How Stupid Do You Get?

Some jackass just tried to kill Obama by sending him HIV-positive blood. Really?

I hope I don't need to say this, but: I don't think Obama should be killed.

That said, I've got to wonder: Is this the lamest assassination attempt ever? With HIV infected blood, you have to 1) open the envelope (which the president, of course, will not do himself anyway), 2) handle the blood, 3) have an open cut or orifice near the blood. And even then, HIV exposure does not equal AIDS. And AIDS does not equal death--certainly not immediately, possibly not for decades. Come on. I don't want to diminish the seriousness of this, but this is just about the stupidest assassin ever.

Eeew

So bloodsucking parasite Nadya Suleyman (aka Octomom) has been offered a deal: a million-dollar contract, plus medical and dental insurance, from Vivid Entertainment for starring in porn.

Now, I'm not going to touch the obvious aspect of this beyond saying: You sick SOBs who are gonna pay for this.

I'm really all for this. Personally, I think porn is degrading and repulsive. But if this tick can get a million-dollar deal, thanks to some deeply disturbed individuals willing to pay huge amounts of money, then she can get off welfare and stop asking me to raise her kids. And that's a good thing.

That's capitalism, not necessarily at it's best but working as it should: You have a skill that people are willng to pay for, and you can use it to pull yourself out of poverty. Take the deal, Nadya. It's not like you're going to lose a whole lot of dignity when you're universally known as "the freaking psychopath who wants 14 kids while living in her mom's basement with no job."

MORE?!?!?

So while you weren't looking, Congress looted another $400 billion dollars. This is money to be spent on government projects--apparently the fact that about 80% of the "stimulus package" went to government renovations and updates isn't enough. And it would have been completely ridiculous to let the American people know that, less than a week after stealing $800 billion from them, they steal another $400 billion. That's why we didn't hear about it until after it passed.

The bill contains over 9,000 earmarks. Nine. Thousand. Earmarks. You bastards.

How long is it going to be before we're marching in the streets? They aren't listenining to our calls and letters, they aren't paying attention to our votes. The people are mad. And they have every right to be.

Math? We Don't Need No Steenking Math!

So the projected deficit this year is $1.3 trillion. Actually, since we just spent another $800 billion we don't have, it'll end up closer to $2 trillion. And President Obama promised yesterday that he would cut that to $500 billion by the end of his term.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to spend less money if you stopped spending so much money? I mean, it's a little ridiculous for you to pass the most expensive bill EVER and then promise to reduce debt.

You know what economists have figured? Just to pay for the spending of the last 18 months--ignoring the $10 trillion of debt we already had and the $100 trillion plus owed in Social Security, and those are big things to ignore--the top tax bracket would have to pay, not 40%, not 50%, but 95%. So how, exactly, is the president planning on increasing spending even more, while reducing debt? Confiscating all wealth in the country wouldn't be enough to eliminate our debt.

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged for a while, and it's scary how close we're getting. If you start talking 90% tax rates for the rich--even over 50%--the people who are getting paid from your looting will love you. But the people who make the entire system possible--who provide jobs and most of the government's funds--will not stand for it. What do you think would happen if the rich decided that they aren't going to pay 90% taxes, that they aren't going to pay 55% taxes, and simply stopped--shut their companies down, moved somewhere else, and lived off what they've already accumulated? What if the productive people, who bear an enormous burden that will shortly get much heavier, simply refuse to play anymore? What happens when a system exists by bleeding dry the very people who make it possible, and those people get fed up with it? The evil rich are the ones who create jobs, doing more for the poor than government ever will. What happens when they go on strike?

Good God

Remember AIG? And how they've already looted $150 BILLION from you and me? And how they spent that money on expensive spa retreats and hunting trips? Then lost another $25 billion and got it back...from the taxpayers?

Now they've lost another $60 billion. Pull the plug on this horribly mismanaged, dying company? Nonsense! The looters are going to confiscate another $60 billion from us.

The First Amendment Will Die

Leading Democrats have called for the Fairness Doctrine to be resurrected. Remember: the political concept of "fairness" bears no resemblance to the dictionary definiton.

