Post-Election Blues

So if you've been following this blog, you already know my feelings about the results.  I'm relieved.  On facebook I had complained and argued with people about the election, the platforms, the candidates, and fighting the pro-Romney propaganda that 80% of my friends have been posting.  It got so out of control that at one point a woman actually wrote to my wife and told her that she was no longer going to be her friend on facebook anymore because she "didn't support socialism" and that some day my wife "would regret voting for Obama".

 This is my response  to that statement.  First, what is socialism?  Webster says :

1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2. a: system of society or group living in which there is no private property

    b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


She was, of course, referring to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as socialism.  It's a very complicated law, and there isn't really much else I can do but oversimplify it by boiling it down to it's essence.  The law says everyone must have insurance.  You may keep your private insurance if you currently have it, but if you don't have it, you are now required by law to have it.  If you didn't have it because of pre-existing conditions that barred you from obtaining it, pre-existing conditions are discriminatory and against the law.  If you don't want private insurance, you may sign up for what I'm sure will be a really sh***y  plan from the government. If you cannot afford insurance, the premiums will be adjusted so that you can afford it. If you are so dirt poor that paying for insurance is above your cost of living, you will qualify for medicaid.

Sure, in theory, saying that everyone must have health insurance is a socialistic philosophy.  Everyone is equal in that sense.  But if you look at the execution of the law it does not meet the definition at all.

1. The government does not own the means of production.  Doctors and nurses are not government employees.  The government is not the sole provider of insurance; as evidenced by multiple insurance agencies that exist and will continue to exist after the plan is fully implemented.

2. a: You will still own your own home, car, and even your private insurance.  You can even change to another private insurance if you want.
    b. The government is now saying you have to have insurance.  If you take out a loan on a car, the bank requires you to have insurance for the car.  The government is now saying if you are alive, you need to have insurance.  It's in your best interest to have it.  If you are poor or middle class and get sick or are in an accident, you may never have the money you need for healthcare costs in your lifetime. 60% of all bankruptcies are healthcare related,  Healthcare costs are outrageously high and growing every year.  Why you would not want insurance is something I will not understand.  But according to definition 2 b., Obamacare does not equal socialism.

3. Do you really believe we are in a transition into communism?  Do you see the redistribution of wealth?  Oh, you might say, there are going to be higher taxes on the rich to pay for government programs for the poor!  That's not how it works.  Redistribution of wealth would be that at the end of the day, the money you've made that exceeds the standard of living dictated by government, would be taken from you and given to people who did not make enough to meet the standard of living.  And by the way, your employer is the government.

From what I've seen and heard, no one really understands what the word "socialism" means.  They know that it's a dirty word, so they use it to describe what they don't understand.   I don't understand why most Republicans don't want poor and sick people to get the healthcare they need.  I guess that makes me socialist.

One of the things that I liked most about this election, was Karl Rove was caught with his metaphoric pants down.  With over a billion dollars spent on the election, his superpacs gave Karl a minuscule return on investment.  In fact, according to NPR,  of all the money spent on the presidential election this year, less than 2% was supporting the candidate that actually won the election.  Less than 2%.  That's a big win for America.  It proves that democracy still works, and apparently there are still people out there that can think for themselves and are not persuaded by TV ads.  I can't help but laugh at every story I see come out about how millionaires and billionaires are gunning for Rove.  Here's a guy who was even called out on FOX news the night of the election for doing the kind of math that republican's do to "make themselves feel better."  He is so much in denial that he argued for a good twenty minutes that Ohio was not lost in the election before slinking off into the shadows to wet his pants.  Unfortunately, Rove made millions himself from this election by collecting transactional fees from the billionaires he misled.  In a way that's actually kind of cool.  Karl Rove robbing the rich to stuff his own fat pockets.  Hat's off to you Karl, you're a true capitalist.  An opportunity arose and you grabbed it by the horns.


Moving on to my last topic, this is something else that's been bothering me lately.  Look up at the graphic I posted above of the U.S. of A by electoral votes.  I saw a lot of complaining about how if most of the US is red, how did Obama get elected?  Well, for those of you who have never left your red state, let me tell you.  It's because states are allocated electoral votes based on population. The US census on July 1, 2011, estimated that there was a population of 568,158 people living in Wyoming.  The same census reported the population of New York (state) at 19,465,197.  New York is much more densely populated, though it is significantly smaller than Wyoming.  For those of you who understand math, New York has more people than Wyoming.  Wouldn't it make sense that New York counts more than Wyoming in elections because there are more people?  It's really pretty easy.  Don't strain your brain thinking about it.

The news has been reporting a lot of redistricting as well to suppress votes and swing elections.  Guess what, Obama also won the popular vote, so no matter how you divide it, you'll at least know that the populace didn't choose your candidate.  Get over yourselves.  

My Take On Denver Presidential Debate

Winners and losers are subjective. I'm not going to say who I think won or lost, you can decide that based on your criteria of "points totaled" or however you do it.  I'm going to try from an objective point of view on what happened last night.

Romney came out of the gate at a full sprint.  President Obama seemed to lean against the gate and yawn the entire "race".  As one person on Twitter put it, Obama seemed like someone trying desperately to end a phone conversation.


What Romney had going for him: 

• A previously unseen amount of aggressiveness.  
• He fought for time to speak, and fought for the topics that were addressed.  
• He single-handedly controlled the subject matter for the majority of the debate, speaking only on topics that he wanted to talk about, and on his terms. 
• He opened up about a few topics he previously has refused to address or awkwardly dodged answering.  
• He looked at Obama while responding and while listening.
• He didn't wear a spray tan to this event.
• He mastered a very good condescending look.
• As Frederick E. Allen from Forbes said, " Mitt Romney "may have said things that were clearly untrue ... but he said them convincingly."

