Rebuttal: Why I Support Obama

Personally, I think this election in November will be the worst ever. The two party system has stifled genuine competition and basically made it so that you'll be either voting for a donkey or a jackass. And some people will say they are going to vote for the lesser of two evils. Well, how is voting for evil working for you?

Rarely do I write specific rebuttals, however, the text box in Facebook is rather too small for such a long list. Here is the picture in question. It is one of those annoying "written with a marker in different colors to seem more important than it really is" kind of posters. After reading the sign in this picture, my rebuttal is listed by a number which corresponds to the poster.

1. The Affordable Care Act
Lifting restrictions on pre-existing conditions and life time caps: good.

Raising the age for children being allowed to stay on their parents insurance: bad. At the age of 25, they are no longer children. Times are tough, but with a little better discipline or guidance on major life decisions from their parents, they could probably avoid needing this kind of help.

Affordable health care for small businesses - any business with over 5 employees is eligible to dump their private insurance (Blue Cross, for example) and force their employees on the government version of Blue Cross. Lower rate of care and benefits, but still technically "insurance" so it technically ensures they are covered for statistics reasons.

Insurance Executives are not the ones who would fight this bill. In fact they would welcome it. By mandating that everyone have insurance, Obama basically gave big business and the insurance industry a huge dose of money for now and forever. Think about it: if everone is required to get insurance, Obama is mandating that all 330 million people in this country go to a certain industry of business and put money into it. Make no mistake: this Affordable Care Act is a tax. With the option of businesses to dump their entire health insurance roster onto the government's roll, this tax will only go up. The exec's at Blue Cross and other health insurance companies don't really care if they take your company's money or our tax money, they are getting paid either way.

2. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan already had agreements to end by a certain date. He is simply fulfilling them by adding an extra two years in Iraq and Afghanistan than what Bush Jr had an agreement for.

3. So do I. I also think men should have this kind of access too. This is only an issue to the religious community who feels they have a religious right to tell you what to do but then hide behind religious freedom when someone trys to tell them what to do.

4. Since 1967, every President has signed an act that mandated fair pay based on race, color, creed or gender. Obama is no different. This kind of act or bill is usually signed somewhere in the late third year or early 4th year of the first term of a President. Oddly enough, between 1967 and 1986, every bill of this nature gradually grew into reverse discrimination type mandates i.e. hire more minorities and women than white men. Since 1986, the balance of these kinds of bills has gradually gotten better i.e. if you're going to build a road, make at least one contractor a minority. But still, race/color/creed/gender are emphasized above ability. That is wrong and disingenuous to the minority contractor who may or may not be the best for the job but instead was chosen because of his color.

5. This is true, as it has been for every president since Jimmy Carter. Between 2003 and 2010, green energy job growth has been the highest ever at 8.3% growth.

6. I agree that education should be more available to all of us and that for-profit education should be more heavily regulated in order to eliminate high interest rates on huge loan sums. Keep in mind that the more education a populace is, the higher percentage of menial jobs will not be filled except by illegal immigrants who will work for anything. For now, be smart and stay away from for-profit colleges. Also remember the children's programs we've had. We've gone from A Bridge To The Future to No Child Left Behind. Somewhere in between those programs, reality set in.

7. Millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes and the tax code should eliminate loop holes for these people to hide their money off shore. However, just by paying the same tax rate as us, these people are already paying way more money than us in taxes. Put a flat tax of 15% on you and Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and I'll gaurantee you they are paying more than you in taxes ... by a huge margin. This is a worthy sentiment, however, like any idea embraced by a broad sector of people, there are wildly different interpretations of what this means. Come up with something solid (like a percentage or tax rate) and we'll talk.

8. Obama has inhereited one of the worst economic disasters since the Great Depression, however, he has not added 2.6 million jobs. In fact, he has only added a net gain of .1 million jobs. When you take private sector job gains and subtract public sector job gains (business created jobs minus government payroll created jobs) you get 100,000. To be fair, he has not completed a full term yet, but his numbers stacked up against every president since Truman are very dismal. Another factor to keep in mind is private vs public sector job growth. Early in his term, Obama added heavily to the public sector job rolls to offset the private sector not hiring. At an average of $39.25 per hour (required because of civil service union agreements) to staple papers or paper clip notes, that's a huge drain on the federal coffers. One last note, the economy is not slowly improving. It's slowly getting worse and better in spurts. Political devisiveness created by the paradoxial right vs left machinations have created an atmosphere of oppression and stifled free thinking in Washington D.C. If you don't belong to either the right or left way of thinking, your ideas are automatically struck down. Because neither side can get our tax and spend debt spending under control, in a few years, we will be a third world country because our money will be worthless.

IMDb Biography for Kim Kardashian

Hello folks! I've been gone for a while dealing with a series of issues, however, I'm back. This IMDb biography of Kim Kardashian by a long-time IMDb contributor caught my eye while I was gone and I wanted to (re)share it with you in case you missed it.

Birth Name: Kimberly Noel Kardashian

Height: 5' 2" (1.57 m)

Biography
Kim Kardashian is emblematic of the shallowness of American culture in the first two decades of the new millennium. While some cultural critics call her the prime avatar of the "famous for being famous" faux celebrity crowd, she along with Paris Hilton is a new breed of cat whose celebrity comes from the release of a sex tape and the canny exploitation of the resulting publicity. Like her good friend Miss Hilton (their relationship predates Kim's "celebrity"), Kardashian is possessed of photogenic good looks but is short of any other discernible talents outside of the bedroom. Both expanded their celebrity by becoming reality TV "stars".

Porn pioneer Harry Reems has commented how surprised he is at how porn stars like Jenna Jameson are accepted now in mainstream culture. His life was ruined by his participation in porn in its "Golden Years". As for Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, the release (accidental or not-so-accidental) of boudoir tapes didn't result in shame but celebration. America, like ancient Rome, seems to have shuffled off the moral coil of virtue of the Republic and is now enjoying its Imperial self in an orgy of ignominy. It's always more fun on the toboggan ride down the hill than it was schlepping up it in the first place.

The backlash against Kardashian has been ugly. Commenting on Kim and her family, the stars of "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" (2007), English actor Daniel Craig told "GQ" magazine, "You see that and you think, 'What, you mean all I have to do is behave like a [expletive] idiot on television and then you'll pay me millions?'"

Madmen (2007) star 'Jon Hamm' was even more direct, saying in an "Elle" magazine interview, "Whether it's Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian or whoever, stupidity is certainly celebrated. " He went on to say, "Being a [expletive] idiot is a valuable commodity in this culture. You're rewarded significantly."

In the wake of Kim and her family members signing a new four-year $40 million deal for their show, Jonah Hill joined in on the pile-up, saying that, "The fact that the Kardashians could be more popular than a show like 'Mad Men' is disgusting."

In the decadence that is America of the $15-trillion deficit and no serious plans from either party for a solution to the economic problems of the "Great Recession", Kim Kardashian is welcomed to her second White House Correspondents Association Dinner in Washington, D.C. in 2012 and made fun of not only by host Jimmy Kimmel but by the President of the United States, Barack Obama, himself and laughs merrily at the merriment. That the women's fame rests on the February 2007 "leaking" of a four-year-old home sex (for which she ultimately received $5 million from Vivid Entertainment) is an apt metaphor for socio-economic-cultural malaise in Washington and the country beyond, where everything seems to be run by amoral prostitutes in bed with each other and merely out for a buck.

IMDb Mini Biography By: Jon C. Hopwood

Spouse

Kris Humphries	(20 August 2011 - present) (filed for divorce - edit: marriage lasted 72 days)
Damon Thomas	(22 January 2000 - February 2004) (divorced)

Trade Mark: Her curvaceous figure and ability to take a large, black penis to the mouth.

