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.

Why Whatever Healthcare Proposal Obama Has Is Stupid (The Problem)

So, looking at the current state of our social programs and our economy, I've decided it's time to start pontificating.

President Obama's (and all of the plans for which details are actually known) plans for our healthcare systems are nightmarish. Do any of you remember when Al Gore made out with Tipper on stage back in 2000? That was a better plan. For our older readers (of which there are none... yet), you probably remember when the Nixon campaign decided it would be a great idea to break into the Watergate offices of the DNC for a strategic advantage in the election? Much better, and more effective. Remember when Bill Clinton chose, of all the aides he could find, Monica Lewinsky? Closer, but still a better plan than what President Obama has.

You see, while the charitable side of me would love nothing more than for everyone to be covered, I have realized that the government is the last entity that ought to implement such an idea (along with most other people who have half a brain that functions apart from an obsession with the Organizing for America emails, which I forwarded to flag@whitehouse.gov, by the way, but I digress). When we look at the various social programs of our government (a non-exhaustive list will be provided at the end of this post), it becomes clear that our Congress has a track record of success tantamount to that of the Washington Nationals (to be fair to the Nationals, they have won a few more games than has our government been successful with social programs). Now, what I will be writing may suprise you (I'm not Sean Hannity, so I use actual arguments instead of only insulting Democrats, and my readers... and I recognize that President Obama is infinitely more intelligent than the above referenced talker).

The premise of "health care/insurance reform"

The reason that we most often hear about the need for health care/insurance reform is that the cost is crippling, and the return on investment is horrific. It's actually a logical argument. We do, in fact, spend almost 150% as much as the nearest developed nation on healthcare, and our life expectancies are notably lower, and our population is (as a matter of statistics) generally less healthy than, let's say, the French. So far, so good, Mr. President. We also hear that we need to be like everyone else, since almost every other developed nation has some form of government sponsored healthcare for all of its citizens. Also very true, though these plans range from government mandated coverage (in foreign countries like Massachussetts) to all out single-payer (like Great Britain). The President has made clear that his current agenda doesn't include single-payer, though it does include a government option in a Medicare-for-all style (though his past statements say differently and most liberal supporters - especially those in Congress - would like to see single-payer sooner rather than later). So far, on face value, I can almost support what the President is saying. He even says that, if I like my current health insurance (which I do), I can keep it (which I'd love to do). I can even see the logic behind denying that Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or any other government-administered will suffer, because the logical thing to do would be to roll them all together into one big program.

So, the President is doing a pretty good job of trying to frame the debate with base language and non-specific rhetoric. He's a politician, and that's what politicians do. Good job, President Obama!

The problem arises when we start to look at the details. Let's take a look:

Cost vs. Benefit

Americans spend almost double the amount that other countries spend on their healthcare. That sucks. Staying healthy and taking advantage of all of the medical advances and life-saving (and life-enriching) technologies is expensive! And, you say, Americans are less healthy than those who spend around half of what we do to stay that way? What an outrage!!!

Here's the problem, though. Let's take Switzerland as a reference point. According to the University of Maine's study on health care (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf), the U.S. spends $4,178 per capita, while the Swiss are spending $2,794 per capita (worldwide median is $1,783). Right there, you can see a disparity, and it's quite obvious. If this were all the data available, I would very quickly and strongly support a Swiss-style system in America. But, there are many factors that go into those costs, and it makes sense that we'd spend more (maybe not to the extent we do, but significantly more).

Innovation

Patients in America enjoy the greatest access to approved medical innovations of any country in the entire world. More doctors come from foreign countries to study these new innovations than those American doctors who study abroad, and our healthcare providers are the best trained, best equipped and most successful of any in the world. All of this is because of the for-profit nature of our system. You see, people are motivated by the reward they receive. So, when a for-profit medical research firm has the ability to maximize their profits, they will tend to do more (and more effective) research, leading to more (and more significant) breakthroughs. All of this is possible because of the reward they will receive for their efforts. In a system such as Canada's, where innovation is stifled by cost-caps, these innovations are almost non-existant. So, if you like your grandma's pacemaker, you can thank American for-profit companies for taking ideas and turning them into pacemakers.

Lifestyle


American lifestyle is unlike any other country's. Americans, due to the for-profit nature of our economy, work harder to do more (goes back to innovation, eh?). Working more leads to more stress, and we all know the effects of stress on the holistic health of the individual (http://www.stress.org/Effects_of_stress.htm). So, it would be logical to conclude that Americans' health would be affected by their stress level, which is typically higher than that of a citizen of another country. Without this stress (because work=stress), most technological innovations, especially in medicine, would not be developed as quickly or widely (or at all), which would actually have negative affects on other countries' health (i.e. Canada couldn't impose their cost caps on non-existant drugs developed by profit-hungry American drug companies).

