Monday, February 27, 2006

The Government, Subsidies and Shell Games

Thomas Sowell has written an excellent piece on how the government is able to convince people that they are getting something for nothing by attaching strings to the services it delievers. He uses the "you have to sign up for Medicare if you want Social Security" requirement as an example. The concept helps explain just about all the other "basic rights" they create every couple of years.

This is a great passage:

"If there is something for sale in the marketplace for ten dollars and you would not pay more than five dollars for it, some politician can always offer to get it for you free -- as a newly discovered "basic right," or at least at a "reasonable" or "affordable" price.

..Suppose that the "reasonable" or "affordable" price is three dollars. How do you suppose the government can produce something for three dollars that private industry cannot produce for less than ten dollars? Greater efficiency in government? Give me a break!

The fact that you pay only three dollars at the cash register means nothing. If it costs the government twelve dollars to produce and distribute what you are getting for three dollars, then the government is going to have to get another nine dollars in taxes to cover the difference.

One way or another, you are going to end up paying twelve dollars for something you were unwilling to buy for ten dollars or even six dollars. But so long as you think you are getting something for nothing, the politicians' shell game has worked and the welfare state can continue to expand."

Unfortunately, Sowell, a conservative and black **GASP!** is marginalized by the mainstream media, so you must find his articles in places like He is one of the most brilliant minds in the country.

Here is the rest of the story.

Stickman Running

Free Image Hosting at
What would a skinny stickman look like? It's kind of small, but the dialogue bubble reads "Look how skinny that guy is!"

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Nudie Clothing

Free Image Hosting at
What exactly does one purchase at the "Nudie Clothing" store?

Conservatives and Happiness

So the Pew Research Center has determined that conservatives are happier than liberals. Duh.

The recent survey they conducted shows this happiness gap exists accross the entire socio-economic spectrum, therefore the argument "well, conservatives are richer, so of course they are happier" is a non-issue.

This kind of research driven by rejecting the null hypothesis drives many scholars crazy. The idea is that in order to be noticed, you have to prove the obvious. It's like conducting a poll that asks "do you think guys with a lot of money get more girls?" Is there a conservative equivalient bumper sticker to "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention?"

Everything is an outrage to liberals. Of course they aren't happy. They make it abundantly clear around every corner.

My truck is an outrage, petroleum companies profits are an outrage, Dick Cheney's delay in talking to the press about his hunting accident is an outrage and the list goes on and on.

Republicans and conservatives are rarely surprised by the crazy ideas that become policy these days, so any time they are actually able to maintain something that looks like freedom, they are content.

This quote from George Will's article today may also account for some of it:

"The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver."

For lack of a need to make the argument more conplicated I am a "consrvative" and I am basically happy. Sure, I wish I had a cooler car and a flatter stomach, but I live in the most tolerant, most free country man has ever produced.

So it's on to the next big study that is begging to be conducted-- "The need for hair and eye color on Chinese driver's licenses. An empirical study."

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Is this the way to win in 2006?

So there is now a push in 16 states to ban gay adoption. The Republican leadership hopes that it will draw the base out of their homes and into the polls in 2006. All I can say is, "Not so fast, Republican leadership."

The idea is that it worked in 2004 when they used the gay marriage issue to get conservatives out. Unfortunately, gay adoption is hardly a pressing issue that the average American is concerned about. In fact, the Republicans run the risk of bringing out the REALLY REALLY conservative base at the expense of moderates who will think it's all a bit silly.

Gay adoptions account for less than 1/10 of a percent of all adoptions in the U.S. That is an issue that definitely needs attention, don't you think?

Bush is looking at some major losses in congress this fall if he doesn't give up on this UAE Ports wackiness and find some other issue to rally the troops around. This is an assertion based on the political reality and it has amazed many Republicans (including myself) how we EVER elect officials to office. So many political blunders have been made, which must show that the American people agree with us on substance. They probably hold their noses while pulling the lever saying to themselves "why can't you guys find some better way to package your message?" But man, Rove and Melman could not see an opportunity to win seats if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.

I pray the party will rethink this strategy. It makes us look like a bunch of weirdos.

Here is the story

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Mole Restroom

If the CIA is looking for spies, it seems like they could just hang out in front of this bathroom.

Free Image Hosting at

Monday, February 20, 2006

President's Day

Remember when there were two holidays, celebrating these two great presidents?

Image Hosted by

Free Image Hosting at

Now, in order to be all-inclusive, we have "President's Day." Hooray for Chester A Arthur!

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Canada finds some courage

Canada has basically said, "No aid to Palastine unless they stop saying they want to destroy Isreal."

Way to go.

Here is the artice.

Rich Woman Famous Club

Free Image Hosting at

Lots of rich, famous women ride their scooters to this store.

What do the cartoons look like?

If you are interested in what all the rioting is all about, you can see the cartoons on Michelle Malkin's Blog.

They are so innocuous I can't believe it. This is why we don't believe them when they call it a "religion of peace." If Christians were rioting over similarly offensive cartoons, the world would be saying "get over it. It's freedom of the press." And they would be right.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Sometimes I miss active duty

If I ever get another tattoo, it will look basically like this-

Image Hosted by

That was my unit in Basic Training

In case you suspect your mind is being controlled..