Trivia
Daughter of Robert Kardashian and Kris Jenner. Sister of Kourtney Kardashian, Khloé Kardashian, and Robert Kardashian Jr.. Half-sister of Kendall Jenner, and Kylie Jenner. Granddaughter of Mary Houghton, and Arthur Kardashian.
Stepdaughter of Bruce Jenner.
Along with Paris Hilton, Nicky Hilton, Tara Reid, Bijou Phillips, Kimberly Stewart, Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie, is one of Hollywood's most famous party girls.
Step-sister of Brandon Jenner, Brody Jenner, and Casey Jenner.
Along with being Armenian, Kim is also German and Irish from her mother's side.
Was nominated in 2009 for the Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actress for her performance in Disaster Movie (2008). She mentioned it in her blog and rather than being insulted by it, she took it in good stride and was flattered by it. She wrote; "I'm having a really good laugh over the fact that I've been nominated for a Razzie this year. I had so much fun filming Disaster Movie (2008) and giggled the entire time during the shoot. There is steep competition in my 'worst supporting actress' category, I have to admit... including my fantastic costar Carmen Electra (you go girl!), Leelee Sobieski (what a surprise!), Jenny McCarthy (really?) and Paris Hilton (who could technically sweep this year's awards with a whopping three nominations!). It's an honor just being nominated! LOL!".
Good friend of Brittny Gastineau.
Ranked #9 on Maxim Magazine's Hot 100 Women of 2010 list.
Despite her party girl status she doesn't really like to drink alcoholic drinks.
Aunt of Mason Dash Disick.
Engaged to Kris Humphries of the NBA's New Jersey Nets [May 25, 2011].
Ex-daughter-in-law of William Humphries.
PETA named her as their Worst Dressed person of 2010 for wearing fur.
Filed for divorce from her second husband Kris Humphries after 2 months of marriage due "irreconcilable differences" [October 31, 2011].

Personal Quotes
I want to be a Bond Girl and film a love scene with Daniel Craig after he's rescued me.
I saw a recent poll of the top 10 best Playboy bunnies of all time and I came third, behind Marilyn Monroe [first] and Pamela Anderson - which was so cool.
The grass is always greener...where you water it! Not always on the other side.
Forensic Files is my favorite show! I am fascinated with forensics & this show really shows how crimes come to life & how forensics solve these crimes.

When Religion Gets In The Way

On 15 December, 1791, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified. With respect to religion, here is the exact wording:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

What ever court cases, legal decisions, state and/or federal laws have been made since 1791, they really do nothing that allows the federal or state legislatures establish, limit or regulate the practice of a faith. Except for marriage.

Marriage is rooted in religion and, conveniently, was adopted by state governments as a way to track who's shacking up with who. However, since there is a separation of church and state, the religious criteria of marriage pairing a man and woman exclusively should go out the window. I'm not sure if marriage is a right or freedom ... probably a right because governments are great at taking freedoms and limiting rights. As a right, it should be equally available to all, not limited because the word of a higher power interpreted by men seeking to control others says it should.

Another issue where religion is getting in the way is health care: specifically health care plans required to offer birth control to workers at religious institutions. Ok, I get it. Religion wants people to have kids so they can grow up and be the next generation of followers. What religion is really saying is that they don't want fairness and equality and they don't want people to have the freedom to choose. Time to roll the dice, Religion. If you taught your people well, what are you worried about? True followers won't choose birth control even if it is available to them for free. So you either trust your followers or you don't.

Religion is getting in the way of active political and national policy. Just recently, the House passed their defense budget with additional tack on amendments. Besides breaking the budget agreement Congress made last summer with the Obama administration by beefing up military spending billions beyond the agreed-upon limit instead of cutting military spending, the amendments add prohibitions to same sex marriage. Rep. Todd Akin, a Republican from  Missouri had this to say in a statement:

"Liberals ... should not be allowed to force members of our military to give up their religious beliefs. That is simply unacceptable and unconstitutional."

The writer of this blog, me, had this to say in a response statement:

"Religious conservatives should not be allowed to force their beliefs on the military or civilian sector. That is simply unacceptable and unconstitutional."

By enacting same sex marriage prohibitions, religion is imposing its standards on us de jure (that's "by law" or "concerning the law") which, last time I checked the First Amendment, was illegal to do. In the dark ages, religion helped unite the stupid masses. Today, we are all, more or less, intelligent people. Let's start acting like it and finally use the First Amendment to get religion out of the government

Finally, a note to my fellow Christians. If the male progenitor of you is your father and if God is the Father ("Our father, who art in Heaven ...") then you have two Dads and I'm pretty sure you turned out fine. Lighten up a little!

Gay Marriage - A Middle Class View

Through out the history of this country, nearly every group of people that does not encompass white lander owners has had to fight for equal rights. Women fought for the right to vote and then to be treated/paid as well as men. African Americans were freed and, not until 100 years later, were given equal rights. Today's group is the LGBT community.

We live in interesting times and one of the hot topics of today is gay marriage. Unless you have been living under a rock, everyone from President Obama to the Pope to Raul Castro, the leader of Cuba, has come out with their stance on gay marriage. In simple terms, the gay community is fighting for equal rights parallel to the heterosexual community i.e. the right to be married and all other tax/financial/civil benefits that go along with it.

I am decidedly middle class. Not sure what that means anymore, but for me, I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I'm all about equal rights and I'm all about fair treatment but I'm also all about not spending our next three generations into debt. In fact, I too support gay marriage, straight marriage, transexual marriage, and any other marriage you can think of. Just as words change meaning over time, so to does the word "marriage." The word "marriage" has religious roots but seeing as we are a non-theocratic country, I believe it should apply to any two people who want to be together for life. This means work-provided health insurance, death benefits, tax benefits and financial obligations should all be available to them. However, I also believe, indeed having served in the military to defend it, the right of majority rule. If a majority of people vote to not have gay marriage, then that's it: no gay marriage in that state.

Recently in North Carolina, the people of that good state voted to keep marriage a heterosexual institution. They voted their conscience to not allow gay marriage. But people who are masters of manipulating the media and masses have started a movement that essentially belittles and makes fun of the people of North Carolina for voting their conscience. Sure North Carolina allows straight people to marry their 1st cousin, but that's beside the point: they used the same democratic/republic machinations that elects our leaders and adopts/denies civil and social initiatives as everyone else.

Certain elements of the LGBT and social communities didn't get their way and, instead of redoubling their efforts, chose to use childish antics. And shame on them. You (the childish antics users) shot yourself in the foot when you did that and I no longer care to hear anything you have to say. Step aside to let someone else do the talking for a while.

These kind of antics and tactics are best reserved for running for president. Your community getting equal rights is much more important than electing an elephant or jackass.

Resolving Heartache via Stupid People

Earlier today, my mother & father made the difficult decision to euthanize our beloved family dog. Scooter was a very gentle soul, he loved food, and he lived a long, happy life. Though my father probably did more harm than good with kindness (i.e. table scraps), I did not think his own immune system would take him down. I'll spare you the technical name for it, but basically his immune system started targeting his own blood cells; it is what vets commonly call a compromised immune system. As expected, it is taking an emotional toll on us and I have some unresolved emotional distress from it.

This is a unique article for me. Typically, I bottle my emotions. Very few people have seen an emotional outburst from me other than random acts of kindness. I'll call myself a "divertist." I'm sure there is a more thorough, common or clinical name for it, but when I am being a divertist, it is because I'm dealing with something much larger or private and this is how I take out stress.

This article is a divertist article: a collection of the most discussion worthy or dumbest (or both) quotes by "important" people in our society in the last few weeks. Where possible, I have included either publication names and dates, a link to web article, or in the least, have noted the source. Without further ado, here is the list.

