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.