"Ron Paul, at your cervix!"

"Doctor" Ron Paul is a frighteningly stupid man. His myopic and simplistic world view demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of economics and politics. He prides himself on his unique voting record, but it's more a sign of his incompetence than his bravery.

Here are just two examples of his wacky platform.

Tax Cuts

Dr. Paul claims to have never voted for a tax increase. That's all well and good, but his logic is based on a faulty philosophy. Here's how he explains it:

“Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.”

Oh, Ronny, if only the world really worked that way. Along with cutting taxes, Dr. Paul would also cut the programs funded by those taxes. That means that while the mom saves $40/month, she has to now pay for her children's health care (CHIP), her own health care (Medicaid), more money on food (food stamps, WIC) and more for rent (Section 8 housing). So the $40 that she saves doesn't really do her much good. On the other hand, it can save upper bracket payers $10,000/month - now that's savings!

Additionally, it is unclear whether the saved money will be "reinvested" as Dr. Paul claims. History has shown that it is the tendency of corporate directors to pocket saved money rather than reinvest.

I also encourage you to read his take on tips. It's precious how he further demonstrates his total lack of understanding of how the world really works (in this case, how basic economics and the tax code are tied together.)

International Relations

If it were up to the good doctor, we'd build a 90-foot wall around our great land and paint a giant upraised middle finger on it. He is particularly afraid of the North American Union. Don't be surprised if you haven't heard of it because it doesn't exist. . .yet. Even if it were real, I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing.

Right now, the three largest economies in the world are the US, Europe and Japan. But that's changing. We simply don't have the population or resources (both labor and material) to compete with the emerging markets in Asia. Without changing something, it's only a matter of time before China completely overtakes us making us just one more failed empire that will pass into the history books. We will not be able to enjoy the same standard of living that we currently do. However, Europe has showed us the way - join or die. Europe was facing economic extinction when it saw the light and banded together into the EEC and eventually the EU. We could do the same with Canada and Latin America, but only if we abandon our 18th century protectionist ways. (We could also take the only slightly less likely alternative of making me the supreme ruler of the country.)

Dr. Paul believes a lot of other crazy things like ending natural birth citizenship, withdrawing from the WTO, lifting all limits on the Second Amendment, that only a few years of mediocre congressional service qualifies you to be president, and that anybody gives a rat's anus about what some no-name group thinks about him. But, to end on a positive note, I do strongly agree with him on one point: the United States should never again go to war without express congressional approval.

In summary, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for an America that neither does nor should exist.

* Dr. Paul has also delivered more than 4,000 babies. In case you haven't already figured it out, that means that he has seen up close more than 4,000 open, bleeding vaginas. That's enough to make anyone crazy.

"Something d-o-o economics...."

This is yet another post in my continued analysis of the various contenders for the US Presidency. Today's victim: Mike Huckabee. There are a lot of things about him that I like. Things going for him are his take on faith and politics, education, globalization, and bits of his take on health care. I really liked his take on energy independence - being the first candidate I've seen to publicly state that our oil dependence is hurting us in the 'War on Terror'. Strikes against him include a ludicrously unworkable immigration plan and, among other things, generalized crazy.

His crazy is primarily centered in his Fair Tax agenda. Fair tax is for conservatives what socialized medicine is for liberals: a magical solution that works only in the land where unicorns prance around a benign Ronald Reagan and an unimpeached Bill Clinton.

(Style note: I use the term 'Fair tax' instead of the trademarked term 'FairTax'. I think the term 'FairTax' is a little fruity.)

Huckabee's Fair Tax - which is not his own idea - seems pretty straightforward. It has two major components:

1. A 23% sales tax on all new consumer goods and services. Notice that used goods would be exempted. This takes the place of all payroll taxes plus corporate income and capital gain taxes.

2. A monthly rebate check is issued to all taxpayers for the amount of tax paid up to the poverty line. As I understand it, the government would calculate the amount of money spent on taxes by a family living at the poverty line (which includes families making less than $22,000 year) per month and then issue a check to every family for that amount. (I haven't encountered anything that explains how that would play out for individuals.)

Huckabee argues that this plan will provide a number of benefits including: 1. reducing our lifetime tax burden, 2. making American products more competitive internationally, and 3. correcting the injustice of taxing the wealthy.

If I weren't a pinko Clintonista, I might buy this crap. Since I don't, here goes:

I have a few complaints with the idea of a fair tax generally. First, income tax deductions are a vital tool in encouraging good behavior. People do a lot of stuff because of the tax advantages involved such as: buying hybrid cars, buying houses rather than renting (which helps the overall economy dramatically), getting married, having children, etc. The sales tax will eliminate all of those incentives. In fact, it will actually decrease many of those incentives, most notably, having children.

Second, it will not simplify the tax code nor remove the need for bureaucracy. Someone will have to determine who gets the "prebates", enforce the honest reporting of taxes, and knock down the doors of non-payers.

A 'fair' tax will not reduce our lifetime tax burden. This plan simply exchanges one form of taxation for another. Even when coupled with the Huckster's plan to "not exactly" "shut down the federal government", people will still have to pay for the services currently funded through the government. Under his plan, all payroll taxes - Soc. Security, Medicare, Income tax, etc. will be eliminated. This means that consumers will need to pay for these services without the benefit of government assistance. Furthermore, under his plan consumers will have to pay for these things at a 23% sales tax premium. When you go to the hospital, you'll have to pay 23% for medical services that would have been provided tax-free under the current Medicare plan. The same goes for retirement planning, higher education and other government services that are funded by the income tax. We'll end up paying the same amount (or more) for those services but without the benefits of itemized deductions.

It will also fail to make our products more competitive internationally. The only way to make this happen is to lower labor standards here in the US, something which is entirely unrelated to taxes. Frankly, I don't want to live in Huckawannabee's sweatshop America.

Finally, he errs by making the argument that under our current system, we punish the rich for getting rich by making them pay higher taxes. It is true that in our progressive tax system, the more you make, the more you pay. That seems fair to me. The richer you are the more you benefit from the system that allowed you to get rich and stay that way. I don't care if you're paying 50% of your income in taxes if you still have millions of dollars left over - it's a simple matter of marginal value, something Huckabee and his friends from the hive don't understand. (Get it, "bee...hive"? I kill me!)

As Chuck Norris' favorite candidate gains support, it is important that voters remember that he is either pandering or downright stupid. Either way, that's not what I want from my president. Even though Chuck Norris can run so fast that he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head, I'm still not voting for his candidate.

"This book belonged to my wife. I keep it for sentimental value."

As the election season starts up (or at least as I start paying attention to it), I have noticed that one perennial issue has remained on the agenda, but as always, near the bottom: Israel. Israel is a hot-button topic for many people, one which polarizes and invokes strong feelings on both sides.

Personally, I don't care much for Israel's policies. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to support her that I must acknowledge as legitimate. I do sympathize with her position as one of (if not THE) only nations on the Earth whose destruction is called for in the charters of most of her neighbors. Unfortunately, in my experience, this is not the most commonly-cited reason to support Israel. That honor belongs to the following misguided position (this one taken from Mike Huckabee's Campaign Website):

I am a steadfast supporter of Israel, our staunch ally in the War on Terror, the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East, and our greatest friend in that region. (emphasis added)

I have an number of problems with this argument, the greatest coming from the italicized text. I will concede for the sake of argument that Israel is "the only fully-functioning democracy" in the Middle Eastern region (even though 'democracy' has been in the 'Middle East' to varying degrees for some time now). Even so, the idea that Israel's democracy will have any positive effect on the region is preposterous. As I stated above, Israel's neighbors generally hate it and it is for precisely that reason that Israel's democracy will have absolutely no effect on the governments that surround it. If the United States really wants to spread democracy in the region, we should actually lessen our relationship with Israel and bolster up other embryonic traces of democracy (Turkey, Egypt, etc.). By continuing this intimate relationship with Israel, we are hurting our credibility in the region.

I do acknowledge the more subtle argument inherent in the offending statement, which is that America has a responsibility to support democracy wherever it may be. While I do agree with that idea, I do not believe that it necessarily follows that we must support democracy above all other interests. There are interests of international peace and security that we must acknowledge which may take precedence over the value of democracy. We cannot practically support Israel alone in the hope that the rest of the Middle East will eventually settle down by itself.