1. "There is no justification for the current gas prices. This is all about speculation by the people who are speculating on the price of oil and gas," he says. "We could shutdown excess speculation in commodity markets. This government should do that." former Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) - Yahoo Finance - 29 March 2012.

While I agree that the price of gasoline is atrocious, I do not believe the government should be regulating the free market excessively. What's excessive? I don't know, I'm not an economist. What I do know is that, contrary to public opinion, the government and President do NOT control the price of gas nor are they able to significantly alter it's price by any direct action. Since I mentioned capitalism earlier, let's get back to that: the greater the demand, the higher the price. Developing parts of the world like China are putting a huge strain on the oil market but that's not the whole picture.

We import about 10 million barrels of oil a day compared to China's 5 million per day. So if you want to ask questions about gas prices, perhaps we should be looking to the American public. Because we have money and CAN buy things doesn't necessarily mean we SHOULD buy things. If you want to point fingers, make sure you point them at all the pussy, macho-esque men and fat-ass house wives riding around in their precious SUVs and trucks and other gas guzzling vehicles. Because they did have money and could buy their Lincoln Navigator means everyone has to pay more at the gas pump. So there you go: selfishness causes financial trouble for the greater population. The trouble is, they can obviously afford it while you and I find it harder to swallow the gas prices.

2. "Well, first off, the idea of overpopulation is not accurate because really the entire population of the world, if they were stretched shoulder to shoulder, could fit within the city limits of Jacksonville." - Michelle Duggar, mother of 19 children, on over-population - Yahoo entertainment article - 31 March 2012.

Well, first off, I'm not sure if I should tackle the math or social idiocy of Michelle. Okay, let's start with facts. The land area of Jacksonville is about 810 square miles while the world population is little over 7 billion people. That would equal 8.5 million people per square mile. I'm not a mathematician, but she sounds like an idiot ... <cough> ... I mean, maybe her fundamentalist christian lifestyle did not teach her that theoretical math is not always applicable to real life scenarios.

So let's get to the social idiocy. I support her right to pro-create; however, just like getting fisted by a gorilla, there is a limit to what the body can handle and what should be socially acceptable. With the world wide population explosion approaching an exponential increase, I feel that people like Michelle and her husband are probably just fucking in the name of God. The only difference between these two and high school kids who get pregnant, is these adults should know better, but instead rely on God to limit their conceiving ability. Rising cost of living, rising gas prices, limited natural resources, increased pollution, rising sea levels, global warming; all of these issues are caused by an increase of people on our planet and the need to fuel the economy so these people can live. More people = lesser standard of living for everyone. Michelle Duggar and her husband are not living a happy life or the American Dream - they are contributing to an extinction level event caused by ourselves.

3. "Warren Buffett is paying a lower rate than his secretary." - President Obama a few weeks ago at a campaign rally when discussing increased taxes on the rich as supported by Warren Buffet.


President Obama is correct: Buffet IS paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. However, Obama is engaging in a lie of omission. Warren Buffet is probably paying 100 to 500 times more money in taxes than his secretary. If Obama wants attack a problem and use solid math, perhaps he should address the corporate tax code. Both parties are guilty of creating loop holes in the corporate tax code, which in the last 50 years, has allowed corporate tax revenue to the federal government to drop from 30% to just under 6%. And in effort to not commit the same lie of omission that Obama is, that drop in corporate tax revenue (from 30% to 6%) equals out to about the same amount of money collected now compared to the 1960s.

So why has personal income tax revenue increased dramatically to pay for a bloated federal government but corporate tax revenue has not? Because politicians are taking campaign contributions from said corporations to get elected. Why isn't the news media focusing on the rich paying more but completely ignoring the corporate tax issue? Hmmm ... because the mainstream news outlets ARE corporations. Looks like we're fucked in the 'truth, honesty and unbiased' reporting department from both sides of the political rhetoric spectrum. We've been on this trip for a while but have been too distracted by the 1% versus the 99% argument to notice the increasing speed we're moving as we circle closer towards the drain.

4. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." - President Obama - Chicago Tribune 22 March 2012

The humorist in me wants to respond with, "why, because you're both black?" However, I'm guessing that may sound racist to some people. I certainly don't intend it to be, so please take my intent into account. The fact is, this situation has turned into a media frenzy. NBC has altered the 911 call dialogue to make Zimmerman appear to be a racist. I don't know that he is, and though it may be a central motivator to this case, it does not matter to me.

Allegedly this kid attacked Zimmerman, with corroborating medical proof of a scuffle, and Zimmerman "stood his ground." Whether we like it or not, Florida law allows something like "stand your ground" to be a legal defense in a shooting. Is it a legal way for the average citizen to be proactive in their physical defense instead of being a pussy and running away? Yes. Having been confronted with a situation like this myself, I can tell you it was more emotionally and psychologically damaging for me to run away than it would have been for me to dig my heels in and push back against an asshole that could have potentially killed me. I'm not sure if Obama did a hail mary public relations move in that statement or if someone actually prepared that statement for him. Either way, it sounds weak, non-committal and one of the most charged yet empty statements I've ever heard from another human being. Even after the media frenzy dies down, I'm still not sure we'll get the whole story.

5. "I mean I am a man. He was calling me a chicken.'' - Ubaldo Jimenez - pitcher for the Cleveland Indians after a bench clearing scuffle at a baseball game.

This quote from a Yahoo! Sports article about the incident is filled with immaturity. This man is making millions of dollars a years as a professional athlete. After hitting a former team mate during a game, the batter took a few steps towards the mound while Jimenez took a whole bunch of steps toward the batter as he yelled and gesticulated wildly. Either Jimenez is in the game to be an athlete and doesn't need a bloated salary for his marginal skills or he's in it for the money in which case being an asshole is uncalled for.  Grow up, pussy.

6. "There's no consensus about the relationship between ultraviolet light and skin cancer. The science isn't there." - John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Association - Chicago Tribune health article.

Get this man a job with Philip Morris! I'm not a scientist, so take this with a grain of salt: we either have a larger ozone layer hole than we thought or woman in first world countries are genetically prone to skin cancer. Both choices seem plausible, but I would like to submit a third choice using Occam's Razor: the substantial increase in tanning bed use by women is causing the ultraviolet light from the tanning beds to give women skin cancer.

Just a thought; I know it's a wild supposition. Mother Nature and Rah (Egyptian Sun god) either have a huge grudge against women in countries where tanning beds are used extensively or the tanning beds are a slow form of death that women are willing to deal with so they may visually fit in with their Hollywood "hero's." I mean, look at the picture on the left. This over-tanned woman, besides looking like someone tickled her funny bone via her urethra, has a fried and over-cooked look about her. Women in tanning beds are willing to risk deadly and disfiguring skin cancer so they can look like this societal icon. Besides looking unhealthy, it looks cheap. People who use tanning beds are risking death to look cheap. That's the societal pressure we are putting on the young people today.

In summary, thank you for allowing me to be a divertist. As you consider my words, I'll return to the emotional rawness about losing my pet.

Follow the Money Trail

Too often, we rely on the government to help protect us and the government responds in the only way they know how: more regulation, more oversight, more taxes. The biggest piece of regulation since the depression is currently under review by the United States Supreme Court: Obama-care. With the superficial intent of supplying "affordable" healthcare to some 40 million under-insured Americans, Obama-care is nothing but a carefully crafted law designed to ensure the insurance companies have a steady supply of customers they can make money from. What ever your views or beliefs on this legislation, it is surely an extension of government into our lives and one that will cost us money in the long run.

