that would skew the average per year in favor of Christianity.

I will not reinvent the wheel, nor will I push it aside as Mr. Dawkins did. Atheism and communism go hand-in-hand with the two biggest offenders (and I challenge anyone to say differently). Since the early 20th century, communist Russia and China have a body count of 131,000,000 in the low estimates.

The difference is it took Christianity 1,000 years of sin against it's fellow man. It only took atheism 100 years, and I've only included the most extreme examples. The Holocaust and totals from World War II bolster this number quite a bit.

To also clarify, to paraphrase Lewis, witch trials are not an issue of morality. We do not kill witches now because we do not believe they exist. If we did find out that there were people that had sold their souls to the devil for the power to kill their neighbors and countrymen, then surely those people would deserve death. It is a leap of logic and understanding. You wouldn't call a sheriff humane for not shooting criminals if there were no criminals to shoot.

Christianity does agree with atheism in this sense: the better the materials the man is made of, the worse he can become. If intellect can lead to genocide of this magnitude, I would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant than to become affiliated with murderers.

Christianity allows people to "raise their conciousness" to the idea that murder because of belief is a terrible thing on moral grounds. We not only believe that our murders were terrible, sinful catastrophes but can also believe that we should have never commited them because we believe God throughly disapproves of murder. Christians also believe that an atheist who wants nothing to do with God will not be let down. He will have nothing to do with them. He will respect their wishes, because Christianity at it's core is a fighting religion, but a respectful one. (I expect this will raise an objection or two.)

Despite an atheists' objections, they have no refuge from morality. Morality in the "refined and enlightened" sense is simply a matter of opinion or preference. If this is true, you can't blame the communists for murder anymore than for the color of their skin. And if you do object to murder as an atheist based on morality, you must take a strong look at who's morality you're judging them against. If it is against your own sense of morality, it is against your own preference. If not, then who's morality? I believe I know the end answer, but I will respect your wishes in this sense and not mention His name.

---

My personal opinion of Mr. Dawkins cannot be much lower at this moment. With this in mind, had I not been a believer, I might feel slighted because of the vicious attacks on my intellect and feel I had the right to retribution. To insult a group on such an important topic as intelligence would be a dangerous thing to do to any other vast and numerous group of people. But I am a believer, and because of my belief, not only can I do him no harm but am under orders to pray for him and forgive him, should he ask for it some day in the distant future). All Christians are under common orders.

I believe he takes this fact for granted. If he does understand it and chooses to do it anyway, he is at the least prideful, but definitely a malicious and shameless man when it comes to the feelings of others.

But I am human and do take a hint of delight. I hope Mr. Dawkins goes batty knowing that the whole of Christianity is required to pray for him and does so daily. Nothing, I believe, should upset him more.

Open Letter to Senator Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA)

Mr. Casey,

Until the past couple of days, I've felt confident supporting you as one of my Senators. Today, I am ashamed that you voted against cutting off funding from ACORN. As I'm sure you are well aware, ACORN is an activist organization. That alone is not a reason to be against them, though their political allegiances are (which, although not advertised as such by the group, are clearly bent to an ultra-leftist agenda). As a taxpayer, I am offended that you would support continuation of funding to such a corrupt, unethical and unworthy organization as ACORN. There is no excuse for your vote, though I'd be willing to entertain your explanation.

As a constituent, I would request that you explain your vote, and clarify your support for this organization, as well as your justification for support of continued funding for ACORN.

I anticipate your reply, and sincerely hope that I do not have to focus any particular effort on your defeat over the next several years leading up to your next election. Hopefully this is a one-time blunder and not the beginning of a trend of votes that are clearly counter-intuitive and against the will of many of your constituents, myself included.

Please, Mr. Casey, represent Pennsylvania as the moderate you presented yourself to be when we elected you. Should you choose to align yourself with such far-left (and incredibly unethical) groups as ACORN, I look forward to ensuring that your challenger become the next junior senator from Pennsylvania.

Thank you for your attention.

Nicholas Munyat

When the Prez tells the truth, it's off the record.

UPDATE: My favorite audio of President Obama. I, for one, am yelling, "YOU TELL THE TRUTH!" at this one.