Here is a website to help you prevent mind control.

Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie

Preoccupied with minutia

While the Iranians are about to blow up one of their neighbors and the muslim world is burning down the whole world over cartoons, this is what the press cares about (Transcript of yesterday's press breifing from the White House Web Site):

And that's a preview of tomorrow's remarks, and with that I will be glad to go to your questions.

Q Scott, I just have two questions to follow up on the accidental shooting by the Vice President. Does the President think that the Vice President should address this publicly, personally, speak to the American people in any fashion to explain what happened and why it took so long to disclose it publicly?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think what happened has been explained. The Vice President's Office has talked about it; I've talked about it. And I represent the President and speak for him. The Vice President's spokeswoman speaks for him, as well. So that information has been provided. We went through this pretty thoroughly yesterday.

Q So the President doesn't think that the Vice President should actually think about it himself, not through intermediaries?

MR. McCLELLAN: You talk to the Vice President on a fairly frequent basis in the past, and I'm sure you will in the future, as well.

Q But he shouldn't really have to address specifically, in your view --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he has, through his office.

Q Okay, let me ask you this -- is the President concerned that the Vice President made decisions about the public disclosure of this incident that are clearly at odds with how you and others advising the President disclose personal information about the President's activities?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me just say this, since there's some follow-up questions that you all have. First of all, I think we went through this pretty thoroughly yesterday and I worked to answer the questions to the best of my ability and in a forthright manner, based on the facts that I knew. There were some very legitimate questions that were asked. As I indicated, I always believe that you can look back and work to do better. I indicated that yesterday. I think today what we're focusing our efforts is on what are the most pressing priorities before the American people. And that's where we're focusing. I understand you still have some --

Q That's fine, and that's appropriate.

MR. McCLELLAN: If you want to continue to spend time on that, that's fine. We're moving on to the priorities of the American people. That's where our focus is.

Q That's fair, and that's your prerogative, and I've got my job to do, which is, try to get you to answer that question. Does the President think it's appropriate for the Vice President to essentially make decisions at odds with the public disclosure process of this White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that I've expressed my views, and we went through this yesterday.

Q But that's a non-answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I was trying to indicate to you --

Q Does the President have a view about how the Vice President has conducted himself?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, that's what I -- I indicated to you yesterday what our views were.

Q No, I don't recall you sharing the President's view.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but can I finish responding? I'm glad to answer your questions.

Q You didn't answer that question. It was very respectful --

MR. McCLELLAN: I was very respectful and responsive to you all --

Q The Vice President basically decided on his own to not disclose this, which is at odds with how you do business and how the President does business, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't want to make this about anything other than what it is. It is what it is, David. I was very respectful and responsive to your questions yesterday. I provided you the information I knew based on the facts that were available, and we've been through this pretty thoroughly.

Q You don't have an answer to this question. All right, one final question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, wait, I'm just not going to go back through it again. I'd appreciate it if you'd let me respond fully before you jump in.

Q All right, but -- well, hold on one second. I've got one final question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Other people in this room have questions, and we've got an event coming up.

Q I understand that, but I'm not getting answers here, Scott, and I'm trying to be forthright with you, but don't tell me that you're giving us complete answers when you're not actually answering the question, because everybody knows what is an answer and what is not an answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: David, now you want to make this about you, and it's not about you, it's about what happened. And that's what I'm trying to --

Q I'm sorry that you feel that way, but that's not what I'm trying to do.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm trying to provide answers to the questions.

Q I have one final question, since that one wasn't answered. Is it appropriate for the Vice President to have waited 14 hours after the incident before he spoke with local law enforcement officials? And do you think that an average citizen would have been accorded that same amount of time before having to answer questions about a shooting incident?

MR. McCLELLAN: That was what was arranged with the local law enforcement authorities. You ought to ask them that question.

The mainstream national press cannot believe that they have become irrelevant, and they are having a child-like melt down. It's actually kind of fun to watch.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Never miss an opportunity to be political

Last Wednesday, while sitting in the waiting room of the VA hospital, the King funeral was being broadcast live. Although I was delirious from the misery of my flu symptoms, questioning my very will to live, I was able to notice the difference in the way both Presidents' Bush conducted themselves compared to Carter et al.

I cannot tell you how many liberal friends of mine think I am "too political," or "too opinionated." Lets analyze that for a moment shall we? This idea that conservatives are the ones who are too boorish and opinionated about their views by necessity forces us to revisit a problem I dealt with in an earlier post about the media and liberal bias.

If one merely accepts what they hear on TV, including the local and national news, the sitcoms, reality shows and dramas the default position about how the world works is "liberal." You must step outside the box you have placed yourself in by getting your information about life from (basically) one source if you wish to be exposed to any other way of thinking. What passes for political discourse on the evening news is "should poor people be given food to eat and a place to sleep or should they be tortured and dipped in shit like the evil Republicans want to do to them?"