This may seem strange, or even hypocritical, coming from a big guy, but diet plays a HUGE role in overall health. This should come as no suprise; how long have we been demonizing McDonalds and Burger King for "making America fat"? (I'll give you a hint, Super-Size Me wasn't the first criticism.) Now, being the capitalist pig (and self-affirmed fat guy) that I am, I don't believe that we should regulate what people eat, so long as they're responsible for their own care (which they are, and should continue to be). But, it is wrong for the government to assume that their intervention in the cost of healthcare, without pronounced regulation on industries such as fast food, would somehow bring those costs under control. The only way they could do that without taking away Americans' freedom to eat all of that garbage (albeit tasty garbage) would be to deny care, which is another premise of Obama's "need for health insurance reform".

Americans' choices (such as those to work hard, and eat like Star Jones used to) lead to higher health care costs, but it is NOT the government's right, responsibility or privelege to regulate either one beyond reason (reason meaning establishing fair labor requirements and provision of accurate health facts for foods). Just like the market, success or failure is dictated upon the choices we make in our own health, and our own provisions and luxuries. If we make good decisions, we're successful (i.e. we can be healthy and afford healthcare), or we make poor decisions and we fail (i.e. we buy a 52" TV and a tub of bon-bons instead of enrolling in a health care program and a gym).

NOTE: Please, for the love of everything that makes sense in this world, do not listen to Sean Hannity. I almost performed an Eqyptian brain removal on myself the other day when I heard him say that our mortality rate is somehow significantly affected by the military. What a blowhard. Fortunately for me, I didn't have any wire hangers in my car.

Profit

This is America (wow, really?!). One of the reasons we are (well, used to be) the richest country in the world is because we worked our ever loving butts off to get this way. Our country has always been based on an investment=reward system. In other words, if you have a good product and are able to market it, you make lots of money. If you have a terrible product, or are unable to market a good one, you don't make money. (NOTE: if you have a terrible product and are able to market it, you can become President.) So, on this premise, our healthcare system isn't much different. If Hospital A has a success rate of 99% in a quad-bypass surgery, and Hospital B's success rate is only 93%, Hospital A not only will get more business, but will be able to charge a premium for their services. It's no different than paying a little more for a Cadillac than a Kia.

The better the service, the higher the price. It makes perfect sense, and it attracts more people to excel in their fields, because they'll enjoy a greater reward when the provide a greater product. When you remove profit from the equation, you remove the best-proven motivator of professionals from consideration. When you do this, you lose the best and brightest to either another industry or another area where they can maximize their profits. So, if you want the bar lowered in healthcare providers from the valedictorian of his/her class at Johns Hopkins to Johnny, the kid who can't remember if you wanted pickles on your Whopper (what are you doing at Burger King... it's terrible for you!), all you have to do is remove profits from the equation.

I haven't even touched on the med-tech and pharmaceutical companies' profit-driven success. The biggest argument I've heard from my more liberal friends is, "[whiny voice] yeah, but I can get my [insert drug name here] a lot cheaper if I were Canadian!" This is very true. And it sucks. The reality is, though, Canada puts caps on what drugs cost. This is why almost no major medical innovation (or mass distribution of said innovations) has pretty much ever originated in Canada. While there are plenty of superfluous (or just unnecessary) drugs developed, produced and distributed in America (and they probably drive up the cost of others), the fact is that profit drives these companies to do what they do. One of the most dangerous things to do would be to impose a Canadian-style cap on drug costs, as it would again remove the profit motivator from the drug companies, slowing development and innovation. Not only would Americans suffer if this happened, but so would the rest of the world (because most of the world uses drugs and technologies developed and distributed in and from America). So, France would probably be pissed if Glaxo decided to cut production and exporting because of lower profits. Man, that would suck.

Why it doesn't add up

So, I've shown how the premise doesn't quite add up to the details when it comes to the Cost vs. Benefit debate. Yes, costs are higher in America. Yes, it seems unfair when you speak in generic platitudes and not actual details. Yes, it is largely our own fault that costs are so high. But no, there isn't really anything the government can do to fix it without screwing up a lot of other things.

The cost of innovation is high. Profit motivates medical innovation, as it does in all other industries. When profit is removed from the equation, production and distribution (and, not to mention, research) will necessarily decrease. Even if there were somewhere else in the world for these companies to go and make similar profits (there isn't), that would destroy our economy faster than Obama has destroyed his hopes of a second term (according to current poll numbers... I know, things can change, and he's all about change). I mean, seriously, I think Mickey Mouse could actually beat him if the election were held today, and I'm not even sure if Mickey Mouse is a real person!