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0909/did_obama_call_kanye_a_jackass.html

So, President Obama finally said something truthful. That is, President Obama, in his infinite widsom and intellect, called Kanye West a "jackass".



I have something to say. It's something that even the President of the United States of America felt the need to say "off the record".

Kanye West is a jackass.

What's on the menu?

Not a rant by any means... just a bit of a teaser into what's going on in the Miller household when it comes to food. Many of you don't know, but I actually am an amateur master chef. I think of an ingredient that I want to use that day, and generally, I get started on how that will work.

And don't worry, I've included pictures of what's on the menu. It would be stupid if I just TALKED about what I was going to make without showing some ingredients. I'll start with a question... what happens when you mix this wonderful and cheap meat with chili?



Pure awesome, that's what. London broil is an amazingly versatile meat, as I'm learning. Mix that in a slow cooker with some salsa and a few extra pieces of love and you've got yourself an insanely hearty chili meal. Rarely do I get an immediate thumbs up before I even ask how something tastes from my wife. This time, I got a quote from her before I even sat down with my bowl: "Oh my God, that is so good!"

And if that's not good enough, it'll make enough left-overs for the rest of the weeks lunches! I get my money's worth... UNLIKE MY SOCIAL SECURITY!

As the crazy train choo-choos along, we come to day two. I love working with seafood. It's good in so many different dishes... and terrible and expensive if you blow it. It's easy to make it too salty. That was my experience with this dish.



My scallop bisque. I make a home-made butter and cream base, mix in two garlic cloves, a little parsley, some tomato puree, and a few secret extras that really do make a difference. The first time I made this, it was obvious that I had something good here, but it was ridiculously too salty. The second time was better, but still had that salt issue.

Third time's a charm. It came out great. Bay scallops are great here because they're sweeter as a rule of thumb, although pan-seared sea scallops are amazing and very fast... maybe sometime soon... ...



Lasagna is only as good as the sauce (THAT'S SAUCE, NOT GRAVY YOU FANOIKS!) that it's made with. I'm terrible with the cheeses and stuff that go into it... I let Kel (my loving and infinitely beautiful wife) take care of that part. But the sauce is my specialty. Ground beef, and copious amounts of it, make this a nice bite. Brown it with some garlic and crushed red-peppers and it'll pop. Wednesday will be nice. Now the only problem is telling her we're making lasagna. It's a lot of work. I'll spring it on her. Pray for me.



For Thursday, I get lazy. In all honesty, their prices kind of make me throw up a little bit. And when I'm retired, my SOCIAL SECURITY WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH TO AFFORD IT!.



And let it be known! Shrimp in a garlic-butter-wine sauce is an easier dish to make than any restaurant will let on. You don't have to pay $20 for this dish. Most of you have butter, garlic and wine. Go spend $6 on shrimp and linguine and make that significant other smile.

Go the extra mile... take the tails of the shrimp like I do before you cook them... BECAUSE I HATE IT WHEN RESTAURANTS LEAVE THE TAILS ON! My hands get all sticky from the butter-garlic sauce if I have to pull the tails off after the fact... and that doesn't make anyone happy. And yes, if any seafood chef reads this (which I doubt), I know the tails are full of flavor. So is the rest of the food. I can deal with a fraction of flavor-loss to make it easier to eat. For example, I like crab legs. I love claw meat. When I get tired and lazy, I ignore the claws, because they're inconvenient and a pain to open.

It also gets the happy-wife smile, which is a huge bonus when she doesn't have to get all messy pulling shrimp-ends off.

Try to leave some left-overs too on this. In the fridge overnight and then in the microwave the next day at lunch... I swear, pasta tastes so much better once the flavors have time to blend.

Hope you're all nice and hungry now. Buy it and cook now that you can afford it... because we all know your SOCIAL SECURITY won't be there to purchase it when you retire.

---

(In honor of 9/11, I didn't post my weekly Friday Night Random Angry. If I did, it probably would have involved Ed Rendel's turnpike tolls. Turnpike tolls haven't risen in years and this idiot gets into the governor's office and hikes them not once, but TWICE and MAYBE MORE! Mull that over. Jerk.)

September baseball and Van Jones...

