Encoded Tax Code

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written (and I paraphrase) that judges have a responsibility to write their opinions in a way that the average person can understand, because it is the average person who will have to live by these decisions. I only disagree with Justice Scalia on one account: this edict is not limited to the judiciary.

I believe it is immoral for those in power to write laws they expect the citizenry to obey, which the citizenry cannot understand.

Tomorrow each of us are going to be subjected to a thing known as Title 26 of the United States Code, or the Tax Code. It is thousands of pages long (13,000+ at one source). It cannot be found complete at one source, and must be accessed in parts. It is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. And there is no human on this planet that fully understands the code.

Everyone complains about the confusing nature of the tax code, the orneriness of having to comply with it. Most complain about the amount of money lost to businesses trying to stay current with the ever changed code. But like the weather, no one does anything.

The pressure, however, is building. On tax day (normally referred to as thieving day around here) there are going to be hundreds of “tea parties” around the nation. Officially these are to protest the rampant spending of the government. Our tax code and our spending are explicitly linked.

If you feel the way I do, try to attend one of these rallies, or contact your congressmen. Let your voice be heard. We are approching the tipping point.

Politics and Science – All Manure

Either President Barack Obama is a dumbass or he thinks we are. I’m leaning toward the second, but I’m willing to accept it is a combination of the two.

Obama announced today that he is going to divorce politics form scientific decisions made by the government. And tomorrow I’m going to divorce the green pigment from the paint on my wall. To claim that either anything done by the government or that any policy set forth in science can be removed from political consideration is – you’ll forgive me for this – patent bullshit.

The announcement came on the heals of reversing the Bush administration policy of not using federal money for embryonic stem cell research. Are we to understand that making this decision was not politically motivated by the Barack of Obama? A certain and large segment of the population (including the immediately preceding President) held that destroying embryos holds strong moral implications. By allowing the embryonic research to go forward, Obama is making the (political) decision that destroying an embryo is not tantamount to murder. Agree or disagree, that is not a scientific decision, it is a political one.

Has this man never seen a science fiction movie? Let me summarize the basic plot to 99.6% of all sci-fi movies. 1) Use a new scientific technology that looks cool on camera. 2) Create a situation where the characters have to make a moral decision about using the new technology. 3) blow things up (this is for the people who might vote for Obama; they won’t get #2) All technology is just a tool. Where, when and how to use the tool is a political and moral decision.

So, as we continue down this road where political considerations are removed from scientific decisions, what will our future look like? How will the Obama administration proceed from here?

In the brave new world of national heath care that President Obama has called for we will come to the point where elderly people will be sick, but their life expectancy and contribution to society will not equal this cost. Scientifically it would be easy to conclude that it is not worth spending the money on them. The next logical step is that if we are simply going to let them die, shouldn’t we proactively put them out of their suffering? Please, Mr. President, explain to me how you are going to approach this topic without bringing politics into the mix?

Or what about the other end of life, Mr. President. If we are going to provide the health care for the entire populace would it not be prudent to make sure that the people entering that populace were healthiest they could be? We have it within our scientific power to limit who can reproduce with whom. Only allowing those deemed, scientifically, fit to have children could be allowed. This would ensure that the children born would have the best genetic chance to remain healthy and not burden the health care system. Should we allow science to simply run its course, or should we use politics to decide the morally correct direction to take this tool at our disposal?

Or how about the tact the entire DNC is taking on global warming? While there are plenty of scientific minds that believe in global warming there is also plenty of evidence and plenty of scientists who reject the premise. The party has, however, deemed the debate to be over and is plowing ahead with, ahem, political actions without regard for the scientific debate about this topic.

Oh, wait, how about this one!? In those science fiction tales referenced before, science breakthroughs happen in mere minutes with the result of tests seen within a few scenes. But here in the real world science advances take time and are often found wrong. Recent enough to be considered modern history, the predominant scientific theory held that people with darker skin color, like, oh say… the President’s, were inferior due to being less evolved. The sentiment in the scientific community was that these inferior persons should not be allowed the same rights and privileges as more evolved persons. I’m pretty sure it was political arguments that railed against this line of thinking until it was scientifically proven wrong.

The thought of removing political reasoning from scientific processes, especially involving the government is ridiculous. Hey Barry, next time you want to announce something this outrageous, don’t make a general public announcement; save it for the Democrat National Convention. You’ll get more acreage out of your fertilizer.

Vive La Thanksgiving

It’s the beginning of November. That pagan death festival is just behind us and Thanksgiving is most of a month away.

And yet our little town has their Christmas decorations up for some “Christmas in November” event. K-Mart is running ads on the radio about their November Christmas sales ending with “Merry November!”. Our local Christian station will begin playing 24 hour non-stop Christmas music on the day of Thanksgiving. The around-the-clock music is annoying enough, but their inability to wait until one holiday is over before beginning the next is even worse.

