Election Tomorrow...

It's very simple to me... Democrats spend domestically, and Republicans spend in foreign affairs... two basic points... first, domestic expenditures cost less than foreign expenditures... and second, the Democrats will raise taxes, whereas Republicans will cut taxes... so, while both parties will increase spending, the Democrats will increase spending less, and will collect additional federal revenue through higher taxes on the wealthy... and being that the national debt, and the annual budget deficits, are my top concerns, this election is a no brainer... Barack Obama will increase our debt far less than John McCain, which will make it less unmanageable... it's worth mentioning that Ron Paul is still the man I support, and the only candidate to whom I have given any money... but I live in a swing state, and I can't throw away my vote on a person who has no shot to win... as such, I'm voting for Barack, as he is far more fiscally conservative than John McCain... it would make me sick to see another 4 years of irresponsible monetary policy that would further destroy our currency which in turn destroys the financial viability of most Americans... go Barack!!!

Halloween Party

My boss had his annual Halloween Party on Saturday night, and my co-worker and I decided to go as Barack Obama and Joe Biden... we were too cheap to spend money on a costume... and too lazy to think of a creative costume anyway... so, we slapped on some suits and off we went...

We actually did get a little creative by adding handwritten stickers all over our suits (and one each on our forehead)... here's the rundown of the stickers:

Barack

I Love Homos and Terrorists (on the forehead)

Franklin Raines is My Cousin

We People Have Lots of Cousins

I Love Louis Farrakhan

But Not as Much as I Love Karl Marx

Joe

I'm from Scranton (on the forehead... side note... this obvious clue line to achieve instant recognition about who I was supposed to be had little if any effect... I kept getting asked, "Are you Al Gore?" Look, just because I'm liberal, wearing a suit, have a lovely full head of hair, and am horribly overweight doesn't make me Al Gore...)

1929: The Year FDR Invented the Television

Colin Powell: Clearly Not Patriotic

God Hates Liberals

But Not as Much as Jesus Hates Poor People

Well, my boss lives in the fancy part of town (fancy is relative... Easton, PA, and really PA as a whole, don't so much have any fancy parts), so many of his guests from the neighborhood were of the Republican persuasion... so, our costumes sparked a lot of controversy, and some great drunken conversations... I'll share some of the highlights...

First, we talked about socialism and redistribution of wealth... I took their legs out from under them by agreeing completely that the tax rates under Jimmy Carter for top earners were repressive, unfair, and unwise, as a 70% tax rate makes people just want to quit working... but then I asked them if they think the top 1% of earners constitute the "liberal elite" or if they think the top 1% typically votes Republican... needless to say, they eagerly agreed that nearly all of the top 1% are a part of the George Soros "liberal elite" (editor's note: the idea that the top earners vote Democrat is one of the most absurd lies that large amounts of sheep, er, people have ever believed and repeated)... I then asked, if the top earners are the ones who will be affected by this evil commie plot to redistribute wealth, but these same top earners support the liberal platform and seemingly have no problem with returning to the 39.6% rate we had under Slick Willie, then why in the f**k are Republicans who fall outside of the top tax bracket so upset about it? Seriously, this makes no sense... of course, the truth is that a HUGE majority of top earners vote Republican because they want to keep their cash... and these same top earners have done a magnificent job of manipulating stupid people into voting outside of their own interests by pumping up the talking points of "socialism" and "wealth redistribution"...

I'll share my favorite conversation before I sign off... I met a "small" business owner at the party (I say "small" because almost as soon as he claimed that title, he started bragging about all of his multi-million dollar government contracts) who had his panties in a bunch about the small business tax increase... it was a very funny back and forth... for the first 15 minutes I just listened to him rant about how with higher taxes, he'll lose his motivation to work hard, he'll have to lay people off, he'll create tax shelters and move his assets overseas, and eventually be forced to close up shop... he was eloquent, and passionate... I mean, the guy really believed what he was saying... I then asked if he knew about the Laffer Curve, which tries to predict the exact percentage at which taxation will decrease productivity and therefore tax revenue... he was well aware, as the Laffer Curve is the basis for "supply side" or "trickle down" economic theory... so, then I asked him if his business was able to grow and prosper prior to the 2001 tax cuts... and if he had to lay people off or create tax shelters or shut his business down when the tax rate was 39.6%... and then we talked about the overall economic growth when the rate was 39.6%, and how there is absolutely no evidence that 39.6% falls on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve... he looked sick to his stomach when he couldn't disagree with anything I said... my Lord, how the Republicans hate logic, reasoning, and facts...

