Tuesday, December 22, 2009


What a fantastic victory for the American people. We can now all sleep easier, knowing that Obama and his bought-and-paid-for Democratic congress has our best interests in mind.

Our current system is broken, and Medicare is facing impending insolvency. So our greatest minds came up with an idea to expand Medicare coverage to those 55 years old. I'm rather sorry they abandoned this idea, for if eliminating waste and fraud from the current system comes $60B a year, imagine the imaginary savings imagined by incurring expenses for covering those as young as 55! I have no dollar amount, but it is probably a lot.

No public option? The importance of "keeping the insurance companies honest" was apparently not as important as buying the votes of the morally corrupt.

The hypocrisy of championing fiscal responsibility while adding record amounts to our debt has become almost comical. Not add one dime to the deficit? The misdirection of the 10-year window to claim savings seems to have worked quite well. Ten years of revenue against 6 years of expense should be enough to bend any cost curve - temporarily.

Obviously, a government-run health insurance system is what we really need. If we can only get hundreds of bureaucrats to get involved in every aspect of health care finances, we can no doubt save billions. No, it's true! Honest!

Obama claimed a victory over the "special interests" which have fought health reform for decades. Yet wasn't it Obama himself that made deals with the "big three" (hospitals and doctors, insurance companies, drug companies) of the health care industry? Can anyone deny the fact that met with all of them behind closed doors in the true spirit of "transparency"?

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect is the mandate to all Americans to either purchase a "qualifying" plan (roughly $12000/year for family coverage) or pay a paltry $750 annual tax (yes, a tax, because the IRS is responsible for its assessment).

Our elected representatives actually believe that a healthy family will elect to spend $1000/month, when all they need is $60/month to pay the "fine". I don't know, but they want you to believe it, as well as trust this revenue stream to remain 'deficit neutral'.

With this new mandate, and the pre-existing inclusion, the only time anyone will purchase "insurance" will be when they need hospitalization.

This is not "insurance", as it only ensures constant and massive expenses with huge reduction in revenue. Since insurance companies cannot charge more for the sick, everyone's cost will rise.

The end result will be the end of private insurance companies, and the birth of government insurance. The path is so clear, it is hard to deny that this was the goal all along.

Obama alluded to his goal of single payer, nationalized health care as far back as 2004, although "Mr. Transparency" denies he ever said this. Although thoroughly documented, he now claims that he didn't mean it or his remarks were taken out of context. As Robert Gibbs might put it, he wasn't lying, but merely bending the truth curve.

Thanks for the Christmas present, Washington! And we didn't get you anything.....unless you count another slice of our freedom.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Stimulus - Bigger is Better

Those doubting the brilliance of Obama's plan need only familiarize themselves with the basic principals of liberal economics: Money falls from heaven for everyone to use. But, the immoral and sneaky rich gather more than their share. The government's purpose is to redistribute the money the way God intended.

Taxes remove the excess income of the rich and give it to the voting poor, through a fair and organized bureaucracy. The rich oppose this action by selfishly and spitefully decreasing employment. Government responds by increasing spending, to boost employment by finding the jobs that the rich have been hiding.

Looking at the rousing success of the first Stimulus bill, I cannot understand the opposition to round two. Obama's work is not yet done, as there are still those who have yet to realize the New American dream of getting something for nothing.

For an idea of the massive number of jobs created by the Stimulus bill, simply look at the unemployment offices around the country. These establishments have been forced to double their staffs in order to process the millions of new claims filed over the last year.

To understand the need for a second (or third, or tenth) stimulus bill, we must keep in mind the economies of scale. If spending $787B accomplished so much, imagine the economic magic that a much larger amount could accomplish.

Borrowing an amount large enough could eliminate the national debt altogether. Theoretically we should be able to to borrow enough to show a profit, perhaps begin lending to other countries again. All we have to do is borrow enough each time to pay off each successive debtor, with interest, and we can keep the cycle going indefinitely.

Granted, job recovery may seem like its staring slowly. Some folks have been unemployed for 12 months, some longer. This is probably because we haven't spent enough to create the jobs. But once we really kick the spending into high gear, we will all need wheelbarrows to carry our money home in. And not just because it will be practically worthless, either.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

If it says "affordable", its got to be good!

Not having health insurance does NOT constitute a crisis. Any person in this country, for any reason, can receive health care regardless of ability to pay. And simply because this piece of legislative diarrhea contains the term "Affordable", what makes people believe that cost will ever go down?

