Candidate says he will cut taxes for largest voting bloc

Although claiming to be all about change, presumed Democratic candidate for president, Barack Obama is promising to cut taxes for American's single largest voting bloc: the middle class. I genned up a spreadsheet with all the promised middle class tax cuts made by successful presidential candidates during my life time and discovered that if they all had been actually enacted, the government would send each member of the middle class about $1742 at the end of each year.

Apparently middle class tax cuts aren't all that they're cracked up to be.

•••

California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger is unusually quiet about the sudden doubling of gasoline prices. And this time it's not because he is so gawd-awful rich that he hasn't noticed. This doubling of gas prices is really helping the state budget crunch. You see, Californians pay state sales tax on gasoline. State coffers are pulling in about twice the revenue they did a year ago off gas sales.

Oil speculators have done to Californians what politicians were to chicken to do: raise everyone's taxes. You won't hear anyone in Sacramento complain.

•••

Even though Senator McCain has finally seen the wisdom in drilling for offshore oil, he hasn't yet come around in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So if being held hostage to OPEC and market speculators isn't enough, I have one more reason to go full steam ahead that no one can argue with, and I'll sum it up in two words: reality TV.

Let's face it, Ice Road Truckers is OK, and so is Blackgold. But Ice Road Truckers meets Blackgold with caribou thundering across the small screen would be incredible!

Sure, the environmentalists make the point that even with ANWR, we're still a third-rate oil producing nation, but with "Ice Road Blackgold Truckers" I think we could assure our number one position in the world of reality TV for years to come. I can even envision a certain "Man Vs Wild" element to the production.

Come on! You know I'm on to something here. Please sit down today and write a letter to your representative, senator, and cable TV programmer, urging them to open ANWR to oil exploration.

I thank you. The nation thanks you.

Supercomputing and Heavy Breathing

It looks like archeologists in Jordan have found the oldest church in the world. They know it was used in the third century AD and believe that earlier it was used by 70 disciples immediately following the death and resurrection of Jesus. Pretty fantastic.

But what I want to point out is how our best, most powerful computers, coupled with the brightest programmers in the world are dumber than your average fifth grader.

You may have noticed how the words in some online news stories become links and if you follow the link you get more information about that word. If you were reading a story on the Taliban, for example, the word "Taliban" might be a link and if you were to click on it you would get to an encyclopedia, dictionary, or some other online information.

Check out what this advanced software did with the word "dating" as in the phrase "dating back 2,000 years."

Maybe it's a homage to that classic Mel Brooks character...

•••

My wife and I quit our jobs and are moving out of California. We are, of course, now madly looking for new jobs. At the same time, however, I’ve been thinking of business ideas. Finally I’ve come up with a good one, and all it takes to get my foot in the door is a smallish piece of cardboard and a felt tip marker.

If the next time you exit the freeway and pass a fairly well-groomed guy standing at the end of the off ramp with a sign that reads, “Will Hold Breath for $$,” that’s me.

I’ve decided to go into the home-based carbon offset business.

The average person takes about 20 breaths a minute. I won’t bore you with the math, but that means you generate a half a ton of CO2 each year. The way I look at it, you are global warming! You probably killed a polar bear or two yesterday and didn’t even know it.

I’m here to unburden you from all that guilt. For a very nominal fee, I will hold my breath on a per-miunte basis, cutting my respiration rate in half (Paypal accepted). If you’re feeling really guilty, I’ll have my wife and two sons hold their breath for you too. This home-based business if family owned and operated.

Further, if you want to engage in an activity that might result in a certain amount of heavy breathing, that puts your carbon footprint off the chart! But not to worry, for a modest fee I’ll hold my breath in such a way as to slow my respiration down by half to offset your increased CO2 production. And if you really want to go on a jag, I’ll nap a good portion of the afternoon. Just let me know (Paypal accepted).

And the beauty of my solution is that it is all market-based! McCain, are you listening?

Practicing my free throws to help the Lakers

The Senate was unable to pass its "climate" bill. Excuse me while I exhale a CO2 laden sigh of relief and say a prayer of thanks for having a "do-nothing" Congress.

The bill seemed to wend its way through the Senate on the idea that doing "anything" was better than doing "nothing" even though there are plenty of climate scientists who say that man's contribution to the warming trend is so insignificant that even if we do the "most" we can do the effect would probably be outside of our ability to measure. It would be like thinking my free throw practice at the schoolyard down the road would somehow help the Lakers win the NBA title. It's better than doing nothing at all, right!?

Let's examine the language in the Washington Post article by Juliet Eilperin that appeared in my local paper:

The outcome highlighted the obstacles that will stand in the way of enacting meaningful cuts in greenhouses gases, even with a new president and Congress next year.

First, were these cuts "meaningful"? Eilperin seems to think so, yet in the next paragraph she writes:

The Lieberman-Warner bill would have cut greenhouse gas emissions 18 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and nearly 70 percent by mid-century, a significant reduction but still short of what most climate scientists say is needed to moderate global warming.

Can we talk? Does anyone really believe that a small group of people in Washington, D.C. can write this on a piece of paper and make it happen? With people flooding across our border with Mexico, our population growing at a quick pace, and no new nuclear power plants springing up, there is no way that in "real terms" this nation can cut its CO2 emissions below 2005 levels. And why 2005? In case the honorable senators haven't checked, it's 2008 already!

Take note of the phrase "most climate scientists say...." Really? Does she actually know this? I don't think so. This is one of those "big lies" the corporate media has mindlessly repeated so often it has achieved an urban myth status on par with the Neiman Marcus chocolate chip cookie story.