Despite all my feelings against it, I hope that Huckabee and the like are supporting Israel for the valid political reasons I've stated and not in the hope that they will end up on the right side in Megiddo.

"It's called Gold Case. It's a cross between Deal or No Deal and Millionare with a charming celebrity host, to be determined!"

I really hope that the Hollywood writer's strike can be resolved soon. If it doesn't, the television that I love so much could die. In a worst-case scenario, Hollywood will tell the writers to screw off replacing the quality programming they produce with reality television that doesn't require people with brains to run. We could see an all-reality television line-up.

If that ever happens, watch for my obituary.

"Let's not get bogged down in semantics. I think what Lisa was trying to say is..."

Two years ago, I heard a lot of hubbub about the "War on Christmas." Apparently, this "war" is a concerted effort by secularists and anti-Christians who want to make our country less Christian or something like that. They argue that by not referencing Christmas in advertising material or being asked to not put up public displays of the religious roots of the season that Christmas and by extension, Christianity, is being driven from public dialogue.

I don't buy it. While there are no doubt some people who really would like Christianity wiped off the face of the Earth, I do not believe that they are going to win this war by simply taking the word "Christmas" out of the weekly junk mail. Rather, if there is a war on Christmas, it began a long time ago and hasn't made much ground.

I'm referring to the advent of Santa Claus as part of Christmas culture. If there is any more secular figure, I can't think of it. Santa Claus lives on the North Pole, dresses in commie red, and has nothing at all to do with the birth of the Savior. Among other things, he supplants the role of the wise men in the Christmas story by bringing gifts not to the Baby Jesus, but only to children that obeyed their parents. This is a damaging lie that gives kids one more thing to think about other than religion. In fact, I feel that the perpetuation of this lie has done more to distract from the true meaning of Christmas than any other single idea or movement in the last 2,000 years.

St. Nicholas might have been acting in the "true spirit of Christmas" but his many incarnations since then have separated themselves from it (i.e. Annual Gift Man who lives on the moon). I say it is time to put an end to all this Santa Claus business. I will not teach my child that Santa Claus is real, but rather that he is just a story told by parents who have no way of controlling their children.

Along with Santa Claus is perpetuated the most unchristian aspect of Christmas: consumer spending. Focusing not on the message of love and forgiveness taught by Christ, we focus on spending boatloads of money so that we can get the earthly things that we want. I'm not sure that He would be very happy about this, having taught, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor..." I am not arguing with the spirit of giving on Christmas. It is the overindulgence that has so pervaded the holiday that bothers me.

I hope that we can take the time in our own lives to focus on the true meaning of Christmas: the gift of eternal life. If we focused on that in our own lives and those of our families, this holiday season will be far more meaningful than any greeter at Wal-Mart can make it.

So, in the spirit of the season, let me say: What you talkin' 'bout, everyone!

"Obama? What is he, Hispanic?" "No, he's black." "And he's running for President? Good luck."

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a political junkie. I get riled up about every election, I try to goad my friends and acquaintances into talking politics. I'm optimistic and idealistic. I believe that voting does matter and that things can change for the better.

Over the last few elections, I've tried to get behind candidates but have been disappointed. This year I'm starting down that same path. The candidate that I've started to get behind is Barack Obama. Man, I love that guy.

To prove that I like him not just with puppy love but as a candidate, here are a few highlights from his platform:

1. Foreign Policy. Obama is the first candidate I've heard take a progressive foreign policy position. He abandons the antiquated notion of pulling back from hostile foreign powers and argues that we should actually increase our ties and dialogue with our enemies. It was ties and dialogue that prevented the Cold War from becoming a hot war.

I believe in democracy (and the republicanism that we practice as Americans) and capitalism. They are good doctrines that generally work. I also believe that they are infectious. As people begin to taste freedom, they become addicted to it and will ultimately fight to the death to attain it. If we increase ties with our enemies, democratic and capitalist ideas will inevitably infiltrate their culture and real change will begin. I also believe that countries with intertwined economies will be less likely to go to war with each other. If we really want to protect our troops, let's do what we can to prevent wars from happening. The best way to do that is to open up dialogue with our enemies.

2. Poverty. Unlike all the other candidates (except Edwards, whom I also really like), Obama is a champion of the poor, not the middle class. Our society will be judged not on how we treated the privileged, but how we treated the poor. This is a running thread throughout Christianity (which many claim as the foundation of our nation) as well as every other religion. We should work to create a society where there is no poverty, not a society where the rich can ignore the impoverished. Our country is suffering from a spreading gap between the rich and poor and unless we work to reverse that trend, we will all be left poor.

I am however cautious. I liked Bush in 2000. He talked about humble foreign policy, centrist politics and uniting the country. Every promise he made, every reason I voted for him was reversed within the first year he was in office - mostly before 9/11. I hope that my faith here is not misplaced. But he seems like a man of values - someone with vision and integrity. Someone who believes in something and is willing to make a stand for what's right. I've lived through too many years of subterfuge of the principles of the Constitution and it's time for a change.

I'll provide more detailed analysis of his other positions in future posts.

Check out his website for yourself. I hope that you'll take the two minutes to watch this video. It's really good.

And yes, I am aware that he purportedly doesn't salute the flag. I'll address that as well.

"And that's why I'm voting for Osama in '08. What no comeback? Ya burnt!"

"What are you doing? You better not hurt that little bat." "Animals can't feel pain."

Two nights ago, we discovered that we have mice in our apartment. We had just moved out of a place that had a huge mouse problem, and we were hoping never to face it again. However, after only a few weeks in our place, we had our hopes crushed.

Yesterday, Mrs. Debator set some sticky traps around the house. We used traps designed for mice, as well as some designed for rats. (The rat ones are bigger and stickier.) After a night of listening to the pitter-patter of disease-ridden feet, I woke up to check the traps and lo and behold, we had caught a mouse on one of the rat traps. Its tail and back feet were stuck to the trap and it had been using its front feet to try to free itself. Apparently it had been at this quite awhile because the mouse had successfully moved the trap several inches. Despite his efforts, he had been unable to free himself.

I was now faced with the task of disposing of it. Being the humane person that I like to hide from people, I wanted to put it out of its misery so it wouldn't spend the last hours or days of its life stuck to a plastic trap, alone in the dark, and starving until it finally died surrounded by the stench of human waste. In our last apartment when we had caught a mouse on a sticky trap, I wanted to put it out of its misery in a human way so I trapped it under a tupperware and put cotton balls doused with various chemicals inside. I tried ammonia, ammonia mixed with bleach cleaner, and rubbing alcohol with no success. So, I just turned the tupperware upside down with the mouse still in it, put it in a bag, and dropped it down the trash chute that went directly to mouse hell. Once something goes down that chute, it's gone. (This was very nice for poopy diapers.) Unfortunately, living in a house with a garbage can that I have to take out once a week, I don't have that luxury.

Not seeing any other options, I decided to shoot the poor guy with my pellet gun. I picked up the trap and took it outside where I set it on the lawn. It was a chilly morning and the sun had not yet come up over the mountains. That's right, I was going to shoot this mouse at dawn. I retrieved my gun from inside and loaded it. I saw that the mouse was still desperately trying to get off the trap and had in the process gotten his front two feet and left side stuck as well. I could see his chest rapidly heaving up and down as he struggled to get free. He was obviously scared. I said, "It will all be over soon, little guy." I pumped my gun 10 times and aimed. I couldn't see him very clearly through the scope because I was so close, but I could see his brown shape in the sight. I centered the crosshair on his head, hesitated and fired.

I lowered the gun and looked. He was still there, wiggling and trying to get free. I had missed. Crap. I loaded again, took aim and fired. Miss. Again. Miss. So I went and inspected the trap. There were several holes immediately beneath the mouse. I was missing, but not by much. I knew that if I aimed just a little higher, I would kill him. I reloaded, pumped up the gun and aimed. I still couldn't see clearly through the scope, but I could clearly see his outline. I found his thrashing head in the scope and took aim just above the head. I hesitated. Before, when I was missing, it was easy to keep taking shots because each time I fired I felt that there was less and less of a chance of me hitting him. But now, I knew that I would hit him - I had done it hundreds of times before on inanimate targets. I looked at his dim outline through my scope, held my breath and fired.