Insurance is nothing but risk management. It works by having many healthy people pay into the system to cover the few sick people who take out of the system. Should this travesty be allowed to occur, you can be certain this will change. Since nobody can be turned down, a sick person can buy a policy at the same price as a healthy person.

Healthy people will decline coverage, and simply pay the penalty at tax time, a fraction of the cost of a decent policy. If they get sick, they will go buy a policy, then check into the hospital. Employers will drop their group plans, since "qualifying" plans cost much more than the penalty.

Insurance providers, who we all know are greedy trolls who are driven purely by the pursuit of profit, will no longer sell policies. They cannot possibly maintain a margin of profit that their shareholders will accept, and will simply follow some other path to satisfy their greed.

The end result is that only sick people will purchase "insurance", and it will be only sold by our government's "public option". Insurance will no longer be a risk management tool, but simply a revolving finance plan. Simple economic principals dictate that expenditures will rise, revenues will drop, and cost to manage this new entitlement will climb.

Early debates claimed there would be no government interference, there would be no rationing of health care. The rationing has already begun. Our Government recently suggested delaying mammograms until the age of 50. This is nothing but a cheap ploy to reduce costs for their new, whiz-bang health Ponzi insurance scheme. The idea is to get more money out of young people, then reduce benefits to old people, so that the entitlement train can keep chugging along for a few more decades.

Now, explain what it is that everyone thinks they're getting again? Oh, that's right - better coverage for more people for less money. Only an idiot could possibly believe that we can get something for nothing. And you actually believed it? P.T. Barnum would have been proud of you.

Friday, October 9, 2009

More Health Care Propaganda

CBO Estimate Gives Green Light

MSNBC Says 93% Coverage

I never cease to be amazed at the desperation of Team Obama and the Dems as they search for support on health care. As if the goofy pre-Halloween costume party in the rose garden wasn't desperate enough.

Number one: screw Bob Dole. If anyone actually gave a damn about what he thought, he might have been more than the miserable failure of a presidential candidate that he was. I will never understand why people who are only a few steps from senility cannot grasp the concept that people only pretend to listen out of courtesy and pity for an aging fool. While we respect the wisdom of elders, we should disregard the ravings of the demented.

Number two: the slight-of-hand committed by the Democrats over the CBO's estimate shows astounding hypocrisy. Knowing full well that a proper cost estimate cannot be conducted on "conceptual language", the Finance committee refuses to submit the actual bill to purposely hide its cost. And, magically, it just squeaks in under Obama's arbitrary $900 billion mark. Apparently they decided that $899.95 billion would look a bit too suspicious. And, to add insult to injury, they turn these phony numbers into a weapon to attack opposition.

Number three: Does anyone really care or believe poll numbers? Those who use other people's opinion to make their decisions are mindless idiots. Does the Quinnipiac survey bother to reveal exactly which "slice of America" they used to obtain their numbers? Of course not, but they will gladly reveal the results that those who provide their funding wish to hear. And, believe it or not, there are enough weak minded fools who can be swayed based on what other people think, which is why people pay so much to conduct "opinion" polls. The scariest part is that these same spineless imbeciles who follow polls are allowed to operate motor vehicles, reproduce, and even vote for candidates that promise things that "everybody else wants, so you need to want it also."

Number four: for all the hype about bipartisan cooperation, why are the bills always crafted in secret by only select members of the Democratic party? As harmful and ugly as their ideas are, Republicans who refuse to come to their side is blasted as being obstructionist and uncooperative. Certainly there is the open discussion over what to include in the bill, but the final closed door process of drafting the final bill is where things get added and removed is exclusively Democratic leaders. Not allowing Republican cooperation, but continually whining about getting none, is another example of the deceitful process by which the far left Democratic majority tightens its stranglehold.

We shouldn't worry about this particular piece of the puzzle. The eventual outcome will be a merging of the various Senate bills, which will be merged with the five House bills. Once a final "health care 'reform" bill is presented to Obama, we all know what will follow. We will be told that a majority of Americans really, really want a public option and mandated coverage. And - voila! Pelosi and Reid will plunk down a massive bill including every entitlement expansion Obama wanted in the first place, and what Obama wants, Obama gets.