What Romney had against him:

• Romney has never been as far right as his party wants him to be, but last night he moved even further to left to appear as a moderate -- which according to his policies, he is not.  
• He claimed things last night about medicare and social security that he has opposed leading up to the debate. 
• He backs his statistics with studies performed by his campaign managers and denies the veracity of non-partisan independent studies that contradict him.  
• He continues to claim that his budget accounts for raising revenue even when independent studies prove that it does not add up.  He can clearly can count to five, but it appears that numbers higher than that will require a tutor. 
• Romney continued to be ambiguous by saying I will create jobs, I will balance the budget, but not saying how.  
• He claims to care for elderly and the poor, but they make up over half of the 47% that he said take no responsibility for their lives and that its not his "job to care for those people".  
• Romney also spent a lot of time attacking the president and his policies more than he did talking about what he plans to do differently.  
• Romney was perhaps too aggressive, cutting of the moderator and his opponent repeatedly which made him come across as inconsiderate and a bully.
• Got really worked up at times and spoke so fast he stumbled over his words and kept talking for the sake of talking and not saying anything of value 

What President Obama had going for him:

• Honestly, not much.  
• President Obama did not spend the majority of his time attacking Romney for his plans the way Romney attacked him.  
• He was very civil and respectful, and did not cut Romney off
• Only cut of Jim once
• Didn't say he'd fire Jim or Big Bird.

What President Obama had against him:

• President Obama pointed out the holes in Romney's policies and the ambiguous statements he had previously made, but he did not call Romney out on his contradictions to previous stances during the debate.  
• He hardly looked at Romney throughout the debate.  
• He answered Romney's statements by addressing the moderator and not Romney.  
• He refused to look at Romney when speaking or listening.  
• He looked down at his notes as if he was nervous or bored.  He did not seem interested or prepared to answer Romney's allegations.  
• The fact that it was his 20th wedding anniversary probably played a minor role in his performance, though no one can blame that entirely for his poor performance 
• Obama was never a good debater, he does best when he can carefully structure thoughts without time constraints to clearly articulate his thoughts.

A Lesson On Language

It's been on my mind for awhile now.  I hear things every day, and I'm sure you do too, that make me scratch my head and wonder, "did you just say what I think you said?  Did I hear that correctly?"  I'm astounded by some of the things that come out of people's mouths.

Here's one, the misuse of the word "literally".  It used to be an antonym for "metaphorically", but has morphed into a synonym.

• If you literally "cried your eyes out", hats off to you. That's quite the feat. Eyes are roughly the size of golf balls, so to squeeze them out of your face must have been exhilarating. How did  you get them back in?

• "I literally got my heart ripped out." Oh, really? Indiana Jones style, huh? Lucky for you all your veins and arteries were kept intact so all you needed were a few stitches and an asprin, right? I mean, that could have ended REALLY badly for you.
• "I literally jumped out of my skin."  I had a hermit crab that went through the molting process once, call me next summer when you're about to start again.  I'd love to see this.

• "The president can literally change the direction of the world."  Let's make Utah subtropical.   Also, let's get more daylight on Christmas.  Come on Obama, FOCUS. 

I also hear the abuse of the word "epic".  Websters says " extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope".  Let me put this into perspective for you.

• Beowulf defeating Grendel was epic. Finding half a poptart in your backpack was not. 

• Gandalf single-handedly slaying the Balrog was epic.  Having a quiet night at home eating ice cream and catching up on Real Housewives of New Jersey -- not so much.

• Jason beheading the hydra and stealing the golden fleece was epic. Finding a misspelled word on a milk carton was not.

• Perseus slicing off the head of Medusa was epic.  Standing at the bus stop eating a soft pretzel -- wait, tell me more about that soft pretzel.  I need all the facts to make an informed decision.

The word "awesome" means inspiring, astounding, miraculous. A solar eclipse is awesome.  Buying half priced donuts at closing time is not.

"Ironic", as my friend James pointed out, does not mean "coincidental".   Irony is when you say, "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if that guy walking down the street suddenly fell through a manhole?" and then right after that he gets hit by a trolley.

Last of all, have you heard people say "I might could"? You might -- or you could.  If you "might could" do something,  I'll tell you what will definitely happen. Your ambiguity will make my head explode. Literally. It will be epic.

Voter ID Laws Reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws

Lately there has been a lot of talk from the conservative media about voter fraud concerns, and how illegal immigrants in the US are going to reelect Obama unless they are stopped.  This has created a demand from the public that the government crack down on voting laws.  Interestingly enough, the Republican National Lawyer Association has found less than 400 cases of voting fraud in the last ONE HUNDRED YEARS.  Statistically speaking, that is less than 1% of votes cast each year and does not affect results at all.

The problem with the proposed voter ID laws has been embodied in the recent legislation passed in Pennsylvania.  Take Vivitte Applewhite for example, a 93 year old woman who has voted in nearly every election for the past 60 years. She marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. and now has become ineligible to vote.  She fought for equality as a US citizen for her right to vote, and now it has been taken away from her by the same type of discriminatory legislation she fought against with Dr. King.  This time, it's not because of the color of her skin, but because statistically she is more likely to vote for Obama than for Romney.  

The Jim Crow laws were passed in the late 1800s and continued through the mid 1900s.  They allowed for states to administer literacy tests and collect poll taxes which would disqualify minority groups from casting their vote.  The tests were not administered to everyone, were not graded equally, and were not standardized.  The poll taxes were put in place mainly to disqualify black voters, but also poor whites. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made poll taxes and literacy tests illegal, abolishing what was left of the Jim Crow laws.  Pennsylvania's  new legislation aims to disqualify voters in the same way that the Jim Crow laws did, but this time it is to disqualify many who may vote in opposition to interests of Pennsylvanian Republican leaders like Mike Turzai and Tom Corbett. 

