MyLibertopia

Government responsibilty for Huricanne Katrina

Starbuck — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:50:00 GMT

I watched a little bit of Spike Lee’s When the Levee Broke on HBO last night. What I saw of it was a blatant attack on the federal government for slack work on the levees.

Several people were trying to bring a civil suit against the Army Corps of Engineers. As it turns out the US Government is not liable for flood damage so there is no suit. Which is a good thing. Here’s why; if the people of New Orleans sued the government and won, where do you think the settlement money would come from? That’s right folks, it would come right out of the taxpayers pocket. I might as well just let one of the victims walk into my house and rob me while I’m standing there watching. At least then they’d have to look me in the eye when they took my money.

I have several more issues. First and foremost, the documentary implied that everyone knew the levees would not hold. Or at least that the government knew that the levees wouldn’t hold. Okay so if you know you are living in a damn flood zone, why the hell are you living there? Seriously, who puts a freaking house up next to a levee wall? Who does that? To whom does that sound logical? So you want to hold the federal government responsible for flood damage to your house when you chose to live in a flood zone. The government can’t control the weather.

Second, and also as important as number one, and maybe the real lesson we need to learn here; if you have a problem with how the government is handling things you don’t sue the government. You elect better officials. I really think that things like city planning and state planning should be left to the city and the state. To not let the city and state control those issues just gives the federal government that much more power. Maybe if the federal government wasn’t so busy building levees and making decisions about people’s moral choices then they could, oh I don’t know, patrol the borders of the country.

The documentary also talked about the oil revenue that flows through Louisianna. I italicized through because according to several of the people interviewed, none of the money stays in Louisianna. Several other states get a percentage of the revenue from their oil and gas production but evidently Louisianna does not. This leads back to point number two. Who are the elected officials that are letting that happen? Maybe you need to vote for someone else. The governor is apparently taking action to try and get revenue from the energy production, claiming that with it they can do their own rebuilding. I must say that is about the most sensible thing I’ve heard from anyone in the area. The feds would have a fit if Louisianna started selling their offshore operations to other countries.

It's too late

Buffy — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:38:00 GMT

I just witnessed the socialist mind state.

Several of us in the office decided to get together and have ice cream sundaes today. A bunch of us chipped in and brought all the fixings. This was not company sponsored or funded. Just a bunch of us trying desperately to build our own morale. I made my sundae and came back to my desk to enjoy. One of my coworkers asked me to go get her a brownie. She said she didn’t contribute and didn’t want to be seen going in there. I told her that when everyone who brought stuff got their share that I would go get her some. She said, no it will all be gone. I finally just told her no. She got mad and asked someone else, WHO WENT AND GOT IT FOR HER.

You know. It’s not so much the sharing when everyone didn’t participate. It’s more the gaul off asking me to go get it for her. Like I’m a waitress. That pissed me off more than the other part.

Federal Budget Deficit

sycknjdrumr — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:19:00 GMT

Yesterday afternoon I was watching CNN Headline News and a story came up about the budget deficit. Bush was speaking to a small gathering of (obviously) hand-picked supporters about the numbers for the 2005 fiscal year. I believe the original estimate for the deficit was officially reported to be $318 billion. In his speech yesterday, Bush says something like "....the number for the deficit is actually going to be $296 billion." And now are you ready for this? The people in the audience start applauding! Like that is some great achievement. Whew! I can sleep much better now that the deficit is only $296 billion.

What the Smirking Chimp failed to tell us is that the accounting method utilized by the White House is most likely the same brand of accounting incorporated by Andy Fastow and Jeff Skilling. The $296 billion does not include future employee benefit costs such as federal employee pensions and health care costs. The Department of the Treasury has released it's financial report of the US government and, with those omitted costs factored in, the actual federal budget deficit for FY 2005 is $760 billion! It is also important to note that this number does not include future social security and Medicare costs. Then we're talking $3.5 trillion.

My question is "Is the United States of America heading for financial ruin?"

Stem Cell Research

nameht — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:07:00 GMT

It is immoral to perform stem cell research. Starbuck recently commented on Bush "imposing his moral view." She might be right, the morals he holds are not in alignment with everyone and he is forcing his moral values on us. However, stem cell research is immoral; the forced funding through taxation of stem cell research is wrong. I don't want to have to pay for it.