Thanks again, 52% of America, for putting this man in office. Please enjoy your new health insurance, bought and paid for by the working people of this country. Regardless of the political promise (aka blatant lie) of more people covered with better results for less money, what we will actually see is a rise in insurance premiums, a rise in health care costs, a rationing of health services, and rising government costs leading to higher taxes. Bend over, America, 'cause here comes your Hope and Change!

Friday, September 11, 2009

Obama's Affair with Miss Information

Our beloved president tells us again and again that we are all being lied to about health (insurance) reform. Obama assures us that those who are spreading this misinformation are simply lying. He preaches to us that there are certain people who are spreading vicious lies, spreading fictitious claims that Washington wishes to take control of the health care industry.

A fictitious takeover? Hmmm...the federal government wants to sell health insurance, set the price for insurance, force insurance companies to offer the same coverage but without subsidy, determine what care will be allowed, dictate compensation for allowable care, set penalties for non-compliance...that sounds pretty much like a government takeover to me. I cannot see how any reasonable person could arrive at any other conclusion.

Obviously, anyone who doesn't agree that government health care is the only way to restore America to prosperity simply doesn't understand how Obama's vision of a new world order works. And don't forget that anyone who fails to march lock-step with this man's ideology only reveals my obvious hatred and racism, as well as the desire to see America fail.

When did not blindly following the government become such a heinous crime? Last time I checked, this sort of thing did not apply to free countries. How many can say they worshiped Bush in the same way, regardless of his idiotic policies? I can't imagine many willing to make that claim, yet I also find it hard believing so many can remain starry-eyed over this inexperienced junior senator from Illinois with his unrealistic fiscal ideology.

As far as health care reform, I can only believe what I can read in the proposed legislation, as well as Obama's recent address to congress, which echoed the government's hidden deceit almost to a tee. It's all there, for anyone who wants to put down their glass of kool-aid and read it.

Everyone should read it, but more importantly understand it, before they stand up and give one more \"Yes, We Can\" or \"No, We Won't\". Learn for yourselves how Team Obama has been \"less than honest\" as he speaks about relieving the poor, ignorant people of this country of the impossible burden of intelligent choice in the world of insurance, doctors, and government.

There is no denying we need reform. There must be a way to fix what is broken with our system. To be fair, sometimes things just wear out and need to be replaced. Like the way Washington works, with bribes from special interest groups and corruption rampant throughout. But it never hurts to try first.

If Obama believes he can wring $600 billion from Medicare without slashing benefits, then by all means go right ahead. Use this money to provide for people who cannot provide for themselves. That, after all, is the ultimate role of our government, is it not?

From the legislative drafts out of Congress one can easily discern the true intent of health care reform, which is to swing entire system to a government-controlled, Euro-socialist, single payer system. Those who moronically believe the government will provide better health care to more people and for less money will no doubt deny the ridiculously impossible nature of this claim.

In order to garner support, the Democrats have tried to demonize the private insurance industry as the root of soaring costs. So why do the Democrat plans require everyone to purchase insurance from these ne'er-do-wells? If profit-driven insurance companies are the root of our problem, why the mandate to purchase their products at all?

The government plan will regulate what is covered by new health insurance policies. Ask yourself how long a private insurance company can stay in business, without being able to raise premiums, when the government forces them to provide full coverage to all people regardless of risk? More people will

Private insurance companies will find other ways to seek profits required by their shareholders, and stop selling insurance, then what we have left is a government monopoly. Obama's lie about the government providing insurance "just to keep insurance companies honest" will eventually drive

The normal method of government expansion is incremental; a small piece here, a little piece there, the end game being to take it all. But this massive undertaking is a bit frightening, especially considering the radical changes and massive spending over recent months, and I cannot see why people are surprised by this apprehension.

Remember that, once we hand over the reins, there is little chance of going back. Perhaps a bit less emotion, and a bit more intellect, would be helpful in deciding the outcome of this massive reform proposal.

Also remember that, no matter who is holding the reins, it is the Congress that yields the power. And most of them have been seated for decades. How many of them are offering to accept the same health plan that they wish to force upon us? At last count, it was zero. What should that tell you?

Liberals, driven purely by emotion and the desire to interfere in all things, need to stop thinking that everything is fixed now that Bush is gone and Obama is in. This is exactly what they want you to think. I know it is hard to imagine, but liberals do not have a monopoly on the truth. There are lies and misinformation on both sides. Think for yourselves for a change, and quit listening to all the propaganda. It is every bit as poisonous coming from the left as it is from the right.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Private v. Public: WTF?