The Fairness Doctrine was born in the 30s as an attempt to control radio. Democrats then had a convoluted, ludicrous thought process that ran something like this: radio travels through the air. Everybody's entitled to an equal share of the air, so they should have a say in what gets sent through it (never mind that radio waves don't actually consume air and there's a pretty much infinite availability of radio programming). Well, how would the people have a say? Let them listen to what they want, and stations without listeners change or go under? Nonsense! They have their say through their elected officials. So the government has to license radio stations (and later television stations), and could monitor their content to determine if the station were being "fair" or not. And if the station were not "fair"--supposedly meaning that it failed to give equal time to all sides--the government could shut it down.

Can you imagine the outrage if that were applied to newspapers?

Ronald Reagan, thankfully, had the sense to strike this appalling doctrine down. The First Amendment, he decided, should apply to radio and TV too. This is fairly obvious; though the First Amendment doesn't specifically protect broadcasts, it's obvious that the spirit of it does. TV wasn't protected by the First Amendment because TV was unthinkable in 1787. Generally I don't like interpreting the Constitution based on the "obvious" spirit of it, but no rational person would say that "free press" would not have included electronic, broadcast press if such a thing had even been in the realm of possibility.

But now the Dems want it back. And here's the problem: it will kill talk radio. All of the successful talk radio hosts are conservative or libertarian. Whenever liberals have tried talk radio, it has ended (witness Air America) with them having to pay the radio station for time, which leads to problems like bankruptcy. But if the government mandates fairness, here's what happens: Rush Limbaugh is on for three hours. Al Franken has to get three hours. Since Al Franken isn't popular with listeners, advertisers don't pay. In the free market, that means the radio station doesn't run his show; no one is going to pay for it, so tough crap, Al. But with Fairness, the radio station has no choice, and they have to lose money for the three hours of the Al Franken Show. Then, suppose an offended Muslim or illegal immigrant calls to complain about Rush's show. Rush had about an hour where he offended Muslims, so Muslims have to get an hour the next day, and the radio has to rearrange their programming schedule and probably lose money again. How long do you suppose it will take for radio hosts just to say, "Screw it, talk radio isn't worth the hassle" and put on lite dinosaur rock (from Olivia Newton-John and Phil Collins) for the three hours that Rush Limbaugh used to fill? And bam, the government's just forced someone who millions want to listen to to shut up.

But that's not the truly frightening part. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell says that if the Fairness Doctrine is instituted, it will apply to the Internet as well. You would have to be licensed to operate a website or blog, and if you don't fill it with the government's idea of what's "fair" then you lose your Internet license. Does anyone really think this is a good idea? Why the hell should the government be able to determine who can and can't express their ideas? I'm running my blog as a one-man operation. If I want to keep it, am I supposed to find someone with every possible viewpoint? I've talked about the threat of radical Islam, and I'm definitely not going to find an al Qaeda member to write here to rebut my arguments. I've lambasted both liberals and conservatives, so should I get a left-winger and hard-righter to write a counter to everything I say? And how exactly would I induce them to write for me? I can't pay them. I've mocked Nazis, PETA loonies, welfare parasites, welfare parasites who live in their mother's house and have 14 children. Should I find one of all those people to write for me? I suppose I'd have to. Or I could just shut down. Those are my only options once Fairness is revived.

I don't care if you're liberal or conservative, or anything in the middle, you cannot honestly support the idea that the government should determine what ideas can be expressed on TV, radio, or the Internet. If they were talking about licensing newspapers and regulating what content would be considered "fair," liberals and conservatives both would be screaming for heads on platters. So why on earth should this ever be okay? More people get their news from, and express their opinions through, TV, radio, and the Internet than from any newspaper--or probably from all newspapers combined. So why should the government be able to control content?

I don't beg often. But I will now. Whatever your political views, you can't want the government to license someone to communicate their ideas. Please, everyone, sign the petition here http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=18645182 and tell everyone you know to do the same.

Congratulations on Setting a New Record

Yes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has finally topped Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in the category of Most Brazen Lie by a Washington Politician.

