Monthly Archives: February 2012

In honor of another Romney win, it’s music time…

Despite Santorum calling in his friends from the unions he still lost in Michigan and he really lost in Arizona.  And that’s also with the media from the left AND right trying to hit Mitt in every way they can. It’s moments like this that remind me that there is reason to believe in the intelligence of the general public.  This is once again showing that Mitt is not only the only sane conservative left in this race but that he is also the popular candidate…I thought we should take a moment to enjoy the official song of the Mitt Romney campaign.

Kid Rock’s Born Free

I remember Newt was using that oh-so-current choice of “Eye of the Tiger” (should a man that pudgy be using the quintessential workout song?)…but I couldn’t find a campaign song for Rick Santorum? Thoughts on what it might be? The sweater-vests and various other things make me think it might be something by the Village People…or maybe “The Impossible Dream”…since it’s all he talks about “Devil went down to Georgia” might be an appropriate choice…something from the Music Man might convey his deeply intellectual arguments…”Rainy Day Women #12 &35″ conveys what I think is behind him believing he has a chance to win this, it also conveys what he would like to do to everyone who disagrees with him…or it could just be that he just find music to be the work of Satan. Who knows?

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Humor, Mitt Romney

Needed to do a little decompression…

After a draining week in politics and work…I was very relieved at tonight’s Romney victory…but still needed to get a little snark out so I turned to twitter….

And on twitter I saw@DinaFraioli  tweeted

“The Eye of Sauron points to Ohio….”

so I responded

“Great, now I’m going to be spending all night putting the major political contenders in LOTR roles in my mind.”

believe it or not, there was no alcohol involved in this…it’s just trying to get publicity for Republicans and Reincarnation and keeping up blogging during an election year that I have almost no time for my other writing passion—writing fantasy novels.  So this random little musing is making up for that loss in my life…I fully admit this is stupid and pointless, but it was a wonderful stress relief to write…and it’s disturbing how many parallels I was able to make.  At the very least, I hope it gives you a small chuckle.

I would love to actually write this parody…but not sure I have the time…so settle for how you would cast “The Lord of the White House and the Return of the Conservative”

Standing in for the One Ring will of course be The White House. The thing all men desire but it corrupts even the best of men once they have it.

Obviously my Team Mitt bias will cast Romney as Aragorn.  Dull, not always the best with words, reluctant to take a public position but he gets the job done.

Chris Christie and Paul Ryan as Gimli and Legolas, who will Romney’s trusted 2nds when he gets into the office.

Santorum, while he doesn’t look the part is clearly Sauramon.  The guy who is supposedly on your side but clearly will do everything he can to destroy you and work for the great evil that wants to kill you.  That would make all the right wing commentators in his camp the Urukai.  (Also think of the pompous way both Sauramon and Santorum both talk down to people.  On the one hand you have a wizard having no faith in anyone, and on the other you have a lawyer telling everyone else that they’re not good enough to have a degree, they’re just not smart enough to get one.  But remember Romney supporter are snobs.)

Newt reminds me of Merry. Nice.  No self control .  Says and does just crazy shit.  You like him but you wouldn’t want to trust him leading the army.  Herman Cain can be Pippin.  They’re roughly the same shape as hobbits too.

Michele Bachmann is of course Eowyn. The woman you do not want to mess with.

Ron Paul is Denethor…the old crazy guy who may have once been on your side, but will betray you to the foreign enemy when you most need him by your side.  Which would make Rand, Faramir.

Obama is of course Sauron.  Which would make Reid, Pelosi, DWS, and Alexrod Orcs…which honestly they kind of look like it.  Jay Carney does kind of look like the mouth of Sauron…

The eye now looks to Ohio and that it's minion Santorum may win...

I see Ann Coulter as Galadriel, the one who sees the truth of things.

The ever present ghost of Reagan is of course Gandalf…

The American public will be taking the roles of Sam and Frodo…entrusted with destroying the evil of Sauron

And finally…

Sarah Palin…well with all her backstabbing and self-promoting and trying to destroy the party through a brokered convention just so she can get the nomination without having to run…you can just see her outside the gate staring at the White House going “My precious.”  I do not however see Sarah as having as much a role in life as Golum did, certainly not doing any end of life redemptive acts…

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Humor, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics

Romney Wins! An Open Letter to the Republican Party

Okay Romney won.  (Even with Rick call in the Dems).  For those of us who support Romney (i.e. those of us who actually looked at his record instead of swallowing what the media is trying to force feed us) this is a good day…