Don't cry for the 47 million in America who are uninsured. They are not all lying on the ground, balled up and ready to die at any moment, although this is the picture the Democrats try to paint.

First eliminate the illegal immigrants, if you actually have a way to count them all. Now eliminate the young people, who are strong, healthy, and consider themselves bulletproof, and have no insurance by choice. Next, eliminate the chronically ill, who cannot obtain insurance of any type, without paying through the nose for high-risk policies. You are left with about 10 million people. For an estimated $2 trillion cost, we can add these to the ranks of the insured for a mere $200,000 each.

Private insurance is a business and, as all private business, has one purpose: to make a profit. As of 2007, some 2.5 million people are employed in the insurance industry. Most of the people who work for these companies demonstrate human compassion. They are not all the cold-hearted, miserly curmudgeons they are portrayed to be, but the bottom line here is still money. Last I checked, this is what makes the world go around, people. A company that loses money doesn't stay in business very long.

Seems to me there are zero competitors to private insurance, unless you count a secondary policy to Medicare. You either have insurance or you don't.
Private insurance companies compete with each other. The one's that can offer the best plans at the best prices are the one's which succeed. The rates you pay are calculated upon how many people pay into the pool versus how much money is spent for services rendered.

Let's assume for a moment that I run an insurance company. I charge one rate for healthy people, and another rate for sick people. This is a benefit to the healthy people, for the amount paid out in services will be much less, and their policies will be less expensive.

Now, since I know that the money I must pay for services to care for people who are sick will be much greater, I have two choices. I can charge them more for their policy, or I can charge both pools, healthy and sick, more. This is the way Obamacare will work. By forcing everyone to have coverage, and by ensuring that sick people can sign up, we will all have to pay more. Sorry you took good care of yourself, ate health foods, exercised regularly, because you still have to cover the cost of the fast-food, chain-smoking pool.

I certainly enjoy comments from people who believe the government wants to help you, that the government is going to provide your new kidney for free, or remove your gall bladder for nothing. These poor, ignorant fools believe that "rich people" should pay for your poor health. All they understand is that somebody else needs pay for their $500,000 procedure so they can buy insurance at $100 a month.

Candidate Obama was in favor of a single payer system. There is no doubt of this fact. Yet President Obama denies this, and only wishes to establish a "public option", just to keep the private insurance companies honest. Another term for "public option" could be "government subsidized". How on earth can any private company compete with this? The creation of a public option will mean the loss of private insurance as they go out of business one by one. Suddenly, the government option is the only option, which creates the single-payer system that Obama wanted all along.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

The Sotomayor Race Race

I would not be surprised to see Ms. Sotomayor confirmed as our next Supreme Court Justice. Even if she is not, it doesn't really matter. Obama will nominate another just like her. There is no shortage of far left liberals, who while not necessarily racist, tend to exploit race to their gain.

Matters of race are truly baffling. For once, I would like to hear people in this country simply call themselves Americans. Being proud of one's heritage is commendable, yet we have this bizarre need to categorize American into various ethnic subgroups.

Is a person claiming to be a special kind of American, superior in some way to "plain" Americans? Or is it their claim to be an inferior sub-class of "normal" Americans? I suppose it all depends on the context, but it seems to lend credibility to the idea that we are not equal in this country as some would think.

Some would agree that we are not. Thank goodness for people such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who were put on this earth to keep racism alive and flourishing by picking at the wound so it may never heal.

Speaking of which, I would define the term "African-American" as a person who possesses dual citizenship. This term should not be used to refer to a black person living in America. This would simply be an American who happens to be black. Unless this person was born in Africa, immigrated to America, then renounced his African citizenship. He could at this point be properly referred to as an American African, if he so desired.

Things become more complicated with the term Hispanic-American, as "Hispania" is not a country I know of. I suppose anyone of Latin American heritage can properly be called Latino or Latina, gender respective, of course.

I assume "Latino" is meant to describe someone from Latin America. This is a huge generalization, for "Latin America" describes the regions of the Americas where the Latin-derived romance languages are spoken.

No one seems to use the term "North American", which in America refers to the United States and Canada. To the rest of the world, North America is comprised of 23 countries and includes Mexico, Central America, Greenland, and the Caribbean countries.

I assume that "Mexican-American" has fallen out of popularity, or is considered demeaning to Central American-Americans (Guatemalan-Americans, Honduran-Americans, Costa Rican-Americans, Nicaraguan-Americans, Panamanian-Americans, El Salvadorian-Americans, and Belizean-Americans).

