The 1%, by Josh Marenco

I've noticed a lot of "I am the 99%/1%/sqrt(x*.42)%" posts on Facebook, mainly by people who've run on hard times and blame this group or that company or that politician for their woes. An Army buddy of mine who I was deployed to Iraq with, who is now currently fighting the fight in Afghanistan, posted this the other day. I liked it, so with his permission, here it is in its entirety:

I am a college graduate. I don't have a house or apartment right now. I have around 37k of student loan debt. I deployed to Iraq 4 years ago to pay for it. I am currently in Afghanistan paying some more of it off. Even on my downtime, I'm always on call, 24/7. When you factor in the hours I work I make less than minimum wage, and I've already been promoted 3 times. I carpoo...l with my colleagues to work dodging bombs in the road. I try to help people only to get shot at and rocketed on the drive back home. My job has me moving up and down mountains carrying a minimum of 100lbs of extra gear, and my load is light compared to some of my friends. I can feel my shoulders, lower back, and knees lose years of their use every passing day. I'm only 25 years old but I feel like I'm 40. My health care plan believes drinking water cures most ailments. My meals on the job are rations most people in the Third World don't want to eat. Whether I get enough sleep or feel good doesn't matter to my employer or job, because whether I give 100% or only a mere 99.99% of possible max effort could mean the difference between life or death.

I've had to say goodbye too soon, and too suddenly to some of the best people I, and probably you, could ever meet. There was little time to mourn their loss because the job still needs to get done. My friends and I have only tattoos, Velcro tabs on our kits, or Sharpie scrawlings inside of patrol caps as tribute to our fallen friends. This is while people back stateside who are famous for snorting coke and playing make-believe get tributes in the news and People magazine as if the Pope, Mother Teresa, and Ghandi drove off of a cliff.

But guess what? Never missed a day of work, because my friends count on me to be in the right place at the right time. I don't bitch about my job (too much), and laugh away my circumstances, because I'm surrounded by people in the same boat as me, and the only thing more unbearable then the aforementioned is an obnoxious whiner.

Is it easy? Not exactly. Am I slightly jaded now? A shade or two. Do I want a better lease on life? That sounds amazing right now. Whose fault is all of this? Me, Myself, and I, because I'm the one who signed the dotted line without anyone pointing a gun to my head telling me to do it, and unlike you I've learned to accept responsibility for my actions and accept the outcome, something you clearly haven't learned how to do. If I dick around on the job, say "Screw this, I'm not gonna do the right thing today", forget something or even just make an honest mistake, I might be going home in pieces. But guess what? That's just life, man.

So you can't pay off your student loans? Tough shit. You're getting evicted from a house you can't afford? Sucks to be you, nerd. You can't afford groceries? Yes you can, it's called store brand oatmeal and canned tuna. What's that? Your worried about your health care and your health sucks? Put down the beer and fast food and walk for a block or two. Oh no, you're and overqualified, ultra talented megastar in your job, but you lost it and can't find another one? Sorry guy, sorry you don't live in Mr. Roger's neighborhood anymore and no one's around to tell you that you're special. I graduated from a private college with a 3.56 GPA and my professors told me the world would be my oyster, yet here I am, having to ask permission to take a piss, and sleeping where people and animals shit during my business trips. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up, sweet heart.

Of course, there's a relatively simple solution to that. The US Military is always hiring. If you're lucky, you may get a job that requires comparatively little physical effort and little chance of seeing actual combat. Pretty kick-ass deal, right? Oh yeah, that's right, you're too good to do that. That's only for losers like me. Or it goes against your ideals and everything you believe in. Really? Where have you been in life so that now you have the answers to everything and anything? Oh, you studied abroad, smoked dope and drank Absinthe in Europe for a semester. You really do have the crystal ball with all the answers. Sorry, my bad.

So you want to take back what's owed to you? I've learned your next breath isn't even owed to you. You want to take what isn't yours but you think you should have? Where I come from that'll earn you an ass-beating. You're sick and tired of this screwed up country that you've put no effort into improving? Pretty sure no one would miss you if you left, so what are you waiting for?

I'm the real 1%, and I hope each and every one of you gets struck by a SL500-driving-Armani-suit-wearing-corrupt-corporate-executive-shaped comet on the way to Wall Street.

Well said, Hillary.