Mike Turzai openly admitted that by passing new voter ID laws, it “is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." Nearly 720,000 LEGAL citizens immediately lost their right to vote the day the legislation was signed.  Another nearly 1.5 million people are at risk of losing their ability to vote.

In a recent article by Juan Williams of FOX News, I read this:

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University estimates that more than 5 million Americans could be prevented from voting this November. They estimate that one in ten Americans do not have the necessary identification.  

Their latest Brennan report shows that more than 10 million eligible voters live “more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office.” Many of these voters do not have public transportation readily available to them and many of the offices that issue the IDs are only open during weekdays for limited hours when most people are working.
The report also says that copies of birth certificates needed to get these ID scans cost between as much as $25. It shows how marriage licenses, which are required for women whose birth certificates only show their maiden name, can cost up to $20. Adjusted for inflation, those fees are more than the poll tax in many Southern states during the Jim Crow era. Poll taxes have historically been used to disenfranchise minorities and poor people.

I've heard people say, "How hard is it to get a state ID?" Well, for poor people, it's hard because you don't have time, transportation, or money to purchase any documents you may have lost.  And then you have to wait for those purchased documents to get to your house to go back and register for your ID.  It is a sure-fire way of eliminating the illegal vote, if it exists, but it also eliminates the poor working man vote.  And that is not something Dr. King would stand for.

See http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-06/opinion/opinion_hair-dianis-voting-rights_1_pennsylvania-photo-id-new-voter-id-law-turnout-and-registration

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/03/gop-fictional-voter-fraud-charges-aim-to-keeping-democrats-from-voting/

Passing the Buck Since 1994

I read a very interesting article about a letter faxed to an old employee of Bain Capital, signed by Mittens himself.  He claims he didn't cause the layoff of this employee and the shut down of the entire business he worked for because, he had "left Bain in 1994" and so was not responsible at all for what happened.  Sound familiar?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-21/read-the-fax-romney-sent-to-a-laid-off-worker



And apparently the guy has a whole box of stuff he's kept (against his wife's wishes because of the clutter) that details a lot of stuff that happened while he worked  under Bain's watchful care.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-02-23/mitt-romneys-box-of-kryptonite

If You're Upset About The Quote "If you've got a business...you didn't build that", Then You Must Be A Moron

You've seen it, I'm sure, the "If you've got a business...you didn't build that" Obama quote. It's plastered all over Facebook and more than likely, in your inbox. You've probably even re-shared it with your friends, enraged by the audacity of our president to make such a condescending claim. But did you read or hear the rest of his speech? That quote, in context, is clearly not the message depicted in two sentences:

"There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires."

The point he's making isn't that small business owners don't exist or that they don't deserve the credit for being successful. In fact, he said the opposite, "we succeed because of our individual initative". If you want to make something happen, it's up to you to make it happen.  If you're successful, you should be proud of your success.  The point he's making is that there were people in your life who helped you get where you are today. Either you went to school and learned how a business works, you had a mentor, you had people who invested money into your start-up business, you had parents who taught you, you read books, etc. No one is successful without having the knowledge to get there, and no one is born with knowledge in their brain of how to start a business. It is learned through study or experience. Someone wrote the textbook that you read, or taught you how it's done. 


You cannot wake up one day and invent quantum physics without having studied or been taught the underlying principles that allow you to arrive at the conclusion. Maybe it was Einstein's teacher who told him he would never amount to anything that pushed him to be inquisitive, fueled with creativity, and broadened his horizons just to prove his teacher wrong.  He wasn't born with the theory of relativity in his head, there were people and prior knowledge out there that aided him in the discovery that ultimately, with his individual initiative, reached. 

By posting a meme like that you are displaying your own ignorance. It shows that you, just like FOX and CNN, only read the first line of a report and make false judgments, or like a million other people on Facebook, you can't think for yourself. I don't care if you like Obama, or Romney, or Ron Paul; HAVE AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT. If you have such a strong opinion about a topic, you had better know the topic before you preach it. 

Just because I disagree with what you may believe does not mean that I think you're wrong. If you feel strongly about something, wonderful, tell me why you believe that so strongly. If you do not have a logical explanation with real facts to support your belief, than you make it very difficult for me to respect you or your opinion. I can't respect your insistence on having a voice when you insist on being an uniformed puppet of propaganda. 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
Besides, this speech has been given before:

Obituary for Eh, Steve?

Eh, Steve? (2010 - 2012) passed away peacefully in his sleep July 15, 2012. Survived by Jake, Hannah, and his neighbor Dennis the Hermit Crab. Eh, Steve? lived in his small aquarium located above a rolltop desk in Jake's bedroom. Eh, Steve? was friendly and inviting to everyone, and loved to have company. Whenever someone walked into the room, he swam happily over to greet them.

Eh, Steve? enjoyed tutoring Jake in such subjects as accounting, corporate finance, statistics, and business law. He enjoyed listening to music, and his favorite band was Jimmy Eat World. He loved life, and he loved his friends. Eh, Steve bravely battled a common fish disease for over a year, with dry peeling scales and torn fins. He responded positively to medication that successfully restored his fins to their natural length and beauty, but ultimately could not conquer the illness or the side affects of the treatment.

Eh, Steve?, no fish has, nor will ever be loved as you were. You made the sun shine on a rainy day, and warmed our hearts in the dark of night. On behalf of those of us privileged to have shared the past year and a half with you, you will be greatly missed.

The Problem With Today's News

"The media's the most powerful entity on Earth.  They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power.  Because they control the minds of the masses." Malcom X

"A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier. " H. L. Mencken

Last Thursday I witnessed what news networks are really all about: being the first to report, regardless if the facts are there.  I don't doubt that each network had prepared days in advance multiple different stories and scenarios to begin with, and as the facts came in, would tailor their stories to the facts.  But the Supreme Court issued a document nearly 150 pages long explaining the ruling, so how could anyone decipher the complexities of the bill and its explanation of existence in less than a day?