Property rights exist. If you don't think so, give me your wallet the next time we are together. Why not? You have no right to your property. I think they do exist, so I will not give you my wallet. The question becomes does a person own his own body. We would all think it wrong to force anyone to do something against their will with their body. In fact, bodily crimes are the most heinous: murder and rape. Forcing someone to do anything with their voluntary agreement is wrong. So it seems to reason we own our own bodies, they are not in possession of some authority.

If we own our own bodies, then by what right do our creators have to dispose of us in anyway they want? If an adult dies and gives his body to science, he has entered into a voluntary agreement to have his property experimented with. It doesn’t matter that he is dead. I’m intentionally staying away from the morality of how he died because I’m avoiding the abortion debate.

None one would expect our property rights to cease to exist after we die. Imagine dying and people reading about your death and coming and looting everything you had. Some say, it doesn’t matter you are already dead. I have nothing against that if you made a voluntary decision to do that. Some say, they aren’t developed enough to make that choice. That is horrible. I couldn’t imagine taking invalids and harvesting organs because they didn’t say “no”. They aren't developed enough to make that decision.

They are using bodies without consent of the owners of that body and that is immoral. I don’t have a single problem with adult stem cell research; the donors freely made that choice. Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone should be forced to pay for anything against their will. It doesn’t matter what their drives their will.

Stem Cells

Starbuck — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:12:00 GMT

I appreciate that the President has an opinion, made a decision based on that opinion, and has stuck by his decision. I can respect that. However, his decision is based on his moral ideas and that I take issue with.

In the office of the President he should be acting with the intention of representing the people of this country and our posterity. The decision he made is obviously NOT with that intention but with the intention of imposing his moral ideas on the rest of the country. That is just plain illegal. Is it not in complete opposition to the Consititution which I believe mentions something about the separation of church and state? If our highest office is not held to follow the constitution then who should be? We've seen more than one instance of the executive branch of the government trying to set itself apart from the others. This is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind.

How can we remain safe from religious repression or any repression for that matter? The highest officer of our country is using his elected EXECUTIVE POWER to promote his own personal opinions and ideas. Despite all fact or fiction. Despite data and opinion in the other bodies of the government, he makes decisions about the health and future of all based on ideas that do not belong in the government arena.

Cold Hard B****

Starbuck — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:03:00 GMT

I know it's cold hearted but I have to give props to Israel. At least they are really following through on this whole battle with Hizbollah instead of just using big talk then not really coming to the battlefield. Yes innocents are suffering. That is going to happen in war. That is going to happen in life. These crazy terrorist must be wiped out. They are like cancer. The only way to really get rid of cancer, if you can at all, is to kill the cancer and some of the healthy cells around the cancerous ones, just to make sure. Cancer cells are tricky and subvert, it is hard to isolate them.

Even under world condemnation Israel is sticking to what they started, while some other leaders falter at polling info. The Bush administration came out with a very cavelier attitude about terrorist and destroying them. Yet we are not merciless in our attacks like Israel is in theirs. I bet they win their war quicker than we do.

Also, why does Bush think that Syria will stop the Hizbollah? Really? They want them to fight. They are instigating!!!! Syria and Iran both are supporters of terrorism so why would anyone think they would fall to the side of diplomacy? They want the war to continue. I think they know that when the basic infrastructure of the entire region is destroyed and the West pulls out, which we will probably before we should, then the radical Islamist will be able to fall in and dominate over the whole region with an iron fist. People will be desparate for food, water, medicine. They will listen to who ever can promise help. Even if it is crazy radicals.

Then in another 20 years, after we've rearmed them, we can have another war just like the one we are in now!!!

Movies: The World Trade Center

Starbuck — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:36:00 GMT

First, I have a joke.

Ted Nugent was recently being interviewed by a French journalist. The journalist asked, "What do you think the last thought is in the head of a deer before you shoot it? Is it,"Are you my friend?` or is it `Are you the one who killed my brother?'"
Nugent replied, "They aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, "What am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the French in that way."

ROFLMAOPMP

Now on topic, I've seen the trailer for this new movie about 9/11. I don't want to talk about the movie itself. I don't plan on seeing it. It's the topic that is getting me. The voice over talks about a heroic city, a brave people. All the things that are true. You gotta give the whole town the nod for dealing with all of it as well as they did. Better than New Orleans did with Katrina. I bet they make a movie about that too.