Abortion...

This is the toughest issue out there... and it's an important enough issue that I find the extent to which far right wing political leaders exploit this issue to manipulate their followers to be absolutely disgraceful...

When does life begin? That's obviously the fundamental question... and the scientific evidence seems to be contradictory and most of the information out there seems to be politically motivated...

I don't believe that life begins at conception... I do realize that once the egg is fertilized, it will grow into a human... I just think that line of thought is dangerous, because it could be extended to include the sperm and the egg before fertilization... after all, sperm that is "wasted" in recreational pursuits rather than in procreational pursuits had the potential to become a human as well... but I don't think we should prosecute men who deliberately ejaculate (this topic is so sensitive that I'm trying to be all proper and sh*t) and therefore waste genetic material that could have produced a child...

I remember an anti-abortion advertisement from my childhood that I found to be very effective... it said simply that "abortion stops a beating heart"... this always made sense to me... and it always seemed wrong to me... after all, a great measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members, and who could be weaker than an unborn child? So, the question becomes in my mind- "When does the heart begin beating?"

According to the one website I could find that seems to be based strictly on science rather than propaganda, the heart begins to beat at 5 weeks after conception:

http://www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fetal-development/first-trimester/

As such, I am totally comfortable with outlawing abortion after the 5 week point, assuming that there's some scientific agreement about this time frame... to me, once the heart begins beating, abortion is wrong... that's my opinion...

Does this mean that I favor overturning Roe v. Wade? I don't know... I haven't even read the ruling... I will say, though, that I would definitely support some measures to try to make abortion less prevalent...

For example, why not have a waiting period? The mother to be must register with the clinic, at which time the clinic presents her with alternatives like adoption and educates her about the specifics of the procedure itself... then, after registration, the mother to be must wait 24 hours after registering before actually having the procedure... considering the stakes, and trying to weigh the mother's rights versus the unborn baby's rights, I don't think the waiting period along with the educational proposals are too much to ask...

I don't know... again, this is an enormously tough issue to me... what do y'all think?

Random Thought...

As a fat person, I think sometimes about the obesity crisis we face in America (like, especially when I accidentally see myself naked in the mirror- sooooo gross), and I wonder what happened... we haven't always been a society of great big fat people... there are a lot of theories, and I think that one of the best ones involves the variety of indoor entertainment options that are available today... when I was a kid, we had TV, but it had rabbit ears with tin foil... as for home video game systems, there was the Atari 2600 and Intellivision, both of which pretty much sucked... these days, however, kids have satellite TV, Nintendo, the internet, DVD's, and a whole lot of other pretty good reasons to avoid exercise... when I drive around neighborhoods, I just don't see very many kids playing football in the front yard, or hoops in the driveway, or tackle the man, or anything... so, I think it's fairly obvious that an indoor entertainment revolution has led to less exercise, and that less exercise has contributed to how fat we are as a country...

But you want to know what? I think that a lack of natural foods are the bigger culprit... and if I could pinpoint just one food that I think is killing us, it's corn syrup... corn syrup has been substituted for sugar nearly universally because it is so much less expensive... and if you trace the beginning of the child obesity epidemic, I'll bet you that the expansion of corn syrup and the reduction of cane sugar coincides almost exactly...

