Exxon Mobile 2008: Profits vs Taxes

Exxon Mobile has released their 2008 Financial and Operating Review. Looking on page 16 (18 of the PDF) we find that Exxon made a profit of $45.22 billion — and paid $112.757 billion in taxes. For every dollar in profit, there was $2.49 in taxes.

Kudos to Obama

Kudos to Obama for sending the military after the pirates and then getting out of the military’s way.

And kudos to the military for getting the job done without loss  of innocent life.

Classical Liberty Liberalism vs Neo-Fascist Liberalism

Someone claimed that my post regarding Only Buddhists and Atheists was stating that all atheists are as evil as Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Mao. That certainly is an interesting misinterpretation and certainly was not my intent. My intent was to show that the vast majority of the evil of the 20th century did occur because of atheists in power. This is a fact.

The problem that non-Christians have with Christians being in political power is that some Christians want to take away some rights (e.g., abortion) and want to blur the line between church and state (e.g., Bush’s faith based charities). This is a fact. And that is why I contend that government should not be allowed the power or authority to take away rights: abortion, guns, freedom of speech, privacy (5th amendment protections), or any other right..

I will contend that my position is the classical liberal / liberty position as opposed to the, for lack of a better description, neo-fascist liberal position that wants to control what people say (college speech codes), what people eat (fatty foods), what people smoke (tobacco), and what people do (too numerous to mention).

The scary part is that the classical liberal establishment that has traditionally been there to safe guard liberty from the encroachment of government tends to turn a blind eye when those encroachments are being conducted by someone who calls themselves “liberal” (even though they clearly are from the neo-fascist side of the house).

Specifically, how much hue-and-cry was [rightly] heard when Bush had his warrantless searches? How much hue-and-cry is there when Obama does an even worse job than Bush with regards to warrantless searches?

We [rightly] heard endlessly about how Bush was trashing the U.S. Constitution. Most of those same complaints can be lodged against the current administration and even more complaints piled on (Gitmo, warantless searches, controlling wages, targeting a small subset of the population for new confiscatory taxes).

I shouldn’t have to say this, but I voted against Bush in every election that I had the opportunity to. But I’m not so blind or so stupid to believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The current crop of Democrats [sic] are not the friend of liberty. Just because it was called the German Democratic Republic doesn’t mean that it was either democratic or a republic.

So Called “Liberal” Lumps Blacks In With KKK

Interesting.  I was in an internet conversation with someone who is so full of hate that I’m seriously afraid that they’re going to pop a blood vessel.  He cut off the conversation by automatically deleting my comments (and most of my comments are “calm down” at this point).

We’re told over and over again by the media and the Democratic Party that the Republicans and Christians are the ones that are the hate mongers.  In this case, I’m sorry to say, it’s a liberal.  I haven’t seen enough of his views to tell if he is a libertarian liberal or a neo-fascist liberal.  He is pro-gay marriage — and hates Christians to the point that he can’t see straight.

It’s interesting, in a depressing sort of way, that so many people who fancy themselves “open minded” and “liberal” are so thoroughly bigoted and close minded.  They aren’t able to discuss their point of view rationally enough that their response is simply to shut down those who point out where they are wrong.

Okay, I should probably point out that the person is claiming that the people who voted for Prop 8 are the same ones that were denying civil rights to blacks.  I had the audacity to point that blacks voted for Prop 8 (53%) compared to the whites (49%).  If it had been up to the whites, it would have failed.  He is effectively lumping blacks in with the KKK — which is beyond insulting.

Barney Frank Attacks Scalia

It looks like Barney Frank is attacking Justice Anthony Scalia because Scalia has a principled view on what is and what is not within the courts power to do.

Specifically, Frank called Scalia a “homophobe” in an interview with a pro-gay web site. Turns out that Scalia doesn’t believe that it is up to the courts to decide about gay marriage, but rather it is up to the legislature or up to people to change the constitution. Please note: Scalia hasn’t taken a stance on the issue of gay marriage, only on whether the courts should decide such matters. But that doesn’t stop Barney Frank’s ad hominem attack.

By the way, since when does the federal government decide who can and who cannot get married? You will note it is not against federal law for brother and sisters to marry. It is against state law. The issue of marriage should not be a federal issue. It rightly belongs as a state issue.