For a few days about three months ago, I thought it was only a matter of a year or two before the press would begin to sort out the true truth of man's role in "global warming." I'm less convinced now.

However, all is not lost. I am writing a personal "bill" that will require me to get to 18 percent of my former level of confidence by Novemember and achieve 70 percent of my former confidence by next summer.

I hope to pass this bill by 2010.

I Now Pronounce You Husband and Husband?

Same sex couples around the late-great state of California are burning up the phone lines to their wedding planners at the same time as the type is being set on the ballot measure that would prohibit gay marriage. It's an emotional issue where adherents of "traditional values" and proponents of the "sexual (r)evolution" speak at cross purposes.

So let's calm down for just a moment and look at the issue. The first area to explore is the state's rightful place or interest in the institution of marriage. Everyone seems to think that marriage is some glorious union of two loving individuals, and ideally that may be part of what it is, or at least what it has become. But if we accept that romantic view of marriage, what business does the government have in it? I think we would all agree that the government cannot judge how "loving" any couple is. Should the state find some way of testing the love between individuals as it tests knowledge of the vehicle code before it issues driving licenses?

The only legitimate reason the state should be concerned about the institution of marriage is if there is a societal issue at stake that warrants its involvement. The state gets involved in issuing drivers licenses because public safety is at stake. As a driver, I need to be reasonably assured that we all agree on what our behavior behind the wheel will be when we come to red lights. The government doesn't need to issue licenses to operate the remote controls of our television sets. Whether or not I know how to properly use the "MTS/SAP" button on my remote control is of no consequence to society.

With this principle in mind, what is at stake in society to give the government grounds to define and regulate marriage? First and foremost is the continuation of the society itself. The population of any state needs to reproduce itself to survive. This may seem trivial, but it isn't. Currently there are many western nations where the birthrate is below the "replacement" level. Russia is encouraging its youth to have babies. To maintain its place in the world, a country needs a stable population.

Nature has provided the way for society to maintain its population. A man and a woman engage in intercourse. This often results in children. Thousands of years of human history, common sense, and research tell us that the best way to rear these children is through the cooperative efforts of the parents. The government then has a rightful interest in whether or not these procreating couples stay together. When they break apart, the consequences to society are enormous. Therefore, the civil contract we call "marriage" serves to protect all of us. I don't think the government cares one whit about honoring or celebrating the supposed love between the married people.

We also know that by nature the man is more prone to abandon the union, and that, again by nature, the woman is more prone to be left caring for the child. The marriage contract serves to protect the woman who is at something of a "natural" disadvantage with regards to the family situation.

This is where government's "natural" and "rightful" interests end. Any taxation or financial issues do not matter as they only deal with situations the government itself has created. Let's use "inheritance" as an example. Currently in the United States, a spouse gets a bigger break when it comes to estate taxes than a non-family member. But that's only because the government decided to confiscate dead people's property in the first place. Eliminate the estate tax and any fiscal imbalance between married versus non-married individuals disappears. So this is not a "definition or marriage" issue, it's a tax policy issue.

After listening to this debate for some time now, I find it ironic that what the homosexual couples seem to truly desire is to command the same respect, honor, and esteem as married heterosexual couples, which is exactly what the government cannot give them. It is our religious institutions that give couples—through the marriage ceremony—this high level of regard, but I suspect religion plays a rather minor role in the lives of most gay couples.

Scientists as Liars

We have another Mars probe on the Red Planet and again "scientists" expose their completely unscientific bias and, if you think about it for a moment, their unbridled willingness to spend taxpayers money to pursue their childhood fantasies. This video captures it. Also note in this video that in every "artist's conception" there is snow and ice laying on the surface of the planet. They know this isn't the case, but the NASA artists can't keep their fantasies out of their work and their bosses apparently don't care about the truth enough to make them properly render their artwork.



Ray Arvidson says there are two possible explanations for what they are seeing. It could be either rock or ice. Arvidson contines, "We are pushing for ice." We are supposed to believe that scientists go into their research with open minds. Not so. Arvidson knows what he wants to find. I am thankful he was honest enough to say it publicly. I have no idea whether what they are seeing is rock or ice. I'll wait until the data are in.

Evolutionary materialistic scientists always accuse creationists of distorting the data to fit their theories, I suggest they are equally, if not more, guilty. I can't count the number of stories that talk about water and carbon compounds being the "building blocks of life." This shows a complete misunderstanding of what "life" is. Someday I'll be dead and gone from this temporal world. The lump of chemical compounds I leave behind are in no way the "building blocks of life."

Life is intangible. It's a creative force that animates and empowers reproduction. Calling the chemicals which are animated by this power the "building blocks of life" is like calling a truckload of spools of copper wire "the building blocks of electricity." Bricks are the "building blocks" of houses because when you put them together they actually "build" a house. Not so with the carbon compounds and amino acids that our bodies are made from.

I am a great believer in "pure" scientific research. But how much money should we let our government spend flying probes around the universe trying to find these phony "building blocks of life." If they find the chemicals they are looking for, so what? How many billions is it worth to you? Now, if they go to Mars looking for a new source of crude oil, I'm all for it.

•••

In case you need any more proof the US is going the way of the Roman Empire, consider the rise of spectacles such as ultimate fighting, American Gladiator and now, mixed martial arts. MMA made its primetime network debut on CBS recently. This sort of public barbarity is always a sign of decline. See for yourself.