I personally have lost all faith in news networks.  Too often we forget that the news, like sitcoms, is driven by ratings, advertising, and feedback from focus groups.  Each network has some kind of angle to every story, because  "good television" is more important than honest straightforward facts.  "Good television" allows for opinion to be masqueraded as fact.  

Networks know they can play on our competitive nature because "good television" evokes emotion in the viewer.  No matter what happens in Washington, you will turn on the news to see a "win for the Republicans today" or "a devastating blow to the Republican party" depending on the channel.  Thursday was a montage of contradicting statements of whether Obama's campaign hung in the balance or if he would gain momentum, depending on the each channel's chosen side of the political spectrum.  It's almost as if there is an invisible scoreboard of victories and losses that drive the stories that are aired like a countdown to the superbowl. Chalking up wins or a losses skews the way Americans view current events.

The media  also plays on our innate sense of justice and injustice.  When a crime is committed the villains and victims are immediately identified by the networks.  The recent case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman comes to mind.  Depending on which channel you watch, Zimmerman was a racist, cold-blooded killer, or Martin was a dangerous hoodlum who had it coming.  The only people who know what transpired that night are Martin, Zimmerman, and God, and yet Americans pretend to know "what really happened."  And before you know it, what the murder case is "really about" is racism, class, and status.

Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox, and O.J. Simpson are good examples of media villains.  Blood for blood was demanded by the reporters, but in a court of law there was not enough evidence to convict any of them.  By digging up enough information to create a colorful past, the media convinced viewers that these lowlifes were definitely capable of murder.  Nobody knew who Casey Anthony or Amanda Knox were, but over night they were hated by all America because we were convinced they are murderers.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but it is unethical to report opinion as news.  The way news is reported today is shameful.   In the eyes of the netorks, Americans are too stupid to understand current events and come up with our own opinions.  We're told exactly how to feel, and we're blinded from seeing the more important issues.  It shouldn't be about which political party comes away with a win, but did we as Americans win?  In the case of healthcare, did Americans overall win from the Supreme Court Ruling?

Maybe we are too stupid to come up with our own opinions.  We like be told what we want to hear because we're afraid the truth may evoke a sense of duty to act and remove ourselves from complacency .  We like to pick villains and heroes.  We like to see our heroes as invincible, and we're willing to overlook our heroes' flaws because we like to hate the villain more than we like to love our hero.  We like to point fingers and pretend we are experts on everything.  We enjoy telling others why they're wrong, especially when we know that we're wrong.  We enjoy believing that underneath every executive decision lies a bigger cinematic plot bubbling to escape.  

Each political debate in which we engage is about who's a better debater, when it should be what is the right answer?  The media preaches only black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, and those are defined completely different by each station.  Deep down, I think Americans know that there are not two solutions to every problem, but that's what we've decided to accept.  

There's Always Money in the Banana Stand

Recently congress voted on raising taxes on student loans.  Not surprisingly, every Republican voted in favor of doubling the interest rates on student loans.  More and more politicians are telling the public that we have to get more kids graduated from high school and more kids graduating college.  Most people can't just "ask their parents to help them out" like Mitt Romney said last month, because most people don't have millionaire parents who can pay for their kids to go to Ivy League schools.  There is a big push for getting kids to go to school, and yet education gets the ax every time the budget is tinkered with.

Conservatives are all about protecting the rich.  Studies have shown that tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs and the money does not "trickle down."  Conservatives say that kids should work and put themselves through school.  I work two jobs and still can't afford to go to a State University without help from loans.    With unemployment high, college grads can't start paying back their loans after graduation because they can't find work. Conservatives will say, "take a risk, be an entrepreneur, that's the American dream, build something from nothing."  How can you do that if a bank won't give you a loan because you're in debt up to your eyeballs from that degree that was supposed to put you ahead of the competition?  Where's a broke college grad going to get the capital to pay for all the start up costs?  What assets can they put for collateral for a loan?  Their bike?  Their laptop?  Their worthless economics textbooks?  From the $100 dollars they were able to save over four years?

College students, if they work, generally do not make more than $20,000 a year.  It's tough to get buy on that much money in our society.  After rent, rising gas prices, food and other bills, you can't put much away for a rainy day.  Why are the poorest in the country being penalized for seeking higher education?

Mitt Romney announced a plan that would save on average $250,000 dollars in taxes for millionaires.  That's a lot of money that could go towards grants and scholarships for kids who can't afford college.  Obama gets criticized for standing up for keeping interest rates low on student loans as appealing to the younger demographic and fishing for votes.  Maybe he is, but his platform has always been to help those who can't help themselves.  Some call that socialism, but I believe the real word for that is charity.  Not charity in the sense of "I feel bad because you're in poverty, here's some money", charity in the sense of love for humanity and the desire for improvement.

Obama's not the first person to be criticized for wanting to feed the poor, clothe the naked, or comfort the sick and the afflicted.  It's ironic to me that the majority of Conservatives consider themselves "Christian Conservatives" when their scorn for the poor is so vehement in their political views.  Views like increasing spending for military so that we can send boys to unnecessarily break the most serious commandment of Thou Shalt Not Kill and reduce spending money to Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself don't make much sense.

$250,000 a year is nothing to a guys like Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates, or Tiger Woods.  They wouldn't miss it for sure.  So why not take that tax money and build a future for aspiring kids who are otherwise doomed to work at Walmart checkout counters or make careers out of selling frozen bananas for $3 a piece?  Why should a bright young inner city kid have to work at a Buckle when there is money out there that could give him access to the tools he needs to cure cancer, spur innovation, or become the next DaVinci or Michelangelo?  The hardships of these economic downturns don't hurt millionaires, so why can't they give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar?

