On Independence Day

Happy 4th of July, everybody! As you go about the day eating those greasy American food staples, watching fireworks, and celebrating the Greatest Country in the world, I thought I'd offer you a little extra...motivation. From the beginning of the 1970 classic Patton:



Okay, so maybe it's not the most appropriate clip for today, but it's still Patton, right?

On a more serious note, please take the time today to stop and say a quick prayer of thanks for our Founding Fathers; remembering that, back in 1776, they selflessly pledged their "lives, [their] fortunes, and [their] sacred honor" for the cause of our Freedom.

God Bless America.

The Political Obituary of Mark Sanford

The story of Mark Sanford and his incredibly un-majestic fall from grace has now officially gone from strange and stupid to disgraceful. After starting off the week by comparing himself to King David - in what may quite possibly be the most transparent attempt at Social Conservative pandering ever witnessed - Sanford has now followed up by saying he feels like Jimmy Stewart at the end of It's a Wonderful Life, refusing to shut up about unnecessary details of his personal life, and, now, telling us that his Argentine Mistress is his "soul mate" - despite the fact that he still really wants to work things out with his wife.

Because that's clearly what every woman wants you to say (to the National Press, no less) when you're trying to save your marriage: "I really love this other woman, but I'll try and make it work with you, dear!"

Jenny Sanford, if you're listening, please don't take this scumbag back. Ever. He doesn't deserve you. Hell, he doesn't deserve the hooker that Eliot Spitzer slept with.

In retrospect, it having been nearly a full week since Sanford admitted he lied to his family, staff, and the people he works for, the hypocrisy of this whole situation is both disappointing and disgusting in the truest sense of those words. Indeed, having spent the last 6 years in the trenches, defending Governor Sanford as best I could, this whole scandal has stung me perhaps a little bit more than it otherwise would have - or should have, for that matter.

No more. Never again will you find me down in the arena, as Teddy Roosevelt would have put it, fighting on behalf of the man who was stupid enough to think that, as a public figure, he could have gotten away with something like flying to Argentina for a fling with his mistress. Or who thought it would be okay to take State funds to finance such travels. Or who thought that, despite being entrusted by voters with the responsibilities of the Governor's Office, he could vanish, leaving an entire State without a Chief Executive in one of the most brash examples of Dereliction of Duty I've ever seen. Or who successfully attained the highest Office our State has to offer by promoting family values and then attempted (and continues to attempt, natch) to destroy his own family. Or who made his reputation on being a 'straight-shooter' and then proceeded to purposefully lie to his staff, family, State employees, and constituents. Or who called on Bill Clinton to resign in 1998 and now vows to stay on 'till the bitter end, thus engaging in the kind of absurd hypocrisy only found in politics.

Of all the issues arising with this story, however, the most offensive, on a personal level, is simply that Mark Sanford committed adultery, betraying his wife and kids; and that he is now using this personal transgression to embarrass the State of South Carolina, and those of us he was elected to represent.

To be even more blunt, Mark Sanford should resign the Governorship of South Carolina; in part because, if he is to save his marriage and do what is best for his 4 young boys, he clearly needs some 'away time' to straighten out his messed up personal life. Maybe he's having a mid-life crisis. Maybe he's really in love with another woman. Maybe he needs to spend some time on Bull Street. I don't know. But what I do know is that all of the things he claims he's trying to do - and that he should be doing - vis-a-vis his family are in no way being helped by the continued media circus surrounding him (which he keeps making worse by being totally and utterly incapable of either shutting the hell up or letting a level-headed spokesman write out a coherent statement for him to read).

However, more important to the question of resignation are the politics of the issue; because, let's be honest, adultery is a disgusting thing to do, and denigrates your personal character, but it doesn't affect your abilities to be a Statesman and shouldn't be an impeachable offense. And yes, fellow Republicans, that includes when Bill Clinton does it. However, Mark Sanford, as noted above, improperly used State funds and, by all reasonable accounts, committed what amounts to Dereliction of Duty on his most recent 5-day jaunt to Buenos Aires. Those are both grounds for legal disciplinary action.

Moreover, and of the greatest concern at this point, Mark Sanford is disgracing the Office, State, and People that he represents. He may want to stay on and fight it out, but the fact is that he has no political capital left to work with. He already had a dysfunctional relationship with both the State Legislature and Judiciary (many would say non-functional...), but he was still effective because he had, as always, the support of the people. Indeed, throughout his time in office, both in the House of Representatives and in Columbia, Mark Sanford has always been consistently conservative - and his votes and actions have always reflected the views of the conservative South Carolina constituents he has acted on behalf of.

He no longer has our support. He lost it when he betrayed our trust and our values.

Over 50% of South Carolinians now want Governor Sanford to resign. For the sake of his State and with the servant's heart that I still believe he came to politics with in the first place, he should do us the courtesy of heeding our wishes and acting, as always, on our behalf - one last time.

ObamaCare Debunked, Part II

Political optimism from people of my ilk is hard to come by these days; however, more and more, I'm slowly getting a sense that people are beginning to see ObamaCare for what it is - and rejecting it. Of course, with the way the President and the majority of Congress think, it still could pass anyways, despite the fact that people's attitudes towards health care are basically the same as they were in 1993-4; when they tried to force HillaryCare down our throats.

Anyways, the real reason I'm posting now is to direct your attention to a fine article over at Investor's Business Daily examining the myth that Medicare and Medicaid costs have risen at a slower rate than private health care costs. Needless to say, it's actually been the reverse, as Medicare and Medicaid have seen the highest increase in costs. This fact is significant because the great Hope-y One has cited Medicare as the example that his own 'Universal Helath Care' plan will follow. To quote:

"The centerpiece of President Obama's plan is a "public option," described by Tom Daschle as "a government-run insurance program, modeled after Medicare." The president asserts that this new Medicare-like program would cut costs.

But there are nearly 40 years of experience to consult, and they offer a resounding rebuttal. Across the years, Medicare's costs have risen far more than the costs of privately purchased care.

A new study I've completed, published by the Pacific Research Institute, takes all health-care spending in the United States and subtracts the costs of the two flagship government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid. It then takes that remaining spending and compares its cost increases over time with Medicare's cost increases over time.

The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector."

Indeed. Of course, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention over the last, oh, let's say 15 years. Medicare and Medicaid costs have been growing at outrageous rates; further proving the absurdity of Obamarama's claim that he can reduce costs through more massive government spending. Simply put, it's kind of like trying to cure ballooning deficits with $trillion 'stimulus' packages - i.e. it's something that won't work, but that Obama will do anyways.

Furthermore, and more importantly, this article illustrates a concept that we have brought up here before: namely, that when it comes to solving the problem of rising health care costs, conservatives are the only ones with a solution that actually addresses and deals with this problem.

What Obama and other liberals have proposed is designed to give you enough money to be able to afford the higher cost. In other words, they just want to make sure you can cover it; and thus, whether or not their Government plans actually lower costs is irrelevant, so long as they can claim the number of uninsured Americans has decreased.

Nevermind that, for the umpteenth time, the problem is the cost, not the insurance, and the goal is the cure, and not coverage.

Conservatives want to introduce more competition into the market, drive down Doctors' costs with Medical Malpractice reform, etc., and, in the process, make the actual cost of health care more affordable - even if you don't get that fat check from the government to help you pay for it. This is why conservative solutions make better sense on healthcare, as they are more in line with what is actually needed.

And that would, of course, be those lower costs and higher cure rates - neither of which any Government-run health care program has ever done as well as the private sector.

Nikki Haley in 2010!