Remember, these categories only include people born in Central America and have migrated to North America, and are not to be confused with Meso-America, which is the region from central Mexico to Nicaragua and origin of pre-Colombian civilization. I am not aware of any sub-category with regards to legal immigration, but any legitimate use of the suffix "-American" would require citizenship.

Since we all are supposed to be equals, why is it necessary to quantify which type of American you are? As I am a person of "no color", I feel left out of the national categorization frenzy. "American-American" seems a bit redundant, so I am stuck with just being American.

I suppose that I could resort to European-American, which also sounds redundant. More accurate would be Eastern European-American, or Hungarian-American, which is precise and also rhymes a bit.

But this would be silly, since my family immigrated to this country in the late 1700's, and I was born in Houston ten generations later. Personally, I prefer the term "Texan", but "American" is also completely acceptable. And much less confusing than all that other crap.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Traitors to the Lone Star State

It is difficult to believe that anyone elected to represent the state of Texas could vote for this crippling piece of legislation. As the nation's leading producer of energy, Texas will be hardest hit. Besides energy, agricultural endeavors will also be hit by this tax.

Apparently there are some Obama/Pelosi suck-ups who would rather promote their own political careers than do what is right for the people of Texas. If these people bowed to Ms. Pelosi's strong-arm tactics, as Sen. Hutchinson suggested, and allowed this bill to pass the House, then they should be asked to resign from their duties that they have so flagrantly abandoned for personal gain.

The following 9 members of the House voted to pass HR 2454. Please feel free to write them and express your disgust, make disparaging remarks as to their heritage, or whatever you feel appropriate:

Cuellar, Henry, Texas, 28th
Reyes, Silvestre, Texas, 16th

Perhaps we can stop this bill from making it through the Senate and onto Obama's desk, but that will not erase the disservice these elected officials have done to their state. Perhaps after they are voted out of office, they could grab one of those highway road crew jobs that (are practically the only jobs so far which) Obama's stimulus bill has created, which would give them plenty of time to reflect on their mistake.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Say It Ain't So, Harry!

Mr Reid, your opponent’s “incomprehensible” reasons for expecting delays and denials are simply the facts as exemplified by the British and Canadian health care systems.

As far as Section 131 (No Change) goes, private insurance companies exist for one reason: to make a profit. Your Public Option is a poorly disguised government takeover of health care, plain and simple. You keep saying that “people can keep their existing coverage.” But you leave off the part about “as long as they can stay in business against the unfair competition.”

Replace the term “public option” with the phrase “subsidized with tax dollars” and even a brainless twit such as yourself should be able to see the unfair advantage which will drive people away from private companies and begin to force them out of business.

And why is it that the only numbers we hear from Democrats are about the poor 50 million people without insurance? Brings a tear to the eye, doesn’t it? Well, why doesn’t anyone mention the estimated 15-20 million illegal immigrants included in this figure? Or perhaps the roughly 10 million who have no insurance by choice? Why can’t we ever hear about the 200 million who actually have insurance?

Your sad plea for small businesses, who are forced to lay off people because of high insurance costs, falls on deaf ears. Because of that dismal failure known as the Stimulus Bill, nearly all businesses are laying off people. Except the government, of course. But this is due to lack of business, not from providing insurance to employees. We can forget the prohibitive tax structure placed upon small businesses, for that is another debate.

We do not need to go trillions of dollars further into debt to completely rebuild the current system. What is broken about our current system is all that needs to be fixed. And what is “broken” is the waste and greed woven into our insurance system. Fraudulent claims and frivilous lawsuits are the primary avenues of health care abuse. If this can be eliminated, you can save billions of dollars each year, and without spending trillions to do it.

If we blindly rush to pass another of Obama’s pet projects, and you force this new government-run health care program on America, will you personally use it? Will you and your fellow Capitol Hill spend-o-holics give up their free-for-life, finest-in-the-country, taxpayer-funded health care (FEHBP) benefits that they now enjoy?
No, I didn’t think so…

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Save or Create: Unemployment You Can Believe In!

Bad news: 1,600,000 jobs lost since the stimulus bill was signed into law. Good news: 150,000 jobs "saved or created" during this same period, or a negative ratio of about 10-to-1. We are now expected to swallow Obama's imaginary figure of 600,000 jobs over the next 100 days. Excuses like "it's only been 100 days" and "it's all Bush's fault" are becoming tiresome, people without jobs want results, and polls are starting to reflect this.