There is a double standard in Washington.  Politicians dangle the carrot of education just outside the reach of the poor, and if it's attained, give them the stick with all they've got.  Meanwhile, the rich are sitting on the beach of their private island working on a tan and thinking which department they will lay off, dropping costs and driving up profit margins for a window long enough for them to sell their stock options for an $11 million gain (like the CEO of Viacom did last year).  That money will surely trickle down into some offshore bank accounts to help his grandchildren never experience the horror of working up a sweat.

Politicians need to stop telling kids to "dream big", because what is a dream?  It is an alternative reality that cannot be attained.  Our best interests are sitting on the back burner while earmarks and superpacs pave the road to the United Corporations of America so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.   We are all God's children, and we all deserve a chance to reach our full potential in the life He has given us.  Our destiny should not be dictated by those who have been more fortunate.  Compassion is not a weakness, and  charity is not a sin. Hating your brother and sister is.

Public Persona Ted Nugent Actually Just Toned-Down Version of Private Self

Rocker/hunter Ted Nugent's "public persona" is "actually just a toned-down version of his private self," said an anonymous source close to the lunatic.  "He's actually quite bonkers."

We asked our source to describe a typical day in the life of the Nuge, and the details have been provided in full:

"Well, Ted usually wakes up and puts on a fresh pair of American flag briefs first thing.  Then, he polishes his AK-47, his shotgun, or whichever gun he fell asleep cuddling with the night before.  After smiling at himself in the mirror for ten minutes, he does a work out routine in his basement.  His routine consists of punching live dogs or cats (or whatever animals the shelter had the day before) while they swing upside down from the ceiling while singing along with Madison Rising's "Right to Bear".  For breakfast, he skins the animal that survived his workout routine the longest, and eats the raw meat like cereal using Jack Daniels for milk.  He often visits his grandkids and plays games like Hide and Seek and Kill.  It's a game where he fills a gun with blanks and tells the kids to hide, then when he finds them he empty's his clip while screaming "Death to Socialism" while the children scream.

"If he's not out brutally murdering innocent animals in the woods, he likes to google himself and update his wikipedia page.  He also enjoys the "Nuge Luge", which is a downhill racer that he constructed.  He rides down hills while playing a custom built guitar that has a shotgun barrel for the neck, and shooting it off in time with his crazy guitar licks blasting from an amplifier attached to the back (at the base of a giant American Flag with his face embroidered out of stars).

"For quiet time, he enjoys watching Tarantino films and eating a bucket of lizards. He's been known to put one particular scene of Hitler getting shot in the face on a slow-motion loop while he falls asleep.  For not-so-quiet time, "Nugebag" (as some family refer to him) enjoys throwing parties in the woods where he rehearses his post-apocalyptic survival strategy in the event of a successful full-scale Democratic re-election scenario.

"For dinner, he enjoys eating real American food from Panda Express.  Frequently, he eats with two 9mm handguns as chopsticks, fills them with blanks, and discharges them while he eats 'for the thrill of it'.

"I once asked him while visiting his house for a birthday party, 'Uncle Ted, do you carry a firearm with you at all times?'  to which he responded, '(Expletive) Yeah! How else will I be able to protect myself from the (expletive) socialists and commies when they come to burn my first edition signed copy of The Wealth of Nations, or my reel of Birth of a Nation? Or my Zeppelin shirt that Ozzy spit on during a Sabbath concert?'

I also asked him if he takes any medication for his paranoia, to which he responded '(Expletive) no, I don't take pills, I channel my fear and aggression into hunting.  Nothing calms the soul like thoughtless killing.'

"How would I describe him?  If you took Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and Charlie Sheen (if he cared about politics the way he cares about cocaine and women) and combined them into one monster, that embarrassing representation of humanity would still pale in comparison to the atrocity that he is.  I don't know how to describe him.  He's the Nuge."

The Wizard of Gop

Once the candidates reached the Emerald City, they asked the Wizard of Gop for what they wanted most.  Rick Santorum asked for a brain, and once received, he dropped out of the race.  RoboRomney asked for a heart so he could relate to the common man, but the Wizard knew it would fry his circuit board and gave him a hug instead, hoping he could feel some kind of emotion.  Next, the cowardly Newt politely asked for a loan, a slice of cheesecake, and a photo op with the Wizard of Gop.  As soon as the photo was taken, the Newt charged the Wizard $50.  Last of all, the Wizard turned to Michelle Bachmann and said, "I thought we already sent you home."  Ashamed, she clicked her feet together and disappeared.  A little dog at his feet began to yap, so the Wizard looked down and said, "Ron Paul, I almost forgot you were still here, what are you so worked up about?"  But the dog just wanted to make noise.

North Korea Missile Crises?

When North Korea announced they would be launching a missile, people panicked.  Newsreporters tried to convince the elderly that World War III was looming on the horizon.  There was speculation that it wasn't a satellite, but a warhead.  Japan threatened to shoot it down if it got anywhere near them.  And then it fell apart minutes after launch.

My first reaction was relief.  If it had been a warhead, North Korea would have been wiped out, problem solved.  Since it didn't, we know they didn't have intentions of attacking anyone (yet), and it probably was a satellite.  I saw a report today on CNN that took a different take on the situation: how embarrassing for North Korea, they can't even launch a missile.  Woah, let's not piss off a country that has no reservations wiping out the western hemisphere.  The last thing we need to do is rub salt in their wounds. 

My elementary school was named after the space shuttle Columbia, which completed several successful missions before disintegrating into thousands of pieces upon reentry in 2003.  And lets not forget the Challenger Shuttle disaster, and Apollo 13.  Who are we to criticize anyone for launching stuff into space when we've lead the world in horrible space exploration disaster stories. 

Can't we just be relieved that they didn't launch an attack?