Having been both busy with life and severely disheartened by the very real probability of ObamaCare, several issues on which we here at the BSS would have happily bloviated, profusely, have been ignored over the last couple of months. Not least of such topics is the ongoing race to be the Republican nominee for South Carolina Governor in 2010. So far, this primary race has attracted 5 candidates; including, as of last month, State Senator Nikki Haley, of whom we have been highly complementary in the past.

To get right to the point, Haley is exactly what I look for in a politician; and thus, obviously, who I plan on supporting in the primary.

For those of you unfamiliar with the rest of the field, and interested in learning of its crappiness, here's the rest of the list. It consists of 3 genuine, South Carolina Good ol' Boys and some Libertarian Furman professor:

- Andre Bauer, our Lt. Governor, who's most famous for using legislative privilege to get out of speeding tickets and....uh...oh, yea! Sucking up to Senior citizens for votes.
- Gresham Barrett, a U.S Representative, who voted for the bailouts, said he would do so again, and yet still tries to claim the mantle of 'fiscal conservative' (He also got booed at the Greenville Tea Party).
- Henry McMaster, our state's Attorney General, who recently made himself look like a moron when he sued Craigslist in order to....try (unsuccessfully) and pander to voters. He also makes bad TV commercials about identity fraud.

(Finally, let's be honest, I'm sure the Furman Prof is a great guy, but the Alan Keys of the world are of no concern here)

Anyways, if you're one of those establishment Republicans who believes in the power of money and connections over that of people and liberty, then by all means vote for one of the 'Big 3' candidates.

However, if, like us, you believe in small, transparent government, in true fiscal conservatism (not our growing-the-state-budget-at-record-levels, State government, kind of fiscal 'conservatism'), and truly reforming South Carolina's corrupt state government, then you might want to give Nikki Haley a look.

Here's the website: Haley for Governor.

I must say, it's nice to have someone in this race I can get excited about.

Also of interest:

A good interview with RedState

On ObamaCare

Earlier today, while glancing at a television tuned to CNN, I happened to notice our President, on TV, doing what he does best - reverting to campaign mode. Only, this time, his campaign mode was a townhall meeting on the subject of the Socialized Medicine that he is about to hoist upon us, so I decided to give him a listen and see what he might have to say on the topic.

Needless to say, I was not impressed.

Rather than go over the basics of why government-run health care is not a good idea, again (browse past selections, if you so desire...), I thought I would simply address two points made by Obama himself, earlier today, in Wisconsin.

First, he tried to pass of the government-sponsored insurance plan he has proposed (something that even the liberal AMA has come out against) as simply another competitor to private insurance. Using all the key words that a true Capitalist likely would, The President did his best to explain to us commoners how government run health care will actually lower the cost of private insurance, and thus be beneficial to all.

The problem, of course, is that government is no ordinary competitor. The government can keep prices artificially low, as it not only has the power to print money, but also to dip into the funds of the US Treasury. In other words, the government can deficit spend to its heart's content, print as much money as it needs to run this "competitor," and raise taxes to finance its operations. Ordinary, private insurance companies, on the other hand can do none of these 3 things. Simply put, the problem with the President's argument is that he's trying to say the government's entry into the health insurance market isn't unfair to other competitors, despite the fact that the government is the very organization tasked with making the rules in that market.

In other words, it's like letting a referee play in the very same game that he's officiating.

It's not normal, and it gives the referee unfair advantages over the other players. Capitalism may not be the most gentle (for lack of a better word) economic system around, but it absolutely requires that all potential profit-makers be given the same opportunities as the others at the start of the game. (Hence the conservative belief in equality of opportunity over equality of outcome.) When the ref is playing, that simply doesn't happen.

The second issue I took with the tomfoolery I saw in Obama's speech was his continued insistence on the need to cut deficits. Indeed, the man desperately wants you to know that fiscal responsibility is important to him, too.

It is the type of thing that only a politician could say with a straight face.

The tortured logic that Obama continues to use, in which he claims that spending new, radically higher amounts of money on healthcare will actually reduce deficits, is beyond preposterous; indeed, it is a violation of the basic laws of mathematics. A trillion dollar deficit, plus additional spending, plus a still-tanking economy only equals a bigger deficit. That is, unless Obama plans to break shatter his promise not to raise taxes on 95% of Americans.

Of course, this is what we all should have come to expect from Obama and his team by now; afterall, ever since they've been in office, they've simply taken advantage of the personal popularity of the President to push every major item on the liberal agenda despite using some of the most asinine and downright idiotic justifications that anyone has ever heard. So let's be clear, this healthcare plan has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility or anything remotely resembling the concept - it is, plain and simple, Obama pushing his backdoor attempt at socialized medicine now, while he has the votes in Congress.

And so, with apologies to the Canadians, who will just have to deal with their own shitty system now, since, after this plan, ours isn't going to be worth driving south for, I guess all that's left to do is just buckle down, folks, because this behemoth of tortured logic and spending stupidity is coming, like it or not. It's "Change," afterall.

A Party Gone Clubbin'

Several months ago, after the 2008 election, and amidst the mass "THE GOP IS DEAD, HOPELESS, OMG, OMG!!1!!" hysteria, I wrote that the Republican Party had one major flaw that it needed to fix: its inability to multi-task. In the interim time period, however, I have come to realize that there was another, equally important, point, that I seem to have inadvertently overlooked.

Before doing so, let me first note, for the umpteenth time, the Republican Party's remarkable ability to eat its own. Indeed, if the last 7 months have shown us anything, it is most certainly that no organization on earth knows how to self-destruct quite like the GOP. And this leads in nicely to the real point I'm trying to make today, which I will begin with the following question: have you noticed anything about the faces participating in all of these (self-destructive) discussions about the future of the GOP?

How about the fact that they're all old - and familiar.

Think about it. Who do you see on the talk shows and writing the columns about these things? Newt Gingrich. And Karl Rove. And Colin Powell. And Dick Cheney. And, seriously, how many times have you heard some 'analyst' introduced by the phrase "former (Insert former Republican President here) appointee..."? Are these the people who we should have leading the Republican Party into the future? The same people who've been leading it for the last 20 years? Sorry, but no matter how good or bad your message is, if you keep dragging the same old chumps out on stage to present it, there's only one word that can be used to describe it: stale.

And stale is not the kind of message that a party which just lost the youth vote by a 2 to 1 margin needs to be putting out there.

Of course, if it's not just the same old folks out presenting the message, it's the relatives of these folks. And if it's not those folks, well, then it's the same old 'experts' in newspaper columns and weekly magazines who you've been reading for years. In other words, it's a bunch of self-styled experts who don't really have any actual qualifications to make them any better arbiters of 'the direction of the Republican Party' than you or me.

Simply put, the GOP has a Good ol' Boy problem.

Indeed, whether it's the self-designated 'experts', the same 'prestigious' last-names, or the same, tired old faces of yesteryear, the fact remains that this continuing argument about what is wrong with the GOP, where it needs to go, who it needs to include, (etc., etc.); is all being hashed out by what more-or-less constitutes a Good ol' Boy club. Moreover, and unsurprisingly, while these folks spend a great deal of time fighting amongst themselves on the Sunday talk shows, they all do tend to agree on each others relative level of importance.

Now, the reason all of this matters is that the very idea of a GOP Good ol' Boys club is completely and utterly antithetical to the conservatism that (supposedly) remains the bedrock of the Republican Party. You see, Conservatives believe in earning what you have and keeping what you've earned - but Good ol' Boys don't earn things, they're given them.

Most importantly, however, the Good ol' Boys contradict the fundamental conservative belief in small government. You see, conservatives don't believe in small government because of some dogma we hold. Nor is it because we hate the inefficiency and bureaucratic red tape that comes with big government (although we do dislike these things). No, conservatives believe in small government because we understand, as per the famous axiom, that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

In other words, we believe in limited government because we understand the abuses of power that are bound to happen without those limits. We believe in the inherent fallibility of man, which is why we believe it foolish to trust him with something as dangerous as power. It is from this rudimentary conception of man and government that we derive a belief in things like checks and balances, limited government, (small R) republican government, and Federalism.