You see, she said that the $800 billion Generational Theft Bill contains not a single earmark or pet project.

Not a single pork project, like:

$3 million to build a clubhouse on a golf course in Alabama

$4.6 billion for clean coal in King of Pork Robert Byrd's district (undoubtedly to be called the Robert C. Byrd Clean-Coal Power Plant)

$448 million to build a DHS headquarters

$248 million more for furniture in DHS headquarters

$400 million for STD screenings

$150 million for the Smithsonian

$1 billion for the 2010 census

$75 million for stop-smoking programs

$25 million for substance abuse programs on tribal reservations

$6 billion to "green" government buildings

$412 million to update CDC facilities

$850 million to Amtrak, which has failed to turn a single dollar of profit in over forty years

$110 million to upgrade computers at the Farm Service Agency

$88 billion to state Medicaid programs

$80 million to buy an ice-breaking ship

$890 million to Social Security, with no provisions for actual reform (and $890 million to an agency over $100 trillion in the hole is essentially irrelevant)

No, no pork there. All of that will immediately create huge amounts of jobs. Why, four or five people can work on that icebreaker. And some of those government renovation projects can put forty or fifty people to work for a year or so. And when that year is over, the economy's still bad, and the government jobs are gone...well, I guess we can come up with another trillion dollars.

If the next four generations are going to be paying for this, shouldn't we want more jobs then temporary government work?

The Myth of Lincoln

Today is the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. We're taught that Lincoln was a messianic figure who saved the country from civil war and ended the blight of slavery. But is it true?

Let me make it very clear: slavery was evil. It should have died (and, left alone, would have, as it grew too expensive).

But Lincoln was neither saint nor hero. He abused his power, trashed the Constitution, was probably the first mascot of the Imperial Federal Government, and even his greatest good--ending slavery--was motivated not by a love of justice but as a political jab.

Lincoln often said that he would, above all, preserve the Union--even if it meant freeing no slaves. He was concerned not with slavery but with a challenge to the power of the Omnipotent Government.

Let's drop the misnomer. There was no "American Civil War." America was set up as a partnership between states, with a central government not to overrule the states but to facilitate international relations by maintaining a military and negotiating trade agreements. Several states chose to withdraw from the partnership and form a separate country. It would have been entirely possible for the USA and CSA to exist, side-by-side, peaceably. Even mortal enemies like North and South Korea have this arrangement, and there was no mortal disagreement between the US and CS systems of government. But the US, led by Emperor Lincoln, decided that that wasn't good enough. So they waged, not a civil war, but a war of conquest against an independent nation. The reason, as evidenced by Lincoln's expressed reluctance to free the slaves, was not to end the evil of slavery but to punish the southern states for daring to think that the federal government was not lord over them.

Liberals have said for years the George Bush is just like Hitler (calling him Bushitler to save words), and that he's done more to destroy freedom than any president before. Really? Lincoln actively suppressed newspapers, shutting down papers that refused to print the government version of events. He also suspended habeas corpus. The outrage over Bush holding enemy combatants in Guantanamo without charges (aside from being enemy combatants, which is its own charge)? Lincoln not only imprisoned enemy soldiers without charging them, he imprisoned without charge any US citizen who dared express disagreement. Is that the champion of freedom we've been taught to believe in?

And the Emancipation Proclamation? Sure, it's got a nice catchy title, and when your knowledge of it is limited by government schools to one line ("It freed the slaves") you think it's a good thing. Ready for the shocker? It freed no slaves. Not one.

See, it's worded to apply only to the "states currently in rebellion" (which shows you what Lincoln thought of the power of the Mighty Fed). Well, those states had become a separate country. The executive orders of the US president have no legal effect whatsoever on the independent nation of the CSA.

The "Emancipation Proclamation" was a cold, calculated political move. It applies only to the CSA, so slave states in the US like Maryland weren't hurt. When word spread to the CSA, it was intended to motivate the slaves to take their freedom and leave that nation. That was motivated not by Lincoln's altruism but by his desire to utterly destroy the CSA's labor force, thus forcing more able-bodied men to work in production and not fight on the front lines.