This September had better not turn out for the Phillies like it has for these guys the past two years:



And Brad Lidge didn't even pitch today. And they still let themselves get swept in a 4-game series to the... Houston Astros?! I say that this was our payback for letting Chris Coste go to them, while we kept Paul Bako. So, I guess it's our own fault. In reality, though, the Phillies have just been having trouble hitting, and we've been unable to have clutch pitching (good pitching in general, except when it matters). Let's just hope that Braves or Marlins fans (all 3 of them) have no reason to use our own taunting against us, as we've done to Mets' fans over the past 2 years.

God Himself Couldn't Have Convinced Us That This Guy Was Good For The Job, Whatever That Was.

Van Jones was Sean Hannity's [happy] dream. Honestly, it pissed me off that Obama would be so blatant as to bring this guy into his administration, but it didn't surprise me at all. You see, we know that Obama is from the hard left. We know that he's surrounded himself with people who are hard left. With that, inevitably, we see morons, idiots, and brilliantly scary idealists.

Jones' history is one that is not uncommon to the DailyKos or MSNBC, but is kind of scary to the rest of us. Someone who has advanced his entire career by playing the race card, has made relatively quiet statements that quickly became very loud upon his unscrutinized appointment as Special Adviser on Green Jobs. There is already evidence that some (not all, but some very loud, important people) proponents of the green movement have ulterior motives. Looking at Van Jones' past statements, affiliations and activities, you have to start to wonder...

To me, a guy who signs on to the 9/11 Truth petition (no evidence exists that he maintained an active relationship with them, but none exists to the contrary, either), someone who continually plays the race card, get a little rowdy with his description of the opposition (and gets it completely wrong describing his - now former - boss), has really weird, "fantastical" ideas about things (like 9/11 Truth, or the idea that somehow "going green" will either create jobs or save the earth), thinks that even some environmentalists have got it wrong (because they're white), etc. Judge for yourself and do a little research... has anything this guy has ever said been sane, or even in the least bit not bat-crap crazy?

Only White Kids Shoot Up The Entire School


Even Some Environmentalists Are Wrong... because they're White.



Ironic... I guess Van Jones is serving behind the counter at McDonald's?

Come to think of it...

It's looking more and more like the Obama administration and congressional Democrats resemble the 2007 Mets (and, well, the 2008 Mets, too). Lots of build up about "coming from nothing" (although having more money and hype than you can swallow), only to collapse when it really matters, and their talent really needs to shine. Let's hope that my analogy here keeps going, because something needs to stop this nonsense that's been going on here. Hopefully Van Jones' departure isn't only for the cameras... hopefully President Obama realizes that we're really not going to just take whatever crap he wants to try to spoon-feed us, but we're actually going to look at the facts and come to our own conclusions. There are crazies out there (truthers, birthers, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann...). But, the majority (the silent majority) will neither gather at rallies holding signs about Barack's birth certificate (look, he was born in Hawaii, he's a citizen, get over it), and also do not show up to healthcare rallies with a hunger for human fingers. The silent majority will arm themselves with the truth and make your life a living hell if you try to screw with us.

I know who dunnit in California!

I have convincing photographic evidence as to who started the fires in California! That story suddenly got interesting when I found out it was an arson. And then, I immediately set out to find out who it was, because that's the kind of guy I am!

Here's the photo that was sent into me by an anonymous source. As you can see, it appears to be Philadelphia Phillies closing pitcher Brad Lidge. Now, it's true that this is purely circumstantial. No one actually saw Brad Lidge use the torch in his hand to light the fire, as the camera man was supposedly burnt to a crisp by the fires shortly after.

This should be enough to have Brad Lidge flown to California for questioning and possible detainment. On the downside, Charlie Manuel can't place in him any save situations like he did tonight when he BLEW ANOTHER SAVE AGAINST THE ASTROS!

Arson, however, is very interesting. I take back my initial criticism of the coverage, but I noticed that now the fires are an arson and homicide the amount of national media coverage concerning these fires has significantly died down. But now, I will refuse to let this die until this arsonist is brought to justice!

I had my suspicions on a few of the usual suspects, however. My instincts immediate went to someone we know hates wildlife in general. Dick Cheney, Mr. Halliburton himself, I'm sure would like nothing more than to see little woodland creatures scatter from their homes while he sits by in a lawn chair and laughs hysterically. I can picture him using a bag of hundred dollar bills and Halliburton brand lighter fluid to start the mother of all fires.