The Good ol' Boy system is inherently at odds with these ideas, because a Good ol' Boy system is fundamentally about collecting and retaining power, not limiting it. Furthermore, having such a system makes it more difficult for the Republican Party to get out its limited government message; because, simply put, it's hard to take the Party's 'small government' rhetoric seriously when it both fails to stand up for small government and is represented by a group of folks whose organizational principle contradicts the fundamentals of that idea.

Here, of course, is where the Sarah Palins and Bobby Jindals of the conservative movement come in. They are the ones who will rescue the GOP - not Colin Powell, or even (much as I love him) Rush Limbaugh, for that matter. These new faces are the ones who are successfully putting conservative principles into action, instead of just squabbling about them.

It's Tim Pawlenty using a unique political maneuver to not only prevent the Minnesota state legislature from raising taxes, but also get the spending cuts he needs to balance his state's budget. It's Sarah Palin significantly reducing Alaska's operating budget in each of her first 3 years in office. Or Bobby Jindal working for ethics reform in Louisiana, of all places.

That is how the Republican Party returns to power: by looking to its young faces and returning to its bedrock principles.

Of course, if you're not in the Good ol' Boys club, you probably didn't need me to tell you that, anyways.

For Memorial Day

As has become somewhat of a tradition around here, in honor of Memorial Day I'll offer up one of my favorites, John McCrae's In Flanders Field:

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Thank you, Vets. And may God Bless those serving today.

Choosing For God

It's not often we take the time to deal with abortion here (mainly because it's not one of our big issues, but also because, in America today, being pro-life, apparently, means that you must hate condoms, birth-control, and women, and will be ready to breath Baptist Hellfire upon those who disagree; and, frankly, I just tire of dealing with that stupidity), but today will be an important exception, given this news that recently came out of the socialist paradise Sweden.

For the record, we don't support abstinence-only stuff, but rather, the comprehensive approach, while also being of the opinion that, really, it's not the government's job to teach kids that kind of stuff anyways. Furthermore, sparing you our usual discussion of how freedom is intricately linked with the responsibility to take the consequences of the choices you make with said freedom, we'll also simply note that choosing to have sex means you have to accept the consequences of sex, up to and including pregnancy. Basically, too often, abortion becomes a bailout for people who are too stupid to either control their urges or figure out how to use a condom properly; and, well, you know how we feel about bailouts....

(Before you get the impression that we're some kind of asshole robot, with no ability to perceive the true complexities of life, please note that we do believe in exceptions for rape and when the mother's life is in danger.)

Anyways, back to the Swedes. Ah, yes, those wonderful Swedes and their wonderful socialist government. Only, now, that government has gone so far as to give its citizens the genuine opportunity to play God. You see, since abortion is legal in Sweden for the first 18-weeks of the woman's pregnancy (Somewhere in the '2nd Trimester' in American legal lingo), the Swedish Courts have now ruled that women can now 'choose' to abort or not based solely on the gender of the child. Meaning that gender-based abortion, or the ability to choose the sex of the child you raise, is not only available, but has the full legal backing of Swedish Courts.

Too bad all of the Kings and Queens of yore didn't have this option, because then they wouldn't have had to bother raising all those damned daughters, they could have just killed everything until they got that coveted 1st-born son!

But hey, why should we worry? Afterall, those Europeans have all but forgotten about God - they've moved beyond that stupid idea - so why not start to take over his job?

On a more serious note, the idea that one could select the gender of one's child (for that's what they've, essentially, been given the power to do) does reek of the 'playing God' dilemma that we seem to, increasingly, run into these days. Moreover, the simple fact of the matter is that allowing people to gender-select their children is a terrible idea. Don't believe me? Just ask the Chinese, who, using a combination of abortion, infanticide, and forced sterilization, have ridden their 'one-child' policy, and the historical preference for male offspring, to a massive gender imbalance. In other words, they've been using gender-based abortion, and it got them 30 million excess dudes.

Now, maybe Sweden, progressive nation that it is, won't, as a result of this ruling, have a massive (and dangerous) gender imbalance in 20 years - but that's not the point. The point is that bad, unexpected, and unintended things happen when governments and citizens try to play the role of God and manufacture the kind of children that they want. Obviously, abortion in the United States has not gotten to such a place, yet. Nevertheless, examples like China and now Sweden are exactly why we should be trying our best to limit abortion and tighten the legal restrictions around it. That's because, simply put, when the 'choices' you get to make should really be God's, well, that's just an awfully slippery slope.

The Alaska Fund Trust

As those of you who have been keeping up with all the recent news regarding our favorite Alaskan here at The B&SS will likely know, since returning from the Presidential campaign last fall Sarah Palin has been unable to avoid the continuing politics of the campaign. The RINOs, Obamabots, and Good ol' Boys from Alaska (and elsewhere) have kept up their slew of attacks against her.

Clearly she must scare the piss out of them.

Unfortunately, in pursuing this course, these political lowlifes have turned to a weapon that we here at B&SS are all too familiar with: the frivolous lawsuit. Indeed, Governor Palin has been hit with an onslaught of bogus legal cases since last fall, all of which have been crap suits that eventually amount to nothing. Nevertheless, during this process, the good Governor has found out one of the real tragedies of these frivolous lawsuits, namely that they are insanely expensive - even when the charges brought against you get laughed out of court - and Sarah has now racked up over $500,000 in legal fees defending herself from these bogus suits.

The Doctors of this country welcome you to their world, Governor.

See, this kind of crap is exactly why we need a Loser Pays legal system in the United States. The reason these kinds of cases get brought is because trial lawyers (or politically motivated lawyers...) will take on such cases pro bono; knowing that it is of almost no risk to either them or their client and, potentially, offers a very high reward. Low risk, high reward - exactly the kind of formula to entice people to do something more often than they otherwise would, exactly the kind of incentive structure that does not need to be present in a legal system that is supposed to be operating on the sole incentive of the noble search for justice.

A Loser Pays system helps alleviate these problems because, under its auspices, the only way folks would bring charges against someone is if they actually thought they had a legitimate complaint - instead of just an insatiable greed for money they've done nothing to earn or, in Sarah's case, the desire to bleed someone dry solely for the sake of grinding some bullshit political axe.

Anyways, coming back down off the soap box, since getting a Loser Pays system to help out honest people like Sarah is just a fantasy at this point, I offer up to you the next best thing - which is to go to her newly created Legal Defense fund and chip in a few bucks to help her out!

In true Sarah fashion, the Alaska Fund Trust, as it's called, is a beacon of transparency and good, honest citizen-governance. All donors, and the amount they donate, will be made available to the public, no donations of more than $150 will be allowed, and no lobbyists (of any stripe) or foreign nationals will be allowed to contribute. (All these regulations are self-imposed, by the way, and not required by law for a fund like this one.)

Ok, enough said, here's your link: Alaska Fund Trust

Sorry, But You Have No Lifelines

Glancing through the headlines over at ESPN, today, I noticed an article that contained the family of Andrew Gallo's response to the backlash against their son, who recently killed Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart in a car accident. Basically, the family of this guy, especially his Dad, is particularly upset, because they feel their son has been portrayed negatively in the media and that he has been made out to be a "bad kid" and a "monster."