Lincoln was not a savior of this nation. He marked the beginning of the end of limited government and personal freedom. While undoubtedly slavery was a great evil, ending it was incidental to Lincoln's goal of utterly crushing anyone who dared say "no" to the Omnipotent Imperial Federal Government. The war of aggression against the CSA was unjustifiable, and Lincoln should be remembered not as the martyr who granted freedom to the slaves but as the first, and most influential, destroyer of liberty in America.

Moral Equivalency: Why It's Not a Good Thing

So PETA members decided to protest the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show by dressing up in Klan outfits and handing out fliers with their message on them. That message? They say that the idea of "purebred" dogs is akin to the idea of a Master Race.

Okay, first of all: purebreeding in dogs is not a bad thing. You look at a breed like golden retrievers, who are typically bred very pure, and they are as close as possible to free of any hereditary illnesses, with few genetic disorders and even a significantly lower risk of cancer than other dogs.

Also, the Kennel Club isn't trying to establish one breed of dog as superior. They just want variety. And for people who still use dogs for work (which I'm sure PETA doesn't take into account), purebreeding means that certain inherited traits--the herding instincts of sheepdogs, digging and tracking instincts of beagles or bloodhounds, etc--are not diluted by mixed heritage. Which matters, PETA loonies--and if you're ever kidnapped, I hope you won't complain when police use purebred bloodhounds to find you.

The really shocking thing about this is, of course, that PETA sees it as perfectly logical to compare purebreeding dogs to murdering Jews and blacks. Never mind that these dogs are not killed, are not even mistreated. The only thing purebreeding means is that they are kept away from dogs of different breeds while in heat. Oh, the horror! It's practically the same as slavery!

Well, no. Dogs are not people. And while it may be abominable to mistreat them, purebreeding is not really mistreatment. And even if it were, it's not equivalent to the Holocaust. Every decent human being should be mortally offended by this.

A Parasite

So you've probably heard of Nadya Suleman, aka the Salad Shooter. This is the unemployed single mother who lives in her mom's house and collects welfare checks. She now, thanks to her recent octuplet birth, has fourteen children, all of whom will be supported by money confiscated from people responsible enough not to have children they can't afford to raise.

Look, she's said she was a lonely child and wanted a big family. Good for you. Now make sure you can support that family and you're free to do so. But why in God's name should my tax dollars subsidize your huge-family fantasy?

Not content with drinking the sweat of people who think that you should have a job and live someplace other than your mother's basement before having fourteen children, this bloodsucker has demanded a $2 million deal from Oprah, hired a publicist, and set up a website asking for donations (which you can see here: http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/). All while continuing to collect welfare.

What on earth is wrong with you? If you can afford a publicist to handle your media exposure, you don't need my tax dollars to support yourself.

You know the real tragedy of this situation? There's one unemployed mother of fourteen entirely dependent on handouts. But there are millions of unemployed mothers of three or four that are equally dependent on the nanny state. It's not right. Exercise some responsibility. Make sure you can support a child before you make the decision to have one. And if you can't, don't expect the rest of us to clean up your mistakes.

This One's Really Scary

One of the provisions buried in the "stimulus" package (or the Generational Theft Act) is for a new government position called the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. And it's the most terrifying thing the government could possibly do.  

See, the NCHIT and his office will be allowed to review all medical records in the United States and evaluate your doctor's actions--to determine if treatment is "appropriate and cost-effective."  

Remember the good old days when your medical treatment was between you and your doctor? When the government had to get a court order to find out about your medical treatment? Those are now gone.

That should scare the crap out of you.

First of all, for a government that's over $10 trillion in debt and runs a company (Amtrak) that has failed to show a single dollar of profit in over forty years to determine what's "cost-effective" would be laughable if the situation weren't so serious.  

Is there anyone else who's really, really uncomfortable with the government finding every medical treatment you've ever had, with neither your permission nor probable cause for a subpoena? It's my body, not the government's. What right do they have to decide if I'm getting "appropriate" treatment? Shouldn't I be able to determine that? By my standards, if I start out sick, receive treatment, and get not-sick-anymore, that's appropriate treatment. That's all that matters. I don't think that treatment should then be subject to government review.