Disasters like this happen every day all over the world. When they do happen, wherever they happen, people pull together and work to help. Take Israel and Lebanon. In the stock footage you see on the news and photos, you see people working to clean up, helping victims. The Everyman on the street anywhere in the world will pretty much be as brave as anyone in New York. If it happened right here I know I would. Now yes there is the New Orleans example. However, as soon as the waters receded, the Everyman got to work. We raised money and goods to replace what was lost. I don't even know how much was donated money wise.

What's really bothering me? That is has been turned into entertainment. Maybe its too soon. They've made movies about Hitler and WWII and those don't bother me as movies in and of themselves. But those things happened so long ago. Most of us didn't witness it so personally, so a movie is a great way to get into the feel of it. Fine, make a movie then. I'm still not going to watch it.

What's going to happen?

Starbuck — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:20:00 GMT

As I was jogging tonight I watched the news on CNN. One of the headlines read something to the effect of people being disappointed with how the US was evacuating people from Lebanon. Seriously. US citizens who, for whatever reason, took themselves to Lebanon, which if you look at a map, lies right between Israel and Syria in a volatile part of the world. And those people are expecting the US government to get them out because they are US citizens. You carried your ass over there. Get your own ass out.

I'm terribly worried that this is the start of world war three. It makes sense. Hell this same war has been fought several times. Islam vs. Jewish/Christianity part whatever. I think this one will not be as bloody as some previous wars between the axis of evil......The whole concept of holy war. What the hell is that about? Really it is an oxymoron.

Next topic before I forget. Movies: The World Trade Center

So I think that Syria and Iran will align with the Hammas and the militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, North Korea. Then the other side will be US, Britain maybe Spain. I'm not sure how Russia and China will go but I think with us. Since Walmart is China's economy I imagine they will fly with us too. Which way do you think Japan will go? We'll see if they learned their lesson from last time.

I don't worry so much about it being a full out nukes falling apocalypse kind of war but more a thick string of terrorist attacks. Those worry me because we could very well be living next door to one. Or riding the train next to one. Or sitting in starbucks next to one. Talk about ruining your life. Try to get back to normal from a freaking terrorist attack. World War is one thing. War on my front door, that's a whole different story.

And yet whole generations in the Middle East have literally grown up with terrorist attacks. They may not have the fire power we do, and we don't really know that for sure, but they do have tenacity, and they are fearless. Eager to die in fact. It's so scary. See why I'm concerned?

All of that being said, in the mail today I got the newest edition of Time and on the cover: The Middle East. Why they fight.

I have not read the issue yet. I wanted to get my thoughts down first. Now I'm going to compare.

National ID Card

sycknjdrumr — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:28:00 GMT

One day recently as I was on my way home on the DART train, I stumbled across a political magazine entitled "EndTime" which was left on the seat. Judging by the Christian cross emblem which was used for the letter "T" in the title, I figured there should be something interesting in there, even if I disagree with it.

The first article I perused was written by the editor-in-chief, Irvin Baxter, Jr. and it dealt with the topic of national security without a National ID. His main point was that we have gotten along for 230 years without a national ID card, so why do we need one now? I loved his point asking the question of 'Do Americans really want a national database where information on every citizen can be pulled up with the click of a mouse?'

I think we all agree that our number one national security problem is border security (or lack thereof). Baxter's explains "With the onset of globalism and one-worldism, borders have become virtually meaningless." I couldn't agree more.

Isreal does a good job of protecting their border with a 450 mile fence and a dirt road running adjacent. I know, I know, our border is something like 2000 miles, but if Israel, a nation of 6 million people, can protect their 450 mile border, can't we, a nation of 300 million, protect our 2000 mile border with a similar type of structure? It has to be better than what we have now, which isn't much.

Apparently, the government's plan with the National ID card, which requires a number by the way, is to monitor and control us with computers. We must give our Social Security number in order to get our National ID. Going forward, if we do not have our National ID, or our existing ID is unacceptable, we will not be able to board a plane or open a bank account! Hmm.

Colorado takes good first step

nameht — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:53:00 GMT

The Colorado legislature passed immigration reform legislation that is among the toughest in the country. This law would require verification of citizenship when applying or renewing welfare payments. You can read the whole article here. This bill would deny most non-emergency welfare benefits to illegal immigrants less than 18 years of age.

Couple points of notes. The population of Colorado is around 4.5 million people. This legislation will affect over 1 million people living on welfare in Colorado. That means nearly 25% of the people on are welfare. Why is that? And where is the money coming from for the 25% of people. I'm betting it comes off the sweat of the other 75%.