First off, let's just account for all the little details, shall we? Mr. Gallo did not simply kill Nick Adenhart in a car crash; he killed him in a car crash during which his BAC was 3 TIMES the legal limit. In addition to being a drunk driver (who killed not just Adenhart, but 2 others), Gallo also decided that it would be a good idea to flee the scene (on foot); so instead of calling an ambulance and trying to help the people he'd just run into, he jumped out of his car and ran away. Better yet, this arrest is his second traffic-related violation, with the first being a....DUI back in 2006.

Sounds like a great guy to you too, huh?

Nevertheless, in the spirit of the semi-post-modern, personal-responsibility-be-damned era in which we live, Andrew Gallo's father has come out and decided to set the record straight by blaming everyone but his son for what happened. You see, poor Andrew is no normal kid (notice, the spin starts right here, as, despite being 22 years old, Gallo is dubbed a "kid," instead of an adult, to help him retain that aura of child-like innocence). His parents divorced, and he took it hard. Plus, he has a good friend who is an alcoholic. Heck, he is an alcoholic. And besides, he's been "devastated" by what happened and, of course, he "never meant to hurt anybody, ever."

In short, what Andrew's Daddy is trying to say, without actually saying it (for the sake of subtlety, I suppose), is that the accident is not his son's fault. Don't blame my poor, innocent, helpless boy - blame the circumstances.

What utter bullshit.

Sorry Mr. Gallo, I don't care if your son never meant to hurt anybody - he did. In fact, he effing killed somebody; 3 somebodies, to be exact. Besides, this wasn't your typical, everyday car crash. You see, sir, your son was drunk. In fact, he blew 3 times the California limit for BAC, which is 0.08, meaning that his BAC was around 0.24, which, for those of you keeping score at home, is somewhere between "wasted" and "passed-out" on the drunk scale. And while that particular level of BAC may make for some great entertainment at your local college frat party, it makes you a spectacularly shitty driver and a complete freakin' moron if you actually try to test those shitty driving skills on a road.

Moreover, being an alcoholic doesn't excuse young Andrew from the responsibility of this crime. Alcohol is not necessary for survival. It cannot open its own bottle, nor can it force itself down your throat. Ultimately, you are the one who decides what goes in your body; which makes you responsible when what goes in has adverse effects on the world around you. At some point in his life, Andrew Gallo decided to become an alcoholic through the drinking habits that he, himself, developed, of his own free will. Those choices led him to the bottle, and that bottle led him, quite literally, to the scene of the crime.

That is no one's fault but his own.

Lastly, I don't care if he took his parents' divorce hard - over half of the marriages in this country end in divorce, but you don't see great numbers of the kids from those marriages running out becoming alcoholics and committing vehicular manslaughter, do you?

Simply put, there is no excuse for Andrew Gallo, as he chose to get behind the wheel of that car, despite knowing how much he'd had to drink. Furthermore, he also chose to have those drinks in the first place; and, moreover, chose to drink where he would need a ride home, without thinking to, oh, I dunno, designate a driver or call a cab.

Going out and drinking alcohol does not make you a bad person. Having had a painful childhood doesn't either. Heck, even being an alcoholic doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. Vehicular manslaughter while driving drunk, however, does. And there is simply no way around that fact.

On April 15th

Ah, taxes, such wonderful things. Indeed, nothing like having to file one's tax returns, is there? Sadly, this year, I had the, uh....genuine pleasure of getting to file my own tax returns for the very first time. And I must tell you that I have come away from this experience with a new appreciation for all things aimed at cutting, simplifying, or eliminating taxes. Moreover, I have also come to the conclusion that it is high time for the 16th Amendment and the IRS to die brutal and painful deaths.

I'd even be interested in suspending the 8th Amendment for duration of the execution process.

Seriously though, my tax returns were, supposedly, relatively easy to file - and they still frustrated and confounded me. Consequently, I can't even begin to fathom how the average taxpayer is able to go through all of this hassle and not come away thinking that taxes should be lower, that the tax code should be seriously simplified, and that the IRS should burn in Hell. I mean, how you could not come away from such an experience with a high level of sympathy for the Ron Paul conception of taxes is beyond me.

Finally, I would just like to publicly acknowledge my Father and many other adults who, for years, have been telling me that: "Everyone's a Democrat until they start paying taxes."

You were right. And I say that not because I didn't believe you before, but because now I understand why.

(And just in case you need a time-of-year-appropriate laugh, some P.J. O'Rourke:)

"I'm a 47-year old middle-class male with a job. Every hippy-dippy thing that's thought up - from heroin addiction to special vegan lunch lines in the local high school cafeteria - I get to pay for. Of course I'm a Republican.

"The mystery of Government is not how Washington works, but how to make it stop."

Taking Statism Global

Having now poured stimulus upon stimulus into their respective National economies, and begun the long and arduous process of setting said economies on the road to bankruptcy, the leaders of the world's greatest economies have spent the last several days gathering to see if they could strike a deal to take their failed policies supra-national. And so they have. We are now set to get a new $1 trillion global stimulus package to complement the, now, $10.5 Trillion that the United States has already appropriated/spent on various bailouts, stimulus, and TARP projects over the last half-year or so.

(For those of you keeping score at home, our national GDP was $14.3 trillion last year - meaning that, if President Obama gets his wish and we do get a 'TARP II', we'll have kindda spent our whole, entire economy in order to, uh, save it. Because that clearly makes sense.)

Apparently TANSTAFL has been replaced as the one, hard-and-fast economic rule by a new one, which rests on a firm belief in the ability of deficit spending to cure all ills - the actual numbers be damned!!

As far as this new, global stimulus is concerned, its basically an extension of all the quasi-socialist/genuinely statist bullshit we've been getting here in the United States. We're going to give some more government bureaucrats the ability to regulate and restrict bankers' pay and bonuses - because, damn it, if some red-meat populism is good, more is even better. And nothing stokes populist fires (and poll numbers...) like hating on evil corporations, bankers, etcetera.

Nevermind that it's actually counterproductive as an economic policy.

Of course, having already gotten on the 'regulation' bandwagon with the banker stuff, it only made sense for these folks to take that a step further with other institutions. Thus, we are also going to get a new set of stricter and tougher regulatory policies for hedge funds and credit agencies. Because, again, nevermind the actual relationship between government regulation and economic growth, let's do it anyway.

We're also going to give more power to the IMF; because, clearly, what we need in order to solve these economic problems, and prevent them from happening ever again, is more input from international government bureaucrats whose own chain of command is somewhat murky. Finally, in this time of economic hardship and ballooning deficits, we're also going to take $100 billion and give it to poor countries; in other words, all the little tyrants running fake democratic countries in sub-Saharan Africa are having trouble in this economic climate too, so let's give them some cash.

And that's about it, more bullshit spending that inches us further away from a free-market system and transfers power and money from people to bureaucrats. Only this time, it's gone global. Change, indeed.

This Is Your Government...

...and this is your government on stupid. Ahh, yes, nothing like the sweet smell of government takeovers to start your week off right, huh? Indeed, having decided that Chapter 11 was too harsh for it to accept and that 'bailout' was its only option, GM now gets to find out the hard way what us free-marketers were warning them about all along - that public funding for your business also means public management of your business.

Not that the folks at GM have any illusions about what they're getting into though, Rick Wagoner was happy to go, and he'll take the $20 Million dollar retirement package that comes with termination of his job to go with him thank-you-very-much, and the new CEO has already said he knows that he's not going to be the one who's actually in charge.

The result is that President Barack Obama, the man who is a lawyer by training and a Law Professor/Community Organizer/Professional Campaigner by vocation is now fully and totally in charge of running, nay saving, the 9th largest corporation in the entire world. Oh yes, and he'll be accompanied in this task by a Treasury Secretary who can't properly fill out his tax returns and has an entire staff of people who are....yet to be appointed by the President. (And likely Congress too, but you really don't want us to get started on those fuckers right now.)