More detrimental than money, it also raises the question what else the government can compel us to do. "If the government can do this, what else can it do?" Supreme Court Justice Scalia asked, suggesting Congress might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles. It is a dangerous slope we are on with government mandates: taken individually, a chain link is not dangerous; but when taken together as a whole chain, we are each shackled by a government that is increasingly out of touch with the average American's daily life.

This debate has led me to examine a few other regulations that we take as everyday life. Why is car insurance mandated? Why are seat belts mandated? Why do major corporations like General Electric pay almost nothing in corporate taxes? Why is abortion continually challenged by religious fundamentalists? Why is gay marriage illegal? It comes down to money.

Car insurance is required because the insurance lobby paid a bunch of politicians (I mean, conrtibuted campaign donations) to make a law so the insurance companies can make more money. As a side effect, regular people are now financially protected when someone does something stupid with their vehicle.

Seat belts are a by-product of the mandated car insurance. If you get into an accident while not wearing your seat belt, the car insurance company is not obligated to pay your medical bills regardless of who is at fault. Again, it comes down to money. Not only does the insurance company get a free pass, but now the state/local government can fine you for not wearing one.

Major corporations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 50 years to ensure the corporate tax loop holes get larger and larger. In 1945, corporate taxes were roughly equal to personal income taxes raising $16 billion and $18 billion, respectively. Today, the difference is tremendous. Personal income taxes in 2011 totaled $1.1 trillion, while corporate taxes brought in $181 billion -- a difference of sixfold. As a percentage of all federal taxes, corporate taxes fell from more than 30% in the 1950s to 6.6% in 2009. In this case, politicians received money for re-election to continue their life long political career and the corporations were given loop holes to hide income in.

Gay marriage and abortions are kind of tricky. It's hard to find the money trail, but it is there. For a moment, let's disregard all organized, fundamental religious beliefs. Really, you have to. According to all organized religion, all other organized religions are wrong and are going to hell, so there you go.

In my opinion, gay marriage is illegal because of tax breaks. When you file jointly, you have a possibility of claiming thousands of dollars in exemptions or deductions. When you file as single, those deductions are not available to you. If suddenly there existed the possibility that every adult aged 18 and older could suddenly claim the married exemptions, the government would lose hundreds of millions of dollars.

Abortion is an even more hidden money trail. For the most part, it does not even make money for the government; but for the religious institutions. If religion (and the government) can find something that galvanizes large sections of the population, that is where the money comes in. Religious associations battle against civil liberty and feminist organizations via advertising campaigns and sit/walk/chant-ins to garner more support for their side. All these things cost money. Never mind the left leaning donations: most of these civil rights oriented people will do things on principle. The right leaning religious institutions see things like gay marriage and abortion as a way to increase donations and manpower. On a side note, I've always been curious why organized religion opposed both gay marriage and abortion. What group of people better to never have an abortion?

The next time you are fined for speeding, jay walking or not purchasing mandatory health care, remember, it's not about you or public safety: it's about the money.

The Chicago Democratic Machine

I am angry. In fact, I'm fucking angry. Angry at Illinois State Rep. Derrick Smith; at the Illinois Democratic Party; and most of all, angry at the voters of the 10th District of Illinois.

Earlier in March, Rep. Smith was arrested and charged with taking $7,000 in bribes. According to FBI surveillance footage, Smith asked for $7,000 in cash so "there won't be no trace" to him. After helping the briber count the money, he asked the FBI undercover agent to "leave it the envelope". On March 20th, with the help of the Chicago and Democrat Machine, he easily won his primary bid by capturing 77% of the vote.

Which brings me to the next group I'm fucking angry at: the Illinois and Chicago Democratic machine. Recently, the Democrat controlled Illinois general assembly re-drew the district maps for state and congressional members, seemingly, to help the Democratic Party by forcing incumbent Republican law makers to run against each other. During the preliminary legal challenge to the new district maps, an email from members in the Democratic Party surfaced that urged lawmakers to do their best to "help in the national push to take back the U.S. House of Representatives" and retain state control. The Illinois Constitution charges law makers to make districts as contiguous and compact as possible to avoid gerry-mandering. If you have looked at the recent map of Illinois districts, then you'll see it looks like a monkey tried playing Tetris.

I'm also angry at those party officials that helped Smith win his primary: U.S. Rep. Danny Davis (Democrat) and Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White. After Smith lost his Chicago City Hall job for using public employees for private landscaping work, White backed him for the Legislature. After he was charged with accepting a bribe, the Illinois Democratic Party even came up with a new slogan for him: No defeat or retreat — keep the Dem seat. Danny Davis even tried defending him at a pre-election rally: "We know that our colleague is charged with criminal activity. But we also know that a charge is not a conviction."

I'll grant you that he is not convicted yet, but he's on tape ... accepting a bribe ... what more do you need? In the world of politics, who you associate with casts a reflection on you. Does that mean Danny Davis also accepts bribes? Or does Davis think accepting bribes is ok?

Lastly, I'm angry at the voters in Smith's district. Either they are unwilling or unable to use their brains. They are unwilling or unable to think for themselves. They are either stupid or idiots. If politicians are supposedly the best our society as to offer as leaders, then what does that say about our society when pieces of shit like this walk around thinking it's okay to accept bribes or kick backs? What does it say about the people in his district who vote for crooked politicians?

Most times, crooked politicians reveal themselves after they are elected. In this case, Smith unmasked himself before election and he still won his primary. I'm so fed up with the bullshit corruption in Chicago and at the state party level. On this day, I am not proud to be an Illinoisan or a Chicagoan. People like Davis, who only worry about keeping the party numbers, and Smith, who is only it in for himself seemingly, make a mockery of our right to vote. That state party leaders helped him win his primary only to ask Smith to resign so they can install another party member in the won primary slot is fucking insulting.

I'm God-damned fucking angry and I hope my fellow Illinoisans are fucking angry too. This is the kind of shit we have to put with. It's hard enough to shake the Illinois corruption image from outsiders, but what's the point if shit-bags like this are in office?

What Religion Means to Me

I will be 34 years old in a few months, and for most of my life, I've been grappling with the "religion" question: what are my beliefs and which organized religion is right for me. As I ramble for a bit in this article, I hope that someone can help me nail down a label for myself.

I believe there is a higher power and, for the ease of discussion, I'll call him God. I believe that God sends messengers to us on occasion to help guide us to the next step in our existence. In our recorded history, both legitimate and theological, he's sent us some good ones: John of Patmos, Moses, Muhammad, and Jesus. From a relative point of view, I believe that the three major religions today (Muslim, Christian and Jewish) are all facets of God. Just as our leaders (political and otherwise) try to wear many hats or have many faces to attract the most followers or help the most people, I believe that the three main religions are different faces of God.

In my opinion, God uses the three main religions (and possibly other minor religions) as tools to help and guide the most people in our world(s). As support, I point to the Tanakh (Judaism), Quran (Muslim) and Bible (old and new testaments). On a theological level from a Christian point of view, the Gospels (Mathew, Mark, John and Luke) are the same story of Jesus from different points of view. As an analogy, the three main religious texts (Tanakh, Quran and Bible) all the tell the same stories about Adam & Eve, Moses, Noah and Jesus. Only the relatively recent history (the last 1500 years or so) do the stories deviate and spiral outwards into their main theological differences. So in my mind, God is like a giant tree with each major branch being one of the three main religions of today. Funny thing is, each branch considers themselves the most important branch, or the only "right" branch and they are so busy making themselves "right" they can't see the bigger tree as a whole or the role of the tree itself.