Gays Attack Marriage

I admit that I didn’t buy the argument made during the campaign for California’s Proposition 8 that gay marriage was an attack on traditional marriage. That some how that gays getting the right to marry was their sinister plan to end traditional marriage. But it looks like I was wrong. Looks like the gays are trying to eliminate traditional marriage.

LifeSiteNews.com is reporting that

California same-sex “marriage” supporters are collecting signatures to support a ballot initiative that would remove civil marriage from California law entirely, as well as the provision codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

I’m willing to bet that this backfires on them. It will get those who were middle of the road, “live and let live” types to oppose the gay agenda.

Only Buddhists and Atheists

Recently I had lunch with a friend and his daughter. The daughter graduated from a top university in California and went on for a masters degree abroad. Somewhere along the way she was thoroughly indoctrinated in modern ignorance. I state this because she made the statement that Christians shouldn’t be trusted with government and that only Buddhists and Atheists should be allowed to vote.

At the time I made the comment that having a government that actually lived up to the principals of turn the other cheek, do unto others, and love thy neighbor as thyself would be quite a refreshing change.

I wish that I had followed it up by asking if she would have preferred to live under Stalin, Mao, Lenin, or Pol Pot. All outstanding atheistic leaders of the twentieth century.

Proposition States in Financial Disarray

I was listening to NPR just before the elections and the reporter was interviewing the “King of Propositions” in Washington state. The reporter commented that states that allow propositions are generally in financial disarray compared to states that don’t. Being from California, where the state is on the verge of running out of funds to continue operation, I can certainly relate to that concept. The joker from NPR then made the [probably] off the cuff remark that this was because people in proposition states constantly vote to reduce taxes. Say what?!?

Well, I finally got around to researching the California propositions that passed in the last 8 years (since 2000). Guess how many times Californians voted to reduce taxes … Zero. Nada. Not once since 2000. That said, they voted to raise taxes six times – a total of $942,600,000 annual increase in taxes.

Okay, if it’s not because they vote themselves tax cuts, what about spending increases? Since 2000, Californians have voted to increase the annual state spending commitments by $7,920,000,000 dollars. Most of that is servicing the $188,627,000,000 bond cost ($98,385,000,000 in bonds and $90,242,000,000 in interest payments).

So once again we have a complete misrepresentation of reality by NPR. They took something that could easily be researched and instead decided to overlay their own ignorant political biases on what could have been a decent investigative report.

Click the more link below for more details.

Black Hole of Ignorance

Recently my high school aged daughter and some friends were having a discussion in History. One of the kids brought up the subject of children. My daughter said:

Children are nothing but a black hole of need.

One of the ignorant morons in the group immediately said “That’s Racist!” (say what?!?)

The teacher happened by then and turned to my daughter and said “You can’t say such things.” To which my daughter replied “What should I say, ‘children are a white hole of need’?!?” The teacher then asked if she wanted to go to the principal’s office.

Okay, I can understand (but not excuse) the stupidity on the part of the student for not knowing what a black hole is. After all, the poor ignoramus was raised in public schools. But what’s the teacher’s execuse?

Democrats Looking to Seize Your 401(k)

It looks like powerful House Democrats are looking to seize people’s 401(k) retirement money.

I always had the feeling when the Roth IRA’s came out that the thieving SOBs in Washington wouldn’t be able to keep their hands off of the money that people earn. This is a complete betrayal of trust as the Democrats systematically seize money from people who had the audacity to plan, work hard, and save for their futures. And to top it off, the news media in their role as Democrat cheerleaders are going to spin the theft as a good thing.

You have to wonder if the Democrats want everyone living in cardboard boxes when they retire. Not only are they thinking of seizing our 401(k) retirement, but look at the wonderful things that the Democrats did to destroy Social Security:

• Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security promising:
  • Participation would be voluntary (yeah, right)
  • Participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual income.
  • Money put into the program would be tax deductible.
  • The money would be put into an independent “Trust Fund”.
  • The annuities would never be taxed as income.
• Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats destroyed the special “Trust Fund”, putting the monies into the general fund so that Congress could spend it.
• The Democrats destroyed the tax deduction for Social Security withholdings.
• Jimmy Carter and the Democrats started giving Social Security payments to immigrants (even if they wouldn’t have qualified due to not paying into the system), further undermining the economic foundation of the system.
• Al Gore cast the deciding vote to allow the Democrats to start taxing Social Security annuities.