Dick Cheney, I'm still not clearing you of suspicion.

And who would ever suspect the smelt? Fish, angry at the abuse of their water, used to feed the masses, get together and go rogue. It's a classic story, and until the Lidge picture surfaced, one I considered the most likely suspect.

What better way to get back at farmers than to burn 150,000 acres? Makes too much sense to me. Have you ever seen an angry fish? I have. The flip back and forth to let you know how viciously ANGRY they are (usually before they die and end up as dinner). Oddly enough, it resembels me after EVERY PAYCHECK WHEN I SEE MY SOCIAL SECURITY TAX!

And then there's Johnny Storm, AKA the Human Torch. The motive? He's furious over Disney's purchase of Marvel Entertainment. His plan? Burn everything. Marvel, which was in absolutely no financial trouble what-so-ever, seemingly out of nowhere sold-out... and Mr. Storm, angry over the chance that Disney might finance another Fantastic Four movie and slander his name more, retaliates. (On a side-note, I really hope Disney plans on letting Marvel go nuts. Fantastic Four aside, they've been hitting the movie-ball out of the park like it was a pitch from Brad Lidge!)

My personal feelings on the California fires have changed now. Arson is interesting, but then it led to homicide. And unlike my feelings on Kennedy, that's ridiculous and sad. There's not much you can do to prevent these. You can cut down the overgrown and dried-out brush that contribute to wildfires, but arson can't really be planned for. Firefighters, who willingly take themselves out of the frying pan and into the fire, died. I hope they find the guy.

But my money is still on Lidge. (Thank GOD Myers is back.)

Paul's Friday Night Random Angry - 2009/09/04

A wonderful end to a wonderful week. Yeah, that was a lie. But I do have a few things I want to mention, as they really really make me laugh... like a nervous home school student does when he comes face-to-face with the neighborhood bully.

Item #1: GOLD MAKES YOU RICH!

With the price of gold skyrocketing again, I believe I've solved our government's financial problem. Obama just needs to go to this guy for a loan.

I do not expect to have anyone in our federal government listen to me on this. I don't expect a middle school student council to listen to me on this.

I just want my DAMN SOCIAL SECURITY BACK!!!

Item #2: BOWLING FOR WHOM?

Wow. Just wow!

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC Nightly News, ABC World News, and CBS Evening News when you combine them? Zero. Which is the exact amount I'm going to get in my SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK WHEN I RETIRE!

Item #3: I AGREE WITH NICK!... almost...

I agree.

I'm confident we agree.

An obvious choice, for reasons known only to fans.

We disagree.

Enjoy your weekend, and stay out of construction zones. YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY IS PAYING FOR IT!!!

Former Phillies Pitchers Make Great Senators

I wonder if Jamie Moyer will be next to announce a run for the Senate? I'd vote for him if he did. It'll be interesting to see if Red Sox Nation (you know, since Schilling helped the Sox even more than he helped the Phils in 1993) can beat Kennedy Commie Nation in Massachussetts - that is, if Schilling decides to run. Here's to hope that Massachussetts can somehow have a Senator that makes any kind of sense soon. First Jim Bunning (R-KY), now Curt Schilling (I-MA????). Let's go Phillies!

And now for something [almost] completely different!

Joe Biden is my favorite sideshow act in the history of Presidential politics. It reminds me of the old days (you know, back in like... 2002) when SNL actually had good nights. Darrell Hammond would play the part of Chris Matthews and they did a "Hardball" spoof. Tracy Morgan played Harry Bellafonte (day-o, daaaay-o. Bellefonte's a crazy mo-fo!). It's ashame YouTube was forced to take down all of the videos, but look it up, it was awesome. Morgan's Bellefonte said crazy things like, "Poodles are the black man of the dog world..." and "Osama bin Laden is an Uncle Tom!" Hammond's Matthews replied with, "I don't even know who that's offensive to!"

That exchange from SNL was like foreshadowing of the Biden Vice Presidency. Every time I see him on TV, I laugh. I, like Hammond, yell at my TV (unlike Hammond), "Joe Biden, hit me with a quick one!"