I have a real problem with religious fundamentalism. God's message is of peace, understanding and love. People spreading hate, destruction and mayhem because God said it was a good are really fucking stupid. A cleric says to blow yourself up? A preacher is protesting military funerals because the military accepts homosexuals? A Rabbi is helping plan raids into another country? Get lucid and get a life. And in this country, don't hide behind freedom of religion and then use it as a shield to subvert the ideals of this country or impose your "right" view on the rest of us.

I know I'm not Catholic. Besides laying the ground work for some great movies about exorcisms and crusades, they have too many rules and too much kneeling. Besides, how can I respect the elders of the church when they have covered up child sexual abuse. I'm not Muslim and I can't follow leaders who tell me to blow myself up. And I'm not Jewish because I'm not rich or don't control a vast media empire.

Hopefully you are seeing the humor in that last paragraph, but I wanted to present the stereo types we all have heard or may subscribe to to make a point. If you are more worried about placing names or blames, then you probably need to re-examine your "faith." When you follow God's message (peace, love and understanding), you're not really worried about what other people are doing or saying.

As I read over what I've already written, I guess I've already given myself an answer. I believe in God as I describe him and I believe that faith, hope and charity help the most people. Now if only there was a church for that.

March Madness is like Fishing

WARNING: You will be reading my opinion. I make unfounded accusations about college academic and sports programs as an example and purposely do not provide concrete evidence ... mainly because colleges are pretty good about covering their tracks; but mostly because I prefer inferred and deduced logic rather than a "smoking gun." Enjoy!

Shhh, I'm trying to pay attention to the salmon running upstream to spawn. See, Salmon are born in rivers and make there way to the sea. After a few years at sea, they may travel hundreds of miles up streams and rapids to return to nearly the exact spot they were born so they may reproduce, and, eventually die. This cycle happens every year and is as dependable as March Madness and tax deadlines.

Think of it: 20 or more generations of salmon, with the 20th tracing its blood line back to the 1st generation, spawning in the nearly the same exact spot. Now think of this: a couple generations of good basketball players going back to their alma maters to lend a hand in recruiting the next generation of basketball players, that may or may not suck. Each March, ESPN and non-cable television stations feel the need to completely up-end their regular schedules to play College basketball games tiered to produce the two "best" teams that eventually play each other in a much bally-hoo'd and televised game.

If you ever have listened to a pro-sports athlete talk, you may notice they try to talk in sound bytes. That is to say, they give concise (but not always logical) answers that would fit nicely in a highlight piece during the news' sports segment. Below are a few examples of sound byte answers gone horribly wrong.

"I've had to overcome a lot of diversity."
-- Cavaliers forward Drew Gooden on the ups and downs of his NBA career

"We're going to turn this team around 360 degrees."
-Jason Kidd

"I can't really remember the names of the clubs that we went to."
-Shaquille O'Neal on whether he had visited the Parthenon during his visit to Greece

"Play some Picasso."
-Former New Jersey Net Chris Morris, to a piano player at a hotel bar while trying to impress a date.

So now we have a few examples of pro-athletes sounding really stupid or un-educated. These athletes have the important mantle of being "hero's" or inspiring younger people. We have generations of young people seeing that is ok not to be smart or educated and, rather than developing mental aptitude, developing physical skills that will eventually fade. Worse still, they see it is ok to be dumb in a broader sense. I may not be the smartest person on the planet, but I'd be willing to bet, 10+ years out of college, that I could still apply the quadratic equation or write a grammatically correct sentence while Shaq can run, dribble, converse and shoot all without skipping a beat. 

Trouble is, Shaq and other stars like Derek Rose or Michael Jordan or any professional basketball player are but a small handful of players who were successful out of college. Not every college basketball player makes it to the NBA just like not every salmon egg makes it to be a fish. So we have a relatively large pool of college basketball players who potentially are sacrificing their education in basket weaving (whilst getting "academic" help along the way *wink wink nudge nudge*) to have a shot at being pro. 

Thankfully, most college players give up the sport because they know they suck when compared to Rose or Kobe. Regretfully, the college players who survive the transition from college to pro usually forget they are educated because they see their pro hero's flashing their money around or being otherwise dumb.You see the same shit with rap or hip-hop stars. As time flows onward, kids in poor areas see "making it big" as their only way out of the streets when they should be looking at education as the smart route.

So this March Madness, don't see the basketball game, see the salmon spawning with only a 10% survival rate and another generation of student athletes with failed dreams and broken hopes, destined for mediocrity.

Over-Achieving Capitalist of the Week: Wells Fargo

I normally don't talk about personal information, but I feel the need to talk about the latest credit card offer I received. My home mortgage is through Wells Fargo Home Mortgage services. Just today, I received a credit card offer from Wells Fargo that offered to give me rebates on my mortgage based upon the purchases I make with their card.

Below, are the bullet points of the offer:

• Earn a 1% rebate towards your home mortgage by making purchases* with the card.
• Earn a 2% rebate when using your card at gas, drugstore and grocery store purchases*.
• No annual fee.
• 0% APR for the first year, then 12.15% to 25.99% APR after.

* - Purchases minus returns/credits

So I called Wells Fargo to inquire where exactly the rebate comes from and they gave me an example, which did not make sense. Then I asked for another example, and it started to make sense. So, in return, I game them an example to see if my understanding was correct.

If I use the card for one year making only grocery store, gas station or drugstore purchases totally $5,000 but paying off the balance each month, then I will receive NO rebate towards my mortgage. However, if I carry a balance for a year totallying $5,000 of grocery/gas/drugstore purchases, then I'll get $100 towards the princple in my mortgage. Basically, I need to spend (worst case scenario of 25% APR) $6,250 plus late charges to get $100 off on my mortgage.

Wells Fargo was one of those institutions that received bail out money from the tax payers and has since paid it back. With the Fed keeping interest rates so low, the banks are still not making money like they used to so now they turn back towards their customers. Bank of America wanted to introduce a $5 monthly for using your debit card like a debit card. Wells Fargo wants you to carry a huge balance with high interest for a paltry return.

If I had known I would be insulted with an offer like this, I would not have chosen Wells Fargo as my mortgager. If you get offers like this in the mail from any bank, do yourself a favor and just shred them.

Why You Should Re-elect Barak Obama

We all know that every major presidential candidate receives campaign contributions from special interests and, upon being elected, is typically beholden to said special interest. Social, labor, defense, economic, agriculture and "from the heart" (religious) special interest groups all vie for the candidates attention and, more often than not, get that attention once their candidate is elected. When a Republican president is in office, you see moves to reduce firearm control (citing the 2nd Amendment) and restrict abortion. When a Democrat is in office, you see moves to increase firearm control (citing the symptom of urban decay i.e. poor neighborhood gang violence) and more Freedom of Choice.

No matter the party affiliation, every elected official is worried about one thing: getting re-elected. When speaking of congressional members, this scenario happens over and over. Too often, congressional members make politics their lifetime career and would rather face an easy re-election whilst making popular and fiscally unhealthy choices instead of facing a hard fought re-election bid whilst making the hard decisions (and sometimes unpopular decisions) needed to steer our country straight on social and fiscal issues.

There is one official in this country who should find re-election a liberating experience: the President of the United States. This one person is in a unique position to do the most good for our country no matter the party affiliation once they are re-elected. So long as he can survive his first term, a re-elected President might be a "lame duck", but he is also free to do what ever he wants. Seizing upon this idea, Obama's first term election promises are but a spring board to bring us "change we can believe in." The rest of this article will be broken down into broad areas for concern in our country and how they can be addressed by a liberated president. Future articles will address specifically the broad areas presented here.

Budget
Having a balanced budget is nearly impossible given the gridlock (i.e. re-election posturing) with the current two party system. Upon his start of his second term, Obama can immediately end this by pushing for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Once the legal and obligatory framework is in place that requires congressional members to pass a balanced budget, Congress can get down to work of actually making a balanced budget instead of legislating a shit show and blaming it on the other party.