This way, your identity as a "good" person is inextricably tied to your political positions. Especially when they have to do with vague sounding concepts like "women's rights" and "social justice."

Is there someone one on the right who is against "women's rights?" Is there a serious politician in the Republican Party who has suggested that we repeal the rights of blacks or women to vote? If they have, let me be the first to say, "you are not welcome in my party."

But this is exactly what is believed by the vast majority of the left who call themselves "the middle" in this country. Liberals=kind, generous, care about children. Conservatives=greedy, hateful, angry, threatened by women. This provides the backdrop for a discussion about how a conservative can be labeled "too political." If these labels stick, than ANY opinion offered by conservatives is "too... fill in the blank." It's only too much if you disagree.

Which brings me back to the Coretta Scott King funeral. Because I was trapped by the draconian VA hospital system, I watched the entire thing. Not once did either Bush mention a policy, an idea, or a complaint. It was all praise for the deceased. Like a eulogy. How silly of them.

With the exception of Bill Clinton, every speaker from the left had something to complain about vis a vis the Bush administration. Jimmy Carter suggested that Bush's response to Katrina was of course, racially motivated. Even though, in the after math we know that the actual numbers were not reflected by the media's severe over coverage of black victims. In fact, Katrina was actually racially biased against whites in Louisiana. IN PROPORTION! What should we do about that?

Unfortunately, nobody watching even noticed how inappropriate the comments from Carter were. Instead, one of the secretaries sitting near by said "mmmm mm! Now aint it a shame that somebody like Coretta King had to die to get them people in the same room together?"

All the lemmings in the room responded with the usual silliniess "oh yeah. mmm hmmm." (You are not allowed to disagree with a middle-aged black woman in public, while the Coretta King funeral is on. Anything she says is self-evidently a brilliant deduction, and she should be elected queen of the universe because she represents "regular folk" who apparently have a direct link to common sense and probably God himself.)

Why is it a shame? Why is it even a surprise? We all knew the major Republicans would show up. It's the decent thing to do. And of course, any opportunity to call them names like racist, bigoted, homophobic warmongers is certainly not going to be passed up by the likes of Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Friday, February 10, 2006

This is why I am in mental health

Fred Phelps, Baptist preacher and apparently completely unable to be subtle in use of projection as a defense mechanism, knows one thing. God hates fags. The website of his church, the Westboro Baptist Church is not named something catchy like "Westboro Baptist Church" but rather

I don't understand what a person like this, or those who follow him thinks about all day. Most of us think, "I need to get in the shower," "Did I leave the iron on this morning?" or "I'll get flowers on my way home." But to be animated in this way, one must be supremely preoccupied with one thing. Stopping the fags.

Protesting soldiers' funerals in order to make sure the mourners know that God killed them because they defend a country that harbors homosexuals is apparently the entire point of this movement.

So now several states are trying to enact legislation to prevent these demonstrations. Here is the story.

States try to block protests

Running obviously did not happen this week

No weekly running times, since I have been laying in bed coughing up green stuff for a week.

I guess it's better than "sticky prison"

Free Image Hosting at

The social conservatives' bug me

Here is an article from Brent Bozell at Townhall. I guess people are concerned about this stuff, that is Janet Jackson's boob and what kind of movies are advertised on Monday Night Football. I have to force myself to read these articles, because I just yawn

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Sick for the last 5 days

The flu is no joke. It got me on Saturday, and I was in bed from Monday thru today.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Iran and Nukes

I wish somebody would help me snap out of it. What is the it? The feeling that I almost wish either Iran or North Korea would hurry up already and develop a nuclear weapon, and drop it on some country they don't like so we can get it on.

As I read through the text of the most recent UN resolution, and all the news coverage surrounding the crisis, I just can't help but think "crazy, out of control nations with nukes is an inevitability. Maybe only then will people get the whole "beating up bullies" discussion. (Scroll down)

Is it True?

George will is usually right, and sometimes it scares me.

The reason I get so terrified when I read his articles is because he has quite a cynical view of the state of federalism in America--and he's really smart.

In his piece this week about the president's address, the following line appears:

"...the two fears are illness and old age -- particularly illness in old age. The modern anxiety is that educational deficits will leave rising generations of Americans ill-equipped to compete in a world in which few social structures can temper the winds of competition.

Furthermore, Americans are uninterested in the question of which level of government in our federal system addresses those fears and that anxiety."

Are Americans "uninterested?" As far as I know, there are a few things that make this country so great. Private property, free speech, and due process are just a few. Another is the diffusing of power--away from a central source--aka federalism. The debate SHOULD ALWAYS BE ABOUT which level of government does what! It is one of the greatest protectors of freedom we have in place.

He says that it started in the 50's when the government injected into the name of every new federal program the word "defense" in order to give it the feeling of having something to do with national security--a clearly enumerated constitutional endeavor.

Whatever the reason, why can't federalism have new life breathed into it? Like those bumper stickers from the 60's, we could edit them to say "freedom--an idea whose time has come."

Let me get on the phone to the ACME Bumper Sticker Company right now.

George Will Article

Wednesday, February 01, 2006


Free Image Hosting at