And if the government review finds that the treatment wasn't appropriate or cost-effective, what are they supposed to do about it? The treatment can't be undone. It's not like I can get sick again and give the doctor a do-ever, but this time make sure to use government-mandated treatment. I guess they'll slap the doctor with punitive fines. What's that going to do to health care? You already have doctors closing up shop for fear of malpractice suits. If you add government review and potentially ruinous fines to the mix, how many more doctors do you suppose will decide to close their doors and go back to teaching, or something?  

This NCHIT is another argument against universal health care--because, of course, when the government pays for your treatment, the government has a right to know what it's paying for. Which means your right to any sort of privacy is gone. Call me crazy, but I'd rather pay the insurance premiums than give the government access to every detail of my medical history.

Black History Month

I really hate black history month.

It's not because I'm racist. It's because I'm not. When you celebrate the achievements of people like George Washington Carver, Thurgood Marshall, or Martin Luther King, because it's Black History Month, you're actually degrading their achievements in favor of their race. Celebrating Carver because it's black history month is getting the priorities backwards: you're saying "This is a black man who was a genius." You should be saying "This is a genius who revolutionized the food industry." That he is black, if mentioned at all, should be a passing afterthought.

If someone's achievements are worth noting, their skin tone--and a month to honor that skin tone--should be irrelevant. To suggest otherwise strikes me as bigotry.

Good God, What Is Wrong With You People?

An Arizona rancher named Roger Barnett owns 22,000 acres, some of which borders Mexico. Because his ranch is private property and not patrolled by the government, illegal immigrants use it as a border crossing. He doesn't like this. Surprise! Somebody doesn't like it when foreign citizens illegally enter this country by trespassing through his property!

In fact, Mr. Barnett dislikes it so much that, when he comes across people illegally crossing his land, he'll hold them at gunpoint while calling the police. This is what, in a saner time, was known as reasonably defending your property. Now, it's called a violation of civil rights.

Seriously. 16 of these criminals are now suing Mr. Barnett for "civil rights violations," with damages to the tune of $32 million.

What a load of crap. You're committing multiple felonies, including illegal border crossing and trespassing (and technically burgalry, since that is defined as illegally entering a property for the purposes of committing a felony). The guy you're committing these felonies against detains you--exercising his right to make a citizen's arrest--until the police arrive. You're entitled to nothing. It's like those jackass burglars who trip over a rug or a power cord then sue the homeowner for the cost of their medical bills.

No. You either get to burglarize/trespass/whatever other crime on someone's property, or ask them to treat you with respect. Not both. When you illegally entered Mr. Barnett's property, you forfeited your right not to be held at gunpoint by Mr. Barnett. He's defending his freaking home against your illegal invasion of his property. You don't get to sue him for that.

And if the judge doesn't throw this case out, I will have lost all respect for this nation's justice system.

The Death of America

So a couple of days ago I was watching the ludicrous orgy of douchebaggery known as Vh1's Tool Academy. For those who don't know, the premise of the show is this: nine women, fed up with their douchebag boyfriends, decided, instead of ditching them, to go on a reality show and teach them to change. In the process, they attend couples' counseling (conducted by a therapist whose degree probably has two "N"s in "University", because she has no freaking clue what she's doing) and compete to win dates in challenges.

In five weeks, Jenna and her tool Matsuflex (aka Ryan, but he insists on being called Matsuflex and refers to himself as "the Matsu") have won three challenges. Second-place finisher Aida this week told Jenna, "I was just hoping Shawn and I could win so we could give the date to somebody who hasn't won yet. I'm not saying you should do that, that's just what I wanted to do."