The more we stop at the drive-thru, the more we're going to pay at the doctor's office (or hospital, as the case may dictate). If we go to a government-run system (whether single-payer or a simple government option), you can take the same equation and replace the second "we're" with "we're" (because we're still paying for it, it's just that the government takes our money forcibly in order to pay for it for someone else, too). There are too many factors that affect the relative health of Americans to the rest of the world, and almost none of them can be solved by the government without causing significant damage to other aspects of our country. So, the only difference would be that the relative responsibility for these outrageous healthcare costs would be shifted from the individual (cost directly correlates to healthcare needs) to the collective (cost spread across all people indiscriminately... you know, except that 10% of the population would pay 90% of the healthcare costs).

"If your friend jumped off a bridge and told you that you suck if you didn't jump too, even though he broke his leg and has to wait 10 months for a cast, would you jump?"

I swear, if I hear that argument (in different words, of course) one more time, I might push someone off a bridge (not really, in case the White House comes across this blog). Loud mouths from across the pond yell from their crooked-toothed mouths all the time that we suck because we haven't done the same thing that they've done. It's a terrible pity that we haven't sunk our economy even further into debt with universal (or compulsive) health insurance "reform". But hey, we have dental care!

Seriously, though, when people say that we should be like France, Germany, Great Britain, and a host of other countries whose health care systems have been shown to be sub-par on a good day, it makes me want to scream. There are those who would argue that waiting 4 weeks to 3 months for major (non-emergency) surgery is just dandy, as long as everybody is waiting that long (another logical fallacy which I'll address in a minute). There are those who say that a slightly lower success rate in surgeries and other treatments is ok, as long as everyone has access to these services (same logical fallacy... hold on). And then, there are those who claim that a universal (or compulsive) system in America wouldn't even cause those problems (using any word where the root is "logic" would be entirely inappropriate for these people). First of all, lowering the bar for some in order to cover all doesn't work, because when sub-par is the new par, everybody suffers. In other words, making everything equal doesn't make it better for everyone, instead it makes it worse for most. The simple fact is, just because it sorta-kinda works for another country (sorta-kinda, and most of these other countries don't have the same issues - especially not on the same level - discussed above in the Lifestyle analysis) doesn't mean it'll work for us. I hate to be the guy clamoring about money all of the time, but the simple fact is that a lot of it comes back to money. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there's also no such thing as free insulin. Costs would necessarily go up, which means that our taxes would necessarily go up (well, at least the taxes of the 40% of Americans whose taxes outweigh the spending from which they benefit: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/2286.html).

There are plenty of doctors... right?

In 2002, America had approximately 2.3 doctors per 1,000 citizens. Now, out of those 1,000 citizens, approximately 83% have health insurance, and a smaller percentage of those get regular checkups. All Americans (even those who are uninsured) are entitled to emergency services (life-saving emergency treatment), though they are not exempt from the bills that follow.

Given the above information, it is reasonable to assume that our nation’s doctors are too few. Many otherwise qualified individuals choose to go a direction other than medical school because of the costs, and the debt that often results. If, as the President proposes (one of the few things of which he’s actually taken ownership in this debate), healthcare charges are to be capped and regulated, this would lead to lower profits for hospitals and health systems (which affects affiliated doctors’ salaries) and smaller profits for independent physicians. Since education isn’t getting any less expensive, would it not stand to reason that even fewer otherwise qualified individuals would chose not to pursue a career in the medical field if the earning potential were lower but the cost of education and licensing continued to rise, or even remained steady? That would have been like asking Mike Vick to play second string to Donovan McNabb before he was caught being the slimeball that he is. To further that analogy a bit more, the resulting class of med students would consist of less qualified (or less decent) candidates, and a lower quality of healthcare. That's just like Jeffrey Laurie signing Mike Vick because no one else would, and Vick now playing second string to Donovan McNabb. Lower pay equals lower quality players (either in skills or scruples). Sounds great, right?

Do I even need to address the disparity between the number of doctors we currently have practicing (who are already stretched thin) and how many more would be required to effectively cover an additional 20-45 million patients? How many more doctors do you think we'll get with a higher cost/lower reward system for doctors, as President Obama is proposing (he would never use those terms, of course)?

Still want Obama’s health care/insurance reform?

So, figuring in the vast cultural differences between ours and other cultures around the world, the innovation that only America’s system has allowed, the economic cataclysm that would undoubtedly result, and all of the other issues that are either ignored or unaddressed by Obama’s (and the Democrats’) proposals, does it still sound like a good idea?