Obama has now begun his cry for Pay-as-you-Go, feigning a newly found sense of fiscal responsibility, as if his wild spending will be somehow be excused. We will certainly begin hearing more about the magical "Clinton Surplus" as an excuse to point more blame on the previous administration, and that Pay-Go is a way to just-as-magically erase the $10,000,000,000,000 of new debt his efforts have already created.

Today I read an article from a Washington economist which discussed the "ripple effect" on job creation by stimulus spending. Apparently, that extra twenty bucks in some paychecks is helping businesses around the country to lay off one less worker. Using White House math, that counts as a job "saved".  With a 10-to-1 unemployment ratio, I guess they forgot about the nine guys who were already laid off.   But, of course, those go on Bush's scorecard.

Obama's belief that Americans will swallow this horribly warped logic is quite insulting. Of course, there are more idiots out there than one might imagine. The fact that Obama is now sitting in the White House is proof enough. However, after enough people lose their jobs, Obama's halo will begin to fade. Layoffs did drop last month, with "only" 350,000 jobs lost in May, but that is to be expected since there are fewer people to lay off.

Panic dictated the immediate passage of the $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill, which was imperative to save our failing economy. Obama claimed that any delay might cause the US economy to collapse, implying that the orbit of the Earth could be altered and all life on the planet would end.

Injecting that $787,000,000,000 into the economy all at once may have indeed produced a brief upward tick in consumer spending. But, after nearly 5 months since passage, only about 5% of these funds have been used for 'stimulation'. Where are all the "shovel ready" projects that Obama promised would create 4,000,000 jobs? Oh, right. We're saving that money for the magical "Green Jobs" of the future, and as soon as we determine what those are, I'm certain Obama will whip out his checkbook for another round of do-nothing spending.

So, how should Washington "create jobs"? Buying GM won't help, as I don't think they're hiring right now. We can put some people to work as bail-out check couriers, and by using bicycles those might qualify as "green jobs". The truth is that government can only create government jobs. Jobs in the private sector are created through the growth and prosperity of the business. This can be encouraged with tax incentives or other business-friendly legislation.

In case you don't understand the concept, Mr. Obama, it is the people with money (the Evil Rich) who invest in businesses to create growth.  If you want to create an environment which promotes business, perhaps you can use the other 95% of your stimulus funds to pay for tax breaks and other proven methods to assist economic growth.

Or, you could stifle all growth, spend our money on entitlement programs, and we can eventually all become passive little comrades in the Obama Nation that was once the greatest country in the world. You can make the right choice now, or we can make it for you in 2012.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Bob Herbert, Liberal Racist Scumbag

I laugh at Bob Herbert and all like him, angry liberals with a huge black chip on their shoulder. "Boo-hoo, I'm black, God hates me, I got a dealt a bad hand in life." News flash: Nobody gives a crap, Bob. Everything in life is not about race.

Most people would love to move forward, yet small minded people like you always want to perpetuate the racial divide. The painful truth is you don't want to be judged by who you are. You mistakenly feel your position as a "minority" gives you special privilege that you would otherwise not enjoy when truly treated as equals.

You are correct, Bob, that the election was not a sign of some "post-racial nirvana." The election of Barrack Obama was simply a shrewd political move by the far left to place a black man in office so that anyone who disagrees with him is branded as racist. Yes, the "race card" is still a powerful tool, used effectively by activists and lunatics alike.

His candidacy was designed to play against "white guilt", or the bizarre concept that everyone in the US is somehow responsible for slavery and the oppression of the black race.

With the nomination of Ms. Sotomayor, we now have to listen to the same stupid argument. She will obviously receive no opposition from the Democrats, who relish the idea of an empathetic justice. But any Republican who questions her character will be construed as racist by hate-mongers such as yourself.

Please, Bob, let us know when you have something positive to say. Until then, spread your poison somewhere else.

(Bob Herbert is a "journalist" who contributes hateful articles to the New York Times. Go figure.)

Monday, June 1, 2009

The Golden Era of the Horseless Carriage

Once "not an option", now both Chrysler and GM have finally taken the step toward restructure thru bankruptcy. Thanks are in order to both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, as well as the congress, for delaying the inevitable by several months and tens of billions of tax dollars.