Mr. President

But to the rest of the Republican Party, the Newt supporters, the Santorum supporters (those who aren’t Democrats), the Paul supporters, we need to talk.  Guys, look, you’re just not going to get it.  The wins tonight give Romney another boost and hurt your guys even more.  Before tonight he had 99 delegates.  Tonight he got 29 from Arizona and will probably get around 15 for Michigan.  Add to that he’s ahead in Puerto Rico (23 delegates), Maryland (37), D.C. (19), Delaware (17), California (172), New Jersey (50), and Utah (40) and those are all winner-take-all primaries.  That’s 501 delegates of the needed 1144.  Wisconsin is the only other winner-take-all state with only 42 delegates.  Now add in his commanding leads in Massachusetts (41) and Virginia (49) and Mitt’s already got over half of the votes he needs locked down.  (When you factor in all the proportional votes from Super Tuesday (480, counting MA and VA which we know Mitt’s going to win) and add in all the other winner-take-all states Mitt will likely have close to 700 (quite possibly well over 700, but I’m being generous to Newt and Rick) delegates locked down by the end of Super Tuesday.  Which would mean of the 1103 delegates up for grabs Mitt would only have to get another 444 (give or take how many off from 700 he has) .  Wow, only 40% of the delegates.  I’m sure that will be so difficult especially after Newt and Rick go bankrupt as they’re about to any day now.  Face it.  Romney is going to be the nominee.  There will be no brokered convention, there will be no split party.  Romney’s it.  He’s also the one that Obama is afraid of!

Now you have three options.  You can pout and do nothing.  You can continue attacking Romney and do Obama’s work for him.  You can work to make sure we win the House and the Senate.

I understand if you can’t get behind Romney (well actually I can’t in this particular case, but as I would not vote for Santorum if he were the nominee I’m not going to say you must vote for Romney or work to get him elected if he were the nominee…although my anti-Santorum stance is based on reason, facts, and patriotism…your anti-Romney bias is based on what again?  Lunacy?  Anyway…) .  But even if you don’t like Romney pouting helps no one.  Civic duty requires that you participate actively in government in any way you can.

And attacking Romney is also not a valid option as it only helps Obama.  Levin, Hanity, Malkin, Shapiro, Murdoch, Limbaugh, Michael Reagan* I’m talking to you.  Shut the hell up.  Don’t like him.  Fine, don’t support him.  But that doesn’t mean you help our mutual enemy.  Even all of the Newt and Santorum supporters out there need to get a clue that as many problems as they have against Romney (all of them justified by lies, half-truths and misinformation) he’s better than Obama.  If you don’t like Romney, please just spend the rest of the year until November attacking Obama and his cronies and ONLY Obama and his cronies.  Hell, day after the election I’ll join you in being a critic of President Romney when he does the wrong thing, as I will critique any president when they screw up…but until we get Obama out hold off on attacking Romney, please, for the good of the country—you know that thing you claim to love (although by supporting Santorum I’m not really seeing it).

The third option, the one everyone who doesn’t like Romney should be taking, is making sure you do everything in your power to make sure that the House stays in Republican control and that the Republicans  take hold in the Senate.  According to RealClearPolitics 5 seats up for election are safe Republican seats with another 8 in the toss up category (and 4 Democratic seats are in the Lean Democrat category).  The goal, for those of you who don’t want to back Romney should be to make sure that both House and Senate are staunchly conservative, Tea Party Conservative, not just Republican.  So, playing in your ball park for just a second, if Romney is the flip-flopping politician you claim he is (even though he’s not) then he will have no choice but to always veer conservative as that is the only thing he will be able to do with a conservative Congress.  Hitting Romney will only waste resources in getting what you want, conservative policies.  And to those commentators I mentioned, given that you’re all very well off and you’ve already hurt this party with you divisive rhetoric, you should be donating the maximum to every major Senate and House race you can—that is the only way you can make up for this draw out violation of the 11th Commandment (especially considering most of you are backing an extreme economic liberal like Santorum).

So it’s up to you.  Show you care about this country or continue hitting Romney.  Your choice.

*On a side note I would like to take the time to point out that Michael Reagan’s endorsement of Newt shows that intelligence may be more dependent on genetics than environment.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum, Democrat from Pennsylvania

Did you hear those words “Paid for By Rick Santorum for President.”  That’s right when Rick can’t win with the Republicans, probably because he’s a pro-union, big government, anti-capitalist piece of $&!#.  Vote Santorum.  It’s all like getting all of Obama’s economic plans, but the a heavy dose of theocracy thrown in for good measure.

I also like he seems to be suggesting that Romney was wrong to not support the auto bailout. Which is kind of odd because, back in June he said “Romney’s right” on the auto bailout!  And he’s right until you know Rick can use it as a talking point to enlist Democrats.

No, absolutely not. We should — we should not have had a TARP. We should not have had the auto bailout. Governor Romney’s right. They could have gone through a structured bankruptcy without the federal government.

 

All the federal government did was basically tip to the cronies, tip to the unions, gave the unions the company. If they’d have gone through the orderly bankruptcy process, gone through a structured bankruptcy, they’d have come out in the same place, only we would have kept the integrity of the bankruptcy process without the government putting its fingers into it.

As to the TARP thing.  Yes Romney supported TARP.  I don’t agree with that.  But I would also be a fool not to see that a lot of conservative economists said that it needed to happen because the immediate ripple effects would have been terrible.  I think they would have been worth it.  But I understand where sane people can disagree.  Now Santorum officially has always been opposed to TARP…but he was not in an elected office at the time.  His voting record is one of earmarks, budget increases, picking winners, having votes bought and paid for, raising the debt ceiling, and in general getting the government as involved as he could in the economy.  He may say he opposed TARP, however his voting record says that were he in the Senate at the time it had come through he would have voted for it.  I choose to judge a man by his actions not his words.  And his actions say he would have voted for it.  Which means both points of this call, TARP and auto-bailout are acts of utter hypocrisy on Santorum’s part.  Not to mention being so desperate as to ask for the help of the enemy.