Of course, there is also that really annoying Garman commercial set to “Festival of the bells”. It has already began running and reminding me how much I don’t want to buy from a company that sees a Christian celebration as nothing more than a capitalist enterprise.

But Thanksgiving folks! What about Thanksgiving! There is a history here. Our nation sat aside a day for us to give thanks to God for his many blessings (one of which would be the kid in the manager a month later). It is a time for families to get together and eat way too much. It is a time for us to celebrate our heritage.

Thanksgiving should not be skipped!

My wise mother thinks that Thanksgiving should be moved forward to put more space between it and Christmas. I like the idea, but either way we ought to keep our holidays separate and whole. These days have meaning.

We’ve watered down the celebration of Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays to a one day President’s day mattress sale. Christmas is more about the unholy elf and his possessed reindeer. Resurrection Sunday has just been written off as a day for Wal-Mart to sale candy. Independence day seems to hold no more prevalence than communist, I mean, Labor day.

Can we Please keep Thanksgiving? Not as just the warm up to Christmas, but as it’s own distinct, independent holy-day?

Please?

Good Morning Comrades

In his book “Wizard’s First Rule”, Terry Goodkinds defines the first rule of the wizards as this: People are Stupid. A person will believe a lie because they want it to be true and will disbelieve the truth because they do not want it to be true.

This is what we have here, people have believed a lie because they wanted to. The fact of Obama’s socialist beliefs was ignored because they wanted to elect the first black man. The fact of Obama’s inexperience was ignored because they wanted to make a “change” giving no heed to who was actually responsible for our economic plight.

The facts of the Democrat party’s Big Government over regulation being the driving forces behind the economic collapse was not believed, because they did not want to believe it. The fact that the DNC has been historically the party of racism and the RNC has been the fair party was not believed, because they did not want to believe it.

We have reached the point where more people in this nation as stupid. We have reached the point where the “Plebs have realized they can vote themselves bread and circuses from the common coffers.”

God Help us.

http://maps.google.com/help/maps/elections/index.html#2008_election

Druck Hunter?

Does anybody else listen to this story about John Edward’s love child and feel like they are reading a Dick Tracey novel?

The mistress’s name was ‘Druck’ (duck). She has changed it to ‘Hunter’. Her best friend (who is all over the news talking about the affair) is named ‘Pigeon’.

And of course, Edwards, being a Democrat politician, qualifies as a horn dog…

Reccession

The swan and I took a trip into the great metropolis of Hotlanta this weekend.

While we were waiting in line to buy 4 dollar gas I noticed that every pump had a car parked at it. In fact, Friday when I was filling up my work truck, I had to wait for someone to get out of the way to get gas.

Once we got started heading down the Interstate, trafic flowed pretty well, but it was full of cars. We spent the night wth the in-laws and, of course, turned on a baseball game. The stands were full.

On our way home we realised we had left some items we sould need durring the week, so we pealed off at the Mall of Georgia to hit the target store. We had to travel about a mile from the Interstate; it took us 20 minutes. The streets around the mall were packed with traffic. The mall parking lot was full to the brim.

The trip home on the Interstate was stop and go because of all the traffic on the road.

So, just where is this reccession? Looks to me like people are traveling and shopping and attending expensive baseball games. I’d think if times were as bleak as they are protrayed in the news that there’d be les of all that going on.

Bull’s Eye for the Court

The Supreme Court Struck Down D.C. Gun Ban

The above is a picture of the Rooster’s Ruger P90 .45 caliber, stainless steal with decocking safety. who-ah.

God Bless America.

Commercial Insuccess

On Monday the 16th of June, the Swan and I were watching Sports Center on ESPN. It was sometime in the afternoon: after work but before prime time. We were watching because we wanted to know the results of Tigers Woods’ play off in the US open. (we don’t normally keep up with golf, but Tiger playing on one leg was interesting.)

Then, with no warning a commercial came on. This wasn’t for golf clubs or beer. This commercial was for a rather personal female product (and we’re not talking hygiene).

Someone put the commercial on youtube because they thought it was funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_z13XymWVU&feature=related . Don’t watch that at work or with your kids in the room.

Granted, my daughter is only 5 months old, but had she been 6 years, she would have been in the same place: right in the middle of the living room. I can’t imagine having to answer the question “daddy, what was that?”

Inappropriate was the only answer I could come up with. So, I fired off an email to ESPN. I have been told the situation has been resolved. This post is to make the situation public and to be something to refer back to if they do not keep their word.