Anyone else really wish a guy like Mitt Romney, who, you know, understands this kind of shit, was President right about now? Of course, Mitt suggested, way back in December, that we shouldn't have bailed these bastards out in the first place because, shocka, by not making them file for Chapter 11 we were 'bailing them out' of the serious internal restructuring that they needed to do to remain viable. Instead, with bailouts, we would just be turning them into another welfare recipient (albeit an insanely expensive one).

Here's the thing though, as the nice little parting gift that former CEO Wagoner got helps to demonstrate, by bailing these assholes out we have subsidized their bad decision-making process. Instead of being forced to account for the $38 billion in losses they took last year by doing things like eliminating bad Union deals, cutting out their CEO's golden parachute, or generally figuring out what the hell they were doing so terribly wrong that it cost them $38 Billion, they're going to simply sit around and wait for whatever the government's next batch of instructions are. Moreover, how can we possibly blame them for doing just that?

Afterall, by giving them this bailout(/subsidy) we've now incentivized this corporate laziness; because now the company's money isn't coming from it's ability to sell automobiles, but rather its ability to grovel like a cheating husband at the feet of its new Government overlords. In other words, we're expecting this company to be able right the metaphorical ship despite having eliminated the incentives that might make it profitable again, and having turned its management over to people who have neither a direct financial stake in its future profitability nor the proper credentials to hold such positions.

Brilliant.

Of course, that, in a nutshell, is why the Government shouldn't run businesses - because their intervention, particularly on this massive of a scale, screws up the profit motive that is the driving force of capitalism. And honestly, if you don't understand why that's a bad thing (or why Capitalism is a better corporate manager than the effin Government), then you're either a hippie, a fascist, or a communist - in which case you'd be too far gone for me to give a damn about you at this point anyways.

Now, with apologies for all the cussing above, and in an attempt to make you feel even worse, here's the internet's newest viral video star, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Party member of the European Parliament for England, on how, in addition to spending ourselves into oblivion, the Anglo-Saxon world now has to endure the additional humiliation of having the Germans and the French being the ones telling us that we must step away from the bailout trough:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(For those of you who have, sadly, missed out on the Daniel Hannan craze, please, for the love of God, go watch this short video of the speech he made eviscerating Gordon Brown (and bailouts) at the European Parliament last week. I promise it'll make your day.)

***Update***

Irony alert: the new CEO of GM now says that Chapter 11 actually looks pretty good. It only took them a few months, a government takeover of their management structure, and a few billion taxpayer dollars, but at least they might finally be on the right track...

"When Did Things Get So Twisted"

Just in case you watched President Obama's national press conference earlier tonight, and have finally given up on trying to figure out how, exactly, he's going to be able to make good on his promise to cut the deficit with, uh, massive increases in spending, and where, exactly, he got the information that led him to believe the Dollar was doing well, I do believe I've got you an antidote!

It's Sarah Palin and a speech that she gave recently in Anchorage to the Alaska GOP's Lincoln Dinner (sans Teleprompter). Sadly, the audio is quite poor, and the Alaska GOP managed to omit two parts (one in the middle and the end), which is rather disappointing. Nevertheless, it's a great speech in which she finds time to wax poetic against the stimulus and get in some good shots at the "goofy defenders of wildlife," among others. I'll put my favorite of the 11 clips up here - it's the one where (starting at about 2:30 in) she rails against the stimulus:



The rest of the videos (in their proper order) can be found here.

Political Correctness Strikes, Again

As usual, I appear to be a few days late to chime in on a controversy that consumed at least part of the minds of the blowhards, er, pundits on TV over the past weekend. Anyways, in case you did miss it, last week President Obama decided that, with the economy, and confidence in it, heading further south than where I wish I was fishing right about now, he needed to go and speak directly with the American people on...The Tonight Show.

Because we all know that Jay Leno is going to be ready with the tough questions that Americans want answered.

Nevertheless, while he was there, the President, in a moment of self-depreciation, made what could only be classified as a somewhat formulaic-yet-still-humorous 'retard' joke in which he compared his bowling skills to those of a Special Olympian.

Cue the outrageously outrageous moral outrage of the United States Political Correctness SWAT team.

Indeed, while, admittedly, the outrage from the Fat Cats in the Media and the PC Police was noticeably less than it would have been had, say, George W. Bush made such a remark (although, since they considered W to be retarded, I'm not sure if they could have logically done this...), it was still there; in fact, the outrageously outraged Republicans trying to point out the double standard probably managed to more-or-less make up the difference with their zeal. Indeed, even my beloved Sarah Palin got in on the outrage and managed to shoot of a statement about how much she loved and respected the Special Olympics and how Obama needed to be more careful with his words and.....yea, you probably read the news too, so no need to rehash all of the bullshit.

What seems to be missing in all of this, of course, is the fact that it was a joke, and that taking jokes like this seriously - even if he is the President and is supposed to be 'more careful' with his choice of words - and getting pissed off or angry about them just....well, let's say it brings to mind a certain title utilized by Shakespeare.

Something about 'ado' and 'nothing.'

I mean, people seriously need to learn to develop a sense of humor and just laugh/chuckle at something like this. And seriously, who hasn't, at some point in their life, made a kind of off-color (even offensive!! *gasp*) joke like the President's? Granted, yours was probably funnier; but still, I think I recall something pertinent from the Bible that may apply here - something to do with 'casting stones' and 'sin.'

(Yes folks, retard jokes, Shakespeare, and Jesus, all in one post about Obamarama - that's just the kind of brilliance I offer here.)

A certain wise man once said that "if we couldn't laugh we'd all go insane" - and something tells me that getting all up in arms like Napoleon invading Russia over a joke like the President's is fast approaching the territory which offers tangible proof of this maxim.

Malpractice Reform in SC?

Last Month, some of the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives did a great thing by sponsoring a new bill (H. 3489) that would help bring some needed legal reform to our State. The legislation is a tort reform bill that would help insulate S.C. businesses from all those frivolous lawsuits that we talk oh-so-fondly-of on this blog. Needless to say, I'm a strong supporter of this bill, as pretty much every State in the Union could use some kind of tort reform for a whole host of reasons. However, as you might expect if you know anything about S.C. politics, the bill has run into some problems up at the Statehouse.

As per the legislative process, it was sent to one of the House's subcommittees; unfortunately, all but one of the members of this subcommittee just happen to be lawyers. Consequently, the members of this subcommittee haven't bothered to get the legislative process for the tort reform bill going; preferring, instead, to leave it swimming in the abyss that is Subcommittee Hell

Lawyers opposed to meaningful tort reform; you're shocked, I'm sure.

Anyways, here's the legislation's sponsors' site - One Law Suit Away - so you can go read up on the bill and see (for those of you in South Carolina) if your State Legislator comes down on the right side of it.

The New Iraq

I suppose we'll get to see just how permanent all of this is whenever Obama finally does pull all of the troops out, be it in 16 months or (as per the S.O.F.A) December 2011, but, for now, this ABC News report should make you feel pretty good about how things are going in Iraq right now:



I think that speaks for itself.

Thanks, General Petraeus.

Sanford in 2012?

Could my good Governor, Mark Sanford, wind up as the Republican nominee for President in 2012? And, if so, might he actually win? Well, The American Conservative seems to think that, if the great behemoth of Hope n' Change turns out not to be the very Will of God it has thus far promised, Governor Sanford, thanks to his "stringent free-market philosophy" and "elegiac demeanor," might be well positioned to do both of those things:

Mark Sanford is easy to overlook. If Republicans need a champion in the Obama era, there are more colorful candidates than the South Carolina governor. He doesn’t play electric bass, or to the Religious Right, like Mike Huckabee. He has made no attempt to rewrite the GOP’s almost forgotten small-government playbook like Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty or Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal. Though he is popular, Sanford seems incapable of playing a red-meat populist like Sarah Palin. He looks plain, his philosophy is old, and he has an elegiac demeanor that seems incompatible with electoral politics.