Health Care Debate

Recently, I was written a ticket for four hundred dollars because I was driving without insurance.   For second time offenders the ticket is $1000 and for each offense afterwards you pay $1000.  Hypothetically, let's say I decide I'm a safe driver and don't want to pay for insurance (this was not why I was uninsured).  Let's also say that I get pulled over once every other month.  Since it's my first time, that's $400 plus $5000 for the other five times I'm pulled over during one year.  That's much more than the premium for one vehicle for one year. Say I don't get pulled over at all, but I get in a wreck.  On top of the damage or replacement of my car that will have to come out of pocket, what about the damage to the other car and/passengers? And the fines on top of the traffic violations?  Is that worth not having insurance?

The way that "free market" health insurance is set up now is to provide health care to healthy people who can afford it.  One would think health care should be for the unhealthy, but that's not the case.  Unless you work for someone who has group insurance, pre-exsisting conditions make it impossible to have affordable private insurance.  And even if you do have group insurance, the price for health care continues to rise, causing employers to cut benefits and raise deductibles leaving you with hardly any coverage at all.


If you are a cancer survivor who lost work due to your illness, and you can't afford Cobra, you will never be able to receive (or afford) private insurance.  People don't choose to have cancer, arthritis, or any other "pre-existing condition".  So why should the free market decide they should just suffer or die? Why is that their call?


Those who oppose health care reform have never experienced first hand the difficulties and stress of not "qualifying" for insurance.  Eating right and exercising can't prevent cancer, arthritis, alzheimer's, or damage done in a car crash.  Those things aren't preventable. 

Those opposed to helping care for others because "it's their health and their responsibility" pay very small amounts in medicare and social security taxes that go to help those who can't help themselves.  How is that any different? They say that the penalty for not having health insurance is a tax. The four hundred dollars I paid for the ticket was not a tax, and isn't it the same thing? How is the government mandating health insurance any different than mandating liability auto insurance?

If the government provides an affordable alternative to private or group insurance and says everyone must have it, that is no different from being required by law to have car insurance other than the government is helping you get insurance when you are denied.  Currently, insurance companies can deny claims after you get sick.  Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies would no longer be able to do that.

Most religions teach charity and compassion for the unfortunate.  So why do so many insist on being selfish, judgmental, and insensitive to those less fortunate than them, victims of circumstance who want the same opportunities as those who take them for granted?

If it wasn't for the Affordable Care Act, my wife and I would not have insurance, along with thousands of Americans across the country.  We are not free loaders of the system.  My wife and I work two jobs each while I finish school.  Even if my wife could qualify for insurance, we can't afford it.  Before the Affordable Care Act we had to pay out of pocket for prescriptions and doctor's visits.  We were only making about $18,000 a year combined, so those expenses added up to a large percentage of our income.  For now, we have insurance, and are very grateful for it.  I can only hope now that the Supreme Court can see that it has helped thousands of people like us across America.  Sure, the Act as it now stands is far from perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

Our inalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  When someone dies because they can't afford insurance or pay hospital bills, the government has taken those rights from them.

Ron Paul Gives Up Hope For Lent

Ron Paul announced this morning that he will participate in Lent by giving up hope for the White House.

"Not being Catholic doesn't mean I can't participate in the holiday," he announced during a press conference outside his home.  "The idea behind Lent is giving up something we know we shouldn't be doing.  Whether you're a 35 year old man living in your parents' basement playing World of Warcraft instead of working, or a mother who dresses her daughter as Julia Robert's character from Pretty Woman and entering her into beauty contests, these are things that we like; but just have to let go," explained Paul, holding up pictures of both examples to emphasize his point.

"I've done a lot of soul searching, and decided that for me, I've got to give up hope for the White House," Paul sighed, holding up a photo of himself smiling.  "In the end, it's destructive to my soul to continue to lie to myself.  By letting go of these lies that I tell myself, I will then be able to communicate the truth to my supporters, being, I don't have a chance.  I'm just too crazy."

Paul then took questions from reporters.

What Happened To Good Old Fashioned "Hallmark Presents: Valentine's Day"?

What was originally a brilliant Hallmark marketing strategy has turned into Facebook's clarion call for whiners.  Good old fashion Valentine's chocolates, flowers, and cards written by strangers that we give to those closest to us that say, "I care about you X dollars worth," are now being overshadowed by self-centered pleas for attention.  These sad saps are all about "look how lonely I am," "me, me, me," and "if I'm not in a relationship on this one day out of the year, not only am I an utter failure, but will never produce offspring of my own."

The pitiful groans of those lonely souls has crowded out the happy sighs of the recipients of costly chocolate boxes, oversized teddy bears, and serenades from boomboxes held above heads.  This must not be.  These victims of unrequited love make such a fuss that happy couples are discouraged from showering each other with perishable food items and sparkly things, because for every happy receptionist who receives a bouquet, there are two angry accountants who now resent the receptionist.  Perhaps a careful re-evaluation of professional and personal goals would show an increase in potential mates for these accountants, but that discussion is for another time. 

Oddly, it is as if only this day do the single folk realize, "I am bitter and alone."  They then step out into life with their newfound self-awareness of their relationship status, and as a result, only see happy couples skipping hand in hand through fields of grain, sharing ice cream cones on tandem bikes, and tolerating romantic comedies.  They then take to the internet to vent their frustrations, making those happy people feel guilty for having what they themselves cannot, as though the happy ones are to blame for their misfortune.  Therefore, this holiday that was so carefully constructed by a single corporation now hangs in the balance from a radical redefinement.  Will it remain as the day in which happy couples buy red colored things for each other?  Or will it be a day where jealous loners complain louder than usual, to the point that the day is so dreary that no one feels like celebrating?  Will the whiners put Valentine's Day as we know it out of business? I need not mention this manufactured holiday affects Hallmark's bottom line, creates jobs, and stimulates the economy. 

Simply put, these whiney desolate people are unAmerican.  They hate job creation almost as much as Mitt Romney, and seek for the loss of jobs with a fervent passion.  This self-centered approach to economics surprisingly defies the underlining principles of capitalism.  Proposition: these whiney single people are also socialists.


