Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Larry Craig Shares the Same Values as the American Family Association

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

I found this interesting:

Vote smart is an organization which tracks politician’s votes and political stances based on bills they support from certain interests groups. For instance, Hilary Clinton would get a 0% support rating for Planned Parenthood Bombers R Us.

On the flip side, a guy who finds his thrills in airport men’s rooms voted favorably 100% of the time on issues supported by the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. Really, these should be the same organization as they both think women should be baby makers and they hate Gays and anyone who isn't white Christians who go to NASCAR races. It's just a little ironic that a guy who likes to get BJs from men while they take a shit would think as they do.

What's that say for the American Family Association and the Family Research Council?

Friday, October 12, 2007

Oh My God, Bush Does Want to Be King

Wow, this is a few months old but how scary is this? Where was the "liberal media" to expose this? Bush really is crazy.

At this point, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush has no intentions of leaving the White House after his term expires. The US Military is all in Iraq and Afghanistan and Bush has his own paramilitary group in Blackwater which could keep him in office by force. Does this mean I am going to have to fight along side with Ted Nugent??

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Blackwaters Run Deep

The Bush administration, following suite with dictators such as Milosevic, Ahmadinejad, Mussolini and Efrain Rios Montt, has been using a paramilitary group named Blackwater to conduct "security" operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and New Orleans, etc. Blackwater and it's founder, Eric Prince, a former G.H.W. Bush Whitehouse intern, are linked with and contributors to conservative right wing groups such as Christian Freedom International, The Family Research Council ($670,000), Focus on the Family ($531,000), the Bush Campaign, The Republican National Committee ($168,000), Council for National Policy (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer), Prison Fellowship Ministries, and Kenneth Starr.

Clearly this is a non-biased, well trained, Muslim loving group with no political connections which might lead them to think that they could secure no-bid contracts and bill the US Government what ever they wanted. Furthermore, Blackwater can be fully trusted with matters of their intentions and security in Iraq and abroad, especially in Muslim countries since they are without religious prejudice.

But what I want to know is why the US Government would pay a U.S. soldier 60k dollars per year but would pay a Blackwater $445,000 per year in tax payer’s dollars for each of its soldiers. I agree that our troops are spread thin and there is a push to give the soldiers as much relief as possible (trust) but don't you think that if the Army were to pay 400k per year that maybe they could easily find some willing recruits? Actually, I'll bet they could find more troops for 200k per year and save the tax payers 200k per soldier and then they would actually have a force of soldiers who are accountable to superior officers who are accountable to politicians who are accountable to voters. We could probably even screen for potential mental or physical issues, crime records etc. Not only would they be saving money, but they could probably recruit better, brighter, stronger and even older more experienced soldiers who weren't tied to an ultra right wing Christian paramilitary militia. I'm not saying that all of the Blackwater personnel are bad, I even heard a recent story of how a group of Blackwater soldiers were gunning down a bunch of civilians who got in their way and another Blackwater soldier pointed his gun at them telling them to stop or he would shoot them. But what I worry about are the other guys that were shooting at the family in the first place and how and why this agency is employed by our government. I also think that it's no coincidence that the seige of Fallujah started only a month after 4 Blackwater mercenaries in Fallujah were killed, dragged through the street and hung from a bridge. Why did the administration wait until then to go into Fallujah which had been relatively peaceful and orderly after the fall of Saddam?

The other scenario which disturbs me is that let's say by some miracle the war ends by the next election; laughable, I know but bear with me. Ok so let’s say there is another disputed election between an old Bush cronie and John Edwards and a mass of people take to the streets to demonstrate. With a trained killing force for hire, with no war to fight, which doesn't answer to the people, who do the right-wingers send in to "keep the peace"? After all, 90% of Blackwaters revenue comes from the current, Republican US Government. Whose side do you think they would be on? I know they were in New Orleans after Katrina but what authority do they really have? If I see a guy telling me what to do and he isn't a US soldier or a cop I'm going to tell him to fuck himself. Clearly that guy would have a gun but so do I. How does that scenario play out?

Clearly the funneling of excessive amounts of money to members of you abortion clinic bombing club and letting them run free with guns is concerning. Just as concerning is the morale of the soldiers who do the same job but make 1/6 of what a Blackwater employee does, as is the fact that in the last 2 years, 163 or their 195 shooting incidents were situations in which Blackwater fired first, as well as the reports of their soldiers smuggling weapons to the Kurds but exactly who gets to use this shadow army and why do we need them and what real power do they have? Can I hire them to keep the Minneapolis Airport safe from Republicans?