Once a balanced budget is mandatory, it's time to work at our back debt. Using budget numbers from 2010 (because current numbers are rife with math trickery and balance sheet magic), the United States total estimated deficit at the end of 2012 comes in around $15 trillion. Unfortunately, you can not single out one specific part of the budget to study because things like obligated medical care (entitlements) are broken up between seniors, non-seniors that don't make enough money and military (active and veterans) members. Likewise, part of the defense and veterans administration budgets are also split between the civilian and military populations for medical treatment.


To tackle such a large deficit will require a two pronged approach: making cuts in the yearly budget and addressing the total deficit apportionment. There are probably thousands of line items in each budget bill that is passed by Congress. Most people find process of looking at them all to be tedious; this includes me. But there are some larger items that immediately jump out at you.

Example 1: about 1.64% of our budget is aid to foreign countries - time to trim this budget. We can't solve the issue of fungal growth in Ethiopian crops or solve the African AIDS epidemic by throwing money at the issue. And why are we sending money to Russia or China?!? All they give us back is spam mail and cheap products made with questionable materials.

Example 2: the corporate tax code (both state and federal) is rife with loop holes created by lawmakers in the pocket of special interest groups and corporations. For example, in this country, corporations are not taxed on their gross income but, rather, are taxed on the income they do not spend at the end of their fiscal year. In the last 60 years, corporate taxes fell from more than 30% in the 1950s to 6.6% in 2009. Why did current federal revenue from income tax top out at $1.1 trillion but corporate taxes only came in at $181 billion?

Example 3: Congress (both the Senate and House) passes a new budget each year. What you may not know is that the unbalanced budget they legislate follows procedural rules that automatically raises the debt ceiling every year. In fact, Obama's re-election year budget relies on these procedural rules to further raise the debt ceiling. Time to end this bogus status quo.

Social Issues
There are many social issues to address that I will list that, at first glance, may not be typical "social" issues. But to me, they are all related. The standards, or lack of standards, and the average American's surroundings, contribute towards their perception of their life and status in life. These issues include, but not limited to: lack of national standards for education and teacher training, urban decay, gang violence, crumbling infrastructure, quality of ingredients in food, safety of food and water, local/state/federal fiscal responsibility, healthcare, etc etc etc.

As I said, I believe all these issues contribute to national social issues. An African-American or Latino youth in the inner city may not have access to safe (i.e. healthy) food or water; they may not have access to thorough or affordable healthcare; may not have access to a proper education; may not be able to walk down their street without ducking for cover from errant bullets. All of this contributes to the average inner-city's kid growing up to not give a shit because nothing changes or gets better for them. Indeed, they don't try to get the education or healthy food or healthcare or to demand better from those around them and in their governments because they grew up with people in their lives who didn't give a shit.

There is no magic band aid solution to solve this. What it does require is the people AND the government to make conscientious decisions. It requires the people to take a vested interest in their community and who is running their government. It requires the top (well-to-do and governments) and bottom (middle, working and poor classes) to better what they can and work towards each other and a better America.
Summary
At the end of the day, I don't really care who wins the presidential election. All I care about is keeping my job, paying for my house, raising my children and hoping that my fellow Americans can do the same things as I; free from apathy, government stupidity, and grossly unhealthy foods. I'm not looking for Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood or utopia, what I am looking for is people to start giving a shit. I'm looking for a leader who can actually lead and I believe that a second term President is free to do all that. I'm not willing to wait another four years for someone to be in that position again.

You Are What You Eat

I am a lot like the rest of you: I wake up, shower, eat, work and play. About 7 years ago, while I was in the Navy, I heard a rumor that the enlisted crew was getting "Grade D but edible" meat (animal skin, testicles, intestines etc). This rumor turned about to be false, but it did get me to pay attention to what I was eating. At the time, I discovered high fructose corn syrup (hfcs) and ultra high temperature processing (UHT). We all know about the damage of too much corn syrup, but UHT is relatively new to the American market.

UHT, when found as the primary or secondary ingredient in creamers and milk products, essentially allows the creamer or milk to be transported without refrigeration for several weeks. In fact, the main milk provided aboard Navy ships is UHT. On my ship we ran an experiment: we left a 5 gallon bladder of UHT out on the flight deck for two weeks then brought it in and drank it (after 30 minutes of chilling). It tasted fresh (as fresh as processed milk can taste) and the only problem came later in the form of loose stool (which is the most common side effect of consuming UHT).

But on a normal day, we wake up and start our day before work. If your sheets, pillow covers or sleeping clothes are newer, they have a trace of formaldehyde and more than a trace if you had not washed them before use. In case you didn't know, formaldehyde is what dead people are injected with during the embalming process for preservation.

So next, you might shower. What you may not know is that a chemical from your shampoo called phthalates (the plasticizing agents from shampoos and pesticides and vinyl shower curtains), go down the drain and to the sewage processing plants where they do not break down. Once the sewage dries out, those soap chemicals (along with chemicals from medicine and pills flushed down the drain) hang out with the processed poo in sewage sludge, which is then left out to dry in a field. After it is dried out for a few months, farmers buy said sludge and put it on their corn fields as fertilizer. Thankfully, the FDA does not allow corn for human consumption to be fertilized with our own waste. However, they do allow cows to eat the corn. Next time you drink a glass of real milk or eat a hamburger, you may be taking in the soap from your shower last year or taking in the xanax or anti-depressants your neighbor got rid of down the toilet. Phthalate exposure, even in small amounts, has been linked to behavioral problems in children, allergies and asthma, eczema, and unhealthy changes in our hormonal systems.

Well, you've done a proper wash and now you are ready for breakfast. But have you had your beaver anal gland juice yet today? Perhaps you have. It's a bitter, smelly, orange-brown substance known as castoreum. In nature, it's combined with the beaver's urine and used to mark its territory. For us, it's used extensively in processed food and beverages, typically as vanilla or raspberry flavoring. This gross ingredient won't show up on the label. Instead, companies use it in making processed food list it as "natural flavoring." This poses a dilemma for vegans and vegetarians—and anyone who wants to avoid eating any creature's anal excretions.

Do you find Golden Grahams or Cinnamon Toast Crunch tasty? Or perhaps you might chew some Orbit Gum after lunch? Then you are taking in Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT). These are petroleum derived anti-oxidants and preservatives. The Department of Health and Human Services says BHA is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," yet the FDA allows it to be used anyway. BHT is considered less dangerous, but in animal research, it too has resulted in cancer. Oddly, the chemicals aren’t even always necessary; in most cases they can be replaced with vitamin E.

On to lunch time and perhaps a white bread sandwich. Most of your white breads or other processed grain products contain an additive called L-cysteine, which is a non-essential amino acid. Most often this additive comes from China in the form of dissolved human hair or other places in the form of duck feathers. Food manufacturers use the ingredient as a commercial dough conditioner, meant to improve the texture of breads and baked goods. Eating something derived from the human body violates the religious and ethical beliefs of Muslims and vegans.

If you are having just a salad with ranch dressing or perhaps a piece of cake with vanilla frosting, I'm sure you're eating it for the titanium dioxide. Big food corporations often add titanium dioxide—commonly found in paints and sunscreens—to processed foods like salad dressing, coffee creamers, and canned icing to make them appear whiter. Titanium dioxide is a component of the metallic element titanium (plus two oxygens), but more importantly, mining companies typically use lead in their extraction and purification process. If you are using that ranch dressing for the lead, you might as well just chew on an old pipe.