So what is to be done?  How can Hallmark save its holiday from inevitable destruction by the grief-stricken socialists?   Hallmark must allow for a second holiday; and sell ice cream and booze.  That is the only way to properly utilize these self-depricating souls for restoring our country's greatness, taking back traditional Valentine's Day for couples, and allowing the miserable to vent pathetically and unashamed.  "Single-Awareness Day" has been tossed around for awhile, but I think  "Return to High School Mentality and Self-Esteem Day" could be considered.  That title is much more accurate.  Or perhaps to bridge the divide between the two separate holidays sharing one day, call it "The Haves and Have-Nots Day",  because convincing the single people to just not observe Valentine's Day would be preposterous.  Whether they like it or not, they are celebrating Valentine's day by proving so staunchly that they are not.  Now they can embrace something. 


So sure, let the Have-Nots complain and have their day in the sun, pointing in scorn at those Haves for being more fortunate than the them.  After angry/depressing rants on the internet, the lonesome Have-Nots of the U.S. turn to the cup and the bowl to drown their sorrows in front of the television.  The womenfolk will watch empowering movies that instill in their minds how much they don't really need men, and are better off on their own.  When they realize they are lying to themselves, they will eat some more Moose Tracks (now provided by Hallmark!).  The menfolk will watch horrifically violent movies and forget what day it was for the second time that day.  There they will sit for hours until a sugar induced coma or inebriation carries them mercifully to sleep.  And so it ends.  365 more days until the next painful re-awakening of self-awareness.


Once the lonely-hearts club has settled in for a terribly depressing night, the Haves can guilt-free gift the boxes and bears and flowers to their hearts' content.  This is a win-win-win situation.  The happy stay happy, the unhappy remain unhappy, and both are oblivious customers of Hallmark.  Holiday maintained, and Holiday created.  Mission accomplished.

You Know It's Gotten Bad When Santorum Is Targeted

Rick Santorum had his fifteen minutes in Iowa, and then gracefully took his position on the backburner of American minds.  Everyone but Rick knows he's beaten, and Mitt knows that the only thing more fun then kicking a dead horse, is kicking a fellow Republican.

With the Convention drawing nearer, Mitt is hitting his second wind.  Along with the new spurt of fierce hatred for those without as much money as him, he's also inherited Charles Barkley's angry elbows to push his way to the front.  What Mitt is forgetting, is that he's already in the front.  There's no need to shame the shameful Santorum.  Americans had already forgotten about him.  Mitt however is not afraid to let his angry shamelessly ridiculous self rear its ugly head in what has become perhaps the ugliest campaign season since...well, the last campaign season.

With Romney's money and now Trump's money, Romney has bought himself a round trip Republican Nominee ticket for the White House.  The sign now reads: Election For Sale SOLD to highest bidder.  And yet he still finds the need to spit on the lowly Santorum?  In other news, the poor are jumping on trampolines of poorly maintained "safety nets".

Let's judge this book by its cover.

How Mitt Won Florida

According to a recent study of campaign ads in Florida, "of the 3,276 ads Romney’s campaign ran, 99% were attacking another candidate. Meanwhile, all of the 4,969 spots from Restore Our Future (Romney's super PAC) were negative."

It would appear that Mitt won Florida not because the voters voted for him, but because they voted against his opponents (despite serenading old folks homes with apparently the only song Mitt knows, America the Beautiful, which he has quoted the lyrics at every rally he goes to).  Sure, Gingrich did say Spanish is the language of "the ghetto", and that definitively lost him the large Latino vote, but what it really comes down to is money is speech.  If you have more money, your voice is loudest.  How can Romney's opponents put out positive ads for themselves when their budgets only allow them a whisper while Romney's budgets are screaming through a bullhorn?

Romney is running a very negative campaign against his opponents.  Instead of saying this is my solution that will work, he's spending millions of dollars to point out why his opponent's solutions are flawed.  Or how his opponents themselves are flawed.  Is he really that sure of himself?

What's ironic is that the GOP is always tooting the horn of  "tradition", "values", and "morality", and yet this political war is one of the worst I can remember.  If the Republican Party wants to take the white house, they need to stop dividing the party.  The party's goal is not to find the best candidate to put in the white house, it's to get a Republican into the white house.  They don't even care which one.  But in the meantime, Republican's across the nation are growing to hate the potential nominees nearly as much as they hate the current administration in Washington.  So what is inevitably going to happen, is the party will be divided with support for the nominee which could lose them the election.  Apparently they're not all on the same page, because they are fighting very hard to reelect President Obama.

So what about the other candidates that are rarely talked about, Santorum and Paul?  Santorum is hanging on a prayer, and Paul is hanging onto delusion.  

Stay tuned.

Long, Awful Day

I don't know what it is about writing my thoughts to either an unknown audience, or not knowing if there is an audience that is being written to that calms me.  I feel pretty downtrodden.  I feel defeated.  I went to talk to my academic adviser today about graduation.  I'm on track to graduate in the fall, which is a relief.  I also had some questions about grad school.  My initial idea was to do the dual MSHR/MBA program that everyone talks about.  I've been planning on doing that for the last two years.  I found out not too long ago, that that program is only offered in the fall, so I'd have to wait a year after being done with school to go back.

I changed my plans.  Given the circumstances, I figured it would be better to just pursue an MBA.   I had heard about an MBA program that you could do Friday and Saturday, allowing you to work during the week.  Since we're having a baby this year I figured that would be the best option, maybe even a blessing in disguise.  Well, today I found out that program is only offered every two years, and it started Spring 2012, and won't be offered again until Spring 2014.  So now that plan is gone too.

Now I just don't know what to do.  I've heard so many people who graduated and started working, saying "I'll go back for my masters after I work a couple years."  They never go back to school.  I don't want to be that person, and I don't want to wait around a couple years working two part-time jobs either.