It was a hit. And it was gruesome. I saw the mouse on the trap, bewildered and struggling to get free - to just run away from this torment and hide where no predator could find him. I saw him there, bleeding from his neck. At first it was just a drop, then more and more. It was forming a dark red puddle on the trap. I was sick. I had set out to give this animal a humane end to his life, but instead I forced him to spend his last moments trapped, confused, and bleeding to death. I couldn't bear it. I reloaded, took careful aim and fired. When I lowered the gun, he was still. There was no visible wound from the second shot but I didn't want to inspect further. I had chills going down my back and I was weak with sickness from what I had seen. I had killed a living thing whose only crime was to seek refuge and food in my warm home.

I found a grocery bag and placed the trap inside. Blood stained the grass as I moved the trap into the bag. I quickly placed the bag in the garbage can hoping that my feelings could go with it. But I don't have an emotional trash shoot where I can send my anguish. I can only deal with it as best I can and that's by playing Rainbow Six Vegas. Rainbow Six, you ease the pain.

"Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!"

I hate Rudy Giuliani. I think that he is the worst candidate for president from either party. I would rather live in Ron Paul's magical America that doesn't exist than live under the oppressive hand of that self-important prick. To prove that my feelings about him are justified, I will post a series of posts concerning various aspects of his platform. While I do not disagree with him on everything (gun control and federal spending are possible areas of agreement), I differ with him so much on the other points that can't say his name without giving away my great contempt for him.

I will begin by addressing the most idiotic of his policies - those regarding immigration. Like the rest of his platform, he attempts to tie the immigration issue to the War on Terror (and by extension, 9/11 - an event for which if any good credit is deserved, he feels it should be directed at him). Giuliani opens the immigration section of his website with the bold claim that:

I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.

I was skeptical. I went on to read his explanation:

Real immigration reform must put security first because border security and homeland security are inseparable in the Terrorists' War on Us.

Aside from the bad grammar and confusing syntax ("the Terrorists' War on Us"? What happened to the "War on Terror"?), his claim is not surprising - he has always tried to link every issue to the War on Terror. However, I do find his plan to be a bit surprising - surprisingly naive!

He proposes a four prong solution. The first prong is to "Bring order to the border" by building a high-tech security fence along the US-Mexico border. No doubt this will end terrorism because no terrorists will come into the country through Canada or legally.

The second prong of his plan is to "Identify all non-citizens entering and exiting America." This includes issuing "biometric ID cards" or SAFE cards to all non-citizen workers and students. This program leaves the gaping hole of recreational visitors and ignores the fact that we already do this using the passport/visa program. Aside from being almost impossibly difficult to administer, issuing a second form of ID will do no more to help track those who are still in the country and it will be impossible to issue SAFE cards to illegal immigrants. In addition to the SAFE card, he wants to create a national database of foreigners because all foreigners are likely terrorists. I'm sure this is because he doesn't think that our country's xenophobic mob mentality has yet risen to a healthy level of violence. We need to get back to the good old days of beating the Irish and locking up the Japanese. Besides, it's clear that no American would ever resort to terrorism to promote their agenda.

The third prong of his plan is to deport all illegal aliens who commit a felony. I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that this is already the stated policy and existing law of every government in the United States, both state and federal. If he proposes enforcing the law with more vigor, that's fine, but he leaves a glaring omission in his policy: what to do with the illegal immigrants that are already here. Nowhere on his website does he state what should be done about them. Maybe he's thinking that if he turns America into a police state, they'll hate living here and move back to Mexico or wherever they are from.

The final prong of his plan is to "Americanize immigrants" by expecting them to learn English to gain citizenship. Again, this is already policy (they have to pass the test in English) and it ignores what's to be done with the millions of illegal immigrants who already live like shadows in our society.

At the end of the day, Rudy Giuliani provides no real solutions to the immigration problem facing our nation. At best, he proposes greater enforcement of already existing laws and shows no leadership or insight into how to deal with the far greater problems that our laws seem incapable of handling. Maybe he believes that if you don't do anything about a problem, it will just go away. After all, millions of people praise him for his handling of 9/11 even though he didn't do anything.

Maybe he'll get the answer during a spontaneous phone call while giving a speech to the politicians and celebrities that have endorsed him:

"Hi honey, I'm giving a speech to a convention of people who don't have a clue. Want to say hi?"

The Constipation Party, Part II - "Only if you acknowledge the irony."

This is the second post on one of my favorite topics: why the Constitution Party has it wrong. Please understand, I'm glad that they've formed a party and are engaging the country in a dialogue about how the government should operate. I just think that the way they want it to work is. . . stupid.

The Constitution Party includes in its platform the following statements under the heading, "Sanctity of Life":

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born....

Aside from the lack of scientific evidence to support the presumption that, "life begins at fertilization", my own religious beliefs do not support this claim. Assuming, however that their claim is true, the position they take based on that claim is inconsistent. They go on to state:

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

This language states that there are no circumstances under which an abortion may be legally performed. In a case where the life of the mother is at risk, the CP has already made the decision that the mother must die and the child must live - that the innocent blood of the mother must be shed to allow the innocent child to be born. This position ignores the inherent conflict in choosing which of two innocent people will live, thereby depriving mothers and fathers of the right to make the most personal decision they will ever be faced with. It is an example of the worst kind of state intrusion and is inconsistent with CP principles of keeping government out of people's lives.

Furthermore, their original statement regarding the protection of life states that:

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born;

They implicitly make the argument that no justification can be provided for abortion. This position is not only far out of the mainstream, but denies the legitimate arguments to be made for commonly followed exceptions. Is it not 'unconscionable' to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist, or a teenager to bear the inbred child of her father? The CP provides no answer to these arguments.

The CP position of valuing the life of the unborn child above all also invites another level of government intrusion: what to do in the case of miscarriage? If a mother miscarries due to her own poor choices (like poor nutrition, excess physical activity, etc.), does the government have the right to prosecute the 'shedding of innocent blood'? Would the CP support prosecuting the mother for negligent homicide or manslaughter? I would hope not.

The CP lays out its practical application of their sanctity of life doctrine by stating:

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body. . . .We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2. (emphasis added)

Ironically, the CP wants to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases involving abortion, which would essentially deprive the Federal Government of any real power to prevent states from decriminalizing abortion - completely frustrating their purpose. (In a second level of irony, the CP says that the right to life should not depend on a majority vote, but they support the death penalty, which is enacted by legislatures casting a majority vote.)

Personally, I follow a more nuanced position (read under the "Additional Information" link) and believe that we should let the experiment of democracy work on this difficult issue by leaving it up to the states to decide how best to deal with abortion.

"Who is the biggest loser in this room?" "Raise your hand, Ed!"

I am not an attractive person. I think the celebrity I look most like is Rimmer from "Red Dwarf":
Nevertheless, through the use of guile and flattery, I convinced an attractive woman to marry me. I assume that the reason we're still married is because she hasn't figured out how ugly I really am.

Whenever anyone meets my wife or sees a picture of her, their first comment is, "She's very beautiful" or something to that effect. Normally, I would appreciate such a comment because in my opinion, she is very beautiful. However, when most people say that, they say it with an air of surprise. It's as if they were saying, "Wow, she's a lot more beautiful than I expected for someone as hideously ugly as you." Well, you may be right, but for the love of pete don't tell her! I don't have a job yet, so at least wait until I can buy her love. Then tell her whatever you want.

"I know I shouldn't judge, but..."

Today in GD, I was sitting in an overly cramped room listening to a very boring lesson delivered by an at best average teacher. I was making a mental list of mistakes that she was making, both in teaching style and doctrine (like hurrying through the material, asking rhetorical questions, failing to ask class members to read, etc.). My opinion of her was only further trashed when she gave as an introduction to an anecdote the quote titling this post. I tried to help with comments, but was only faced by comments from other class members that demonstrated their own ignorance and bigotry. And then I realized something: I am really hard on GD teachers that aren't me. For someone who touts the importance of non-judgment, I felt pretty hypocritical.