It also leaves open the continued welfare support of anyone under 18. This won’t affect families receiving welfare. The minors won't directly be receiving welfare; it will go to their parents first. How is that any different? The parents are receiving money now, and they will after the program goes into effect. It is also implied they will continue to receive unearned education benefits.

Near the end of the article they estimate 50,000 people will be removed from the welfare rolls. They are going to reduce the welfare costs to the taxpayers by 5%, hardly a revolutionary change in the distribution of stolen cash.

Politicians are just using illegal immigration as a straw man to distract from the real nature of any government social program. All government social programs exist just to propagate themselves. A government solution is never designed to actually solve the problem; in most cases it makes the problem worse.

The welfare-state policies over the last 60 years are finally, and predictably, reaching critical mass. Most people recognize the current level of spending and the projected growth is unstoppable and unsustainable. Anyone that can read a balance sheet knows that something has to give. Either a drastic rise in taxes or a redesign of the various welfare programs is needed to fiscally survive.

The politicians understand the system can't sustain itself indefinitely. This is not because they recognize the invalidity of their position, but more they are getting more pressure about social spending and deficit financing. The politicians are just throwing illegals under the bus so they can say they are addressing the problems of social expenditures, but without providing any real solutions. Do you think a reduction in 5% is really going to mean anything?

Point to ponder: Why do you think there were no restrictions on immigration (there was no such thing as illegal immigration until 1900's) until the labor unions and labor special interests bought legislation?

The liberty fuse is lit

nameht — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 05:21:00 GMT

I went and bought fireworks this year. I had to search quite a while to find a spot to shoot them off. Last year some guy charged people to come onto his land and shoot them off. He had a gravel parking lot we circled around and there were "monitors" that walked amongst the crowd. Unfortunately his property was annexed by a larger city this year and he couldn't offer the service.

While driving around, I realized fireworks are a perfect example, and ironic considering "Independence Day", of the shift of freedoms. This country was founded on the idea that rights were in possession of the individual because it is human nature, hence "endowed by our Creator".

Slowly, the rights inherit is us as human beings began to be granted to us by the government. For example the right to keep your earnings derives directly from "right to life". If you can not keep the rewards from your labor, then part of your life is spent in servitude. Since taxes are so oppressive to many, it really has become, "How much is Uncle Sam going to let me keep this year?"

Setting off fireworks, especially on 4th of July, used to be a freedom previous generations freely expressed. However, like most freedoms, the government seems to have taken complete control, and measuredly hands out freedoms to us, through regulation, licensing, and straight illegality. In Texas, it was illegal to possess any firework on a stick. That is new, and we will probable never see them again. Once a government takes away a right, it never grants it back.

Basketball Players > Than Justice?

Hyprocyon — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:40:00 GMT

You may or might not have read this story: Eddie Griffin To get to the base of the story I'll cap it off for you.

1) He was driving drunk.
2) He was watching a porn WHILE driving.
3) He was masturbating WHILE driving.
4) He crashed his SUV into a PARKED car.
5) He wasn't tested for alcohol when the police arrived.
6) The police took him to his residence outside of their jurisdiction so he could sober up.

Now here's what would happen if I were the one behind the wheel.

1) I drove drunk.
2) I watched porn while driving.
3) I masturbated while driving.
4) I crashed into a parked car.
5) The police test me for alcohol.
6) Instead of getting a ride home, I go to jail.
7) I am charged with a slew of offences including Driving While Intoxicated.

So what's the deal here... are high profiles (I'm going to include all sports, music, acting figures since it would pretty much be the same for them) above the law and beyond the reach of justice? Apparently so.

What bugs me about Enron

nameht — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:44:00 GMT

What really bugs me about the Enron failed business model is when I first heard about the accounting practices they were using I was floored. Basically they were counting imaginary profits they “wanted” to make next year as actual profits this year. Who could possibly run a business like that? I was basemented when I found out they didn’t violate any SEC regulations. A few individuals benefited greatly through selling stock short and were “caught” violating some ticky-tack stock trading laws.

The company filed every SEC filing and every report was signed off by the regulators. Enron’s accounting practices were authorized by the government. If the government authorized a private business to run its accounting that way, it would stand to reason parts of the government also use that same accounting practice!

Right now the US Debt is almost $8.4 Trillion. But that is only the recorded debt. Enron was much further in debt when all the carpets were removed and the government authorized accounting practices were revoked. So how much higher do you think it is?