And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with this country. Though it's its own problem, leave aside the passive-aggressive BS in that statement ("I don't want to tell you that's what you should do, but I thought it would be a nice thing to do if I won"). Why should Jenna feel bad about winning? (She should feel bad for being in a long-term relationship with a guy named Matsuflex, but that's a different story.) We've been conditioned in our culture to see it as a bad thing when we acheive more than others. Why should the people who have failed to win a single competition be given the rewards? If you want to reap the benefits of winning, then bust your rear and win. And if someone's more skillful and wins more, why should they feel guilty? Why should they feel that they have to give their rewards away? Thankfully, Jenna resisted the pressure and enjoyed the rewards of her own work.

Does this seem frivolous? It's not. While reality TV tends to have little resemblance to actual reality, in this case it's a microcosm of our entire culture. Selfishness is an obscenity, and achievement is shameful. If you succeed, you have to "give your fair share" to make sure that people who haven't worked as hard or acheived as much can still have access to the rewards of your labor.

Selfishness is not inherently bad. Narcissism is, but there's a difference. One of my biggest philosophical influences, Ayn Rand, contended that selfishness--which she defined as "the rational pursuit of one's self-interest"--was not only not a bad thing, but everyone's highest moral obligation. By rational pursuit of one's self-interest, she explained, she meant not self-indulgence but the pursuit of true fulfillment. Using other people up or destroying yourself with drugs and alcohol may provide a temporary rush, but that lifestyle is not rational or in your self-interest. While I may not go so far as to say that this is humanity's highest moral obligation, it is certainly not a bad thing either. If you want something, and work towards it, not for the betterment of everyone else but for your personal fulfillment, you should not be made to feel guilty about it. It doesn't make you an awful person to acheive for yourself. If you gain something, through your work, and decide to share it, that's your personal choice. If you gain something, through your work, and decide to keep it, that's your personal choice too--and not a bad one. You've recognized that your life is not a tool for others to use to gain things they otherwise couldn't--good for you.

Success is nothing to be embarassed about. Neither is wanting to keep the fruits of your success. There was a time when our country recognized that. And until we remember it again, this culture is going to get worse and worse.

A Freaking Joke

So I watched part of the Grammys last night. Award shows tend to be vapid, annoying orgies of self-congratulating nonsense. Last night's were no exception.

First of all: MIA doing pelvic thrusts while 8 months pregnant and wearing a body-stocking? Am I the only one who vomited at that one? It was so repulsive that I barely noticed Katy Perry's fruit dress (which after her merry-go-round garb looked fairly normal) or Kanye's ridiculous pompadour.

Two very deserving artists got ripped off: David Gilmour for Best Rock Instrumental and Metallica for Best Rock Album. 

Remember the days when rock was supposed to grab you by the throat and bash your teeth in? That's pretty much the exact opposite of Coldplay. Don't get me wrong, I like Coldplay and I respect their art--but I don't think for a second that going toe-to-toe with Metallica they are better rock. Even putting them in the same category is insulting to both bands--you have mellow coffeeshop music on one hand and pure go-for-the-jugular metal on the other. I was quite pleased that Metallica won Best Metal Performance and Rick Rubin picked up Best Producer, but they deserved Rock Album.

And all respect to Steve Vai, but David Gilmour is better. Period.

I was very happy to see Robert Plant and Allison Krauss win Album of the Year over Lil' Wayne. Turns out that having comprehensible vocals and playing real instruments still matters.

I'm sorry, but I don't see Lil' Wayne's talent. From the bizarre noises he makes in his choruses (weird giggles mixed with random shouts of "Young Money" and "Carter") to the fact that he's apparently incapable of making a song not about money and hos, everything about him annoys me. And "A Milli" as Best Rap Song? It's a repetitive irritating beat with a constant distorted repetition of the title and syllables slurred and compressed to force rhymes that really shouldn't be there. Granted, the standards for rap artistry seem to be fairly low (see Exhibit A, the career of Soulja Boy Tell'em), but I don't see the lyrical genius in "I make it snow/I make it flurry/I make it all back tomorrow don't worry." Just once, please, write about something other than how much money you've made and how many women you've had sex with. Then I can take you seriously (well, pulling your pants up would be a step in the right direction there too).

When the most popular artist of the moment makes Slipknot seem cultured, there's a serious problem.