Yes, this is indeed a proud moment. Our government has begun the "temporary" nationalization of our banks, the auto industry, and, make no mistake, will now be squarely focused on the energy market. The goal is to be able to tell you not only what to drive, but when you can drive it, how much it will cost you, and where you can go. It's for your own good, of course.

A new car today already costs more than my first house did thirty years ago. With Washington's help, that cost will no doubt double in ten years. A government-subsidized auto industry can only drive the cost of cars up. And it's not just those union benifits kicking in, either. Washington has a proven track record of stretching your tax dollars.

An interesting contradiction comes to mind. You remember the "average, hard working American," that guy Obama is pretending to defend? Well, how will he be able to own and operate something that only a wealthy person will be possibly able to afford? Apparently, all future government assistance checks will go directly to the Obama Motors Acceptance Corporation. Drive one home today and get $500 worth of government cheese!

As far as the future of the automobile, we might just see a deal with Daewoo and Ford. I wonder if that might smooth relations and bring North and South Korean together. I also understand that Iran is soon planning to introduce the "Jihad", the world's first nuclear-powered car, in America soon. I understand it will have a half-life of 1000 years, which should coincide with GM finally becoming viable again.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Swashbuckling Somalians

There is obviously something very wrong in Somalia. I would imagine that, until recently, most Americans could not find Somalia on a map. Now Somalian pirates have become the topic d'jour, especially after the capture of an American captain.

It baffles me how a hand full of guys in tiny skiffs expect to pull off the hijacking of a commercial freighter. But apparently they are fairly successful, so the issue here becomes how to stop it.

I do not understand why these ships are not armed. It seems that a simple solution would be to pay a few bucks and hire a bit of armed security on these ships. As of yesterday, shooting pirates in the head seems to be a fairly permanent solution. Granted, it only applies to the ones who are actually shot, but it does get the point across. I would prefer hanging pirates, but I also support prime-time televised executions for crimes involving violence, so there may be some bias here.

So, why doesn't Joe Somalian just find a real job? I had to undergo a brief history of Somalia in order to comprehend the why these guys would jump in their pirogues and chase these huge ships. It seems that Somalia is a nasty, dirt-poor country of around 9 million, where the average Joe lives on about $2 a day. I guess that is to be expected when you have a country in a constant state of conflict between tribal warlords.

The piracy initially involved Somali fishermen attempting to secure their coastline against large commercial fishing trawlers. Illegal fishing had flourished in Somali waters since Barre was overthrown, and this apparently pissed off the native fishermen.

Additionally, the head thug at the time allegedly accepted a princely sum from European industry to allow dumping of toxic waste off the coast. Since 1993, there are all sorts of ailments cropping up that are consistent with radiation sickness. So its probably a good thing that Somalia exports most of its seafood.

Then the warlords got wind of the profits to be made from piracy, so the skiffs piloted by local fishermen are now armed with automatic rifles and grenade launchers. Vessels of all kinds could now be considered fair game by these privateers. As long as the sea was calm enough to avoid their dinghy from being swamped, that is.

OK, so is sucks to live in Somalia. Hard to comprehend, since a birthrate of 6.9 children per woman shows me Somalia is the place to raise a family. Granted, infant mortality is 115 per 1000 which, along with constant tribal conflicts and starvation, keeps the growth rate to a manageable level. As long as the country has no strong government, and the only way to survive is to join a militia group or become a pirate, the hope for a decent life for the people of Somalia seems fairly dismal.

But is this supposed to justify these acts of piracy? Should acts of armed robbery be condoned because of economic duress? If this is the case, then we are certainly wasting a lot of effort and money on unemployment programs here in the US. Can't find a job? Find somebody to rob!

Most agree that this piracy should not and cannot be allowed. Currently 19 countries have furnished warships to patrol the area. But it is a very, very large area. The cost of having these ships on patrol is far greater than the few million paid to ransom the unfortunate ones armed only with water hoses, so some feel the cure is worse than the disease.

These warships cannot be everywhere at once, so why don't the owners of these vessels furnish their own protection? Aside from possible complications from international maritime law, I can only assume they are simply looking at profits. Apparently the lives of the crew are not included as significant entries on their balance sheets.

If their security thereby becomes a matter for the military, then military force needs to be used properly. By 'properly', I mean the use of an overwhelming force to accomplish the objective as quickly as possible. If this means blowing every Somalian craft out of the water, then do it and don't look back.