If it weren’t for the pure advocacy position of “journalists” then the Democrats would be run out of office as the destroyers of Social Security and people’s private retirement plans.

The Credit Melt Down and an Honest Columnist

It looks like there is finally an honest newspaper columnist — and a Democrat to boot — regarding the credit / housing melt down. Orson Scott Card, a newspaper columnist and a Democrat lays out the history of the current economic disaster and makes it clear who is to blame — and ultimately the blame belongs with the Democrats and with Barack Obama.

The salient points that Mr. Card makes include:

• Under Clinton (1990s) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans for [Democrat] political purposes.
• The Republicans tried to tighten regulation to prevent the disaster, but the Democrats were able to block such efforts.
• Freddie and Fannie — while receiving government funds as quasi-governmental agencies — were donating big time to those who were able to funnel money their way (and Barack Obama was one of the largest recipients).
• Alan Greenspan tried to warn congress.
• Bush’s Treasury Secretary tried to warn congress.
• Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats [falsely] accused the Bush administration of causing the problem and the news media repeats the lie and damns the Republicans for objecting to the lie.

I was taught while growing up that the news media and free press were there to protect us from government tyranny. Unfortunately, the established news outlets have abdicated their role as objective reporters of the truth and have taken on the mantel of advocacy, even if they have to lie to do it.

It’s no wonder that the term journalist is a slur and they are even less respected than lawyers.

Media Credibility Issues

Ars Technica has an article entitled Despite credibility issues, online news consumption grows. Credibility issues? Like Dan Rather fabricating evidence? Hmmm. Maybe the established media, with such flagrant biases had the audience to lose rather than the online media have the audience to win.

When you listen to the established media news outlets — both television, news radio (versus talk radio), and newspapers — and pay attention, you can hear their bias though they try to claim to be impartial. Talk radio at least is honest enough to state that they have a bias.

So, no. The story isn’t “despite credibility issues, online news consumption grows”. The story is due to credibility issues, established media loses audience.

Man Beheads Fellow Passenger in Canada

When the snipper shootings were going on in the D.C. area, I was pretty sure that it was some disgruntled, 20 to 30 year old, single, white men. I was wrong. I might be this time to … but for some reason I doubt it.

It looks like a passenger in Canada stabbed and beheaded a fellow passenger. As of this writing the police aren’t releasing the name of either the victim or the criminal. I wonder why they aren’t releasing the name of the perpetrator? Could it be that it sounds too ethnic? Could it offend the religion of peace submission to announce the man’s name? By the way, which group is it that has a habit of beheading their victims? Oh that’s right, but we mustn’t say anything negative about them or they’ll turn violent on us …

Having Kids At An Early Age

Math problem: My sister and her husband effectively had three kids when they were 20. My wife and I had three kids when we were 30. Assuming that all of our descendants follow our lead, when we die at age 80, how many people will call us ancestor?

Answer: My wife and I will have 12, my sister and her husband will have 120. Ten times as many.

Now, who is better able to afford three kids – a 20 year old couple or a 30 year old couple? Unless you’re a Rockefeller, if you have three kids when you’re 20, you will live in poverty.

To add insult to injury, my genius sister went on Food Stamps – making me and mine pay for her irresponsible behavior. The geniuses at the state welfare office made it pretty clear that if her husband were to take a long hike (and not come back) she would get even more taxpayer money. Given that he is basically unemployable, I’m surprised that she didn’t take the state up on their offer.

Federal Reserve versus Europe

I heard on National Public Radio yesterday that the head of the Federal Reserve was going over to the European central bank and effectively beg them not to raise interest rates. If the Europeans raise interest rates, the American dollar will go into a free fall against the Euro and inflation will start to really take off in the United States.

So what should be done? Frankly, when the current genius at the Federal Reserve responded to the credit crunch by lowering interest rates I thought he was a bit daft. If the goal is get people to move their money away from stocks and into banks where others can borrow money to buy homes then instead of lowering interest rates, they should be raising interest rates.

If the bank is paying poor interest on passbook savings, why would anybody in their right mind leave the money in the banks?

I Can’t Drive 55: Senator Wants New National Speed Limit

It appears that a Senator John Warner (R-Virginia) thinks he knows better how to drive in the west than the people that live in the west.  The good (*cough* *cough* *choke*) senator wishes to reimpose a national speed limit.  This is the ultimate in bureaucratic idiocy.   Okay, it looks like Hillary also wants this piece of nonsense.

