"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.