So here's my random idea... outlaw corn syrup, and expand the production of corn-based ethanol... this way, you could bring an alternative fuel to the market right away without overly affecting the price of corn because the ethanol will fill the void in corn consumption that the new law creates... of course, sweet foods would become a little more expensive as sugar cane became more prevalent... but if we can help reduce our dependence on foreign oil while simultaneously helping to fight the obesity epidemic, isn't that easily worth it?

The Left Wing Redneck...

Obviously, I'm a pretty left wing liberal guy in many regards, especially socially... but I'm also an absolute redneck in many regards as well... and when it comes to our prison at Guantanamo Bay, I make Dick Cheney look like Dennis Kucinich...

I keep hearing all this madness about closing down Guantanamo and how evil torture is and all kinds of other sissy bulls**t... I'll tell you my opinion- the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should only be applicable to US citizens... as such, I don't think the prisoners at Guantanamo have a right to Habeas Corpus, or an attorney, or a speedy trial, or a fair trial, or any trial at all... I know, I know... the Geneva Convention provides a framework for the ethical treatment of foreign prisoners... but let me tell you something that should already be obvious if you're paying attention- I don't give a f**k about the f**king Geneva Convention...

Well, let me back up... if we're fighting an enemy that abides by the Geneva Convention, then we should too... but I think we need our enemies to understand that if they torture one single American boy, then we will torture the ever living sh*t out of every single f**king surrogate we possibly can until you knock that sh*t off... I want our enemies to know that we're always happy to take the gloves off if that's what they want... to quote the great Mike Singletary, I want our enemies to know that "we like them kind of parties."

As for the perception that this policy would cost us our moral authority, I would argue that our enemies apparently aren't too impressed with our high horse in the first place... and besides, I'm a pragmatist and an Old Testament guy anyway... seriously, when they cut people's heads off and broadcast it on the internet, I literally have no problem with doing the exact same thing...

And if you think that's extreme/insane, you'll love this... here would be my policy on civilian casualties... the first time you indiscriminately kill a US civilian, I would order the random death by bombing of 10 times the number of your innocent civilians... the second time, I would order the death of 100 times the number of your innocent civilians... the third time, it would be 1000 times, and the fourth time, it would be 10,000 times, and so on... and if you kept killing US civilians, I would eventually wipe your entire population off the face of the planet...

I told you I was a redneck... I do want to point out, though, that I look at military deaths quite differently... whether people want to admit it or not, we are at war, and the people we're fighting don't hate us without reason... like it or not, we helped start this war through our aggressive foreign policy/meddling/nation building and our support for Israel... as such, I would never unfairly retaliate and kill your innocents for attacks on our military targets... the bombings of the USS Cole, the Pentagon, or arguably even the US Embassy in Somalia were in my opinion the legitimate cost of waging war... the US has provoked the Islamic extremists in many ways, so of course they're going to fight back... but the bombing of the World Trade Center, on the other hand, was a calculated act of violence against a non-military target... as such, within hours of the attack that left around 3000 civilians dead, I would have ordered the random death by bombing of 30,000 civilians in the no man's land between Afghanistan and Pakistan... and when they retaliated, which they definitely would have, our next strike would carry 100 times the civilian casualties, and so on...

We arguably started this war, which we clearly shouldn't have... but I can promise you 2 things if King Pete were in charge... one, we'd let our enemy set the rules and then we would damn sure play by them... and two, regardless of who started the war, we would damn sure finish it... I can almost hear Lee Greenwood singing right now... man, this post makes me feel patriotic!!!!

Debate Strategy...

I know this will never happen, but here's what Barack should say if McCain wants to bring up Ayers, Reverend Wright, etc...

"I'm happy to talk about any alleged association in my political career. But I want to point something out first. John McCain is friendly with Senator Larry Craig. We have many pictures of them smiling and shaking hands. They are old compatriots and allies from their years together in the Senate. Does this mean that John McCain likes to suck d*ck in airport rest rooms? Of course not. The association game is a ridiculous, unfair, and never-ending two way street. I'm not surprised that Senator McCain's campaign advisers encouraged him to employ these small minded tactics, but I am surprised and disappointed that he acquiesced to their lowest common denominator inclinations. John, you're so much better than this, and it's a shame that you let your political team drag you down with them."