I began to think of why I was being so hard on her. I think that it's probably because in a church that gives its members so much help in learning how to teach, there is no excuse for shoddy teaching. We have many resources available ("Teaching - no greater call", suggestions at the beginning of each lesson in the manual, good examples, training meetings, etc.) and as such, members who don't take advantage of these resources are, "lazy and slothful servants."

However, after a bit of soul-searching, I realized that I should not judge them so harshly. I don't know her background, I don't know if she's shown improvement from the first lesson she ever taught and I don't know if she's nervous or intimidated by the class. So, I should just be understanding and do my best to get what I can out of the lesson. If I don't, karma (or whatever you want to call it) will come and get me and I'll be a crappy teacher.

Then I came to and the lesson was over. Crap.

"This is the part of the job I hate."

I hate Ronald Reagan. I hate his politics, I hate his personality, I hate his memory and I hate that Republicans won't rest until everything in the entire world is named after him. (I know it's a Wikipedia site, but it's the best list I could find so only count 50% of it as accurate.)

In case you don't remember, Ronald Reagan was either directly or indirectly responsible for one of the most atrocious violations of the law committed by the executive branch - the Iran-Contra affair. In 1985, President Reagan authorized members of the CIA to continue to support rebels in the Central American nation of Nicaragua in direct violation of the law. To fund their evil plan, the CIA sold weapons to sworn enemy of the US and current 'Axis of Evil' member, Iran. (It's worth noting that at the time Iran was at war with sworn enemy and 'Axis of Evil' member, Iraq, to whom we also sold weapons, many of which were later used against US troops and Iraq's own citizens.)

President Reagan was also at the helm when the nation went through a series of economic crises, at least one of which was brought on by his "Reaganomics", immortalized by Ben Stein (who was quoting someone else) who called them, "Something -doo economics. Voo-doo economics."

President Reagan broke the law, sold weapons to our enemies and hurt the economy, but our leaders want to rename the entire world after him. Now I know what to do to fulfill my goal of having Congress rename the Florida the "Daniel National Memorial Wang."

It's worth noting that I am also sick that we built a memorial to FDR without a single mention of his order to round up American citizens based on their race, take their property and forcibly remove them to internment camps.

"It's hard not to listen to TV. It's spent so much more time raising us than you."

I have occasionally imagined a world in which forced sterilization is commonplace. Where the powers that be tell certain people that they are entirely unfit to have and raise children. I imagine this world with fewer social ills, fewer mullets, and fewer little girls named "McCambren" (meaning son of Cambren). Of course, in my fantasy the process by which people are chosen for sterilization is perfectly just and perfectly administered - by me. Unfortunately, as ruler of the world, my busy schedule of smacking morons upside the head and watching the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa perform the hit song, "Na na na na na na na na Leader!" will preclude me from evaluating the fitness of every single person on the planet. Alas, it must remain a dream.

However, that doesn't mean that I can't do my best to help the current stock of should-be-steriles to not totally screw up the rising generation (after all, they will be responsible for paying my Social Security). So turn off "Junior" and pay attention for 2 minutes.

Parents should not abdicate their responsibility for raising their children. They should not expect grandparents, schools, prisons, the state, the Feds, or anyone else to adequately teach their children what they need to know to be functioning members of society. Since you had sex without taking the necessary precautions, you have the responsibility to ensure that your kid doesn't grow up to be the next Hitler, or worse, the SOB that abuses their power in a low-level customer service position.

This abdication is becoming widespread. The latest example that I've seen was a hot topic this Halloween: risque costumes. Pundits and blowhards everywhere were making a big deal of so-called "prosti-tot" costumes, or slutty costumes for young girls. I'm guessing that the logic of their complaint is that because stores sell these costumes, they have to buy them. They want the stores or the government or somebody to tell Target, Wal-Mart, et al. to pull the costumes from their shelves. I have a much better solution that will also help you to be a better parent: Don't buy those costumes! Nowhere does it say that you have to buy something simply because it is offered to you. If you don't want your child wearing those awful costumes, don't buy them. This will have a two-pronged effect. First, the costume will not be available for your child to wear, so they can wear something better. Second, as consumers (you) stop buying products, retailers (stores) stop selling them. This is an example of supply and demand - the first law of economics. (K - correct me if I am wrong.)

Parents, please, please, please don't expect other people to raise your children. Other people are dumber than you. You are the big person and big people are in charge. If you don't want your child doing something, if all else fails, you can physically pick them up and prevent them from doing it. Remember that. You don't need to abuse them, but you are in charge. Not the government, not your parents, not the teacher at school - you. Parenting is the most important thing you can do in your life and you are robbing yourself and your child if you don't do it.

Just to reiterate: Other people are stupid, don't expect them to raise your children. You do it.

(If you're having trouble understanding this concept, please follow this helpful link.)

"Thanks for playing, Jerkface!"

Victory! Choke on that, you rich whores!

"All hail President Kang!"

This is just a friendly reminder to vote tomorrow! Please vote your conscience (but only if your conscience tells you to vote against Referendum 1 and the entire Kaysville City council).

"And remember to be a compassionate conservative - step over the homeless, not on them."

This is the second part in a series of posts on Utah's Parent Choice in Education Act or comprehensive school voucher program.

I recently received a mailer from the pro-voucher lobby entitled, "VoteFOR1" in seasonal orange and black. The mailer is two pages, front and back, and includes a number of arguments as to why the state's voucher program should be approved. It makes a number of arguments which I will address - and destroy - in turn.

1. "Facts: Referendum 1 is targeted to benefit low - and middle-income families."

At first I accepted this argument. The voucher bill does give money on a graduated basis - the less you make, the more you get. I believed this argument based on the mailer sent out by the State Elections Office which included a graph showing several income levels, ending in $150,000. Since there was nothing in the pamphlet to the contrary, I assumed that if a family made more than $150,000 then they would not qualify for a voucher. I was wrong. Section 806 of the bill states that if you make, "Greater than 250% of the income eligibility guideline" you will receive a minimum of $500/per student. That means that even if you make $10,000,000/year, you will qualify for at least one $500 voucher per student. This is not a program designed to benefit "low and middle income families".

If the program really were aimed at the less fortunate, it would have an income cap - something like $150,000, as I had assumed. If the program has a cap, then the money that would have gone to those making more than that (which is actually a substantial number of families) could be used to supplement the already too-meager proposed vouchers to be given to Utah's poorest families. The State Legislature isn't interested in helping poor Utahns get a choice. If they were, they would have designed a better program.

The Pro-voucher lobby also states in their pamphlet that, "average K-8 private school tuition in Utah is about $4,000 per year", citing the study found here. Being the huge nerd that I am, I read the study. On p. 29 of the .pdf (table 5), the researchers listed the "mean" cost of private schools in Utah as $6,246. I may be wrong, but I believe that 'mean' is the same as 'average', leading me to the conclusion that the pro-voucher lobby has misrepresented the research they cite. The meager $3,000 voucher will not even cover half of the cost of the average private school in Utah. In fact, according to the same study, it will only barely cover the cost of the state's cheapest private schools.

2. "Referendum 1 provides better accountability for both private and public schools by holding schools accountable directly to parents instead of bureaucrats."

This claim is just precious. The pro-voucher lobby provides the following justification for this fiction:

Parents in Utah care about their kids and are capable of choosing good schools with good teachers that meet the needs of their own children.

Aside from the condescending tone, this argument has three major flaws. First, it assumes that even if private schools proliferate, parents will be able to find and enroll their children in a school that meets their needs better than a public school. Enrollment in private schools is (and almost certainly will not be) guaranteed by a voucher.

Second, it assumes that as parents enroll or remove their students from schools that schools will be responsive. This idea of marketplace correction has never been proven to work in a school setting (see the report listed above, as well as the other sources from the mailer). In fact, it seems more likely to fail because if schools can choose between a privately or a publicly funded student, they will choose the private one to avoid having to jump through regulatory hoops.

Finally, it assumes that Utah needs a voucher program to make public and private schools accountable to parents. If they are relying on market theory, private schools are already accountable to parents (with no state oversight) and allowing easier transfer between public schools will create the same accountability.