How can Skilling and Lay be punished for “knowing”? They are punished because the buck stopped with them and they are responsible for knowing what is going on with the business they sign off on. First, they weren’t violating any laws. (Most business laws are defined well after the action has happened…how’s that for constitutional protection?) Second, if they are guilty because they signed off on the accounting practice, the regulators are guiltier.

The regulators have immense power over the employees of a company that a CEO doesn’t have. A CEO can’t extort employees or put them in jail. A CEO doesn’t have subpoena power over the employee’s personal life. If a CEO violated the public trust and allowed this transgression to happen, certainly the bureaucrat that permitted this to happen is responsible, in the same way Lay and Skilling are for knowing and not doing anything about it. I would say more responsible because the regulators have additional power to ensure it is right.

If they aren’t held responsible then what are they good for? They sure didn’t stop anything bad from happening. If I failed and my job and destroyed X billions of capital, I doubt I would be promoted. Skilling and Lay weren’t…why should a bureaucrat?

The Left's anti-Bush presentation

nameht — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 01:21:00 GMT

I’m working to the conclusion that most of what the “loony left” says is true. Many of their claims towards Bush, the War, and Business Deals are valid. I did not accept that for a long time and have been trying to figure out what was wrong with their presentation that kept me from accepting it.

It is because their message is hypocritical in nature. You can’t hold two simultaneously contradictory positions. The left correctly identifies a problem, but is blindly ignorant of the causes of the problem. In many cases, their solutions would only exacerbate the causes and permeate the problem further. I will start with Business deals.

Business Deals. Bush’s administration and Congress are deeply involved with lobbyist. Bush has lucrative deals with companies and the left cries foul. However, their solution was additional regulation and oversight. The government is only able rob the citizens to give to companies because there is regulation and oversight in the first place.

Since they are in a position of arbitrary authority over businesses, the businesses will naturally try to corrupt the government to their advantage. It is completely about protecting themselves from competition. They buy Laws protecting “Union Shops” and expensive regulation that keep fresh competitors out of the market, hurting the consumer and innovation.

The entire government is engaged in mercantilism. Because the government is following a non-capitalistic economic model, they have placed themselves in a position of control over business. With the threat of control comes the protection of bribes. Why does a business need to get involved with a non-Union politician? So he can keep his costs down and continue giving people jobs. He must give money to politicians to buy their influence. After the influence is bought, the politician is going give money back to ensure future bribes. It is truly pathetic they are giving $10 million for a steak dinner on a yacht.

It then becomes highly profitable for a well-connected business to lobby politicians. In some cases taxes are being taken from the citizens and given directly to the corporations. The government gave Enron $800 million in grants, loans, and tax breaks. Tax breaks are not giving, but when tax laws are passed saying, “Enron [only] gets an $800 million tax credit.”, that is a gift. This $800 million was used to prop up a failing business. By remaining in business longer, more individual’s retirement savings and careers were damaged then could otherwise have happened.

The left hasn’t identified government control as the problem. They have identified the problem as an Individual, Bush. It isn’t. The government is full of individuals that routinely perform the same actions. The Left’s complete position is: it is wrong of this guy to benefit the wrong people, but don’t worry, our guys will benefit the right people.

Government Data Mining

Starbuck — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:02:00 GMT

After the recent headlines about the government mining out internet data. I read some line about companies keeping track of our information in exchange for us taking a discount card for shopping at the store. All kinds of stores do this. All the book stores, the grocery stores, they all have discount cards and it keeps a running record of everything you buy. At what point will the government decide to demand that information to protect our national security?

Okay to get around specific stores keeping track of your purchases, you just don’t use the cards. No problem. But what about our banking information? I use my debit card to pay for pretty much everything. At what point will that information be used to protect our national security?

Now think about it. If the government decided to demand our information from bank, how many people will say, “Oh okay. Who cares,” and how many will go pull their funds and start paying cash? Personally I could not pay cash for everything. Certain bills and such would stay at the bank. But I would not use a debit card any more. I still pay cash at certain places. I don’t care what it will show up as on the statement.

All that being said, can’t the government still access our records? How much of it is public and how much of it is private? It's a really frightening though. I know that much.

Still not a liberal

Buffy — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:38:00 GMT

As a follow up to my last blog I would like to share with you something from this week's Time magazine.

"This past weekend, Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth earned more per screen than any film in the country. I daresay Gore's movie is the highest grossing PowerPoint presentation in history." -Steven Colbert

Snerk. The theater actually was full when I saw it. I was really surpised though.