If this man had any class or character or human decency (which he doesn’t, because he’s as corrupt and worthless a politician as they make) he would bow out tonight, no matter what the results. And if his supporters had any brains (Levin, Hanity, Limbaugh, I mean you) they would use every bit of media power they had to demand he leave the race right now for this disgusting attempt to bring Democrats into a Republican primary.

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Mitt Romney, politics, Rick Santorum

Stupid quote of the day

This quote comes from an article I found on Big Government but was originally from USA Today, a news source I always turn to when I want weaker reporting and prose than I would find in the New York Times…or Pravda.

“If they used Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care program as a guideline for the Obamacare thing, what’s the difference?”

I’m going to ignore giving you the name of the person who said this, or their profession, because I blame the idiot reporter for repeating this tripe more than I do the person for saying it.  (And shame on Big Government for repeating it without critique).

Now I’ve pointed out differences with Obamacare and Romneycare before, and they are numerous and important as they create radically different systems.  But let’s even ignore simple little things like facts…I’ve never known them to get in the way of most MSM reports anyway.

Let’s instead look at how silly that statement is in other historical contexts

“If they used Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence as a guideline for the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror Rights of Man thing, what’s the difference?”

“If they used Darwin’s Origin of the species as a guideline for Nazi Germany’s systematic genocide thing, what’s the difference?”

“If they used quotes from the Bible as a guideline for a that whole justification of slavery thing, what’s the difference?”

“If they used that “General Welfare” thing  for the entitlement state thing, what’s the difference? We should just do away with it?”

John Adams once said that “facts are stubborn things.”  And they are.  They will always come back to bite  you in reality.  Unfortunately, facts, and the context they exist in, do not seem to be stubborn enough to have an influence on the mainstream media or on the voting public.

Leave a comment

Filed under Education, Election 2012, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics

Weekly meditation: Balancing the chakras

 

To one degree or another we have gone other the seven chakras that run along your spine and into your head. This week it’s time to stop looking at them as separate things, but rather as a single system of energy that connects you to the world and to Heaven.

So this week we’ll focus on all of the chakras. Sitting in the lotus position (or as close as you can get to it comfortably) clear you mind, and then focus on the chakras going up you spine. With each chakra focus on it, see it bright, large and spinning quickly and repeat the following series of mantras, one for each chakra. Start at your root chakra and work you way up seeing and feeling the energy move up your spine your mind’s eyes. When you reach the crown chakra focus on it’s mantra for a minute seeing a direct connection of that energy at the top of your skull connected to Heaven and God. Then work you way back down the chakras.

If you can do this once in the morning and once in the evening this should help to focus the energy of all your chakras and extend those positive vibrations into your life.

First Chakra. My life is filled with abundance, safety and prosperity
Second Chakra. My emotional are balanced and in tune with light of Heaven
Third Chakra. My will is strong and one with God’s
Fourth Chakra. I love and am loved and know the love of God
Fifth Chakra. I speak and create beauty and truth inspired by God
Sixth Chakra. I see the complete truth and the now through the light of God
Seventh Chakra. I am one with God

1 Comment

Filed under 4th Chakra, 5th Chakra, 6th Chakra, 7th Chakra, Chakra, Crown Chakra, Faith, Fifth Chakra, God, Love, Meditation, New Age, Religion, Sacral Chakra. Desires, Seventh Chakra, Sixth Chakra, Solar Plexus Chakra Willpower, Spirituality, Third Eye Charka, Throat Chakra

Politics and Music Videos

So starting a couple years ago I noticed a new trend with conservative/libertarian media…in that they were coming out with music videos to highlight their principles. Now even I who prefer the long drawn out arguments of Aristotle or Hamilton (have you seen the length of some of my blogs?) found many of these entertaining (to varying levels). Now certainly these are fun…but I’m just curious are these just preaching to the choir or do they actually work to convince anyone? I have no real point here, but I am curious about what anyone may have to comment about this movement. Are we trying to beat the Dems at their own game of appealing to the lowest common denominator (I’m sure we all remember the wasteland of pointless trash of “Yes we can”) or are we actually appealing to people of reason and thought?






And while I’m not sure this is entirely conservative…it does tend to the conservative veneration of the Founders…

Leave a comment

Filed under Art, politics

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…our old friend Paul Krugman

So I tried to stay away from writing any political blogs for a few days, but as you can see that didn’t work.

Why?

Because Paul Krugman decided once again to spew his mentally challenged word out to the public. This time he tried to libel Mitt Romney. I’d even go as far as saying Romney should sue, but as I have serious doubts Krugman would be found mentally competent to stand trial for his actions, I know that won’t happen.

What did he say?

Well at the start of a long argument full of inane claptrap, he states:

Speaking in Michigan, Mr. Romney was asked about deficit reduction, and he absent-mindedly said something completely reasonable: “If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy.” A-ha. So he believes that cutting government spending hurts growth, other things equal.