Perhaps you've fasted the entire day to have a nice juicy aged steak with some mushrooms for flavoring. The FDA legally allows 19 maggots—tiny, rice-shaped fly larvae that feast on rotting foods—and 74 mites in every 3.5-ounce can of mushrooms. So when you order an "aged steak" or pop open a can of mushrooms, this is what you are getting. While maggots do have their place in the medical world, most of us would agree that they don’t have a place in our mouths. Opt for fresh mushrooms instead, and if you need another reason to ditch canned goods, consider this: most are lined with bisphenol A (or BPA), a plastic chemical that causes unnatural hormonal changes linked to heart attacks, obesity, and certain cancers

If you think dessert is the prime meal of the day, you might consider one of my favorites: carrot cake. Most store bought carrot cake mixes, and indeed most cereals, contain artificial food dyes. Many artificial food dyes—found in hundreds of everyday foods—are made from petroleum-derived materials. Food producers use these chemical dyes in cereals and candy to make them more “fun” for kids, in pickles to make them appear fresher, and in place of real ingredients in a variety of other packaged foods. For example, Betty Crocker Carrot Cake Mix, is actually a carrot-free product with “carrot flavored pieces” cooked up from corn syrup and artificial colors Yellow 6 and Red 40. Orange and purple food dyes have been shown to impair brain function, and other dyes have been linked to ADHD and behavioral problems in kids, as well as brain-cell toxicity. And not only are these additives potentially hazardous, but they’re also a rip-off! It’s cheaper for food companies to use fake dyes in place of real ingredients, so you end up with food frauds like Tropicana Twister Cherry Berry Blast, a “juice” product without a trace of cherry or berry juice.

By now, I sense you might be disgusted in what you are consuming, so imagine this: a hot summer day in July. It's sunny, the sky is blue and in the distance you hear the ice cream man coming. You pony up to the truck and get a cold and tasty Creamsicle. Or, perhaps if you are watching your figure, you might indulge in a Weight Watchers Giant Chocolate Fudge Ice Cream Bar. Well, I'm sure you are eating it for the Carrageenan. It is a seaweed byproduct (waste product more accurately, until they found a use for it in ice cream) that is used as a thickener and emulsifier. Through animal studies, it has been linked to cancer, colon trouble, and ulcers.

At this point, I'm kind of disgusted with foods so I may fall back to a comfort food. In this case, it is a drink from my local Cold Stone Creamery called a Peanut Butter and Chocolate Shake ... large of course. But wait, what does CSC's page list the nutritional information as: 1,750 calories, 118 g fat (64 g saturated, 2 g trans) and 140 g sugars. This one drink does pack more calories than a dozen ice cream sandwiches and more saturated fat than nearly 20 large orders of McDonald's French fries

At the end of the day, it is up to YOU to know what you are putting in your body. Take responsibility for you, your children and loved ones. Know what you are eating and know what it will do to you. Do not overload you or your children with high fructose drinks and then wonder why your asses are so fat or why your waist line looks like a freshly baked muffin as it spills over your belt.

Take action to know what you are eating, but more importantly, take responsibility for your health and safety. Essentially abusing your body with food choices that kill you slowly means you'll die a horrible, drawn out death where your body gradually fails you. Actually, never mind the slow death; your choices are making the rest of our health insurance premiums go up. Normally I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what to eat or drink, but now it comes down to money. I'm not willing to pay more money so you can be stupid,

Greek Catastrophe and American Gridlock

The latest budget proposal by President Obama is more of a political maneuver than anything. He knows Congress will not pass it. If we were to leave the federal budget where it is for 10 years, our total debt would rise from $15.3 trillion to $28.4 trillion. Under the Obama plan (tax hikes on the rich coupled with tighter defense spending {spending already being wound down with troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan!!!}) our total debt in 10 years would ONLY be about $26 trillion. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I'd rather actually lower the debt vice choose either unacceptable poisons.

So that leaves it to the GOP to solve the problem, right? Wrong. I'd love to say the GOP have a plan to cut through the gridlock and idiocracy to drive these big debt numbers down, but they do not. Unfortunately, the GOP are as stubborn about opposing any tax increases (specifically on the rich) as the Democrats are about expanding government hand outs in our daily lives (i.e. more entitlement programs).

Just recently, Congress struggled to reach consensus on giving the average American an extension of the Bush era tax cut ($20 a week extra in their paycheck). The likely effects of this tax break will further weaken Social Security entitlements, which rely on this tax, and make taxpayers borrow themselves even further into debt in order to pay for their own tax break. Both parties know this is an unaffordable tax cut and ending it might offend voters who care more about an extra $20 a week than the financial burden they put upon their future selves and future generations.

Offend voters? In an election year?!? They can't have that.

So that means, effectively, our federal legislative and executive branches have stopped governing until the day after elections in November. Both parties are now on automatic pilot; more worried about storing mud to sling whilst campaigning than they are about talking with their constituents and looking for new ideas to stave off our future economic collapse. They are looking for a voter mandate (party with a clear majority) before tackling big government, our antiquated and convoluted tax code, executive branch agencies that answer to no one except the President (I'm looking at you FDA and FCC), and government hand outs <cough> I mean, Social Security.

The future we are facing by keeping the status quo is almost unfathomable for most Americans, though they already are seeing it on news programs on TV: Greece and other indebted Euro countries. The scenes from abroad with rock throwing youths and riot police meeting them head on is yet too distant for Washington to take notice of. Rest assured that Washington can be relied upon to roll up their sleeves and do one of two things: completely ignore the problem or completely run a good/bad idea into the ground.

There is a third option: action. It is clear that those in the majority and minority in Washington are not able or willing to act. It is clear that our federal shepherds are failing us. This is where the common man can help by talking to their state and federal representatives and senators. We can wait for the youths of this country to clash with riot police amidst flames and rock throwing. Or we can lead our politicians in the direction we want this country to go in.

Religion and Birth Control

The Obama Administration recently issued an Executive Order stating that church affiliated employers must cover birth control regardless of their religious princples.

For religious-affiliated employers, the requirement will take effect Aug. 1, 2013, and their workers in most cases will have access to coverage starting Jan. 1, 2014. Women working for secular enterprises, from profit-making companies to government, will have access to the new coverage starting Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases.

Workplace health plans will have to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, ranging from the pill to implantable devices to sterilization. Also covered is the morning-after pill, which can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex and is considered tantamount to an abortion drug by some religious conservatives.

As expected, there was publich outrage from all sectors.

House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio - R) - "I think this mandate violates our Constitution. I think it violates the rights of these religious organizations. And I would hope that the administration would back up and take another look."

Rep. Joe Walsh (IL 8th District - R) - "This is a slap in the face of every U.S. employer and religious institution. The president seems to have forgotten that this country was founded on religious freedom. This decision goes against that and everything this country stands for."

Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., called the requirement “a radical incursion on the part of our government into freedom of conscience.”

Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote that “the Obama administration was essentially saying `to hell with you,’ particularly to the Catholic community by dismissing our beliefs, our religious freedom and our freedom of conscience.”

Next, we have a quote from Kristen Day, the Executive Director for Democrats for Life of America (the pro-life Democrat congressional members and a key swing vote in approving Obama-care). "Forcing religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs is very clearly wrong."

I'm not even sure where to begin with all this. On reflection, I do know where to start: with the Constitution and ratified Amendments. In the Constitution, the only reference to religion is that no religious test shall be required for office. In the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, there is only one mention of religion and it is in the First Amendment, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

So, is a religious test being required for public office? No. Is Congress making a law about the establishment of religion or prohibiting anyone from practicing the religion of their choice. No.

Speaker Boehner, on this issue, is incorrect in saying that this goes against the Constitution. Rep. Walsh is incorrect in saying this decision goes against religious freedom. But again, they are from the opposition in the two party system our country enjoys.