The mailer goes on to state that:

Local principals and administrators [of public schools] will answer to parents, instead of just bureaucrats.

The support they provide for this claim is that "Wisconsin's scholarship program led to increased local control and parental involvement." This will only happen in Utah if the State Legislature and local school boards change their policies - there is no requirement that they do. Furthermore, this is the only example they provide of increased local control out of the five other voucher programs they cite.

In reality, the "oversight" established by Referendum 1 (HB 148) is nothing beyond the accountability already built into the market and the requirement that a CPA certify every four years that voucher funds are being tracked separately. (See Sec. 807.) There is actually far less oversight over private schools than public schools and there is no accountability.

3. "Scholarship programs like Referendum 1 already exist in several states across the country."

This is patently false. No scholarship program of this magnitude or breadth exists anywhere in the country. That's why it has drawn so much national attention. That is also why it faces such serious Constitutional issues. The major hurdle it faces is a challenge based on the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The controlling Supreme Court case is Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 US 639 (2002). In that case, the Supreme Court asked the question of whether this type of voucher program, which allowed money to go to private religious schools, constituted an impermissible establishment of religion. The Court addressed the question of whether the program was enacted for the primary purpose of establishing religion and whether or not such establishment was its primary effect.

The Court decided that it was not enacted for the primary purpose of establishing religion, relying on the state of the school system:

There is no dispute that the program challenged here was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system. Thus, the question presented is whether the Ohio program nonetheless has the forbidden "effect" of advancing or inhibiting religion.

The Court thus relied upon the "failing" state of the school system as a non-religious justification for the program - Utah's situation is much different. Utah's schools are among the best in the nation and the pro-voucher lobby will have a hard time showing that Utah's schools are "demonstrably failing." Rather, this program will likely appear to be little more than a thinly veiled attempt to subsidize private religious schools - especially in light of the conclusions reached by the study cited above (finding that Utah's religious climate will be the driving force behind private school enrollment). Cleveland's program provided up to 90% of the funding for any private school - giving greater weight to the justification that it is aimed at giving choice to poor families. Because Utah's program provides such a low level of funding, it is unlikely that this defense will hold water here.

Utah's voucher program is ill-conceived and poorly executed. The pro-voucher lobby has misrepresented the facts and ignore glaring problems in the program. Hopefully, Utahns will demonstrate how great our public school system is and vote against Referendum 1.

"Ringy-dingy"

In case you can't tell by the content of my many ramblings, I am generally in favor of the government getting involved in regulating private industry. However, because of the crazy rantings of an Alzheimer's sufferer who is now the undeserving namesake of countless government buildings, people think that I'm stupid for tolerating the large government bureacracy. What they don't understand is that for every overweight lazy bureaucrat suckling at the teat of the American taxpayer, there are many overweight lazy private employees suckling at the teat of the American consumer. Fortunately for both groups, Americans generally have two or more teats.

Many people seem to think that the government would function better if it were run more like a business. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "If I ran my business like the government, I'd go out of business!" I've got news for you: you do.

The government is not one single entity. It is actually many different entities that usually operate completely independent of each other. Rather than think of the government as one huge entity, think of it more like GE - America's largest corporation. GE has many divisions that operate in many varied industries from jet engines to NBC. No doubt, GE also wastes millions of dollars a year because of inefficiency, has many indifferent or even corrupt employees, and has difficulty keeping their stockholders happy.

A more personal example of this happened a few years ago when I needed to get prior authorization from my insurance company for some medications. Through the course of more than a week, I made countless phone calls, was on hold for many hours and almost didn't get the medicine I need to stay healthy. And this wasn't even that large of an insurance company!

In fact, at this very moment, I am listening to a story of someone who needed to get a car insurance claim processed by State Farm and had a very hard time getting it done.

Really, it doesn't matter if the organization is private or public, the result is the same - the larger it gets, the more inefficient it gets. That's just the way of things.

So, to all of you Reaganites that long for smaller government and less regulation of private industry (especially deregulation and loosening of antitrust laws), I ask you to imagine a world in which all private industry is consolidated in one bloated whole. Imagine trying to get your money back then.

"I'm afraid it was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons were the correct answer."

The presidential primaries are now getting into full swing several months before the primaries even begin. The candidates are well on their way to leaving Lady Liberty quite unsatisfied. I've decided it's time I said something about it.

I have little to say about the Democratic side of things. I like Hillary, Barack, and John (Edwards, that is). Any one of them would make a fine candidate and they all have policy positions that I can respect even though we may disagree a bit.

However, the Republican horserace seems to be disproportionately filled with asses. I don't hate all the candidates equally, but I do have a favorite and a most hated. However, the middle candidates (McCain, Huckabee, Brownstreak, I mean Brownback, Paul, etc.) are really too insignificant to make a difference, so screw 'em.

I happen to agree with the polls on who should be the frontrunner for the nomination (from a Republican point of view): Romney. He's smart, charismatic, relatively experienced (historically, governors make better presidents), white and rich. He just has one problem: he's a Mormon.

Mormons have historically been discriminated against by members of other Christian faiths because of their unique beliefs. Countless media have been produced on this subject, so I won't belabor the point here. This discrimination and stigma still exists today. Romney's presidential run has brought over a century's worth of feelings about Mormons to the forefront of public discourse. In both an effort to combat this stigma and seizing a great opportunity to increase dialogue about their faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) is going to release a number of ads aimed at calming others' worries about the religion.

Having a personal stake in how the LDS Church is perceived in the media, I actually look forward to opportunities to change other's negative stereotypes about Mormons. However, this must be done carefully in order to avoid a negative impact on the LDS Church.

The stated position of the LDS Church is one of political neutrality. It does not endorse candidates or parties, and as much as possible tries to stay out of government activities, while encouraging members to participate on an individual basis. In my opinion (look out!), this position is both prudent (to avoid losing tax-exempt status) and doctrinally sound (there is more than one way to promote Christianity and obeying the commandments). My concern is that unless the Church is careful about how and where it strikes at ignorance, it may appear that the LDS Church is endorsing the candidacy of Mitt Romney. If the Church only runs ads in states or areas where Romney needs a little boost, that could be perceived as an endorsement. Or, if he wins the primary and the Church steps up its ad campaign it could also appear that the LDS Church is implicitly endorsing Romney.

I hope that during this election and, [ugh] the possible Romney presidency to follow, the Church can handle its public relations in such a way that it can avoid such negative perceptions. Failure to do so could cause serious damage to the reputation of the Church, and call into question the individuality of its members. Reasonable people can differ about how to apply their beliefs in their own lives, and I don't want other people thinking that I only think what my church tells me to think.

I said that I had both a favorite and a least favorite candidate for the Republican nomination. It's clear that my favorite is Romney (heaven forbid we should live in the days of the Brownback Crusades), but my least favorite is Giuliani.

Do I want to live in Rudy Giuliani's America? I'd rather be raped by an entire herd of buffalo than endure one second of listening to that horse's ass.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir?" "Indeed I do, only I seem to have left it on your mother's nightstand."

This will be the first of many posts in the next two weeks about how totally retarded Utah's proposed voucher law is. My main quarrel with the voucher law is that it reflects an attitude of either defeat or contempt for public schools. On the one hand, legislators and some citizens might feel that public schools are no longer functioning and must be supplanted by the private sector. On the other hand, another group (possibly consisting of the same people as the first) feel that public schools are indoctrinating our children in evil ways, teaching them to be godless, hateful, and liberal.

Both of the above attitudes reflect bigotry and blindness about public schools. While it may be true that in other places (cough, Mississippi, cough) their school systems aren't as good and that drastic changes are necessary. However, in Utah, our school systems are doing pretty darn good (in spite of being grossly underfunded). We have many high schools that rank in the top 500 in the country. I am the third of six children to graduate from Davis High School (in Kaysville) and 5 of the 6 have attended or graduated from college or graduate school (the sixth isn't old enough yet). Our public schools are doing just fine, and if anything, need additional funding, not less funding.