Biden (who, above, looks oddly like a cartoon milkshake superhero from Aqua Teen Hunger Force, also above) told people that the Stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or Bullcrap Ineffective Waste of Money for short) was working better than anyone expected. I guess that goes to show the height of expectations this administration has for its policies. As I drove up US-222 from US-30 to get to the PA Turnpike yesterday, I was privileged enough to encounter some of that "faster, more [efficient], more [effective]" stimulus work. I saw the sign and just knew that I'd be stuck in traffic for at least 15 minutes. Here's why:
I saw this:

Then one of these:

And a whole lot of not work. I guess when you have an unlimited budget of monopoly money with a Fed stamp on it, you can take a 6 hour break in the middle of your 7 hour shift. Makes sense to me, right? But, the 5 miles of closure on the right lane caused lots of this:

So, while it may be that these construction "workers" are getting a paycheck when they may have otherwise been doing the same thing they do now, except indoors, in front of their TV, and NOT getting paid with my future grandchildren's money, it's going to be interesting to see how many people get fired for attendance issues due to the excessive traffic caused by all of those orange cones they put out to surround their break area... oh, wait, I mean the work zone. Every time I see that flashing white light (you know, the "fines doubled" light... I know that's not what it's called, but that's the only meaning I can get from it, since "active work zone" seems to be a foreign concept, at least in PA), it makes me sad, and I start planning to be late to wherever I need to go. Some nights, I'm tempted to stop by Home Depot or Lowes and pick up some concrete mix and just go finish the job myself. Come to think of it, I could probably do it for less money, in less time and more effectively. But hey, that's the opposite of how our government does things, is it?

Joe Biden... one more time!

Carl FTW. What do you think?

Washington is where bovine proctologists go when they just can't get enough bullcrap...

Was Robin Hood ethical?

In light of all the debate surrounding the Obama agenda, I've compiled a few (actually short) thoughts about the ethics of Robin Hood, and of Obamanomics.

Thoughts:
- Robin Hood had intent - and it was good! He wanted to help the poor.
- Robin Hood used illegal (and unethical) means to acheive his goals.
- The ends (in the story) were that Robin Hood actually did help the poor.

Given the situation, was Robin Hood ethical?
- His intent was good.
- The ends were positive.
- The means to those ends were not.

Therefore, Robin Hood's actions would be considered unethical because they are, despite intent and result, inherently wrong. When the actions taken to acheive an end are ill-conceived or somehow immoral, the actions would be unethical. Forcibly taking (forcible theft) is wrong, therefore the actions are unethical because the ends do not justify the means.

Relating this to government, Robin Hood techniques (such as redistributionism in the tax code) are inherently unethical. When a government compels people to pay for services from which they will not benefit, they are forcibly taking (stealing). There is a penalty for non-compliance (financial penalties and even imprisonment), thereby taking away the ability to object in practice. While the theoretical ends (though not the actual ends, as proven time and again) are positive, as are the intentions, this makes this type of government action inherently unethical.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for... President Obama?

It's a good thing I don't have kids, because I'd have to take a day off from work to keep them home this day. He hasn't released the text or proposed content of his speech, but he has released this and this. I don't see anything in there that looks like he's going to be pushing politics, but if I had to guess, there'll be something thrown in there. I'll be interested to see if all of the questions about how he is going to "inspire" and ask for action are going to be related to education. I'm going to try to watch, but I don't imagine I'll be terribly successful. Hopefully the speech will be archived, because I'll be very interested to see if the hype is justified on this one.




On a side note, I have a total hetero man-crush on Kevin Godlington. Who would have thought... a Brit?

EDIT: Interesting note here. So, if you follow the links to the curriculum suggestions, you won't see what was initially there. I think it's amazing that President Obama has spent more time backpedaling statements and releases that sound just a little creepy than he has actually accomplishing anything of substance. Just sayin'.

The ethical side of health care

The US government has a track record about as good on implementing successful social programs (effectiveness measured by fiscal responsibility and positive results) as Pol Pot had on humanitarianism. Or, as successful as Teddy Kennedy's on rescuing blondes who he'd driven into the pond off of Chappaquiddick (too soon?).