Someone should take him out to some desert in the west — one of those places with a long, straight ribbon of highway with no vehicles in sight for miles — and tell him that he can’t exceed 55mph.  Unfortunately, he’s probably too old and senile and wouldn’t learn anything from the experiment.

Too many of the senators — probably people in Washington as a whole — are used to either flying everywhere or having someone else chauffeur them around while they drink margaritas or play on their laptops.

There are things that the national government should decide and there are things that the states should decide.  Speed limits are clearly something that the states should decide.

Belgium Woman Raped For Not Wearing Veil

It looks like a Belgium woman was raped in the capital of Europe for not wearing a veil. Wonder how long Europe will remain even semi-free? Will burkas be required dress in America before Barack Hussein Obama leaves office?

Was this rape against the teachings of Islam? Against what the prophet did and taught? Aren’t we told — repeatedly — that Islam is the religion of peace?

Racism on National Public Radio

I was listening to the National Public Radio station out of Las Vegas tonight and they were interviewing Gustavo Arellano. Gustavo Arellano writes a column in the OC Weekly entitled Ask the Mexican. I must admit that it has been a long time since I’ve heard such a flaming racist on the air as Mr. Arellano. (No, I don’t think I can stomach Don Imus).

Mr. Arellano proudly proclaims that he calls whites “gabacho” which he (and Google) claim is a derogatory Spanish term to describe “foreigners”. He justifies his racism by claiming that people are racist to him by calling him “the Mexican” — please note of course that he calls his column Ask the Mexican. He also proudly claimed that he uses racists epithets for blacks and Asians as well.

If he had been a white espousing racism so freely, I doubt that the National Public Radio would have interviewed him in such a positive light.

Get Over It

Newsmax.com is reporting that Obama tells Hillary supporters to ‘get over it’. Caused some Hillary supporters to be offended.  Talk about hypersensitive. Here’s the quote:

“If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it.”

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words — “Get over it.” Watson said she finds them to be dismissive and off-putting.

If Diane Watson really is so worked up over what Obama said, she should retire from politics and go for binge drinking. Nobody should be that stressed out.

Movie Review: Faith of My Fathers

We rented Faith of My Fathers – a biography / infomercial for John McCain made back in 2005. The setting is the Viet Nam war starting just before McCain gets shot down and tossed into prison and concludes shortly after he is let out of prison. The credits list McCain as a technical consultant for the movie. What I walked away with from the movie is that John McCain is stubborn and stupid. Unlike his modern persona of being the “great compromiser,” the movie portrays him as one who digs in his heals even when he doesn’t have to. His temper also plays a role in the movie.

On a complete tangent, a show on public radio today (Public Radio International?) ran an interview with the camp commander from when McCain was in prison. He stated that he would vote for his “friend” McCain. He also categorically denied that the prisoners were ever tortured (the reporter indicated that this directly contradicted a number of Americans’ testimony).

Applying the Democrats’ 10 Year Investement Strategy

If we apply the Democrat’s 10 Year Rule of Energy Investment to other things (in other words if they don’t pay off within 10 years they should be eliminated), then we should:

• Eliminate any form of retirement savings — it takes longer than 10 years to save for retirement and for most people, its more than 10 years away. So, using the Democratic logic we should eliminate all savings for retirement.
• Eliminate primary and secondary education — it takes more than 10 years to educate kids and it takes a while after they graduate before they’ve paid back the investment. So, using the Democratic logic we should eliminate schools.
• Eliminate home ownership — it takes longer than 10 years to buy the house, usually there’s a 30 year mortgage which is three times longer than the Democrats think investments should be made.
• Eliminate the War on Poverty — it’s been 40 years and the poor are still with us. So, by Democratic logic we should eliminate it.
• Eliminate Social Security — okay, this is a repeat of eliminating retirement savings (ignoring of course that Social Security is not a retirement plan but a pyramid scheme).

Following the Democratic [sic] logic, what other things should be eliminated?

Democrats’ 10 Year Rule of Energy Investment

Well, the bar has been set. The Democratic [sic] leadership of congress has stated that because drilling in ANWR or in deep water won’t be productive for ten years that it shouldn’t be done. How nicely short sighted of them.

Let’s take their insane yardstick and start to apply it to other potential energy solutions. How long will it take to get wind farms to supply all of the electricity for the United States? More than ten years? Then don’t blow money investing in wind farms.