He then goes on to use this quote and some other random facts to suggest that Romney is a closet Keynesian. I won’t bore you with the whole set of facts, I’ve frankly seen better arguments from rabid conspiracy theorists on the moon landing (just so no one takes that quote out of context, I do believe that we landed on the moon numerous times).

Okay so before I get to what Romney actually said (I know what a shock that this quote was grossly taken out of context) let’s talk about something that Paul Krugman knows less than nothing about: Macro-Economics.

There are three main schools that are relevant to this discussion. Keynesians who argue that when an economy suffers the government should infuse cash into the economy and fiddle around with the prime interest rate to boost growth. Then you have the Austrians (Hayek) and Monetarists (Friedman) who while they would argue on a lot of things would both agree that the government should have little to no influence in the economy (beyond providing a bare bones safety net at local levels…and for Monetarists too at a regular rate increase the amount of currency in the system to prevent deflation). (This is of course grossly simplified but you don’t want me to get into the math of it, it would just bore you to death).

Now our government, and most governments since the Great Depression, have embraced Keynes to one degree or another and most have yielded the same problems that Austrians and Monetarists said they would. The problem with infusing cash into the economy through stimulus programs is that it works great in the short run, but the minute you pull the money back it stops working. Stimulus is a lot like black coffee, as long as you keep drinking it, it works…but the longer you go the more you need, and the minute you stop, you crash. No Austrian or Monetarists I know of would say that stimulus doesn’t have an immediate effect. It does. What Austrian and Monetarist economists point out is that you need an ever increasing level of stimulus to keep having the same effect and with that comes an ever increasing amount of public debt (see Greece, Spain, Italy, and Ireland…and possibly most of Europe and China pretty soon). No sane person argues that it doesn’t have an effect in the short run. What Austrians and Monetarists do argue is that (1) that ever increasing debt is often worse than the recession where you spent money you didn’t have in an effort to avoid (2) that you can’t avoid the recession, but the longer you delay it, the worse it will be (again back to my coffee analogy if you just got sleep when you were first tired you would only need 6-8 hours sleep, but after a full all-nighter you will now need 9-11 hours sleep to recover) and (3) the government interference during your stimulus package actually hurts the mechanisms for growth and improvement within the economy making the long term effects truly disastrous. (All other things being equal). So if you have a massive spending program, say spending $4 Billion more than they take in every day, and you suddenly just cut that spending, even Fredrick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman would say, yeah the economy would slow down in the short term. They would argue in the long term that would be a pro-growth plan (but long term is something Keynesians aren’t very good at, or seeing the big picture which is why no Keynesian has ever won a Nobel Prize for macro-economics…because Keynesian ideas don’t work long term in the big picture). Now Hayek and Friedman would probably also argue that to help mitigate this problem of short term loss, since any Keynesian government has probably also mucked things up with bad tax policies and too many regulations, that you should cut the regulation and improve the tax policy which hopefully will balance out the short term hit from cutting the stimulus. (…it’s a stretch of the analogy but think of when you cut the caffeine but immediately go to the gym and thus are able to push through to your second wind).

Okay so let’s look at what Romney said.

Now you know, unlike liberals I don’t like to give just clips and sound bites, but prefer to at least offer you the link to the whole speech or article…unfortunately I can’t find that…and I looked (if anyone has a full transcript please send it to me).

But it’s not really relevant because even what I could find is enlightening.

“If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy. So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies.”

Now notice the second part of that statement. A statement one might hear out of Friedman or Hayek. Improve the tax policy to counter the immediate hit in the short term. And he tried (didn’t always succeed) to cut regulation and taxes in Massachusetts and has said he’s going to cut regulation and taxes when in the White House. So he sounds like a Monetarist, acts like a Monetarist and behaves like a Monetarist*…so Krugman and Santorum’s idiot followers say he’s a Keynesian. How does that work.

*I didn’t say Austrian, because Ron Paul is in the Austrian school of economics and I do see a few differences between the two.

But let’s take a larger look at this. Do you notice that YouTube clip is from a liberal group? And Krugman is trying to hit Romney for being a Keynesian. And this was also heavily reported on MSNBC and a few other liberal outlets. Now if he really was a Keynesian, and therefore one of the liberals, wouldn’t they keep this to themselves, wouldn’t they try to hide something that could be used against Romney. (You know, like their complete silence on Santorum’s long history of pro-union, big government, intrusive policies). I mean if he really was that liberal, they would want him to get the nomination, that way they would be guaranteed a liberal no matter what happened. It’s almost like they’re really afraid that this guy won’t take a pen-knife to the government in a few symbolic cuts but rather take the machete to the bureaucracy. It’s almost like they’re trying to help their big government friend Santorum in any way they can. Oh, but that would mean that Santorum supporters have to be the dumbest idiots in the world to play right into their enemies hands.

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes

Per Capita Debt Reaches $1.5 Million For Every Child Born Today

Because this kind of debt isn’t the very definition of insanity…does any seriously still believe it’s only a revenue problem?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A tale of two opinions on taxes

I know I said I wouldn’t do any writing on politics for the next couple of days (it’s proving difficult)…

But here are just two clips on the capitalist versus socialist view on taxes, I think they speak for themselves

From the capitalist…Sorry FOXNews makes it almost impossible to embed the clips, but the link works.

