It's just my opinion, I could be wrong

So despite the title, this is more of a scientific question than a rant per-se. See, the debate this morning was about how dumb the American people really are, and how long could a politician do exactly the opposite of what he said he was doing (or promised to be doing) before the people notice and get upset about it (if ever)? On one side, there's the fundamental belief that people have some intelligence, and eventually even the densest people will figure out that something is wrong. On the other side, blind allegiance really could blind people forever. Case in point: Obama's administration. During his campaign, he constantly promised change, a departure from politics as usual, working for bi-partisan compromise, cutting wasteful government spending... all the standard political promises made by everyone. Now that he's been elected, he's appointing Washington insiders and liberal extremists, drafting enormous wasteful spending plans, gearing up for partisan fights... a...

So an interesting thought occurred to me today, and only partially in jest. Our government has spent roughly 33% more last year than it's expected to take in in taxes, and committed 300% more in potential losses. By all accounts, we're going to have a "stimulus" handout bill at the start of next year totaling the same amount in the first month alone, with untold trillions borrowed and spent later that same year. We have an unfunded $55 trillion projected future obligation for social security and medicare, and no hope of ever funding it or fixing it. Yet, there seems to be no political will to curtail spending at all; in fact, by all accounts everyone wants to run the printing presses at full tilt, with no regard for the consequences. Given that, and the current economic problems, why is the government still collecting taxes at all? The total tax income next year is projected to be well less than half of what we're already planning to borrow and spend anyway... why...

Here's what I think California, and the country in general, should do to solve the issue of gay marriage, in a way which would be at least palatable to both sides. The fundamental problem is that the concept a marriage is rooted in societal customs, which are themselves largely rooted in religion. America was founded as a country in which the laws would not involve religion, but it inherited some concepts which were indirectly tied to religion, and this is now causing friction. For example, most of the gay marriage opponents are fine with gay civil unions, they just consider "marriage" to be a fundamental religious institution which should be protected, and to some extent I agree. To that end, I'd propose the following solution: All references in the state Constitution and laws to "marriage" are changed to "civil union", and the state ceases to recognize "marriage" as a legal or civil concept. All existing marriages are re-characterized a...

So it's official: the next president of the US will be the representative from the Socialist party, Barrack Obama. True to form, the spin has already begun, with Obama already saying that the promised "change" and "good times" might take longer than one administration. Way to get a head start on lowering expectations; you're gonna need it. I like to look at the positives when I can, though, and there are some silver linings to the dark cloud of socialist reform which is about the envelope the country. Among the positives: Supreme Court appointments: Chances are we won't see any right-wing religious wackos appointed by Obama, which has to be a good thing No super-majority in the Senate: It doesn't look like the Democrats will get enough seats in the Senate to be able to pass bills without getting at least a tiny semblance of bipartisan support, which has to be a good thing. Of course, with the apparent ease of bribing Congressional members to pass obs...