Never mind the “you can keep your healthcare if you like your healthcare” argument (which, ironically, is also unlikely to be true: http://factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/). I mean, everyone LOVES paying for private services despite the fact that they’re paying for similar (though not the same) services from the government, except that the government compels you to pay, while you have an option to pay your private premiums. At least that’s what I thought (sarcasm should be noted). Never mind the fact that the government has an ability to fit the law to its program while forcing private firms into the ever shrinking box of regulations (I should note that it isn’t the regulation that’s shrinking; instead, it’s the breathing room inside of that box). Your private insurance won’t be affected! The fact that your employer will pay more in taxes to pay for Obama/KennedyCare, plus a penalty if the coverage they continue to provide doesn’t meet government standards is no matter. Surely they won’t simply opt to push you out into the “market”, which will amazingly compel you into Obama/KennedyCare. Surely private insurance will still be available and affordable (not to mention reasonable). But, hey, if you’ll buy that argument, I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona……

I’m not one who is ready to say that President Obama has some evil scheme to eradicate the free market and turn us into Cuba. I’m not prepared to say that his policies are reminiscent of the beginnings of the Nazi/Stalinist/Fascist regimes of the earlier parts of 20th century Europe. But, I do believe that President Obama is smart enough to know that these plans are not as innocent and well-intentioned as he’d like to make them seem (or at least that his intentions aren’t the same as he’s presented them recently… I think you can learn a bunch from the statements he’s made previously, as well as those of his closest advisers). The worst thing that we could do for our economy and our populace would be to create more bureaucracy (more complication and higher costs). It is important to realize that everything costs money (even in France). While the government can print an endless amount of our own currency, its value diminishes with each drop of ink from the Fed’s printing presses. I don’t know for absolute certain what Obama’s goals are, but I do know what his plans will do to us, and it’s not good.

Edward Kennedy - A Portrait with American Crayons

While my initial instinct was to leave this topic alone, I've had a request for a publishing of my thoughts (for business purposes, of course). And as a footnote, the title of my post has little to do with his life... just the aftermath.

I'm going to say what a lot of conservative pundits are scared to say. America is much better place with Senator Edward Kennedy dead.

Conservative writers, talk show hosts and amateur thinkers (such as myself) have been shouting for years that this man should have at least been in prison, at worst been on death row for the events at Chappaquiddick.

Conservatives finally have what they want. The man that got away with murder is dead. What puzzles me are the talking points I've been hearing on the radio from my fellow conservatives. The common theme is the outrage over the democrat's use of Senator Kennedy's name to push the healthcare bill through. Honestly, I don't understand the outrage. It's a perfectly acceptable strategy considering the man himself would have had no problem what-so-ever with that, and easily would have done it himself. He was a liberal politician and huge proponent of the healthcare bill until the day he died. It's only fitting that it wouldn't stop just because he's dead.

What doesn't make sense from a strategic standpoint is using the dead man who used expensive private insurance to extend his life to push through a limited public option that would have killed John-Q-Public much more quickly. I'm not sure if it's oversight or spin, but the fact is that it's a terrible strategy. A much better strategy would be to lie. Use Ted's death as an example of the kind of care the public option would allow for under the healthcare bill.

I don't have much more to say on this topic, besides my personal opinion. I'm fairly certain that it's not the first time it's been said, but I think the cause of his death was actually very appropriate. We've been saying he's nuts for years and now we find out he really did have brain problems. Go figure, in an Alanis Morissette kind of way. On another positive note, young blonde women will no longer shiver in fear near bridges.

For more reading on famous victims and survivors of brain tumors, please click here. And on a final, silly note, the author of John Kerry, the Other Massachusetts Senator Frankenstein, died of a brain tumor as well. They have something in common beyond ailments.

---

On a serious note, a good friend of mine (who disagrees politically with me frequently) recently lost her mother to cancer. They participated in the Livestrong Challenge and my hopes and prayers are with her and her family. While the event in Philadelphia is over, it appears they are still accepting donations. In respect for her privacy, just type in "A" for the first and last name and find someone to donate to. It's for a good cause, people.

This is probably the dumbest blog you'll ever read.

Yesterday, an idea was born. It happened along the Pennsylvania Turnpike on a glorious Tuesday afternoon. Little did anyone know it was going to result in this, a blog that no one will read and everyone will hate.

Paul and I were heading out to Pittsburgh to watch the Phillies almost win again (I say almost because Brad Lidge is still our closer) when it became clear that the world needed to hear the nonsense spewing from our faces. And so, here we are. The Crash and Burn blog.

In the coming days, you will see some of the dumbest things you'll ever see posted here. I swear, you'll probably add this to your blocked websites list because of just how stupid this will be. But, for those of you with thick skin and nothing else to do, there will be more senseless banter on here than you can find on MSNBC. The only real difference is going to be that we'll have more readers than they have viewers just from our Facebook profiles. And, we'll actually make sense occasionally. And Chris Matthews is an idiot.

Paul and I will write about whatever comes to our minds, and you will read it. Sometimes, it might be serious, but most often it'll just be pointing out how dumb someone else is or berating whatever stupid idea comes out of wherever stupid things come from. Think of this as the DailyKos for people with pants. And brains.