From the jackass who should be up on tax evasion charges…

Notice who is saying everyone should be equal and who is in a very subtle way threatening to strip people of their rights as Americans.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Taxes

Obama’s ‘Modest American Dream’ More Like a ‘Dream Killer’

As much as I’m getting annoyed with Big Government’s fit of anti-Romney bias (or as I’m now going to call it Romney Derangement Syndrome) Donlyn Turnbull is one of the few writers over there I don’t have any complaints about and articles like this one are the reason why:

Obama’s ‘Modest American Dream’ More Like a ‘Dream Killer’.

You should go read the whole article but here’s a sample:

The President remarked that…

 

If you’re willing to put in the work, the idea is that you should be able to raise a family and own a home; not go bankrupt because you got sick, because you’ve got some health insurance that helps you deal with those difficult times; that you can send your kids to college; that you can put some money away for retirement, that’s all most people want. Folks don’t have unrealistic ambitions. They do believe that if they work hard they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American Dream.”

When I first heard this comment I thought it was so sad.  Then, as the anger crept in, I thought, does President Obama not understand where he lives?

“Unrealistic” thinking is the very principle this country was founded on.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

As yet another Republican primary debate blows by the airwaves and as yet another round of anti-Romney rhetoric ushers forth from the usual cadre of bloggers and big-mouthed talk show hosts, us political peons out here in the hinterland can only take our heads in our hands in response to the self-destructive hubris of the conservative anti-Establishment.

Listening to Rush Limbaugh, who has spent the last few weeks using his 3-hour radio talk show to niggle and nag at all things Romney while at the same time popping out simpering paeans to Santorum, I’ve come to the no brainer conclusion that whether classified as the dreaded Republican Establishment or proffered as the populist Tea Party contingent, when it comes to political savvy and sophistication, they’re all a bunch of pompous jackasses.  And it seems Ann Coulter agrees.

In 2008, Romney was enthusiastically supported not only by Limbaugh and Levin, but…

View original post 139 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Taking a very brief break from politics

Campaign season is burning me out just a little.  So I’m going to try (emphasis on the try part) to take a short break on politics for a few days (maybe a week)…

 

But let this suffice until after the Arizona/Michigan votes as all encompassing commentary that will probably fit any day for the next month.

 

Mitt Romney said some very conservative things today.  He was largely ignored.  The left wing media pulled some clips out of context and made him seem heartless.  The right wing media also pulled some clips out of context, ignored his entire record, and called him a liberal.

 

Rick Santorum said some crazy ass things today.  That or he announced that he actually works for The Onion  and they wanted to see how long people would believe an actor trying to parody the villains from a Dan Brown novel could keep it up before someone called him on it.  Oh and I’m sure the devil had something to do with it.  Oh most of the left wing media will continue to ignore all of his insanity, and the right wing media will continue to ignore his life-long act that seems hell bent on restoring the Soviet Union here in America…but you know with an added theocracy flavor.

 

Newt blew the good will he built up in the last debate by opening his mouth today.  Yes we all agree he comes up with wonderful quips during a debate but then he opens his mouth outside of a debate and you remember what a sleazy piece of crap he is.

 

Ron Paul said something very brilliant about economics today…and then totally blew it by talking about foreign policy.

 

Eric Holder did something illegal today as he does every day that ends in “y.”

 

Barrack Obama did something dumb today.  And he wasted millions of dollars in tax money today.

 

Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Allen West, and Michelle Bachmann all said something brilliant, conservative and true today.  They were promptly ignored by everyone.

 

Bill O’Reilly, nice guy, said something today that shows he did not take enough classes in economics.

 

Joss Whedon wrote something Shakespearianly brilliant today.  This has nothing to do with politics, but it is a fact.

 

China, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and N. Korea did something unspeakably evil today.  Obama became their best friend.

 

Israel again ran the odds of waiting until next January when they have support or just getting it over with now.

 

Hollywood greenlit a crappy movie that should be burned even before it is filmed.  Again nothing to do with politics, just a daily fact of life.

 

Both sides in the Syrian conflict once again showed that they’re both evil.

 

Paul Krugman said something astoundingly stupid today.

 

 

There, I promise you that this will cover everything for at least the next week (if not month)

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Arizona, Capitalism, Conservative, Election 2012, Government is corrupt, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Rick Santorum

The Prop 8 Decision and Why It Hurts Gay Rights

So the Prop 8 Court decision came in a few weeks ago and along with the Birth Control Mandate helped push Rick Santorum up in the polls.

And the gay rights community rejoiced.  Which I found odd, as usually, people don’t rejoice in  their own downfall (ignoring the Obama inauguration and mythical behavior of Nero).  Wait, ruling that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is bad for gay rights?  Yeah it is.

Let me explain since I know there must be some confusion.