Now we get into the rhetoric filled middle ground or, as I like to call it, the rhetor-ground. Obviously, Bishop Murphy and Zubik are toeing the religious line spouting all kinds of charged rhetoric. Besides being filled with line toers, this ground is also filled with people giving tidy sound bites that don't really say anything and, quite often, is done so in language that exudes arrogance. As if their position is, quite obviously (to them), the correct one, they use language like "radical incursion" or "very clearly" coupled with phrases like "dismissing our beliefs" or "freedom of conscience." For example, a rhetor-grounder might say, "this is a radical incursion on our freedom of conscience and, very clearly, he is dismissing our beliefs." The rhetor-ground uses charged language with no actual facts other than a decision was made that hurt someone's feelings..

So let's get to the facts. This country was founded on freedom of religion. You, me and everyone else here can practice any religion they want to and, for tax purposes, can even be a clergy member and start a church. Regardless of your opinion on Obama-care (I oppose it), it will be in effect soon, and this executive order is in line with previously passed and signed into law legislation. If you (the proverbial "you") are a church or direct religious insitution, you are exempt from this mandate. If you are a church-run soup kitchen or youth group, then you must provide health insurance that offers birth control to females.

In my opinion, this country was founded also on liberty, or a freedom of choice. That is to say, to have all options available and none, save the most extreme, denied to you.

Just beause there is freedom of religion and freedom to use as much or as little health care as an individual sees fit, does not mean that religion has the freedom to dictate how much or little health care it can provide to its employees. The religious organizations, in voicing their opposition, are showing little faith in their employees and members practicing their doctrines. Just because birth control is mandatory coverage does not neccessarily mean the employees will choose to use it. The conservatives and church groups always say "you gotta have faith." Well, show a little faith in your followers for once by letting them choose the the "right" path instead of giving them only one path. If you want to claim the protection of freedom of religion, then remember to also allow your people some liberty.

On the Electoral College and Tenth Amendment

Your vote in every Presidential Election is meaningless. Wait, that is partly untrue. Your vote for a Presidential candidate actually selects a majority party with a bloc of pre-approved voters from that party who then are expected (not necessarily required) to vote for said majority party's candidate. In most states, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, this is true. In actuality, most states simply look at who won the popular majority in their state and then all of the electoral votes from that state then go to that candidate (as described above).

From the Constitution and subsequent amendments (amendments 12 and 23), each state's total number of electors is equal to the sum of their congressional members (for the House of Representitives) and Senators (for the Senate). The minimum number of electors is 3 (two Senators and one Reprentitive), which is the case in Alaska, Montana and Vermont, and the maximum number of electors are currently in California (55), Texas (38) and New York (29). Add in the 23rd Amendment, which states the District of Columbia shall have a minimum number of electors as the least reprented state (in this case Alaska, Montana and Vermont to name a few), and now D.C. has three electoral votes.

I just threw a bunch of numbers and information your way, so let's take a breather and break that down. We know there are 538 total Electors. That comes from 435 (for equivalent House of Representitve members) plus 100 (for equivalent Senate members) plus 3 (for D.C.). We also know an absolute majority is required to win, which in this case, is 270 Electoral votes. In cases where no candidate wins the required majority, or 270 votes, other contingencies come into play and I will not go into them here.

The Electoral College was originally envisioned to keep the national government under control of a federalist system. Indeed, the Constitution has a number of built in controls whereby the national government is theoretically limited in its power. The foundation of this limitation is the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. Historically, since the 1880s and more so since The Great Depresion, the Supreme Court has favored the expansion of power of the Federal Government (both the Legislative and Executive branch) by ruling against both individual citizen and State challenges to the increased authority of the Federal Government. Congress usually uses the Commerce Clause or Necessary & Proper Clause to do what it thinks is for the well being of the nation. The Supreme Court, in these cases, usually goes with the "almost" principle (you know, "almost" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades ... and to cases pertaining to the Federal Government's powers where a sliver of written power is used to legislate behaviors beyond what the Constitution was intended for).

The Congress usually offers monetary compensation for States participation in proposed national standards. For a long time, 55 mph was the so-called National Speedlimit becaue the Federal Government would with-hold transportation monies (for interstate roads, aviation and rail projects) if said state did not adopt their own legislation making 55 mph the speed limit law in their boundries. Ditto with the 21 year old drinking age and .08 blood alcohol limit. Occasionally, and more often in recent history, the legislative and executive branches pass or enact national standards without significant or any monetary compensation such as immigration reform (the onus is on the states to provide welfare and health care monies to the illegal immigrant) or the national health care reform (there are no tax breaks for a majority of citizens who previously chose not to have health care because they do not have deductions exceeding the "standard" deduction already given).

Currently, it is my contention that the different branches of the Federal Government have thrown themselves out of sync with their partner branches and with the American people. In the proverbial and literal sense, one branch does not always know what the other branch is doing. Unfortunately, the average American also has blinders. With the self sustaining juggernaut the national government has become, the average American only cares about collecting their pay check, watching their TV and whipping out their credit card.

If the antiquated Electoral College is increasingly defended under Federalist principles and the Tenth Amendment is increasingly disregarded, then I propose a change to the Electoral College. In the first paragraph, I make note of Nebraska and Maine not assigning all their electoral votes to one candidate, but instead, dole them out based on the popular vote. Perhaps the voters of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego shouldn't carry California. Perhaps the voters of Chicago shouldn't carry all of Illinois. Perhaps all states should assign their Electoral College votes to the top three vote recipients in the their state.

It is apparent our state governments and federal representitives do not have the ability to hold back the growing bulk of the national government. Perhaps with this electoral change our Federalist system will represent the people.

Tales of Ice T and the Cheeseburger Monster

In case you missed it, Yahoo featured news articles about Ice T's presidential prediction and Paula Deen scarfing down a cheese burger.

Social media, politics and the internet all have one thing in common: they do very well reflecting the worst of humanity as a mirror would reflect all horror of a fat person in skinny clothes. Has our society really sunk so low that we'd be interested in what a washed up rapper has to say about politics? Or that some poor cooking personality with fat person diabetes is eating food that is bad for them?

Perhaps the issue is a little more complex. Perhaps we, as an online society, are known to be into some stupid shit so now internet purveyors of news and other social discourse are simply supplying us with more stupid shit.

I don't need to know that Deen was eating a cheese burger and had fries on her plate. I don't need to know that she is putting another nail in her coffin. The fact that she has a cooking show and that Anthony Bourdain considers her the worst and most irresponsible cooking personality on TV is of no importance to me. I do need to know why her food choices are relevant to me.

I don't need to know that Ice-T and his wife are making a movie. I don't need to know that Ice-T opines about Hillary Clinton being a G or that he's making his directing debut. It's mildly amusing to know that Ice-T hasn't had a gold or platinum record since 1993. I need to know why Ice-T is relevant today and, on a side note, why his wife thinks it's cool to be orange.

What you may have missed out on was there was a new study published about the correlation of low IQ, conservative beliefs being linked to prejudice. Studies, in my opinion, are a lot of guess work based on extensive observation with a preconceived notion (read that as "hypothesis"). Typically, this is called the scientific process, but in most cases, it is a sham depending on the motives of those involved. Henceforth in this post, low IQ will be called an idiocy.

There is a definite, non-scientific link between idiocy and prejudice. People who don't know better and are bigots, statistically speaking, will balance out the idiots who think everything and everyone is wonderful. Though I disagree with the underlying, implied results (Yahoo spins it one way while the researchers totally contradict Yahoo's spin), this kind of "news" is far more important than Paul's cheese burger or Ice T's directing debut (and orange wife).

In everything you read or hear, question the motives of the source. If you are not, you are contributing to stupidity.