Social Security is ineffective and inefficient. Not to mention, it's almost completely bankrupt. Not to mention, I'm paying into the biggest Ponzi scheme the U.S. has ever seen, and so are you! The problem is that, eventually, the money is going to run out. Unfortunately for those defenders of the program, that time is coming very soon. Not to mention that it is wrought with fraud and abuse, costing several billion dollars per year (of yours and my money). Not to mention that the benefits are rarely necessary, and when they are, they're hardest to come by. Is any of this ethical?

I was raised on Welfare for a large portion of my childhood. Without going into the sob story (a story for which I'm eternally thankful, as it has made me a stronger, more willful person, and has led to a great deal of personal success... but that's not what this is about), I saw from the inside just how broken these programs are. Families that actually need benefits are often audited or denied, while others (like my own) are provided benefits despite the obvious (and gratuitous) abuse of the benefits. Without any screening or auditing, my family received benefits intended to take care of my siblings and me, and those dollars (and food stamps, etc.) went to drugs. Ironically, a private, Catholic charity finally got involved and offered both personal support AND actual, usable and enforceable benefits. Tell me, which one is ethical, and which one is abusive and unethical?

Private charities are struggling these days. Personal incomes are flat while expenses continue to rise, so donations are down. Government is trying to pay for impersonal (and relatively ineffective) programs by decreasing tax deductions for charitable donations (read: raising taxes). Because expenses increase while primary employment isn't providing higher incomes, many are seeking out secondary employment, taking away opportunities for volunteerism. Bureaucrats seem to be the only people getting pay increases these days (you know, other than our congressmen and women). Nevermind the fact that government makes private charity almost impossible in many cases. Thanks, government! :-)

Yet, despite being poorly funded and under-staffed, private charity has a track record (both statistically and from my own personal experience) that shines far brighter than government's. Churches (not all, but many) tend to have a more positive effect on the social and economic situation of a family than government programs, and they cost far less. Yet, churches are often restricted from receiving federal funding for programs unrelated to religious services simply because they're religious organizations (and, you know, because government wouldn't be able to take credit for the positive effects of their work). More homeless are housed in poorly funded (but well run) shelters run by religious and community organizations with little or no federal funding than are housed in public shelters that are relatively well funded, but horribly poorly run. More hungry Americans are fed by the generosity of middle-class (and even some of those stingy rich people) private citizens and private charities than by extensive (and expensive) public programs. More poorly-clothed Americans are clothed by Salvation Army volunteers and donors (along with hundreds of thousands of other private charities) than any government program. In fact, more sick Americans are treated with higher quality (and lower cost) emergency care in religiously-affiliated hospitals under charity care than are treated under a number of government programs at publicly funded (and poorly run) public clinics. And, these private charities all have a more positive net outcome (at least to the eyes of anyone honestly evaluating the situation) than their better-funded (you're welcome!) government counterparts.

Ethics (as used in this context) is that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions (thanks, dictionary.com!). So, ethics isn't only about motives, but also outcomes. While it is true that government programs are more far-reaching than most private charities, they are also far more wasteful and, on a case-by-case basis, less effective.

So, let's apply this to healthcare. We've yet to see our government have a charitable program (SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP in all its forms, Welfare in all its forms, Cash for Clunkers, VA, etc.) that has been measurably successful, especially, more so than its less-funded private counterparts. Let's assume that they dazzle us and make the largest (and fastest-implemented, if the Prez and his buddies have their way) public investment in our lives as effective as SSI. Benefits will be hard to get, bureaucrats will get in the way of treatment (maybe not "death panels", but coverage will be standardized on a wider scale than private insurance companies could dream of) and those who are currently insured will have less access to timely healthcare. While it is true that the poor would be less financially responsible for what medical treatment they require, it is also true that more Americans would then be responsible for more people's healthcare (in the form of new taxes or lower wages due to higher employer-side taxes), and would receive a lower quality product than they currently have.

Tell me, all of you fledgling ethicists: would it be less ethical to have 1/6 (being generous to those who like to quote inflated stats on the uninsured) of the country have access only to emergency care (as they currently do) while being fully financially responsible for it (due to lack of health insurance) or to lower the bar for the 5/6 of the country who have coverage currently and include the uninsured 1/6 in this lower quality product?