Basic human psychology is that people hate being forced to do something.  They really hate it.  But when they think they’re doing it themselves they’ll embrace doing that thing that they hated only a minute ago and go even a step further.  Think about the American Revolution, we started a war on a 2 cent tax on per metric ton of a breakfast beverage because it was forced on us but when it was our own representatives doing it, hell, let’s tax everything to death!  (A little hyperbolic, I’ll admit, but I think you get the point).   People are stubborn by nature, but Americans especially have a “bet me” attitude.  Another example, when was alcohol consumption highest?  When it was illegal.  To this day when does the alcohol intake for most people drop radically? The day after they turn 21…when it’s no longer a chance to stick it to the man, it loses a little something.

So what does this have to do with gay rights?  Well let me state a few things up front.  I think it is safe to say that the idea of complete equality in civil unions (as you know I advocate for getting rid of marriage and having both gay and straight couples have civil unions because marriage is a religious concept and thus the government shouldn’t be involved) is not a question of “if” but a question of “when.”  So long as Obama doesn’t finish the job of utterly destroying the world economy and sending us back a hundred years, I think it’s safe to say that in a hundred years gay rights battles will be an issues you read about in history books and occasionally hear Grandpa and Grandma (or any combination thereof) talk about.  But a hundred years is about 4 generations from now and while the question is not “if”, it is a question of “when.”  When? Will we have to wait those 4 generations or will it only be 1 generation?  Well, if the gay rights movement keeps trying to use the courts it will be all 4, because, as I said people hate having thing forced on them, even if that thing is in itself reasonable.

Don’t believe me.  Let’s look at some time lines:

1993 Hawaii Supreme Court finds that a statue limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional

Sept. 1996 Clinton signs Defense of Marriage Act

Dec 1996 Hawaiian  judge rules in favor of marriage being applied to same-sex couples

Nov 1998 Hawaii and Alaska voters approve of constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

Dec 1999 Vermont Court rules same-sex couples can’t be denied benefits granted to opposite-sex couples

Nov 2000 Nebraska approves constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

Nov 2002 Nevada does the same

2003 Massachusetts declares legislature has to enact same-sex marriage (on a side note, between this and Romney’s dealings with the legislature…what the hell kind of constitution do they have in the commonwealth?  The balance of powers seems completely out of whack)

2004 Massachusetts approves same-sex marriage (and San Francisco and Portland try to jump on the band wagon via fiat, but are shot down)

Aug 2004 Missouri joins the ranks of burdening their Constitution with silly marriage amendment

Sept 2004 Louisiana joins in the insanity

Nov 2004 Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, N. Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah join in the free for all.

April 2005 Kansas joins in the act

May 2005 District judge rules Nebraska version Unconstitutional (he is later overturned)

Nov 2005 Texas joins the club

June 2006 so does Alabama

Nov 2006 Colorado, Idaho, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin join in

May 2008 California Supreme Court rules the state ban is unconstitutional.  Marriages start in June.

Sept 2010 New Hampshire judges also order same-sex marriage

Nov 2008 California (prop 8), Arizona, Florida put in Constitutional bans.

I could go over more but I think you get the drift.  If you notice the way I group them every major act against gay rights and gay marriage is preceded by a court action in favor of gay rights.  Every action has an opposite reaction, and in politics it is always an unequal reaction.

But guess what, you never see this reaction when a state by popular vote or by legislative vote expands the equality of same-sex couples or even votes in gay marriage.  Because that is the will of the people, not legislation from the bench.

Think about it.  California, possibly the most liberal state in the nation voted in Prop 8.  Back in 1997 two-thirds of the state wanted an expansion of rights to gay couples.  California where half a dozen laws passed by the legislature expanding the rights of gay couples met with nary a complaint except from the radical fringe.    Yet this is the same California, that is 2008 voted to ban gay marriage by 52%.  Did a mass of rejects from Rick Santorum’s congregation suddenly get voting rights in the most liberal state in the nation…or did we see people give a very predictable reaction to having a court shove something down their throat that they weren’t ready for.

Should there be perfect equality?  Yeah.  Are people who violently oppose gay rights idiots?  Without question.  But right, wrong, or indifferent these are beliefs that are based on religion and tradition and habit.  They take time to change and forcing that change will only result in a violent backlash as we have seen with EVERY court decision in favor of gay rights.

The gay rights movement better pray that the Supreme Court takes the Prop 8 case and that they uphold Prop 8…because if they don’t, you will see a federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman clear both the House and the Senate without much debate and you will see it ratified by three-quarters of the states.  If California is willing to pass such a ban, do you really think any of the other states will put up much of a fight?  And it will take generations to get that stain of an amendment overturned.

Winning the Prop 8 case is Pyrrhic victory if it results in losing the war.

So am I suggesting that the gay rights movement just roll over?  No.  But fighting in the courts will only lead to disaster.  So what should the movement be focused on?  Well, for one stop trying to force the movement down people’s throats in other areas.  California mandating that gay history be taught  in public schools is insulting at the high school level (to single out people as being worthy of being mentioned for being a minority is just stupid no matter the minority, they’re either important to history or not, and if they are, usually their minority status is not important to what they did, and if it is, then that’s part of history and should be brought up)…but in elementary school  it’s just insane.  Most parents don’t want their elementary school children knowning heterosexual sex exists let alone gay sex, but go ahead make enemies of the middle class by forcing this into elementary schools.  I’m sure that will work great long term.

Leave the courts and laws alone for the moment.  It’s only going to breed negative reaction.  It would be better to focus on science and the social aspect.