As for the other group, those who hate what is being taught, I say, screw off. Public schools teach the curriculae given to them by the school district and state legislature. Both of those bodies consist of publicly elected officials who are responsible to the people. If you don't like what is being taught, either elect new officials, or get a religious exemption to certain teachings. If that isn't enough, home school them or send them to a bigotry, I mean, private school but don't expect the state to foot the bill. It's your problem, you find a solution.

So choke on that.

The Constipation Party, Part I

I'm going to be honest: I really hate the Constitution Party. I hate what they stand for, I hate their logic and ironically, I hate their bigotry. However, rather than just make those blanket statements and go on to raise ire against them without actually making any arguments (cough cough, Sean Hannity), I am going to take the key points of their platform and refute them using actual logic, reason and evidence! Let's get to it.
The Mission Statement of the Constitution Party reads as follows:

The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

My first quarrel with this statement is that they believe that creating a one-party system is advantageous. I categorically disagree with this idea. The Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances so that power could not be consolidated to the detriment of the people. That worked for about 10 minutes. Not long after the Constitution was ratified, the Founders (no, not shapeshifters bent on dominion of the galaxy) formed political parties to gain support for their respective views of government. While that is a natural progression of politics, it unfortunately allows for circumvention of checks and balances (if you don't believe me, please look at how well the system worked from 2001-2004) . No matter what, I like to see some give and take in politics which doesn't seem to happen in a one-party system. (I do acknowledge that this criticism would probably extend to the "mission statements" of almost every political party.)

My second quarrel with this statement comes from this line:

and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

First, "American" jurisprudence came (and still comes) largely from British jurisprudence, not the Bible. If you doubt me, just Google, "Blackacre." (The "Bible" has really only existed since King James and British jurisprudence goes back much further than that.)

Second, I'm not sure if they understand what "common law" is. Common law is the concept of looking back at similar cases when deciding current ones. For example, if historically courts have treated the house as property of both spouses independent of who pays for it, then modern courts will use that rule in deciding cases.

This is completely different from statutory law. Statutory law is based on laws, or "statutes" passed by a legislative body. Statutes supersede common law. The Constitution is a statute. So, if they are using the traditional definition of common law, they are saying that the Bible should supersede the Constitution. While that may not sound like such a bad idea to some people, I believe that it is. It is very difficult to turn the principles of the Bible into viable jurisprudence. How do you codify, "turn the other cheek" or "love thy neighbor as thyself"?

Additionally, the United States is not a theocracy. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids the creation of a theocracy ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."). Maybe the Constitution Party thinks that the Amendments weren't supposed to be part of the Constitution. Or maybe they're just stupid.

We live in a religiously diverse society in a country founded on the rule of both statutory and common law. I believe that this is what the Framers sought to create and I'm proud of the many great Americans who have helped keep it that way. The Constitution Party seems to have made it their mission to undo all of that. Fortunately, they are too small and insignificant to be effective in their mission. Thank heaven for the FEC.

(I admit that this post is a little more juvenile than my usual fare. However, it is still a step up from what I was thinking of doing, starting with the title, "The Constant-pooption Party." Now that would be quite a party!)

"You can't fool us. We're from the 'Learn to Fart' state. "

I have long been bothered by so-called "patriots" who display the American flag in disrespectful ways. Since (the) September 11th, Americans have been showing their solidarity and patriotism by more prominently displaying the American flag. I am not opposed to this; quite the contrary. I like to see people develop a sense of solidarity and unity. America is great because great and everyday people have worked hard to make it that way. Our flag is a symbol of that.

However, there are some people who don't appear to fully understand the significance of the flag as a symbol. These people allow their flags to be dirtied, faded, mutilated and destroyed, yet continue to display them. I'm talking about people who display flags from their cars. We've all seen them, the small plastic versions flying from a plastic pole attached to the top of a window. Flying flags from your car subjects them to the elements and winds exceeding 60 mph, causing them tear and fade. If you really want to show your support for our country, don't do it by mindlessly destroying the flag. Give it the proper respect that it deserves. Display it on the inside of your car or find some other way of showing your patriotism.

Or maybe you could vote once in awhile. Either way.

For the record, I support our Constitutional right to burn flags, which I see as an entirely different issue.

"Where did you get that statistic?" "Your mother!"

I recently watched the movie entitled, “America: Freedom to Fascism” (http://www.freedomtofascism.com/) by Aaron Russo. (You can watch it here.) It is a documentary wherein the director sets out on a quest to find the law that says that people have to pay income taxes. He discovers that there is no such law as well as many other dark and disturbing things.

Or so he would have you think.

This “documentary” really is a work of propaganda in the style of Michael Moore which does little more than highlight cherry-picked “facts” while literally ignoring the context and explanations around them. It mischaracterizes the information that it finds and stops its search once it has found “experts” that agree with it.

I have a few general thoughts about the movie:

First, Aaron Russo is the far right’s answer to Michael Moore. They both make obvious propaganda, they both demonstrate a flagrant disregard for the truth, and they’re both overweight jerks. The only difference I can see is that Michael Moore’s movies have better production quality and have made a lot more money. Ironic.

Second, his editor must have taken tips from the Daily Show. He conducts a number of interviews with people on both sides of the issue (although predominantly from the anti-tax side). However, rather than including full sentences and leaving quotes in context, he shows snippets of sentences, partial phrases, and even cuts off the scene when it sounds like context and explanation are going to be given. This is what you see every day on the Daily Show, only they know they’re doing it.

Third, he does not listen. Throughout his movie, he asks a number of people to, “Show me the law that says that [I have to pay taxes; I can’t walk into the IRS building; pompous filmmakers should be publicly flogged].” However, even when he is shown the law, or given an explanation, or told the answer, he either doesn’t listen or flat out rejects it. The best example of this is when the former IRS Commissioner is trying to explain what “voluntary compliance” means and the director cuts him off, and then takes one line from his whole explanation and plays it over and over.

As to the substance of the movie, let me succinctly say: He’s wrong. Flat wrong. He says that the purpose of his movie is to find the law that says that we have to pay taxes. For some reason, he asks a bunch of morons rather than real experts. I say this because I set out with the same quest and it took me 30 seconds. I quote from Title 26 of the United States Code, section 1:

Tax imposed.
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses. There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of--
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table...:

He makes a number of other arguments, all of which are nicely refuted here, here and here.

At the end of the day, it is a poorly-made work of banal propaganda not really worth your time. If you want to hear some real arguments against the tax system, go somewhere else. (I’d post a link to some, but I haven’t heard any.)

You’re welcome.

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

Sometimes I think people should need licenses to have children. I am reminded of this each time I hear someone’s terrible name for their child. I’m not talking about celebrity names like Apple or George IV, nor am I talking about hippie names like Sunrise or Happy or Coconut. I’m talking about names – and these are real names – like Braia, Keyerrah and Dayamere Qwest (I don’t really know how it’s spelled, but that’s how it’s said). This isn’t unique to one culture, religion or ethinicity - All are guilty. My brother lives in a town that is probably 99% white and 95% the same Christian religion. He recently had a child and when I looked at the pictures on the hospital website, I could see the names of the other children. With the exception of my brother’s child (whose first and middle names are common with multiple English kings), the page was splattered with the vomit that other people chose as names. If you doubt me, see for yourself. I could write for days about the types of things that bug me about the names people choose for their children, but I’m lazy, so I’ll just skip to the end.

The queen mother of all the terrible names I’ve come across is:

Dorcas Coker-Appiah

This name is terrible for the obvious reason that it resembles some demeaning words, but it wins the crown for another reason. This lady had one of the worst names ever, but when she got married, she had a chance to change it – and she didn’t. Rather than dump her crappy last name, she chose to keep it and slap her married name on the end.*

For the record, I have a bias against her maiden name. Mrs. Daniel’s last boyfriend before me had the last name of “Coker” and was once said to resemble a turtle. You don’t need much imagination to see the potential in that.
I end with a plea: Please, for the love of your children, their descendants, and humanity at large, name your children good names. Stupid names are a curse – a curse that does not have to be. We can all work together to rid the world of this foul plague. Please don't be afraid to share your opinions of other people's names and don't be offended when others offer theirs. But your friends will probably continue to just be nice and tell you they like the name you’ve chosen, so if you have any doubt, put the name in the comments and I will give you a frank opinion. (My child’s first name comes from the Bible – it’s very prominent and also historically very popular; the middle name is also popular and is common with a revolutionary Scottish lord and someone who once threw me in a garbage can.)