I don't know why my plans never actually work.  Even when buying a car, we tried to  figure out what all the upfront costs were going to be, and because of some complications with the loan, ended up having to put down way more than we were initially told by the dealership.  Then because of some other problems, we spent the next few weeks waiting for a call from the bank to tell us we had to take the car back.

I'm upset that noone ever told me that the programs weren't always offered. But more than that, I'm just upset that whenever I make a goal, I never get to see the end result I imagined.  What's the use in setting goals if third-party circumstances intervene and make the goal invalid?

I don't know how many times in life people have said, "it's so crucial you set goals for yourself", or, "if you don't set goals, you won't get to where you want to go."  So why is it when I sit down and say, this is where I want to be in five years, and this is how I'm going to get there, it doesn't work out?

So, you might say, go to another school for your MBA.  I talked to my adviser about that.  If I stay here, the program is only supposed to take a year to complete.  If I go somewhere else the first year of the two year program is retaking classes I took for my undergrad, which makes my undergrad either completely worthless, or the MBA a waste of time.  But according to the new Department Head that just arrived from Notre Dame, his research shows that my chosen undergrad degree is worthless because the students who graduated from this University have gone on to do prestigious stuff like clerical work and filing for less than $30,000 a year.

If anyone's actually reading this and made it this far, thank you.  I just needed to pour my broken-hearted first-world problems into the keys and hope for a miracle.  I should feel lucky just to have the opportunity at higher education.  I've lived in a third-world country where a mediocre public education was offered through high school, and then people lived out their lives working themselves to the bone, and wondering if they would get shot on the way home from work.

I shouldn't complain.  I've always had a roof over my head, food to eat, and a feeling of safety in my environment.  Maybe the reason that I have to watch my goals and plans get torn apart is to realize that despite it all, I have the basics covered.  Maybe I do end up with a job making barely $30,000 a year.  In America, that's just enough to get buy comfortably.  In other countries I'd be filthy rich.  It's hard to remember those kinds of things when things are good.

So, for a master's degree, I don't know.  It's all up in the air.  Some waiting period is going to have to happen.  In the mean time, I should just keep focusing on covering the basics and being thankful for what I've been given.

SC Republican Debate

It doesn't really matter whether what Newt Gingrich's second ex-wife said is true or not.  The violently angry response from Newt, though he had the right to be angry, was so strong that it makes you wonder.  He spent so much time denying it and rejecting it that he comes under question.  Its like, did you break this vase?  Me?! That vase?! Are you kidding me?  I didn't know there was a vase?  What vase?  When?  Yesterday?  We had a vase yesterday? Don't you ask me about vases!  I want to know where all the cookies are.  I'm astounded that a person of your stature would accuse me in front of my friends for breaking that vase! Show me the cookies, that's the important issue here.  (In photo, Newt demands Mitt pull his finger to relieve the pain built up inside after eating several taquitos from a local 7 Eleven.)

Had Newt just laughed it off and said, "of course that's false, it's two days before the South Carolina Primary, and she hates me", then they could just move on.  Instead, he get's red in the face and says "how dare you ask me that question".  True, that was a stupid question to ask, I'll give him that.  But how would Newt react, if President, and an Iranian terrorist sends him a video flipping him the bird and pretending to poop on a picture of him?  Will he remain cool?  I doubt it.

Second, I question Romney.  Just answer the questions.  Are you saying a net job creation of 100,000 or just saying Bain created 100,000, but through bankruptcy and buy-outs, lost 300,000 jobs?  And why do you keep sweating and stumbling over your words when talking about your tax information?  Everyone else is just throwing it out there.  You afraid that everyone will see you are not a small business and average Joe type guy?  Everyone already knows you're not.  And you're not human enough for anyone to say, "hey, he's the kind of guy I can see having a diet caffeine-free pepsi with.  Also the kind of guy I can end my sentences with prepositions and not be judged for it."  No one would willingly subject his or herself to that beverage anyway, but you get the idea.

Romney spends more time bashing Obama, and hardly any time talking about stuff he'll do.  It's one thing to say, you're wrong, and another to say, it would be better if...  Otherwise, it's like you're the kid on the playground who sits on the sidelines of the basketball court mocking the players every time they make a mistake, and then getting called into the game and standing mid-court picking your nose.

Off my soap box.  Recap time.

Newt remains as smug and self-assured as a house trained kitten sitting in a beam of light by the window, smiling because the owners don't know that he urinated on their pillows.

Santorum continues his signature move of avoiding eye contact with anyone while stumbling over his own words, and introduces a new side of him that speaks in third person.

Wait, Ron Paul was an OBGYN?!?  Turns out he is creepier than I thought.

Paul continues his ode to small government, and dreams of shrinking it, hanging it on a line of hemp, and wearing it around his neck--accessory to his tribal headdress and loin cloth.

Santorum flaunts the fact that he actually won the Iowa caucus, and had twice as much support as the Newt.  But wait, what's that?  Oh yeah, Iowa is irrelevant.  No one cares.

Santorum showed his metaphoric balls tonight by screaming at Newt.  Good for you.  But you're still delusional.

Mitt freaks out a bit when asked about taxes, again.  C'mon Mitt, what are you trying to hide?

Newt toots the "Newt knows best" horn.

Romney's catch phrase, "let me tell ya" precedes every load of crap he throws out there.

There are a lot of promises of what will be done "day one". You won't be repealing anything "day one".  You're going to be moving couches.  Or, more appropriately, delegating the moving of couches.  And you're politicians, you know how long it takes Congress to do anything.  Don't lie to us, please?  We're not that dumb.

Gingrich changed position slightly on SOPA when he got booed.  Stay classy, amphibian.

South Carolina has picked the nominee since 1980.  That doesn't mean it's set in stone.  Even Paul the Octopus didn't pick all 14 World Cup Games.  He missed two.

Vote Voldemort 2012