By science I mean looking into the real cause of homosexuality and bisexuality.  I’ve searched, some studies I’ve seen suggest that the majority of humanity is bisexual and it’s just socialization that pushes a person one way or another (which would bizarrely give that stupid therapy shit some credence in a roundabout way, which no matter how silly the therapy is, you have to admit that would be ironic) and others that say it’s only a very small segment of society.  And while there seems to be some leads on genetics for male homosexuality, the cause of female homosexuality is still elusive.  From a scientific point of view, those are some friggin’ big gaps…ones that allow bigots to doubt (keep in mind these are the same people who can see fossils of 15 species that show a clear development over time but because number 16 is missing you can’t say 17 evolved from the others…I know they’re stupid, but fewer gaps you have the more of them you’ll peel off).  Facts help your case (and also debunking some of the pseudoscience I found on the web saying that there is no genetic component…I’m not going to include links because I was screaming at the computer screen and for me gay rights is a minor issue in the grand scheme of thing…I can only imagine if you were drawn to this blog because you were interested in the topic).  Facts will help win the middle which is what the movement needs.

And by social I mean, go with that “we’re just like you” campaign and get rid of the gay pride parades.  Really, like the court cases, those parades aren’t doing anyone any favors.  All those parades do is make the gay rights movement seem the counterbalance to the nutjobs from Westboro, it makes it seem to the general public that both sides are crazy.  That is not helping.  It needs to be clear Westboro Baptists=f’ing insane, gay rights movement=not insane people.  Do that you win.

Look, just recently the general public is finally in favor of gay marriage, according to Gallup but it’s not a large margin.  And if the movement continues demanding to force things before people are ready it will only result in those gains being temporarily destroyed.  I understand wanting it now.  I understand having to deal with the idiots who are close minded being infuriating.  But it is what is.  And not dealing in reality, showing a little patience (even if ethically you shouldn’t have to) will get you what you want sooner, then a tactical withdrawal is better than ruining everything, creating a federal amendment against your goals and giving idiots like Rick Santorum a platform to run on.

8 Comments

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics

Marriage, Religion and Society… (And in a roundabout way, another reason why Santorum’s a jackass)

Ugh…I hate social issues.  I would love it if everyone could just keep their personal lives personal and not worry about what other people are doing so long as they’re not hurting anyone.  And while I am quite the civil libertarian in caring about other people’s lives it might have something to do that my personal life could not be more bland and conservative…which may be why I couldn’t care about other people’s lives.

But because of Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber (otherwise known as Obama and Santorum, I’m not sure which is which) and their ilk there will be no end to the discussion of these otherwise stupid topics for weeks if not months….no, no let’s not talk about saving the economy or dealing with absolute evil abroad, birth control and gay marriage is far more important than whether or not there will actually be a first world society in a generation. Far more important.

I’ve dealt with Obama’s overstep of executive authority in the guise of an attack on religious freedom so I guess it is now time to once again take on Santorum.  Of course that’s a whole mess of issues right there.  Well…let’s go to a few quotes:

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.”

“Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman[.]”

“The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society.”

“Do they have a right? Should society do their best to make sure that that child has the best opportunity to be raised by that mother and father? The answer is yes.”

…and if you think those quotes have a distinct communist/collectivist call for 1984, Brave New World, or Anthem I wouldn’t blame you.  Really I’m fascinated to hear that marriage has nothing to do with love (makes you wonder what his home life is like…I’ve got an idea let’s see if his wife or daughters ever smile while on camera in a way that isn’t obviously forced to see how happy that home life is.)  So in Rick Santorum’s mind you are here only to have children to propagate society and we give special privileges to these breeders…(It makes you really frightened of his call to TRIPLE the tax credit for children…because in a time when any right thinking conservative wants to lower taxes and CLOSE all loopholes, he wants to open loopholes with a crowbar so as to encourage massive overpopulation because it’s working so well for the third world).   Okay we can agree that Rick Santorum doesn’t have a single neuron firing in that head of his.  But that still doesn’t put the general issue of marriage off the table even if I’m Santorum is lord high king of the idiots.  So let’s talk marriage…

Yes marriage is an important function of society.  Rick is wrong about it being the basis of society, that has always been and always will be the individual…but individuals need human companionship (usually in the form of friendship and marriage, and if they’re one in the same, then you’re blessed).  Now is marriage only for the “uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society”?  Not really.  People were having children and caring for them long before marriage, although marriage does help raising them, certainly, no one would argue that.  But it is not having a mother and father that helps, it’s having two parents that helps (increased income, increased ability for child care, increased experience) and anyone who thinks that gay people make bad parents isn’t just crazy, they’re flying in the face of a boat load of research (Just one example here).  But raising children isn’t the only thing marriage is for.  If Santorum wanted to ever crack a history book (which I don’t think he has ever done given his perverted views on the Founding Fathers view of liberty ) he might learn that property rights have traditionally had far more to do with marriage than children do…but that would require Santorum to care about property rights, which are an individual right and as he has much respect for individual rights as any communist or Asharite.  And while history is filled with moments where society progressed just fine without any strict government rules on marriage I would be foolish to say that marriage isn’t a great support for society.  However if Santorum and his followers think that gay marriage is a danger to marriage, or even if it’s that  relevant in the face of other government hits at marriage, then they’re idiots.