After that point, he should be candid about any association that McCain or the moderator asks about... I do also think he should point out that Republican operatives and Fox News researchers (is there a difference here?) likely reviewed thousands of hours of Reverend Wright's sermons, and they apparently only found 3 sound bites that were inflammatory (presumably, if they found more than 3, they would have used them too)... so, when Barack says he never heard anything outrageous come out of Reverend Wright's mouth, it's not as unbelievable as it sounds at first... unless there is proof that Barack was in attendance at one of the 3 sermons where Reverend Wright made objectionable comments, then what's the big deal? I mean, I do realize that Republicans are desperate to make Barack look like a militant black demagogue... but still... whatever...

Health Care...

Boy, this is another topic that the Democrats are completely butchering... I think I know what Barack is trying to say, but boy is he ever saying it poorly... by being vague about his plan- all I have really heard him say is that he wants congress to provide the same coverage to every American that it provides for itself... the problem with this plan is that it sounds like a massive new government bureaucracy with increased spending and government control... by doing such a lousy job of articulating his plan, he has opened the door for and even legitimized Republican attacks of "big government liberal" and "socialized medicine..." here's what he should say:

"The far right Neo-Conservative propaganda machine loves to deliberately misrepresent my health care plan as 'Socialized Medicine.' They hope you don't pay attention to reality and they hope you'll ignore even the very definition of their invalid accusation. You see, under a socialist health care system, hospitals are state owned, doctors are government employees, and you have no choice whatsoever regarding your health care coverage. I have never and will never advocate anything even remotely related to a socialist health care agenda because America's market-based philosophy has created the best health care system in the world. And I understand completely that by definition, a socialist platform removes profits from the equation. As such, going away from a free market approach would attract fewer and less talented doctors and would reduce if not eliminate the motive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in life saving research and development. It is crystal clear in my mind that this would be an utter disaster for America.

At the same time, though, we must have the courage to confront the crisis of the uninsured, because even if you disagree about the moral imperative of universal health care, we must all agree that uninsured Americans place a tremendous but avoidable burden on our great country. My plan is simple and straight forward, and I'll use an analogy to illustrate my point. If you want to send a package to a friend, and you have excellent personal or corporate resources, you'll probably use Fed Ex or UPS because the free market is able to deliver better service but at a premium. On the other hand, if you need to send the same package, but you lack financial resources, you'll probably choose the US Postal Service, as they provide a similar service but at a much more affordable price. The US Postal Service is a great example of how public competition in the private sector can keep costs low without destroying the free market. In spite of the Postal Service, Fed Ex and UPS are able to sustain enormous annual profits. But because of the Postal Service, everyday Americans are able to send and receive mail, and Fed Ex and UPS are forced to keep their rates reasonable.

All I have ever advocated is to establish a degree of public non-profit competition in the private insurance sector. And just like the US Postal Service, you will only pay for the public insurance option if you choose to use it. We're not at all talking about new spending or new taxes or any sort of redistribution of wealth. If you like the health coverage you have, you keep it. But if you aren't happy with your coverage, or if your coverage is too expensive, or if you don't have any coverage at all, then you can purchase health insurance from the open plan. Because of free market principles, the open plan will be able to negotiate lower prices for health insurance. Just as Wal Mart buys cases of coffee at a much cheaper price than the local market, the open plan will be able to provide health care coverage "in bulk" so to speak, thereby furnishing basic coverage at an affordable price. And just as the non-profit US Postal Service forces Fed Ex and UPS to keep their prices competitive, so will the open insurance plan force private insurance companies to lower their premiums.

This plan will not affect doctor salaries or profits for hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, nor will it increase government control or demand new and higher taxes. The only profits that will suffer are the windfall profits of the insurance giants, which will infuriate their CEO's and their lobbyists. But considering the stakes and the alternatives, that's a fight I'm willing to conduct and able to win."