But unlike many other Republican politicians of his stature, Sanford recognizes that there are limits to ambition, that government treasuries are not bottomless, and that no ideology can captain the globe. If the promise of “hope” in the form of bailouts fails to revive the American economy, Mark Sanford will be the GOP’s most dangerous man in 2012.

In recent weeks, he has become the unofficial spokesman against Obama’s trillion-dollar economic stimulus plan.....While cable’s talking heads shout at him, he somberly quotes Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. He worries aloud that the bailouts represent a 'crisis of American civilization.' "

Here's the link to the full article, which is interesting both as a profile and 2012 look-ahead.

Insofar as the question of a run itself is concerned, it's been asked before and Sanford has repeatedly denied that he's got any future political plans after his term as Governor is up. Nevertheless, the race might actually set up rather well for him; since his term as Governor will end in January 2011, giving him a full year before the Iowa Caucuses to get a campaign up and running. Plus, he'd be an easy favorite in the all important SC-GOP Primary.

Will he? Who knows - and honestly, at this point, it's way too early for me to care all that much about the 2012 Elections. Besides, Sanford already has an important day job; and it's not going to be getting any easier over the next 2 years.

If At First You Don't Succeed

...then try, try again, right? And hey, if it just so happens to involve a few billion dollars of (yet to be earned) taxpayer dollars, well, so be it. Alas, while this attitude probably doesn't behoove folks like you and me, who will have to pay for all of these bailouts (plus interest!!) at some point in the future, it seems to be working out fabulously for the fine folks struggling to run AIG; who, it was announced today, are set to get a second round of bailout money from our Federal Government.

So, let's recap, shall we? Last fall, under the watchful eyes of President Bush and Secretary Paulson, we decided to sink billions of dollars in AIG because it was "too big to fail" and we needed it to turn around. Now, after we gave them all this money, they have come back to us to report $61.7 billion in 4th-Quarter losses, the largest loss ever reported by an American company. And, naturally, we decided it would be a really good idea to reinvest another $30 billion in this failing business.

Well, at least now we know why all the former Wall Street people now working in D.C left Wall Street - as the kinds of business decisions they're making on behalf of the government would have gotten them fired in the business world.

Seriously though, at what point does all this bailing out finally end? Hell, after we've gone in and bailed out AIG once, why shouldn't we go in and do it a second or third or even fourth time? Better yet, when do we reach the point where a company failing is finally less important than our government's checkbook failing?

Of course, such rhetorical questions help indicate the problems this kind of government intervention inherently entails; namely that, if you do it once, there's nothing to keep you from doing it again. Indeed, given the rationale that you used the first time around (i.e. 'too big to fail'), you're pretty much compelled, rationally at least, to repeat the bailout the second time around, too. Afterall, if it was too big to fail the first time, how can it not be the second (or third, or fourth) time around as well?

So how do we escape from this trap that our political logic has led us into? Well, as I see it, there are only two ways: either the company is fundamentally restructured so that it becomes, metaphorically speaking, small enough to the point where it can fail; or it ceases to fail and, once again, becomes a successful company. Unfortunately, by bailing out companies like AIG in the first place, the government makes it unlikely that either of these things will happen. That's because, through the bailout, the government has absolved AIG of its financial losses; losses which were incurred because of poor business decisions. In other words, somewhere along the line AIG took a risk that didn't pan out - which is o.k, because risk taking (and, yes, the occasional failure) is a part of business. Now, normally, AIG would be forced to take those losses, which would, most certainly, cause serious problems for the company.

Through the bailout, however, the government has decided to prevent AIG from having to go through the painful process of dealing with its bad business decisions. The problem is that companies, like people, aren't going to learn from their mistakes if they don't have to deal with the negative consequences of them. Screwing up and taking big-time losses are what cause companies to restructure and come up with a new business plan. Consequently, by using the government to bailout an AIG, you make it more likely that this company will fail again in the future because you've eliminated the gusto, if you will, of the market forces that would normally force it into severe restructuring.

And that, of course, means more bailouts - ad infinitum, I suppose - and also indicates to us that the bailout, like so many government programs that came before it, is self-perpetuating. Proving once again the validity of Reagan's maxim that government doesn't solve problems, only subsidize them.

On The Gaza Casualty Numbers

One of the more interesting statistics that I've heard tossed around in the aftermath of the recent Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip is the comparison of total casualties on both sides. As you might expect, the Palestinians, as in the past, had significantly more casualties in this war than the Israelis did. (Sorry, I don't know the exact numbers of the top of my head, so you'll have to google it yourself.) The argument, as I've heard it, essentially amounts to a knock on Israel for being excessively brutal or using, in what has become the new favorite catchphrase of UN policy wonks, 'disproportionate force.' In other words, Israel must be more of a bad guy because they're killing so many more Palestinians than the Palestinians are killing Israelis. Yet, simple as this logic may sound, I feel it has a couple of important flaws.

The first problem is that arguing casualty numbers in this way fails to take into account the nature of the Gaza Strip itself; namely, that it's rather small and really crowded. That combination, no matter who's shooting or what they're shooting, is going to result in higher casualty numbers for the Palestinians in Gaza because more people in less space makes the likelihood of collateral damage increase exponentially even in the most precise and well-planned attacks. This fact, in my book, can't really be blamed on either side, as it's just a reality.

Another obvious thing that should be noted about the discrepancy in casualty numbers is that they likely stem directly from the drastic differences in firepower. Simply put, the Israelis have bigger and better guns. No matter how accurate, a Hamas rocket will never be able to do as much damage as Merkava Tank. Moreover, this fact doesn't make the IDF the 'bad guys' - it just makes them the more technologically advanced military in this particular war. Indeed, I'd be willing to venture that, if given the opportunity, Hamas would happily kill many more Israelis; just because, at this point in time, they can't doesn't make them morally superior.

Nevertheless, I do think that, when looking at a war, it's important to try and distinguish, even at a rudimentary level, between good and evil. However, it's war, so people are going to be killing each other - that's just part of it (some would say the point of it...), so we can't distinguished based just on the act or its success rate. In order to truly gain a moral perspective on war, we have to look at what surrounds the killing, and that's why I think that, particularly in this case, intent matters a great deal. Afterall, it's one thing to kill civilians while targeting the enemy's soldiers; it's an entirely different thing to aim exclusively at the civilians from the get-go.

And I suppose this is why the statistical difference in casualty numbers does not increase my sympathy for the Palestinians; because, when I look at the "why" behind the actions of the Gazans' elected representatives, Hamas, I don't exactly see morally superior motives.

All You Need To Know...

...about the stimulus, you could probably learn from this chart, right here:


Based on my reading of that chart, I get:

Reagan - more-or-less budget neutral: 0% change
H.W. Bush - same as Reagan: 0%/-0.5% change
Clinton - slightly budget positive: +4% change
W. Bush - slightly budget negative: -4% change
Obama without stimulus - slightly budget negative: -5% change
Obama with stimulus: significantly budget negative: -10% change

Either with or without the stimulus, President Obama has already negatively affected the budget deficit, as it relates to GDP (what Democrats bragged about during the Clinton years), to a greater degree than any of the last 5 Presidents.

To be fair, of course, President Obama hasn't had a full term yet, and both Reagan and H.W. Bush started out increasing these deficits but finished by decreasing them. However, in their worst years, Reagan and Bush, Sr. increased the budget deficit by 2% and 1%, respectively; Barack is not only working on between 5% and 10%, but is well on his way to creating the biggest one-year increase in the budget deficit over the last 30 years.