How long will it take to bring another hydroelectric dam online? More than ten years? Don’t flush money down the drain by investing in hydroelectric dams.

Depends On What Your Definition of “Work” Is …

Michelle Malkin has an a video up of Obama trying to change what the definition of “work” is … while at the same time trying to brush under the rug the fact that he’s surrounded himself with people of questionable character. So much for being an agent of change. Seems far more like business as usual.

Pakistan to Ask EU to Amend Laws on Freedom of Expression

The Daily Times is reporting

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.

the report goes on to say

They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts [cartoons] against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.

Sources said that the delegation would also hold discussions on inter-religious harmony during its meetings with the EU leaders.

So an Islamic country [Pakistan] is threatening more violence against diplomatic missions unless Europe surrenders one of the primary foundations of liberal Western thought — freedom of expression. How long before they decide to make the same threat against the U.S.? Will they wait until Barack Hussein Obama is president?

The Obamas: It Smells Like Corruption To Me

From USA Today

Officials at the University of Chicago Hospitals say a promotion and large pay increase given to Sen. Barack Obama’s wife shortly after the Democrat was elected to Congress were well-deserved boosts for an executive who is “worth her weight in gold.”

“She’s terrific,” added Michael Riordan, who was president of the hospital in March 2005, when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.

It would seem that those officials were right, after giving Michelle Obama a 159.95% pay raise Mike Dorning reports

Among the pork-barrel spending requests Barack Obama has made since arriving in the U.S. Senate is $1 million for the hospital where his wife worked at the time and $8 million for weapons technology made by a big defense contractor with close ties to a major fundraiser.

I don’t know (or care) how much she weighs, but it looks like she is worth her weight in gold.

Not For Profit Profits

Looking at the University Of Chicago Hospitals’ Statement of Operations we find that Michelle Obama’s “not for profit” hospital made $87,804,000 profit in fiscal year ending June 30, 2007. That’s on total operating revenue’s of $1,113,836,000 — a profit margin of 7.88%.

Compare this to the “for profit” ExxonMobile’s profit margin of 10.04%.

Seems like “not for profit” doesn’t mean a whole lot. If we are to assume that Exxon is “gouging” us then we should also assume that Michelle Obama’s hospital is gouging us as well.

Frankly, I don’t mind them making a profit … I do mind the hypocrisy of the Obamas. Trying to pretend to be “for the poor working stiff” while stiffing the working man. They are the same sort of corrupt Washington money grubbing politicians that we’ve grown to know and loathe.

The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds

I just finished Tammy Bruce’s The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. Ms Bruce has an interesting collection of positions and beliefs that sounds completely contradictory. She opens her book with

I am an openly gay, pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, liberal, voted-for-Reagan feminist.

She is also a past president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW (National Organization for Women).

Is she an inconsistent schizophrenic … or is society? The common theme in her positions is individual freedom coupled with individual responsibility. There is more internal consistency within Ms Bruce’s positions than there is in either the Democratic [sic] or Republican parties.

The Democrats want you to be able to smoke drugs but not tobacco; oppose censorship in schools, but ban books; support freedom of speech in flag burning and obscene art but oppose freedom of speech at colleges with speech codes. They claim your body is your own when it comes to abortion, but claim your body is the state’s when it comes to eating fast food. They oppose going to war when women are abused, treated like chattel and there’s a national interest, but advocate war when women are abused, treated like chattel, and there’s no national interest.

The Republicans on the other hand, do the exact opposite. It is almost as if both parties look to the other and choose a position that is the exact opposite. On the plus side, such a method saves one from having to think, but it does lead to ridiculous inconsistencies.

Throughout her book, Tammy Bruce exhibits a consistent philosophy, a consistent mind-set, a consistent belief in individual freedom coupled with individual responsibility. It is perhaps most unfortunate that we are so used to the contradictory schizophrenia of what passes for modern thought that we perceive a consistency of thought as a set of contradictory positions.

The New Thought Police is an easy read and an excellent exposé on how our freedom of speech – and ultimately our freedom to think for ourselves – are under active assault and have been for some time. The book also highlights how one can take action, and how to exercise one’s own freedom of speech without deliberately trampling on another’s.

Racist to Oppose Obama?