I'm not a liberal!

Buffy — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:32:00 GMT

I went all leftist this weekend. I watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

Since his untimely demise as Presidential candidate, Al Gore has been traveling the planet presenting a slide show on Global Warming. They filmed the slide show, added some biographic information as filler, and turned it into a feature. It was on the slow side, and I could have done without the filler. Al Gore did a great job. He’s very handsome and is a great presenter. He had the right mix of humor and seriousness, and he knew when to stress which. He kept the entire presentation bipartisan. He did not promote it as a party issue nor did he promote or denounce either party. He was trying to make the information relevant to humans, not democrats or republicans.

Now I’m not a scientist so pardon me for the non-technical nature of my summary. He basically showed graphs and charts that show how the temperature has drastically increased over the last 50 years as compared to the last few hundred thousand years. He explained how they got the numbers to use and the science behind it. I’m not going to go into that here.

He discussed the causes of pollution, industrialized countries and population growth. Actually if I broke it all down, it sounds like the whole thing is really due to unchecked population growth. I’m just saying. He had percentages of each counties contribution to global warming and the US was in the lead. With China and Russia running a close second. None of this is really new information.

What struck me the most out of all of the information was pictures showing the melting progress of glaciers. Massive blocks of ice, miles long and thick, melted away over the last hundred years. He postulated that if a chunk of Greenland or the Antarctic broke off into the ocean, sea level around the world would rise 20 feet. That would wipe out billions of people in San Francisco alone. Mother Nature calls that cleaning house.

Now I’ve been giving all of this information some serious thought and I can’t find too much fault with it. All it was, was numbers and pictures. Yes they made a hypothesis on the sea level issue but that is what scientist do, make guesses. It is logical that sea level would rise if a massive chunk of solid was suddenly dropped in the ocean. That’s something about displacement right?

The only thing I don’t agree with is that it should be a political issue. How we as individuals and businesses treat our home should not be governed. I do not need someone to tell me not to drive a gas guzzling SUV 50 miles to work one way. One should not have to be told to not dump toxic chemicals in the ocean. And one should be able to surmise that thick black smoke might not be good for the very air we breathe to keep us alive. It’s not like anyone can just pick up and go live on another planet. This is all the home we have. And for that reason alone this issue deserves all our attention.

During the credits they listed ways you can make a difference. All the things we all know. Walking out of the show I realized that I won’t really do anything differently than I am now. I am already doing pretty much all the things listed. I didn’t have to be told to. There is no monetary incentive and there is not a law forcing me. People will not change. Nothing will be done about global warming until we are already suffering the drastic effects of it, such as a 20 foot rise in sea level.

In closing, the information was very good to know. I wish it could have more effect on the general population but I don’t feel like it will be widely enough viewed to cause any real ripple in the usual consumer frenzy.

Your Social Security Statement

Buffy — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:43:00 GMT

Periodically the Social Security Administration sends individual reports on your social security benefits. I received mine yesterday.

If I retire at age 62 I will received $936 a month in benefits.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Right. Cause Social Security will still be around when I'm 62. Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm 64?

What is cool about the report is that it shows your earnings every year. I started working in 1989 and made $375.00 that year. It's interesting to see the pattern my income has followed. If I was better in math I'd try to figure out the percentage increase or decrease each year but since I'm not good at math I won't do that.

It also tells you about what you pay in social security and medicare taxes. I currently pay 6.2% in of my salary in social security taxes. I pay 1.45% of my salary in medicare taxes. Now I can add and that totals 7.65% of my salary being taken for use by someone other than me. 7.65% of money that I had to work for gone to probably never be recovered. It's not like an investment. I won't earn anything on it. It's just gone. Gone like the wind.

Dems want DeLay on Ballot

Buffy — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:02:00 GMT

The Texas Democratic Party is fighting in the courts to keep Tom DeLay's name on the ballot for the November elections. I understand the reasoning behind the move but at the same time it makes them look bad too.

Instead of letting us focus on the issues and the matters we really need to concern ourselves with, they want us to focus on the scandal.

"The Democrats have resorted to their usual method of turning to the courthouse if they can't win at the ballot box," Gretchen Essell, communications director for the Republican Party of Texas, said in Friday editions of the San Antonio Express-News.

I have to admit she's right. They are like whiny babies running to mommy to try to get it their way. Now that being said, the Republicans did use gerrymandering to gain control of this state. They drew the lines as such that a democrat doesn't have much of a chance. Even against a freaking criminal like Tom DeLay.