* She’s actually a tremendous human being who has done great work to make better the lives of women in an incredibly oppressive environment. We should all be more like here, and I say that seriously.

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”

There are many people in this country who believe that it is good public policy to place a copy of the 10 Commandments on the walls of our public buildings. I believe that they are wrong.

Proponents of these initiatives make many arguments about why the 10 Commandments should be posted, all of which are based on the proponent’s own religious belief. (I have never heard an atheist argue that they should be posted.) One of the principal arguments made by proponents is that they are good laws to live by.

My initial reaction to this argument is that they’re right – in part. We don’t want people to murder (6th), steal (8th), or commit adultery (7th). Even some of the other Commandments are things that we would like to see in society but are harder to enact into law, such as no coveting (10th) and honoring your parents (5th). However, those are not the only commandments. The first four Commandments deal with man’s relation to God and read in part:

1. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
2. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image....Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them...”
3. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain...”
4. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
Exodus 20:2-11

These seem like “good rules to live by” only if you are a Christian who believes in the Bible (or are at least afraid of the Christian God). Otherwise, people have reason to keep the Sabbath holy, or to refrain from taking the name of the Lord in vain. For example, a Hindu would most likely be hesitant to worship the Christian God over say, Vishnu. Not only that, but different religions believe in different translations of the Bible. Posting one translation instead of another could send the wrong message.

My second response to the argument that they are good laws to live by is that there are also many other religious creeds that “are good laws to live by.” For example, the 5 (or 7, depending on the sect) Pillars of Islam which call for adherents to fast, pray, give to the needy, etc. are also good practices that people should engage in. In fact, one of the first steps of Alcoholics Anonymous is to acknowledge a higher power, similar to the first Pillar of Islam and the first Commandment. Nevertheless, I feel confident in predicting that if any county wanted to post the Pillars on the courthouse wall, there would be a broad national outcry against it. The same outcry would probably result from an attempt to post them next to the 10 Commandments in the same display.

The 10 Commandments are religious edicts, not public policy and as such do not belong in our public buildings, except in a religiously and philosophically diverse display outlining historical facts, rather than religious beliefs.

“Once the Sun burns out, this planet is doomed. You're just making sure we spend our last days using inferior products.”

I’m not a big fan of most of the Libertarian Party’s positions. To me, government is all about balancing values: freedom v. security, right to choose v. right to life, etc., and it’s not always easy. The Libertarians (and most third parties) usually ignore these problems or assume that private action will solve them. I think that they are wrong on both counts.

One position that I find particularly odious, is how Libertarian Party deals with the environment. Their party platform states, “Public Policy instruments including eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, property taxes, resource management and public health legislation remove property rights from owners and transfer them to the State, while raising costs of property ownership.... [A]nd regulation of property shall be limited to that which secures the rights of individuals.” (To see the full quote so that you can tell that I’m not taking it out of context, check out the Libertarian Party Platform.)

If I am reading this correctly, the government cannot exercise any control over what an individual does with his own property except to ensure that he can own property. A typical argument goes something like, “The government shouldn’t tell me how to use my land. If I want to build ____ structure on my land, and do _____ activity on my land, I should be able to. The government has no business telling me what I can do with my own property.” This position is very problematic because it ignores externalities. (An externality is a cost of an activity that is born by someone other than the actor engaging in the activity. For more, read, "The Tragedy of the Commons.") To illustrate the problems with the Libertarian position, consider the following hypothetical:

A stream runs through the properties of two different farmers. In his spare time, Farmer Upstream repairs old cars. Rather than throwing away the old fluids drained from these cars, he simply dumps them into the stream at the bottom end of his property, letting the water carry them away. Farmer Downstream relies on the stream water to irrigate his crops. When the chemicals dumped by Farmer Upstream get into the irrigation water, it kills Farmer Downstream’s crops.

The Libertarian position doesn’t seem to acknowledge these externalities. Using their philosophy, Farmer Upstream can dump his chemicals on his own land, but then he doesn’t have to bear the cost of that activity. The cost is born by Farmer Downstream as his crops die. Farmer Upstream has no incentive to stop dumping except his own conscience – Farmer Downstream has no power to force a bargain in the Libertarian’s hypothetical free market.

If my farmer hypothetical is too abstract for you, let me give you a real scenario. The Colorado River flows through four dry western states. All four states rely on the river for water, hydropower, recreation, and tourism. If Arizona decides to build a dam, it will lower the amount of water available in California and cause a lake to form in Utah, destroying many archeological and natural sites while Arizona gets all the power from the dam. If we strictly follow the Libertarian position, then the states have to negotiate between themselves how to resolve this problem. I can see Utah and Arizona striking some kind of deal where they split the power – Utah will leverage the threat of building another dam upstream to force a bargain – but California is left in the dust (pun intended). And how are Utah and Arizona to keep Colorado from building another upstream dam, rendering theirs useless? If you don’t like that example, think about factories in California that dump pollution into the air that then comes down on Nevada and Utah as acid rain. What can Utah and Nevada do about that?

The typical response to these questions was laid out in the comments to a recent news story from KSL. The story reported that the air pollution problem in Utah is causing kids with asthma to have an increased number of episodes. In the comments, many people expressed the following sentiment: “If air quality causes problems, look for a different place to live.” What happens when even children who are born healthy develop asthma because of air pollution and every city in the world has adopted that commenter’s view? Where will they move then?

My point is that absent federal regulation, there is no guarantee that property owners will use their land in a way that is fair to everyone or “which secures the rights of individuals”. The Libertarians are wrong when it comes to the environment and we need legislation like the Clean Air Act to ensure that all people can enjoy the use of their private property.

p.s. On their site, they have a link to a test that you can take to determine if you are a Libertarian. Apparently, I am not.

“I’m telling you, Liz is a grade A... Runt!”

I hate Oprah. This probably doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone as I am prone to random, baseless hatreds against people I’ve never met. But I have long hated Oprah. I don’t really know when it started, but it gets worse each time I’m exposed to her.

My latest run-in with her has helped to somewhat crystallize my disdain. A few weeks ago, Mrs. Daniel took control of the remote and insisted on watching a special about Oprah’s school for girls in South Africa. Apparently, Oprah has spent something around $50 million to open a school in Africa where disadvantaged but ambitious, capable girls can learn how to be leaders and hopefully use their skills to improve the lives of their fellow citizens.

The school and the special about it bothered me in so very many ways. First, the whole thing centered on how Oprah has helped these girls rather than on how these girls are advancing and how they’ll benefit their communities. This type of narcissistic focus is typical of this self-important demagogue. (For instance, when “she” gave away cars to her audience, I doubt that she or her show actually paid for them but the media focus has been on how she gave them away.)

Second, there was a sequence in the special where Oprah interviewed several of the girls individually. The girls would walk up to the door of a room where Oprah was waiting. Then, with magnificent flair, Oprah would open the door and the girls would scream with delight as they met their “hero”. Oprah would then interview the girls while the camera spent most of its time focused on Oprah’s reactions to what they were saying. I guess we can see who is important in her life.

Third, the school cost something like $43 million. I have an acquaintance who is starting a foundation that will give micro loans to starting companies in Africa and south east Asia. These loans will allow entrepreneurs to provide jobs and stability to areas that are in great need. He is currently looking for donations so that they can provide loans to thousands of people. Oprah’s school serves something like 100 girls. Not only that, but as Mrs. Daniel pointed out during this conversation, she’s (actually, the teachers hired by her underlings) training these girls to be Americans. The expectation is that many of them, if not all, will attend college in America. What guarantee do we have that they’ll go back to their home countries to make a difference? Not only that, but will little Americans be able to wield influence in a culture vastly different from our own?

To support my claims that she is an egotistical narcissistic megalomaniac, check out this quote from the website for the "Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy":

"When Oprah's chef cooked the girls Christmas dinner, one traditional sweet treat became an instant hit! Invite friends and family over to watch the special and serve them a taste of South African culture."

I just hate her self-important elitism. I also think that it’s funny that so many people, including many from the religious right just love her so much despite the fact that she’s been with her boyfriend for 20 years but refuses to marry him because she thinks that marriage is a silly societal construct.