Intent is one thing. President Obama (at least on the surface) seems to have a genuine interest in doing what is best for the least fortunate Americans when it comes to healthcare. But, just because I want to save the world, if my plan is both unproven and unsustainable, does my intent make my actions ethical? Remember, just as productivity is not measured by intent, but return on investment, ethics are judged not only on intent, but on the ends of the actions taken. Universal healthcare is a wonderful dream, but it is not something we can pull off. The ethical thing to do would be to offer the best solution to the most amount of people. President Obama's, Nancy Pelosi's, Harry Reid's, ACORN's, SEIU's plan(s) simly cannot provide the ROI, or the "ends", but only the intent. Until we can come up with a better plan (stay tuned... I've got a few ideas!), it would simply be unethical to reduce the quality of life for the majority in order to offer the lower quality of life to a larger group of people.

Don't Scream 'Fire!' in a Movie Theatre in California

Cable news networks would swarm the area with helicopters and bar your exit! Fire, the state of California and news networks have been best friends for quite a while. The sheer volume of silly people still living in these areas blows my mind... and not just for fire purposes.

1. Not just for fire purposes... but the first reason would be the fire. Every year, we're hearing about houses being turned to ashes, lives being lost, and fire fighters dying because some of these dummies don't leave. I can't possibly imagine how much their home-owners insurance policies must cost!


2. According to the their government's website, Los Angeles has a sales tax rate at 9.75%. Anyone think that's a little high? I do. And with all that money coming in, you'd think California would be the richest state in the union. Heh... heh heh... The part I love the most is the row of smiling dummies on the left side of the website. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/)


3. I may have hinted at it above, but let me state it plainly. California has serious money issues. Despite having the ridiculous sales taxes, alcohol taxes, cigarette taxes, state income taxes, local income taxes, property taxes, district taxes, utility taxes, transit taxes and I'm sure quite a few others, they're issuing warrants (a lawful securities form of an IOU) for their debts. Imagine sending your tax return in and instead of a check you send them an apology letter with a letter saying you'll pay them later. I bet we agree where that would end.


4. Just an observation, but it's fair to point out that arguably the most mismanaged state in our country has the largest electoral vote. It blows my mind that the greatest conservative leader ever considered this state his home.


5. Nancy Pelosi.


6. Barbara Boxer.

I have designed a new state flag for California in honor of these reasons! The sickle is symbolic of the need to cut down the excessive growth that covers much of these inferno sectors of the state and contributes to the problem. The hammer is the constant need of rebuilt homes. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMUNIST IDEALS THAT FLOW FROM THE STATE LIKE A RAGING WILDFIRE (pun)! The fire people are happy about the constant flow of rebuilt homes. The title, the "Golden State" is stale. Let's replace it with some meaning that everyone can agree with!

The bear is symbolic of a bear. It's also my favorite part of my flag.

I might be taking easy jabs at the government of California, but my real intention was the blast the silly people who continue to live in these "hot spots" and their news coverage of these idiots. Don't give me any, "It's my home", crap answers either. MOVE!

I turn on the major cable news networks, hear California wildfire, and then turn to classic and hilarious episodes of Hogan's Heroes out of boredom. This isn't news. This is an unsurprising annual occurrence. Give me REAL NEWS, like "Puppy Saves Kitten!" or "Boy Falls in Well, Lassie Saves!".

And finally, on a lighter (pun) note, the Phillies are continuing their awesome. And thank God they'll be in San Fransisco, where they'll only have to dodge flamers and not actual flames! (HA! Pun!)

Lights Flickering Lidge

I'm going to switch gears here and talk about baseball. As noted in an earlier post, Paul and I made the long trek out to Pittsburgh on last Tuesday to watch the Phillies almost win against the Pirates. Aside from the fact that Lidge used that opportunity to blow his 9th save of the year, it was totally worth the trip.

Brad Lidge was a god among men... last year. Think Eric Hinske:


This year, he's been more like a squirrel among bobcats. Think Adam Eaton:

His perfect 41-for-41 saves per opportunity last year amazed almost everyone. Just about every hitter in the major leagues was afraid to step to the plate when Lidge was on the mound (even those who were juicing... and I'm not talking Jack Lalanne juicing). Every pitch he threw last year was worth it, and even if it was hit, there was usually a Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley or Shane Victorino (among others) right in the way of the ball.