There is also talk about going into Somalia and the Pirate's Den. Am I to assume that everyone has forgotten recent US history in Mogadishu? Seems like the last time, we sent in a small force, and it had 'less than favorable' results. Let's not let that happen again.

Of course, do not forget there are an estimated 200+ hostages currently being held by these pirates. A massive military strike would certainly be detrimental to the health of these folks. A tough problem to be certain, and one many people would claim should only be solved through negotiation.

Soon after the first ships were built, the first pirates emerged. Shortly thereafter, military warships pursued these seafaring criminals. They were hunted down, captured and either imprisoned or executed, or both. There were no negotiations, and I see no difference with the current situation.

The crew of the Maersk-Alabama, with one pirate in custody, did negotiate an exchange for Captain Phillips. Upon the pirate's release, these 'Gentlemen of Fortune' promptly reneged on the deal. I am afraid that the only deal these pirates would consider is payment. Caving to their demands would only add credibility to their actions and incentivize further acts of piracy.

The Islamic lunatic fringe movement Al-Shabaab (Somalian al-Qaeda) reportedly receives a substantial amount of funding thru this piracy. Now they seem a bit upset that their pirate buddies were blown away. They are now vowing to extract revenge upon the US, as if this is anything new.

I recall one pirate's comments that "every country will be treated the way it treats us." I agree whole-heartedly, and believe that fair is fair. From this day on, we should treat pirates the way they treat us. Commandeer their boats at will. Only we won't bother asking for ransom. Just tow them out to sea and sink 'em. And, if they care to escalate things, I believe it will soon become obvious that the Somalian navy just ain't what it used to be. Arrr, matey!

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Time to Pay Attention

For most of my life, I never gave politics much thought. I somehow allowed myself to believe that the goings-on in Washington didn't really affect me. I enjoyed complaining about the taxes taken from my paycheck, and the millions of dollars seemingly wasted on things I cared little about. Perhaps it gave me some sense of righteous indignation. After all, everyone is supposed to rebel against authority to some degree, right?

I was told in school that the ability to vote was the greatest right America offered. There are still countries which do not allow citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions. But I never followed issues or candidates enough to feel I could make an intelligent or an informed choice. A stupid vote was just as big a waste as not voting. Hell, for all I knew, I could be voting for a dangerous lunatic campaigning as a moderate.

I was 32 when I finally voted in a presidential election. I don't really know why I suddenly decided to vote, but I do remember I only voted in the presidential race, and did not bother to select from the dozens of unknown people listed. Afterward, over a few beers with my friends, I was informed that I had wasted my vote on Ross Perot.

Not that I followed issues much closer, but I voted every four years from then on. Local and State elections meant little, because I was too busy working to really understand what was going on. Rather than voting for Dole, I voted against Clinton in '96, and for Dubya in 2000. I actually voted for Bush again in '04, even knowing that we should have never jumped Iraq's ass over 9/11, but as I said, I knew little about politics.

In my particular field of employment, my wages have risen steadily since 1980. By no means could I be considered wealthy. I am usually able to save a few bucks between paychecks, so I guess that makes me better off than a lot of folks. Whatever these presidents were doing seemed ok by me.

However, the events of the last several years have been very disturbing. More and more, the actions of our government began to scare me. Perhaps this is what lead me to do a bit of research into why. I vaguely began to comprehend that our governments actions not only affect my life, but the lives of all Americans. To look deeper, their actions have an effect on the perception of America by the rest of the world and, perhaps to a lesser degree, their lives as well.

I personally believe that the only good thing to come from Obama's election is my 'political awakening'. For the last two years, ever since Obama threw his hat in the ring, I have tried to become more informed than ever before. The only drawback is that the more I investigate, the more worried I become. Once I began my research into the workings of our political system instead of accepting television's version, I have become more cynical than I ever thought possible.

I now have extremely little confidence in our government, and practically none in the majority of the politicians. From where I stand, we have a serious problem in Washington and it needs a good enema. As helpless as I sometimes feel, I think that everyone needs to take some time to at least understand what some of these buffoons are doing to us.

The wife now thinks me insane, and is tired of hearing me argue with the television. Therefore, I have been coerced into venting my anger into written form. Apparently there is some therapeutic value in this, because after typing all this garbage, I have a strange sense of satisfaction and relief. I might actually be crazy, because this is really like talking to myself. But it is less offensive to those around me, so at least I've got that going for me.