Granted, as I’ve said before, I would like the federal government and all the states to say that marriage is a religious institution and thus strike the term marriage from every law on the books…civil unions for everyone!  It’s up to your church whether to call what you have a marriage or not, not the government.  This has the advantage of A.) not letting government dictate what a religion can do (we’ll come back to this) (social conservatives get what they want) B.) Everyone will be equal (social liberals get what they want) C.)Nobody gets to win (because I hate people who think social issues are a function of government) and D.) Jackasses like Santorum will have to shut up (everybody on the planet wins).  All the legal privileges of the marriage could be easily transferred to these civil unions, but as it lacks the name it lacks the attack on a religious institution that expanding it encompasses.

But I will still admit that marriage, and a two parent family is important to a functioning society. You’d be a damn fool to deny that…but then again both social conservatives and social liberals are damn fools given how they act. Social liberals are idiots for what they’ve already done to weaken those social structures (and I’ll get to that in just a minute) and social conservatives are idiots for fighting a defensive war against gay marriage (which has nothing to do with the strength of the social institution, but it is very visible which suggest that their cause is more cynical demagoguery than heartfelt concern) rather than an offensive war against the liberal policies that actually have done harm to marriage and society.

But back to my statement about liberals actually having done some stuff have actually done to undermine the social institution of marriage (hint gay marriage isn’t going to be anywhere on this list).

Welfare and the Great Society.  Let’s pay unwed mothers money for having children.  That makes sense.  Because every economist from any school, be it Keynesian, Chicago or Austrian, will tell you that when you subsidize a behavior or product you get more of it.  Subsidize unwed children, guess what, you de-incentivize actually getting married or waiting until marriage to have children.  (This would also be tied to my opinion that Rick Santorum’s idea to triple the child tax credit when we have an over population problem is, well, brainless).  Really brain dead is that we pay for anything more than the first pregnancy.  I can see an argument for a safety net to help women who have had an accident, been dumped by the loser who got them pregnant, and need some help…one time is an accident (although I would prefer these to be run by counties and cities…not a distant bureaucracy in states and at the federal level).  But not two times.  And definitely not more than two.

Now if social conservatives really wanted to care about the well being of children and the defense of marriage as a social institution they would once again push for welfare reforms.  One that cut people off after the first pregnancy, ones that vigorously track down deadbeat dads (I wouldn’t mind upping what the minimum monthly payment is and bringing back debtors prison for those who won’t pay).  Or requiring the welfare recipients attend GED or job training to help ensure they get off welfare if they want to continue getting their check.  Or how about this one—we’ll keep track of every dollar you get in welfare payments you get from the government and the minute you start making over let’s say $25,000 a year the government will deduct 1% of your check until you’ve paid back what you took out, interest free because we’re not monsters (and the percentage of your check would go up slightly say 3% at $30,000 so forth and so on) this way no would ever view welfare as a free ride, thus removing many of the incentives for taking it.  But right now I’m hearing more about those evil, evil gays (who seem to be decent parents and no worse as couples than their straight counterparts) as what is ruining marriage.  Yeah couldn’t be the financial incentives against being married when having children.

Oh and speaking of financial incentives, why is that the call to end the marriage penalty at all levels has kind of disappeared?  As I recall the law passed under Bush to end the marriage penalty had a sunset date…isn’t that coming up?  How about this, offer a tax discount for those who get married.  Watch people get married and stay married when there are real financial incentives to do so.  Will some people get married for reasons other than love?  Probably, but how is that different from right now?  If you want to promote something don’t punish it.  But you haven’t heard that from social conservatives, now have you.  Hell, given the fact that children of single parent households have a higher likelihood of committing a crime, then financially incentivizing marriage would probably pay for the reduction in revenue via a drop in paying for imprisonment (among a whole mountain of secondary benefits, that was just the first one that came to me, trust me it would pay for itself ten times over).

I could go on, how Social Security and Medicare encourage people to dump bonds with their parents when they got old rather than bringing them into the household in a more stable extended family, how the government support for the liberal Teacher’s unions worked to destroy parental responsibility in raising their children, and a few other programs…but I think you get the point.  If social conservatives really cared about the state of marriage and the social benefits that the family brings there are things they could be doing that would be incredibly effective in strengthening the social institution.  But they would rather focus on something that has NOTHING to do with the strength of marriage.  (And liberals don’t go feeling self-satisfied about that last sentence, you actually have done some damage to the social institution of marriage, just because the conservatives are idiots and not calling you on it doesn’t make you less guilty.

Now social conservatives will probably come back with some stupid “gay marriage is the straw that will break the camel’s back” kind of argument.  But as we know in this case I think social conservatives are idiots.  If they really cared about the state of marriage and the need of married couple to properly raise children they would be attacking the liberal entitlement culture and not worrying about what gay people do.

Up next, why the Court decisions on Prop. 8 is actually the last thing the gay community should want because it’s going to hurt them…because the social liberal also need to be hit (with a peppering of insults against the right)

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Welfare