Could be that the bipartisanship is our ultimate downfall. Some people blindly follow the party line and don't really even know anything about it. That gives a small amount of people a large amount of power. Just remember, the winner writes history.

Rome vs the US. A fight to the finish.

Starbuck — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:42:00 GMT

The continents of Europe and Asia at the beginning of the Roman Empire were a mix of many different races and peoples. There were different religions and cultures. As Rome got more powerful, they started conquering lands and forcing other people and cultures to be Roman. In fact, if you think about it. The entire world felt the effects of that. Christianity is the one of the most powerful religions on the planet. Why? That was what Rome wanted. Remember Constantine? Catholics still say prayers written during his reign.

Today I see a picture of an American flag with these words written below it:

Why the hell should I have to press 1 for English?

And it made me think of Rome and how they insisted that everyone be Roman and everyone think Roman and everyone act Roman. Remember that old cliché? When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

North America started out like EurAsia. A mix of different people and cultures. Over the centuries an American culture has developed. The US has gained so much power that it thinks everyone else should accept our culture over their own. We’ve conquered an entire country to change their culture.

I think we are living in amazing times. It’s a modern day Roman Empire and we are in the heart of it.

Government "Requesting" ISP Data Mining

Hyprocyon — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:26:00 GMT

I recently read an article in The New York Times which outlines the government's proposed requirement of Internet companies to maintain user statistics and search records for long periods of time. They want these records in place so they can be subpeoned through existing laws and procedures. Of course, most are familiar with the kiddie porn pursuit that the government is on in an attempt to further its control over the public Internet. When asked what the records were for the Director of the FBI was quoted as saying, "We want this for terrorism." Seems to me if they want this for terrorism they should be trying to get the information from the known terrorist states not the United States.

Although it seems as though the government is, once again, trying to extend its powers in the everlasting fight against terrorism. Now don't get me wrong; I am not a supporter of terrorism. However, I do believe that the government is over-reaching its imposed bounds a bit by investigating citizens of this country. I say citizens because I'm not going to delve into the whole immigrant debate just yet.

The government has made it quite clear that if these companies do not comply with these requirements, legislation will be put into place that will force these companies to comply. Sounds extortionist to me but that is my opinion.

Is the government attempting to defeat our 4th Amendment right? You tell me.

Reflections on History

Starbuck — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:12:00 GMT

Preface, this is my attempt to break out of critical style writing and just go with my train of thought. Please do not grade me on grammar here.

After the civil war was over life was not pretty in the South. Heavy structural damage, population and labor loss were difficult on everyone. Why did things fall down around the Southern way of life? Because the source of free labor was cut off. That could have been prevented had we never enslaved a race and built our society dependant on their free labor in the first place.

Who owned the most slaves? The plantation owners benefited the most from slavery, the richest of the rich. The few with the power to influence and manipulate people to their will. Not everyone in the South owned slaves in the 1800’s. Not even close to every man that fought in the civil war was a slave owner. In fact, I’m sure most of them weren’t. I doubt a rich plantation owner would let his son go fight, or go fight himself for that matter. I naturally deduce from this that the common man was out fighting a war so the rich could preserve their way of life.

This sounds familiar. Back to Rome, Caesar restricted the slavery trade and forced the nobles to hire commoners for wages. His logic was that there was so much free labor from slavery that the common man was starving in the street. He could not find work. Why would someone pay him to work when they have slaves to work for free? Of course the nobles were outraged by this because it cut into their profits. They hatched a plan to kill Ceaser and try to maintain their way of life. Of course they reasoned that he was a tyrant trying to destroy Rome but hey, everyone has their own brand of logic. And no doubt Caesar had his own agenda. But my point is who benefited from slavery here? The nobles. The few richest people that had power and influence to manipulate others.

I could also insert the Iraq war into this scenario. Who is benefiting from the war in Iraq? I’m not sure I’d say the Iraqis. They are pretty much sitting in a war zone. The good of humanity was served because Saddam is gone. That’s true. And our economy is picking up which is natural for war time. I’ve personally not seen any benefit from the war. The only thing that has affected me so far is that the price of gas has gone up. Which I won’t blame entirely on the war. But I do see some benefiting. The people who make the guns and tanks. The contractors that get to go over there and rebuild after we’ve destroyed it all. They are all benefiting for sure. But I think we are still too close to this to really see it for what it is. We might not ever really the whole story. But it will come out in history. Just like it always does. What I can see is that a few people with enough influence and power to manipulate got us into a war.