Gays in Court

The decision by the California Supreme court to “legalize” homosexual marriage is an affront to our society. This is not merely because of their decision going against the wishes of the people of the state of California, tradition, scientific evidence or just plain common sense. It’s most egregious affront is due to the liberal mindset embodied in this decision.
Ask yourself this: why did the State not have the right to define marriage as being allowed between two individuals of the same sex? It is because the State never had the right to define marriage of any kind in the first place. God has already done that. If you do not believe in God at least accept nature’s argument in that a union between a man and a woman (and only a man and a woman) produces the offspring necessary to continue our survival. Also consider that it has been proven time and again that a stable home with a man and a woman is the best place to raise these kids. Marriage was ordained before the State, any State of any kind, ever came into being. The State does not invent, endow, empower, or any other affirmative verb you can think of, the institution of marriage; it simply recognizes a function of the church as being important for the wellbeing of the State.
The court, and in the larger sense the state of California as a whole, injecting themselves into this debate displays the belief that man can counteract the decelerations of “Nature and of Nature’s God.” The root of this belief is that man, and his decisions, are the ultimate law. Holders of this philosophy seek constantly to establish the perfect law, the perfect society, in which the rule of the State has answered all of the questions of life.
They hold to a firm standard that all must be treated absolutely equal. This is not the same as being treated equally before the law; it is an equality established no matter what position one holds. When an innocent person or a multiple murderer comes before a court, they are each treated equal. The law looks at them the same, until the trial is concluded. This is not the same as being equal in truth. In reality, the murderer is in no way equal to the innocent man. He has given up his rights and his position by doing damage to our society. While violating nature’s law (homosexuality) may not require a punishment declared and delivered by the State, it does not merit an equivalence with the natural order of marriage.
This mindset that all points of view and all actions must be considered equal is the same mindset that will not make a distinction between the United States military and savages that blow up women on subways. This is the same belief system that will demand a moral equivalence between the USA and Fidel Castro’s Cuba. These are the same people who decry capital punishment because we cannot establish a strong enough argument in their eyes to warrant punishing the criminal’s actions. But then these same modern philosophers will allow abortions claiming that if that is the wishes of the woman, who are we to interfere?
Followed to its logical conclusion (the death knell for most liberal ideas) this ideology of absolute equivalence leads to trying to negotiate with evil instead of crushing it. This is the root of the idea of sitting down with terrorists and trying to understand them. It is the thinking behind policies of training and reconditioning criminals instead of punishing them. The decision by the California supreme court is a dangerous decision; but it is not nearly as dangerous as the belief system from which it sprang.

An Open Thank You Note to My Parents

My parents are some wonderful people. Throughout my years living with them, I never lacked for a meal. They made sure I went to school and tried to make sure I learned something. They paid for my college (and demanded that I learn something there.) They bought my first truck and, true to their word, made me buy the second when I wrecked it.

Now that we have a little one, my folks have been quite generous. Clothes, mobiles, a crib and any other little thing mom found she thought her granddaughter might need have come our way. In fact the Swan and I have joked that we need to be careful mentioning a need around them; they might just go get it. (Which I specifically recall my parents saying about my grandmother.)

Despite all this generosity, the Federal government, in it’s infinite wisdom, declared this was not enough. In the name of stimulating the economy, a clever guise for don’t-just-sit-there-do-something politics, the government is giving away money. Six-hundred dollars a head for us to spend.

This is the same government that has spent money far in excess of its income (tax revenue) to the point that our debt has negatively effected the value of our dollar. That devalued dollar is the reason the price of everything from corn to gas has gone through the roof and our economy is tanking to begin with. This is the same Presidential administration that has pursued a continued policy of keeping the dollar weak by dropping the interest rate continuously. Now, in their infinite wisdom the government has decided to take money out of their coffers and give it back to us. Instead of other silly ideas like paying off our debt and really fixing the dollar.

So why thank my parents?

In the government’s, again infinite, wisdom, it was declared that those who have worked hard, been successful in business, saved their money and been all-around good stewards of the blessings afforded one in this country, should not get this stimulus package. Only us poor shlubs who cannot make it from one meal to the next without the government are (dare I say) entitled to the payout. So in essence, my stimulus payment is coming from my parents’ tax money, with the usual stops through our wonderfully greased-machine government where I’m sure, none was lost to bureaucracy.

There is no objective standard that could possibly be applied which would label my parents as rich or us as poor. I would say we are both successful, just at different points on that time line of success. However we fall on different sides of some arbitrary line drawn by arbitrary government making an arbitrary attempt at fixing their very specific mess.

Oh, in thank you notes, you usually tell what you are doing with the gift. Our money will stimulate the economy by going directly on the principle for our mortgage. That was another thing my parents taught me: to be wise with my money. What? No I was not meaning to draw a contrast with the government, why do you ask?

So. Mom, Dad… Thank you.

President Bush…. [the author releases a long, pent up sigh]… never mind.