This year, though, Lidge is 26-for-35. He went from perfect to suck this year. Now, to be fair, he's had health problems, but he says he feels fine now. When he pitched a total of 5 pitches to three batters, including giving up a first pitch walk-off 2-run home run to Andrew McCutchen (that scrawny little center fielder the Pirates have), I began to wonder what happened to Lights Out Lidge. One of the 14 Pirates fans in attendance at PNC Park on Tuesday said something as Lidge was walking to the mound (before the mess) that caught my attention: "Alright! We won! Light On Lidge is in the game!"

See, now looking at last night's game, I saw something more reminiscent of the Lidge of last year. He used his slider and threw it for strikes. He worked around the plate a little, and didn't put the ball anywhere near the hitters' "wheelhouses". He kept them looking, and mixed in fastballs every couple of pitches to keep the hitters on their toes. He was even confident enough to move a hitter off the plate, which was awesome to watch. He faced three batters, and got 2 ground outs and a strikeout to save the game. That sounds a lot more like the Lidge of last year than the Lidge of this year. I like that. I'd love to see him keep that up.

For now, though, Lidge has been so hot or cold (kind of like the Phillies' offense, but they've been a little more extreme on the hot side) that I don't know how to refer to him. In Lidge's house, the lights seem to be flickering... I can only hope that he'll fix whatever it is and turn the lights out on everyone for the rest of the season.

Paul's Friday Night Random Angry - 2009/08/29

Friday is a wonderful day. Because of that, I'm going to write a few words on all the things that are bothering me in the world of politics. It'll be a weekly thing, because nobody feels like working on Friday.

PEEK-A-BOO! CAR TAX!

Something of a interesting note I came across today. I'm sure the onslaught of commercials for the Cash for Clunkers is not forgotten on us. I distinctly remember being blasted by commercials for Toyota, Ford, Chevy and Nissan in rapid-fire succession one after another without break.

I remember thinking that Nissan had phenomenal commercials by advertising cars for $4,500 less while Chevy basically flushed customers away by advertising cars for normal prices with $4,500 in options. Well, whether you took the drivable cheap car or flushed your funds away on a brand new options riddled, get ready for the peek-a-boo tax.

I could go off on a tirade about how it's not the government's job to get people to buy cars. This credit had nothing to with buying cars. It had everything to do with saving the UAW, a self-destructing virus of a union if I ever saw one. If it were about saving the American car industry, Chrysler wouldn't have been sold to Fiat, an Italian car maker. But that, my friends, is a completely different bag of worms.

What I'm angry about is something much simpler. That $4,500 is taxable. Get ready to pay.


MISGUIDED EFFORTS WASTED ANYWAY

Republicans should be working on what we do best. We've been wasting all of our time trying to push back the onslaught of new spending Obama has introduced to virtually no avail. Time to switch gears! We need to focus our efforts on creating avenues and counterattacks to increase revenues for businesses, small and large. Re-labeling is a good thing.

For every new tax the democrats cook up, the republicans should introduce a bill that offers a greater tax breaks or shrinks the government in a way that helps businesses to grow and prosper. President Obama promised to be a president that would reach across the aisle and bridge the gap between democrats and republicans. Thus far, he's proven that he's the exact opposite, but that might just be because we're spending all of our efforts opposing him.

Let's give him the opportunity to stonewall our legislation. Conservative congressmen need to start writing new legislation to cut taxes, and when we are shut down, we can turn the tables during the next election cycle. On the other hand, if he doesn't shut us down, America wins anyway with new financial possibilities and opportunities for growth.

This would bring the argument back to the core ideals that everyone has an opinion on and that republicans should win: smaller government, lower taxes, the right to life, etc..


CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION...

I was driving today. I turned out of my house, went down the road to the main street and hit traffic. I turned onto the highway only to come to an instant stop. And went south to the next highway I needed to get to only to be stopped on the exit ramp. On the way home, vowing not to take the roads I took down, I was stopped on the back roads.

I looked up and saw a sign: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - Putting Americans to Work.

It might be putting road construction workers to work, but it certainly made it difficult for me to get to my work. There's not going to be many non-state construction workers left if we all jump out of our cars and run ourselves over in frustration. And then who will be left to tax?

Nothing left to say. Enjoy your collective weekends.