I really hate Oprah. I just can’t say this enough.

"Special Delivery!"

I used to think that suicide bombers were gutsy. It would take a lot of guts to strap a bomb to your chest and blow yourself up. I can't even bring myself to put broccoli in my mouth because I think it tastes bad. Recently however, I've changed my mind.

It seems to me that being a suicide bomber is actually very cowardly. See, when a person kills another, they have to live with the guilt that comes from taking another life. They have to live with all the moral, religious, and criminal consequences of that action. They have to live knowing that they can make no restitution for their crime. They may see grieving families and friends. On the other hand, a suicide bomber conveniently gets out from under all of that. By killing themselves at the same time as their victims, they dodge the need to face the consequences of their own actions. I'm no hero - to quote Maverick, "He who fights and runs away, lives to run away another day", but even to me, killing yourself is the coward's way out. The same thing applies to murder-suicides and people who count on the police killing them (like the Trolley Square shooter). Wusses and cowards all.

"You gotta nuke somethin'."

I used to think that folks like N. Korea, Iran, et al. were only developing nuclear weapons to join the big boys on the world stage (or at least extort them). Because they weren’t really interested in blowing us up, we didn’t have as much to worry about. I still think we shouldn’t let them go nuclear, but that doesn’t mean we have to invade. Before 2002, an airstrike against their nuclear facilities would have seemed appropriate and probably been enough because of the threat of invasion as a last resort.

Now, I think that the Iraq war has changed everything. Since we can’t seem to win in Iraq, we either face:

a) a country that builds a nuclear weapon and thinks that we won’t do anything about it because we don’t have the guts or the strength to get involved in another Iraq

b) a country that uses a nuclear weapon because they think that America won’t have the guts or the strength to get involved in another Iraq

In the second situation, we could probably rally enough world involvement to win the war. (Provided we don’t invade Cuba because N. Korea nuked us.) But the question is, have we created a world where other countries might bet on our unwillingness to invade?

"And I will remain The Falconer!"

An acquaintance of mine has long made the argument that many government programs are unconstitutional (or at least unjust) because they take money from one person and give it to another. His argument is that we can only give the government rights that we ourselves possess. He argues that since I cannot rightfully take someone else’s property and give it to a third party, I cannot give the government the right to do that either. This argument misses the point.

What my acquaintance does not understand is the contractual nature of the Constitution. I can justly enter into a contract where a breach on my part gives the other party a right to my property. I can also enter into a contract where I agree to give my property to another person for their own personal use which allows collection by a third party. I think my acquaintance makes his mistake by assuming that the contract is between the government and the people. This is not true – the government is not an entity with the right to enter into a contract. Rather, the contract is between the individual members of the society. It is “We the People of the United States”, not “The government and the people contract as follows...”. The government was created as a part of that contract and was given powers that are derived from the collective rights of the people.

In exchange for my allegiance and tax dollars, the government agrees to “provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare” among other things. I also agree that my interests will be represented by agents chosen by a plurality (sometimes a majority) of people within the district where I live. Most fundamentally, I agree that I will live in a democratic society and be subject to the will of the majority of the people around me. I also agree that my failure to comply with these terms will result in deprivation of property, liberty or even life. If I am unhappy with any of those terms, I can do my best to change them by electing new officials or changing the contract by passing an amendment to the Constitution or by moving to another area with a different contract. (To get out of the US Constitution, it would have to be a different country. Also, for those who don’t want to live under any contract, there are plenty of lawless places in the world.) By remaining in society and taking advantage of the benefits government provides, I am tacitly agreeing to the terms of the contract.

As part of that contract, we agreed that the government could take from some of us and give to others – a tax system. When the government takes my tax dollars and gives them to other people through public education, welfare, road building, and defense, it is not arbitrarily stealing my money, but it is acting pursuant to the terms of the contract. The government is taking money from parties to the contract and giving it out pursuant to the terms of the contract (this allows things like paying UN dues and foreign aid). It is not forcibly taking money from a third party who is not a party to the contract. Under this theory, any action taken by the government pursuant to the terms of the contract is permissible. Only those actions which are unconstitutional are impermissible.

So to my acquaintance and all of his kind, I say stop whining about how unconstitutional the system is because you are wrong. If the Constitution says we can do something, we can do it – end of story.

3-19 Update: I stated above that the government derives its power from the collective rights of the people. I didn't provide any support for the position - an oversight on my part. It does not however, change my point. The contract power of the individual can still give the government the same rights and powers that I described above for the exact same reasons.

"I've created life!" "Lisa, breakfast! We're having waffles!" "Ooh, waffles!"

I have heard a lot of people argue that public schools should be required to teach intelligent design. I believe that they are wrong.

For those of you who have been living as moss under a rock, here’s a definition: “The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/. I think it’s fair to say that most people understand the phrase “intelligent cause” to mean God. It’s probably also fair to say that by, “God” they mean the Christian God. I do not mean to say that all Christians believe in intelligent design. Many Christians believe in creationism which is not the same as intelligent design: intelligent design accepts things like evolution and the 4 billion year age of the Earth – strict creationism rejects both positions.

In my mind, the many arguments that can be made in favor of teaching intelligent design can be rebutted with a single question:

Why do they want intelligent design to be taught in schools?

I think that most people would answer that they don’t want the public school system to teach their children that God does not exist or that the creation story is wrong. They want children in school to be given a religious alternative to evolution theory. This motive is in plain contradiction with the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion. States cannot insert a requirement into the school curriculum for primarily religious reasons.

I understand that there are many people who argue that intelligent design is actually a scientific theory. Independent of that position, the school board cannot add it to the curriculum for religious reasons. Because intelligent design has been rejected by more than 90% of the scientific community, it seems unlikely that any school board would want to include the theory because of its scientific merit.

I could just continue to restate here the many arguments that have been made in opposition to teaching intelligent design in schools, but that would go against my tendency to make fringe arguments for mainstream positions. So, I have one additional point I would like proponents to consider:

Asking public schools to teach intelligent design is another example of parents abdicating their responsibility to educate their children. I cannot think of any authority that has argued that the government should be solely responsible for the education of our children. Rather, the primary responsibility for educating children should lie with their parents. As such, parents are completely at will (and obligated) to explain to their children the inherent problems in anything taught at school, including the theory of evolution.

For an interesting take on the issue, check out Scott Adams’ blog.

"The world was going down the tubes. They needed a scapegoat. They found Wayne."

Does anyone else doubt whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed actually did all of the things that he’s confessed to? Before I go any further, I want to express that based on the evidence that I have seen (through the mainstream media), it appears that Khalid is a very, very bad man. He is probably responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well as many others. He probably deserves whatever punishment a court hands down for him.

Nevertheless, I don’t have much faith in his “confession” (and I'm not the only one). My doubt comes from the fact that this administration has made it very clear that they have no problem using torture to extract information from captured terrorists. So far, we have only seen evidence of this in cases where the terrorist was being held outside the US. However, given its support of torture, I do not doubt that this administration uses these methods within our own borders (including Guantanamo Bay). I believe that confessions extracted by torture are not reliable because the person being tortured will admit to anything to stop the pain. I am not saying that no information taken from torture is useful – some information may actually be true. But without independent verification, I will not believe it.

I also doubt the veracity of his confession because it seems too convenient. I originally believed his confession to masterminding the 9/11 attacks because we had information that led us to him. However, once he “confessed” to beheading Daniel Pearl, I stopped believing him. Then he confessed to being behind the “shoe bomber” attempt and the 1993 WTC attack. It seems too convenient that the same person was responsible for all of these highly publicized heinous acts (and 9 others). It seems to me that the government was looking for someone to blame and this guy is the worst guy we have. He makes it easy for us to want to torture captured terrorists. Because he is so bad, it’s easy for us to believe that he did these bad things which makes him good target for blame – a good scapegoat. Since the administration now has its scapegoat on whom it can blame these many attacks, it is in a much better position to declare victory in the war on terror before Bush leaves office (he is very concerned about his legacy).

“You may be right. I may be crazy. But it just may be a lunatic you’re looking for.”