These new heights of deficit spending come, naturally, at the same time that the long term deficit is also reaching new heights (depths, really...), and the future costs of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are beginning to increase exponentially.

Now, I'm no economist, but I am a young, budding taxpayer - and I'm pretty sure all this means that I'm about to get screwed.

Happy Birthday, Ronnie

The Gipper would have been 98.

He won the Cold War and vanquished the "Evil Empire" without firing a shot, revived a stagnant U.S Economy and lead it into the modern age, restructured our tax code for the better, and made the United States, once again, the Greatest and most Free Nation on Earth.

He was the Greatest President of the 20th Century.

One can only imagine what he would have thought of the horrific "stimulus" packages the current President and Congress are trying to pass. And while those folks continue to try and hash out the final details of how, exactly, to spend the next few generations of American taxpayers' dollars, all for the stated goal of helping us "Ordinary Americans" in this time of recession, I think it appropriate to remember some of the wisdom of Ronald Reagan:

"The 9 most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

"The Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves; tax it. If it keeps moving; regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

"Government doesn't solve problems - it subsidizes them."

Indeed.

We miss you, Mr. President - and we sure could use some of your principled leadership these days.

Masking Mediocrity

Ah, the joys of "free" healthcare:

"A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients...

He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.' "

Lovely, huh?

The great thing about this story is that it's a perfect example of why the type of "Universal Health Care" system desired by President Obama, other liberals, and even some 'Conservatives' (hello, Mitt Romney...) here in the U.S won't, ultimately, work.

Many a time during the campaign, when asked to defend himself against charges that his Healthcare plan was a thinly veiled attempt at socialized medicine, President Obama responded by saying that, since those who so desired would be able to opt out and get private health insurance, his plan couldn't be dubbed socialized medicine. Indeed, the point of the "universal" part of his plan, he argued, was simply to ensure that those millions of uninsured Americans would never have to go without, thanks to the government sponsored insurance he would be offering.

Well, guess what? In the U.K, people with the financial resources do have the option of getting private healthcare; and furthermore, in a manner that would seem to dovetail nicely with President Obama's plan, those who can't afford such a luxury are given all the health coverage they need via the NHS. Nevertheless, despite being fully provided for by their government, the British folks who were supposed to have been saved from the pain of being uninsured by the almighty hand of a government health care program still aren't getting the health care that they need.

Indeed, despite having a truly "Universal" system of health coverage at his disposal, Ian Boynton was unable to do something as simple as find a dentist to examine his toothache.

What this particular story illustrates so well is a point, which I have made on many an occasion before, that neither socialized medicine nor Universal Health Care (not that the difference is all that substantial...) will solve the current Health Care problems in the United States. This is due the fact that, like all big-government programs, they are inherently flawed solutions because they fail to address the real problem facing the system. In this case, both in the U.K and U.S, the real problem is that Health Care is to expensive. What Socialized Medicine and Universal Health Care both do to address this problem is to offer you either "free" or insanely cheap Health Insurance to make sure that you have enough money to cover this high cost. In other words, instead of directly addressing the problem of expensive health care, and trying to bring down these high costs, these programs are designed to simply mask it through government welfare.

Of course, the problem with masking crises instead of confronting them is that they tend to fester and come back - usually with a much greater degree of monetary pain than they hit you with on the first go-round.

That's why, if we want to try to offer real health care reforms here in the United States, we can't fall into the trap of simply offering up ideas that don't address the real problem. If we want to make Health Care in the U.S better, we need to look at solutions that will actually reduce the costs of health care and thus make it affordable to an even greater number of Americans - without us having to give them a welfare check, first. Two quick and easy ideas to jumpstart such a change would be to allow insurance companies to compete across State lines and to reduce our Doctors' operating costs through Medical Malpractice reform.

Just anything but Big Government, please. Because, afterall, I can already pull my own teeth out with pliers for free - and I don't even have to bankrupt my country's future in the process.

Score One For W

But, but, but....I thought that George W. Bush was turning American attention away from hunting down Al-Qaeda because he was so maniacally focused on avenging his Daddy in Iraq??

Alas, to the deep disappointment of Bush-haters everywhere, our former President did not forget who attacked us on 9/11, and he never stopped hunting them

"CIA-directed airstrikes against al-Qaida leaders and facilities in Pakistan over the past six to nine months have been so successful, according to senior U.S. officials, that it is now possible to foresee a "complete al-Qaida defeat" in the mountainous region along the border with Afghanistan...

The CIA has been using drone aircraft to carry out attacks on suspected al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Pakistan for several years, but such attacks were significantly expanded last summer under orders from President George W. Bush."

The way that 4th Generation Warfare is fought ensured that the destruction and incapacitation of al-Qaeda would be neither a quick nor easy process; however, with a strong resolve and continued dedication, it was always possible. Moreover, like nearly everyone in the United States after 9/11, from top-to-bottom in the U.S Military and across the political spectrum, President Bush had some things to learn about the evolution of war over the last 60 years; but, now that he's safely stashed away in Texas, we continue to hear more and more about just how well he and his top advisors came to understand the delicate and difficult nature of the tasks they were facing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East. Given the orientation of the U.S Military in 1999, and the general uselessness of Donald Rumsfeld, the fact that we have evolved our tactical and strategic capabilities to the point of being able to bring al-Qaeda to the brink of collapse is no small feat.

Finally, and this is for you President Obama, please note that while George W. Bush had no problem actually ordering military strikes within Pakistan, he never felt the need to talk about them on national TV or announce them to the world (and, by extension, our enemies). On the other hand, during his campaign, President Obama always talked about how he would send troops/drones across the border into Pakistan - apparently forgetting that one of the most important elements in any war is secrecy. So, for future reference Mr. President, be more like George W. Bush: do what you have to do to win, but try and keep the plans out of the news.

SC Rep. Nikki Haley On Transparency, Spending

Prior to today, I'd heard good things about SC State Representative Nikki Haley, but haven't really had a chance to hear her talk or learn anything about her first-hand; having now done that, I must say, I'm deeply impressed.

Unlike seemingly the vast majority of "Republicans" in the SC State House, Rep. Haley isn't part of the Good ol' Boy network, nor is she the average Democrat turned RINO, willing to spend my great State into financial catastrophe. In fact, she's probably the greatest advocate that true fiscal conservatives have right now in all of Columbia. She's also just managed to piss off the establishment and score a huge victory for voters with her recent, and ongoing, crusade for much-needed transparency in our State Government.

Anyways, I've posted a video below of her talking about some of the issues (as well as some fundamental conservative principles) at a sort of 'Meet your State Rep' event she recently did. It's kind of long, but if you want to understand some of the fundamental problems with South Carolina State government, and how to start fixing them, or if you just want to listen to a damn good speech about why transparency, real spending restraint, and public interest/participation are important when it comes to government, take the time to listen.



Well said, ma'am - and keep fighting for South Carolina voters, even those of us who aren't in your district!

Done In By Google Earth?

I don't smoke, and I'm not totally sold on the need to end the War on Drugs, but this, nonetheless, kindda scares me.

Don't get me wrong, Google Earth is awesome (as well as addictive and time consuming); but the idea of law enforcement being able to use it to search people's private property seems, to me, at least, a really....bad precedent. I mean, theoretically, if the police want to come search my house, they need a warrant, and to get a warrant they need probable cause - meaning, of course, that, in order to search my property the old-fashioned way, the police would have to follow a certain procedure that still gives me, as a citizen, some degree of Rights protection.

However, to use Google Earth you just need internet access and basic computer skills - not a warrant. Consequently, the police could, theoretically, search my property without obtaining any kind of probable cause first. Of course, if they tried to use that evidence in court, they might find themselves in violation of the 4th Amendment. (Although they'd probably need a pretty decent lawyer to make such a case.)

