It's just my opinion, I could be wrong

It's all the rage for the moment in the news media to be reporting on everyone's comments about Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Obviously the members of the Supreme Court have a large impact on the lives of everyone in the US, as they literally decide how free the country is going to be, what rights people will be allowed to have (of those enumerated in the Constitution, and/or other ones they make up), when and how the government's abuses of power will be checked, etc. This, along with the lifetime appointment term, always makes the selection of new justices a political hot-button issue, and the nomination choices thus very important political moves. Now, I think the appointment of Sotomayor is more or less a foregone conclusion; Obama has made a good pick. Not good in the judicial sense (although not that bad either), but astute in the sense that Republicans would lose support of minority voters by opposing her too strenuously. The pick also takes advantage of the popu...

Paul Krugman is not a dumb guy; he knows his stuff, and has a wealth is historical knowledge to draw upon when forming opinions. Unfortunately, he's also a supporter of the Democrats, and apparently is more than willing to let his political views compromise his logical integrity. I seem to recall an interesting story about some famous historical figure, who was generally fairly kind to everyone, becoming uncharacteristically angry at individuals who would teach children to do evil; in his mind, the worst "sin" one could commit would be to intentionally lead someone who was innocent, and didn't know any better, astray. Well, today Krugman joins the ranks of people who have committed this transgression, in effect, by using his position and credentials to extol a position motivated by politics rather than logic. The opinion piece is here . In it, Krugman argues that the country need not worry about inflation, as it is a phantom concern, and that it's more important f...

If you didn't pay any attention to what actually goes on in the UN, and only read its charter, goals, public purpose statements, and rhetoric, you might be a little confused right now. For example, nominally, the UN Security Council exists to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons by imposing strict, severe, debilitating, and multi-nationally coordinated penalties on those countries seeking to acquire said weapons. However, in the last couple of decades, several countries have openly or psuedo-openly (eg: obvious lies, like Iran's stated purpose of their program before they just gave up on spewing the BS and said they were building nukes) developed or procured nuclear weapons, with the UN doing absolutely nothing (no points for "objecting in the strongest possible terms", you self-aggrandizing douche-holes). So not doing anything there. Same for genocide... the UN charter says countries will take action if there's a genocide going on. So the clever politicians ...

I've noticed a resurgence of commercials on the radio promoting the California Lottery, and they have succeeded in inciting me to write a blog post about them. You see, even in today's age a monumental government corruption, socialists running the country (note: those first two may well be related), massive government budget deficits with no fiscal responsibility whatsoever, scandals, bailouts, payoffs, fraudulent bankruptcies, and all the other horrible self-imposed disasters our country is suffering through, the California Lottery still finds a way to stand out to me. First, for any uninformed readers, lets catch up on how the California Lottery works. First, and this is an optional step as far as I can tell, suckers buy tickets. Usually these people are poor, sometimes on welfare, and usually receiving some sort of state subsidization (eg: paying less taxes through a "progressive" scale). According to the 2008 survey, about 54% of the people who played the lottery ...

In probably my last post about California's asinine special election, in which we decide if we wish to assist the California legislature in pissing away what's left of our prosperity, I'd like to focus on one particular appalling lie which is undoubtedly causing some people, as I write this, to unknowingly contribute to California's woes. The focus of the campaign to promote the headline spending propositions seems to be that they will help educate the children, and indeed according to exit interviews, some brain-dead voters have already voted in favor of them on the basis of supporting the education of their children. In reality, that's probably the largest lie spread about these propositions. To see why, you have to understand how California's budget process works. Without getting into specifics, the more money the government takes, the more it spends, in roughly direct proportion with a multiple. That is, the government always spends more than it steals, rega...