The Bookworm has an interesting post up that lists many of the reasons to vote against Obama. It’s interesting because it casts the debate in the vein that one has to admit to being a racist in order to oppose Obama.

To me, this is interesting from two different perspectives: one is Tammy Bruce’s The New Thought Police and the other is personal experience with black hypersensitivity to whatever they perceive may be a racist comment.

In The New Thought Police, Tammy Bruce discusses the eight symptoms of group-think.

4. Out-group stereotypes. “Racist!” “Sexist!” “Homophobe!” “Religious radical!” “Right-wing nut!” Need I go on? Outsiders, or “the enemy,” are stereotyped as either weak or stupid or both and unable to counter the decisions made by the group. …

So basically we’ve gotten to the point that if you don’t vote for Barack Obama, the only possible reason is that you are a racist.

From the files of “personal experience,” a few years ago I worked for a group that invited a white [which is only relevant because of what comes later] woman to join the group. She had had a nice, closed door office, but we had her move up to “cube land” with the rest of the group.

The Big 5 Oil Companies: Profits vs Taxes

In Oil Company Profits we talked about Exxon’s profits per gallon — we also brushed on the amount of taxes that Exxon pays and highlighted the fact that taxes account for a significant larger portion of what we pay at the pump than Exxon’s profits.

The Grouchy Old Cripple (warning, an R-rated site — don’t go there at work or while the kids are watching) let’s people know that Bernie Sanders is advocating additional taxes on oil companies.

The five largest oil companies in this country have made $600 billion in profits since George W. Bush became president. Do we need a windfall profits tax? You bet we do. — Bernie Sanders (Ind-VT)

Instead of researching back to 2001 when George W. Bush took office (my DSL link is painfully slow for some reason), I only researched back to 2003 for the five largest oil companies. There is a debate on which oil companies are really the largest; the ones that I used are: Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum (BP)¹, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips.

Bottom Line

The bottom line, is that from 2003 to 2007, the five biggest oil companies made 499,617 million dollars in profit. During that same period, the five biggest oil companies paid 1,343,804 million dollars in taxes. The following chart compares the big 5 oil companies profits versus the taxes they paid from 2003 to 2007.

How stupid is Obama?

Obama claims that he’s been in 57 states while campaigning for president. Huh? Just how stupid is this guy? When someone set up Dan Quayle to look like an idiot (by giving him a card with “potatoe” misspelled), the press was all over him for being a complete moron. Barack, on his own, makes such an incredible gaff and we give it a pass?

Okay, worse than not knowing how many states are in the union, the guy doesn’t even know that lowering capital gains taxes increases capital gains tax revenue (due to the change in human behavior caused by the change in taxes). When it’s pointed out to him, he decides he just wants to punish people. Hello? Why are we hailing a sadist that just wants to torment people — at the expense of tax revenue no less — as the greatest hope of mankind?

I’m [sadly] reminded of a one liner delivered by Doc Brown in Back to the Future: “No wonder your president has to be an actor, he’s gotta look good on television.” We as a people no longer vote for issues, but on who is the best speaker. We let the media dictate what we think and what we believe.

One of the women that I know stated that she voted against Reagan because “Nancy was just so ugly.” What?!? Not only was this woman so shallow that she voted against the man because of how he looked, but because of how his wife looked?!? I almost asked her if she voted against John Kerry because his wife is a permanent Halloween costume. (No, she didn’t — she is a Democrat … and they say Republicans are mean spirited and shallow?)

Look, I’m no fan of John McCain. I don’t think he’s the sharpest knife in the drawer. But Barack is a real idiot.

Gay Marriage

It looks like my state (California) is about to get gay marriages. There has been way more than enough written about gay marriages that is complete non-sense and emotional drivel on both sides of the issue. The only article that I’ve read that had any intelligence to it was Thomas Sowell’s ‘Notion of gay marriage’ is product of sloppy thinking which attempts to look at the historical reasons for the state to recognize marriage.

In short, Sowell’s arguments are:

• The state has a vested interest in protecting children that may result from a heterosexual marriage. Gay marriages would not result in children.
• Women bear the children, laws should force equal responsibility for the child.
• Time effects on men and women are different — after raising the kids, the man can run off with a trophy wife. The laws help protect the woman’s investment in the marriage.

And of course none of these reasons for marriage apply when both people are the same gender.

Like I said, Sowell has the only article that I’ve read that wasn’t just a bunch of emotional drivel.