In any case, the whole concept is way too Big Brother-ish for me.

I know Google has had some issues with Privacy Law in the past, and I realize that this happened in Switzerland and not the United States; but still, I tend to think that this kind of police work should be illegal. Afterall, telling the Judge "We saw it on Google Earth" really doesn't sound like a probable cause that respects people's Rights.

The Party Of 'No'

Newsflash: Republicans on Capitol Hill may have finally rediscovered their balls and brains.

Maybe.

After spending the last week talking about how they need to come together and vote for this $825 billion stimulus package, if only for the sake of being bipartisan and showing support for our new Jesus President, the House GOP leadership may have begun to realize that, even if the Lord Messiah himself commands votes of 'yea,' a shitload of pork and other politically motivated spending projects won't actually rescue the U.S economy from recession. Moreover, they seem to have realized that, in addition to being a massive pile of crap, the bill can, in fact, be opposed in the form of a 'nay' vote.

And it's about freakin' time too, huh? The National Debt is over $10 Trillion, the largest programs in the Federal government (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) are in the process of going broke, the federal budget hasn't been balanced in years, and finally the House Republicans seem to have figured out that we can't continue to spend money like teenage girls in a shopping mall because - surprise - we don't have any. President Obama can't deficit spend his way into economic stability any more than President Bush could; and if he wants to pilot the ship towards the abyss the Republicans should at least have sense enough to jump overboard before it gets there.

Oddly enough, the Democrats are trying to warn Republicans away from voting 'nay' because then they will risk becoming "the Party of 'No,'" over the next few years. Of course, in making this threat, the Democrats seem to have forgotten that the Republicans' biggest problem over the last few years, one which the Dems themselves have criticized us for, was, essentially, becoming the Party of 'yes.' For years, Republicans in Congress became a rubber-stamp for any spending bill that President Bush sent their way, on everything from No Child Left Behind to the prescription drug bill. Furthermore, in doing so, Congressional Republicans lost sight of what brought them to power in the 80's and 90's in the first place: fiscal responsibility.

Moreover, being staunch supporters of fiscal responsibility in conjunction with the tax cuts Republicans so love, directly translates into the need to also be the Party of Small Government. For better or worse (I think for better), being the Party of small government - which is what the Republicans are supposed to be - means saying 'no' and saying it often. It means believing in things like balanced budgets, accountability, and responsible, restrained government spending; all of which even the most powerful SONAR couldn't locate in this craptastic "stimulus" bill. That's why Republicans need to take a principled stand and vote against it.

Finally, over the next four years, if Republicans want to effectively oppose President Obama's liberal agenda, they really do need to become the 'Party of No.' They need to oppose his policies - not the man, the way Democrats did with George W. Bush - and articulately explain to the American people why, from a principled perspective, they simply are not down with atrocious bills like this stimulus. And who knows, by saying 'no' to most of the big government projects and a New Deal-like spending agenda, they just might rediscover what it means to be the Party of Ronald Reagan.

Dubya, Still My President

With my post-election politics fatigue finally having worn off, and with the period of exams, holidays and back-to-school craziness finally over, it's back to blogging about politics just in time to say goodbye, here in its final 12 hours, to the 8-year presidency of George W. Bush. It hasn't always been the smoothest of rides these past 8 years, and it remains to be seen what history's final judgment on them will be, but, it seems appropriate to at least reflect on what an old-school conservative's view on them might be.

There certainly have been some serious counts on which I have disagreed with this President. Immigration jumps immediately to mind. The Prescription Drug Bill (the largest spending bill in Federal history) and his lack of fiscal discipline also do.

Moreover, he has recently been, unfairly, blamed for the recent economic collapse, which has its roots in a housing crisis that has been building, quite literally, since the Carter Administration; and while he has certainly played some part in it, I believe that where history will truly haunt him is on his response to it. His absurd belief that he could "save" the free market by betraying his free market principles has made the economic policy of his last 6 months virtually indistinguishable from that of the liberal President-elect, and has done absolutely nothing to help end the economic downfall. Big government doesn't solve problems, it only perpetuates them, and I think that President Bush's all-to-frequent forgetting of this fact has done more damage to his Presidency than anything else.

On the more positive front, one would be hard pressed to find a President, including the Old Gipper himself, who was a greater friend, both in word and in deed, to the pro-life movement than the 43rd. His outstanding judicial appointees have certainly played a large role in securing that legacy, but, from a conservative point of view, this is certainly an issue for which he, personally, deserves a good deal of praise. Furthermore, as Israeli President Shimon Peres himself hinted at in a farewell phone call with Bush earlier today, there has probably never been an American President who has been a greater friend of Israel than George W. Bush - and in my book, that scores high marks.

There are other issues, of course, which I could hash out in trying to evaluate the 8 years of President George W. Bush; but continued discussion of such points will, ultimately, be of little relevance to his final legacy. This is because the final verdict issued by history on the success or failure of the 43 President of the United States will be intricately linked to the wars he started in Afghanistan and Iraq - although I suppose that, in his heart, that is exactly the way he would want it to be.

President Bush's beliefs on the power of Democracy and Freedom to improve peoples' lives and bring peace have made him, perhaps, the most openly idealistic President since Woodrow Wilson - far to much so for my tastes on many an occasion - but these beliefs have led him to begin the arduous process of creating stable democratic governments in two countries whose relative political histories are the antithesis of such ideals. It certainly remains to be seen whether these experiments - for that is what they are - will work in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I suppose even I, myself, am only cautiously optimistic about their potential success; but if 20 or so years from now Iraq and Afghanistan are stable, relatively democratic countries, history will be kinder to G.W. Bush than his recent approval ratings have been. On the other hand, if Iraq falls back into chaos (or if Afghanistan remains there), then history's ultimate verdict will most certainly be failure.

I have a firm belief that it is inappropriate to judge the worth or value of a war before it is over, so I will put this aspect of Bush's legacy to rest by simply noting that, while I, personally, agreed with the decisions to begin both wars, the jury is most definitely still out on both counts.

One part of the Bush Presidency that, on a somewhat personal level, I will always value was his re-election campaign. That's because, during those long months on the campaign trail, Dubya, while a very imperfect practitioner of them, stood up for me and my values. When there was talk of things like 'culture wars' and 'fly over country,' W stood up and said that, while many in the media might have sneered at them, those conservative values and ideals were his values and ideals, and that they were worth fighting for. He has never been, as I just mentioned, anywhere near a perfect practitioner of these values, but he wasn't ashamed of them (as John McCain sometimes seemed to be), and in fighting for them he fought for me - and I will always appreciate that.

However, more than anything, these last few years, George W. Bush has kept me safe, and for that I thank him. I know that, in the past, I have spared no opportunity to make fun of things like airport security; but the fact remains that since September 11, 2001 there have been no Islamic terror attacks on American soil. There's been a good deal of luck involved in that, as I suppose there always is, but a good deal of skill too, thanks in no small part to the tireless efforts of the good folks who work at places like the CIA and the FBI. But if, as me and many others have stated in the past, the blame for the mistakes of the past 8 years is to be laid at the feet of Dubya, then some of the credit for the successes also lies with him - afterall, he was "The Decider."

With the politics now out of the way, I'll conclude this little retrospective by noting, perhaps to my own personal surprise, that while I haven't always agreed with him on politics, I have come out of these last 8 years with an immense respect for George W. Bush as a man and as a leader. Does this mean I think he'll go down as a great President? No. But the Reagans and Churchills of this world come around all to infrequently, so I can hardly fault him for that.

And so, adieu, Mr. President - and enjoy Texas.