Dig a little deeper into the politics of Iraq and you’ll find that the former ruling party, the Sunni’s, were the few wealthy while the Shi’ites were the many and poor. They are having their day now aren’t they. Just like all the others have.

I’ll sign off with a question. When was the last time the US pursued a preemptive military strike against another country?

Marijuana muffins and terrorism

nameht — Tue, 30 May 2006 22:26:00 GMT

I performed a senior prank in high school, so I have some sympathy for these two seniors, but they showed gross negligence with this prank.

A high school student accused of delivering marijuana-laced bran muffins to a teacher's lounge said Friday he had no idea his "senior prank" would become the focus of an FBI terrorism investigation and result in state felony charges carrying up to 20 years in prison.

Okay, what they did was wrong, but to bring in the FBI to investigate terrorist activity? That's absurd. If the real terrorist are constantly threatening us, shouldn't the FBI be investigating them? Or is the whole War on Terrorism really just the fark the left claims it is?

Yes, they should be punished, but how many kids did you know put X-Lax into someone's food. Should they go off to jail for 20 years on it, hardly? Should they be punished, absolutely?

John Galt is Liberation

nameht — Tue, 30 May 2006 07:45:00 GMT

It has been a long while since I read Atlas Shrugged, but Galt was a liberator that freed a segment of the population. I took “Who is John Galt” to mean “Where is my freedom”. I might be completely hosing the Rand’s meaning, but Galt was no destroyer.

Starbuck is correct, a force of nature, our own nature, unleashed back on us and destroyed ourselves. This force was the false moral code of altruism. Legislating under the banner of altruism, productive companies were forced to subsidize inferior businesses. Subsidizing could mean higher taxes which paid subsidies provided to other businesses, extra regulation, labor laws, reducing quality/quantity of goods. The most insidious being higher costs to consumers and reduced innovation, thus by regulation, the government will decrease the standard of living. (Think about how many movie rentals you do NOT get to make when gas goes to $3.00 a gallon)

There are three types of people in the world: those who work for food, those who ask for food, and those that force others to provide for them. Altruism as a moral code provides the justification for the third and most vile class. In any free society, it would be very difficult and dangerous for a competitor to force another competitor into concessions. These morally corrupt businesses found they could use the State as their enforcer.

I’ve often quibbled if the Horse and Buggy United Workers and the Horse Shit Shovelers Union were around at the time the car, do you think we would all be driving cars now? Think of all the workers that would lose their job! It takes 1,000’s of hours of training for a man to steer a carriage, we can’t trust people to transport themselves. Think of the danger to the streets; it would be bedlam and people would drive on the sidewalks and crush…etc. Think it’s not possible? Today, in New Jersey it is against the law to pump your own gas!

It is the thinkers and the producers that enable our world to have a constantly increasing standard of living. Galt sought those people and encouraged them to claim their freedom from altruistic slavery. If you define a system to me that one man would have up to 50% of his rewards from his effort were taken and given to a minority of people, I might not agree that it is slavery. Then you tell me if he resists the thievery, he will be shot. That is a form of slavery.

Who is John Galt

Starbuck — Tue, 30 May 2006 01:50:00 GMT

That was the big question in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. But it wasn’t really who, it was what? A force of nature, our own nature unleashed back on us. We destroyed ourselves, save for a few.

From what I remember, John Galt/Francisco used his expansive wealth and influence to basically corner the national market. Then when everything was in place he crashed the whole system leading the country into the great depression. He got so huge and so permeated into the society that he was able to crash everything. Rather like putting all your eggs in one basket.

I was passing by a huge citigroup site today. That corporation is massive. Think of how much capital they have out in the market. Wow. Some kind of scandal, or crash so to speak, at citigroup would cause repercussions far worse than that of Enron and World Com.

Think about the influence of Walmart. Not only is the store an integral part of most American families, but Walmart is a corporation that essentially owns a country. Not just a country but a communist country at that. Ninety nine percent of China’s GNP is from Walmart. Tell me they don’t own that country. They could destroy that country is one shot. Pull their business. Just like that. Millions out of work. No flow of capital. Sound familiar?

History does show us that wars tend to help economies swing up. China would have to go to war to save themselves from a catastrophic economic depression. Who would China want to fight but the evil America. China attacks us and it starts WWIII.

Thus I say, Walmart is the devil.