I had a strange thought recently, about how the various governments work and their relationships with the people they govern. It occurred to me that at some point, in the history of the country, the intent of a government (local, state, federal, etc.) was to serve the needs of the people, and to act in their best interests. It would stand to reason that the first governments at various levels probably did act in the interests of the people who elected them, and they were probably even respected at some point as people serving the community. It seems like a foreign concept to me, having grown up in a society where every level of government is so thoroughly corrupt, elitist, self-serving, and malignant that it's common knowledge that even if the people in power happen to be doing what you want, it's only because someone paid them enough money to do so, and/or because it's in their own interests. It seems strange to think that at some point in history, the biggest threat to th...

Note: This probably doesn't mean much to you if you're not living in California, but I am (for the time being), so I'm going to rant about it. Also, this blog post may contain obscene references, and not just the pointers to the obscene ballot initiatives ; I think the California legislature should take most of the blame, though, because without their continued gross incompetence, corruption, and enormous malfeasance, we wouldn't be voting on this steaming pile of crap next week. The understand why these proposals are so insulting, you really have to look at California's politics over the last decade (and longer). Without getting into the details, basically California spends money on unions, welfare, and crap, and lots of it, so much so that even with an income which eclipses many countries, California has been running a deficit for a long time, which is now around $40 billion (and $20 billion annually), as far as I can tell. And it that's not enough, we already...

This article from the WSJ does a good job summarizing the historical significance of the conceptual shredding of the Constitution the Obama administration is engaging in to pursue their own agenda, specifically with respect to Chrysler (although GM is not far behind, and there have already been several other examples of ignoring the Constitution so far, even early into the Obamanation period, with undoubtedly many more to come). To paraphrase the adage: even though you might agree with the ends, you should be outraged about it; for even if you don't believe in upholding the Constitution and the principles of America, something you do value could be the next thing the Obamanation tramples and shreds. On a related note, didn't Obama have to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic? I suppose it's kinda an empty promise when you're the one holding the metaphorical lighter to it. Still, it would make good evidence at an impeachment...

There are several anti-government (well, more anti big, bloated, socialist government) movements recently: the Tea Parties, people starting to wake up to how truly horrible and frightening Obama and the current Congress are, etc. I ran across another on this blog , talking about states passing bills to remind the federal government that despite their efforts and propaganda to the contrary, the Constitution limits the powers the federal government has compared to the individual states (not that the states are any better at governing in many cases, eg: California, but it's a start). Anyway, this sorta dove-tails into a thought I've been having for a while. When the original American revolution happened, the rally cry was "no taxation without representation." At the time, this was in reference to the practice of taxing the goods in the American colonies, but not providing the colonies with any representation in the government imposing the taxes. It was a clear case of an...

The WSJ has an interesting editorial breakdown of the "savings" cuts announced by the Obama administration: here . They point out, among other things, that since the money is already spent in the $3,500,000,000,000 budget, of which $1,200,000,000,000 of new debt created by more spending than even the optimistic projections of income, the "savings" aren't really savings at all, the money just gets re-allocated from favorite targets of liberals (75% of the cuts by dollar amount are from defense programs) to the favorite pet projects of liberals (more corrupt handouts to political insiders). Ha ha, joke's on you... But wait, if that's not funny to you, we've got another one. The WSJ article also points out the $230 million in savings comes from spending an extra $890 million. See, you waste another $890 million, and that works out to $290 million in savings... ha ha, right? Joke's on you again... Still not laughing? Well, how about some perspective:...

Ok, I know this is probably going to upset some of my conservative readers, but I have a lot of opinions, and I wouldn't expect anyone (outside of myself) to agree with all of them. In that vein, I have a "liberal" opinion I want to share. It's long and kinda involved, so here's a link to the current "plan" as I would do it: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddkvq9sk_5vrx6j6c9 In short, I think the country should have a form of Public Health Insurance. Now before you think I've gone crazy, I'd invite you to read the document, and see what it is I'm saying. I would also add that I'd rather have nothing than some socialist Obamanation program which takes an otherwise reasonable idea and transforms it into a big-government nightmare. However, that being said, I do think there is some benefit to such a program if done carefully and correctly, and preferably by someone as adamantly opposed to an out-of-control socialist monstrosity as I am. That...