Clearly I am no gun nut but all I know is that these paramilitary groups are the exact reason why our founding fathers added the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Although I do own a gun, I do not have one in my condo; I'm starting to rethink that position. Remember, these people are merely Marine wannabes, flunkies and has beens; they do not have authority over you.

UPDATE 10/30:

It now looks like the Blackwater employees involved will receive immunity from any of their actions. With a killing machine which is above the law, what will Bush have them do next?,2933,306057,00.html

Republicans no Longer Support Trickle Down Economics

8 States sue Bush over kid insurance:

Eight states are suing the "pro-life, pro-family", Bush administration over his veto of the bill which would have provided health insurance to lower and "middle" income children. The bill would call for an extra 60 billion dollars over the next 5 years; we spend over 100 billion a year in Iraq. The Bush administration is stating that one of the main reasons for the veto is because it would cover people making up to $83,000 per year and that it was too expensive. Apparently those people already have enough money and don't need the governments help.

That's as ironic as it is funny, didn't the Bush tax cuts mainly benefit rich people? When his tax cut plan becomes mature, the richest 1% of the population will receive 52% of the total tax savings? Don't federal oil and gas subsidies go to the most profitable companies in the world? Isn't the elimination of the Estate Tax something that only benefits the people who stand to inherit a net worth of 2 million dollars or more? Since when does Bush have any problems with the government helping "rich" people? Message: Only millionaires and billionaires need the governments help, not the working man; anything else would be socialism.

Isn't cutting expenses and or taxes for well to do people a way that Republicans always said would benefit the poor and the entire economy? Doesn't that supposedly create jobs thus putting money into the economy generating other sources of tax revenue? Didn't Reagan get elected on the concept of trickle down economics?

Apparently poor and middle class children don't have as strong of a lobby as Exxon and ADM.

And by the way, you will notice that besides Hawaii, these are almost all of the states in the US with a higher than average cost of living. For instance, if you live on a salary of $17,000 per year in Durham, NC you would need 39,221 in NYC. A salary of 50,000 in Austin, TX has the same buying power of 76,263 in San Jose, CA. California has the highest cost of living and it is 53% above the national average, Massachusetts is 3rd, and Illinois is 5th, New Jersey 6th, New Hampshire 10th.

I live on over $83,000 per year in Chicago and I am single with no wife and no children and I honestly don't know how much extra income I would have if I had a stay at home wife and 3 kids. Trust me, 83,000 is not a lot in those states and it's certainly less than the 36 Billion in profits that Exxon makes a year yet they still receive government hand outs.

By the way, a recent Washington Post poll showed that 72% of Americans favor an expansion of health coverage to children.

On the flip side, there are several Insurance / HMO lobbyist who will retain their jobs.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Give me a Brake

From CNN:A New York woman is so angry at Apple Inc. for lopping $200 off the price of the iPhone that she's filed a lawsuit seeking $1 million in damages.

In 1985, a brand VCR would cost you around $300-$400. If you can find one today, it may cost you $40 and it comes with a remote. If they had only cost $40 in 1986, we would have had one but we didn't and there was a reason we waited. (Not so much savvy as we were poor)

Sony's first CD player was introduced in 1982; the CDP-101 would cost you $900. Today you can get a Sony 5 disc SACD player for $130 and a Discman portable for about $30. (Portable CD's were unheard of, kind of like SACD today)

In 1997 a RCA's first consumer DVD player retailed for $499. Today I can get (but I wouldn't) an RCA Progressive scan DVD player with HD up-conversion for $59 or a portable DVD player with screen for $199.

Clearly being the geek that I am, I have none of these cheap components but nor was I the first to run out and buy the new hot thing. (This is where I point out my superior logic and wisdom)

What I am getting at is that if you are the first idiot to buy a new technology, you are going to pay extra for it. Who doesn't know that? So would it have been ok if they waited 8 months to raise the price, what about 9 months, how about 50 years? What invisible law did Apple break, what was the statute of limitations of dropping the price of their own product? Maybe Apple should have raised the price of the Iphone instead, that would have been great for business. Supply and demand morons; at first there was a big demand, and then not so much. They were left with abundance of product and in order to move it they had to drop the price. It's not rocket science.

If what you paid for it wasn't worth it to you, why did you buy it?

I hope the judge confiscates her Iphone and sentences her to the electric chair just for being an ass.