Global Warming: A lesson in correlation vs. causation

On October 21 of this year a man by the name of Richard Muller published an Op-Ed in the WSJ to publicize his findings on global warming. He starts this article by laying out reasons that skeptics up to this point have been completely justified in skepticism of the global warming data. After he has proven himself to be sufficiently fair and just in his reasoning, he then states that it's not ok to be a skeptic anymore, because now he isn't one. Basically, he used to be a skeptic, then he tried some science out, and now he's not.

(Pictured: Muller trying science)

The science he tried, a 2 year study based out of the Marxist Recruiting Center known as Berkeley, shows that temperatures have in fact been rising for the past century or so. His data shows correlation between rises in CO2 and rises in temperature.

Our work covers only land temperature—not the oceans—but that's where warming appears to be the greatest.

We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC's average of 0.64ºC.

Naturally, since this is the case, catastrophic measures to bring down CO2 levels worldwide are now authorized, up to and including exterminating industrialists with extreme prejudice.

There is just one small catch: Correlation does not in fact equal causation.

As it is pointed out by Ed Morrissey from Hotair.com:

AGW skepticism doesn’t rest on the notion that global temperatures aren’t rising, but that the AGW crowd has yet to show causation between CO2 release and actual warming...Correlation only shows that two trends parallel each other; if one isn’t the cause of the other, then “solutions” designed to change one trend won’t impact the other anyway — and it will waste time, money, and perhaps lives while the perceived problem continues unabated.

Even more concerning is the fact that the correlation itself isn't as clear cut as we would be led to believe.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis...Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained."

The graph that Muller published (because as we all know data is not official unless you have a brightly colored picture with which to communicate to the unwashed savages) shows a generally upwards trend since 1950 or so. This same graph then takes a sharp turn upwards into the sky after 1975, ending around the turn of the century with an exponential increase that is sure to consume the world in a ball of fire any day now. If you take their own data and follow it further, which The Daily Mail was kind enough to do...

Huh. This unwashed savage perceives no rise in global temperatures at all during the last decade, and this done using Muller's own published data. Also, Ed points out:

A closer reading of the top chart shows that, relative to the 1950-1980 average baseline BEST uses, temperatures didn’t actually warm at all until sometime during the Great Depression, so the entire first century of the Industrial Era apparently had no impact — in a period where the dirtiest of mass energy production processes was in widest use (coal). Temperatures then started to slowly rise during an era of significantly reduced industrial output, thanks to a lengthy economic depression that gripped the entire world. What we end up with is a 30-year spike that also includes a few years of reduced industrial output, starting in the stagnating 1970s where oil production also got restricted thanks to onerous government policies and trade wars.

In climate terms, a 30-year spike is as significant as a surprisingly warm afternoon in late October. Man, I wish we were going to have one of those today.

But then look what happens in the past 11 years in the bottom chart. Despite the fact that the world’s nations continue to spew CO2 with no significant decline (except perhaps in the Great Recession period of 2008-9), the temperature record is remarkably stable. In fact, it looks similar to the period between 1945 and 1970 on the top chart. If global temperature increases really correlated directly to CO2 emissions, we wouldn’t see this at all; we’d see ever-escalating rates of increase in global temperatures, which is exactly what the AGW climate models predicted at the turn of the century. They were proven wrong.

Prof Curry says that her colleagues are now forced to address the impact of other things on the climate, such as clouds, and you know, the SUN, little stuff like that. Of course, the idea that CO2 levels could be less important to temperature than the massive ball of hydrogen that gives off the energy that heats our little planet to something slightly above a ball of ice is something of an outlier. Still, gotta explore all the options, right?

Of course, nobody has even proven that rising temperatures are bad. There was a time when they used to grow crops in Greenland. Not much grows there now, on account of there being a glacier. Could be the planet used to be a lot warmer and this did not immediately result in every living creature spontaneously bursting into flames. I guess it might have, I mean I wasn't there, but I'd like to think we'd have found proof of that along the way somewhere.

Muller, naturally, fired back at his critics. He states strongly that while his own data shows no important increase in the last 13 years, this is might not be "statistically significant"...Of course, he added it was just as likely that it was significant. Then, you know, that might be important...and stuff...

Thanks for clearing that up, friend.

Finally: Obama produces long form birth certificate

The Whitehouse released Obama's for realsies birth certificate on Wednesday. The results: Barrack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, at the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 PM.



Naturally you may be asking yourself: Why wait? Why let the doubt go on for two years if he had the birth certificate all along?

Simple: It allowed plenty of time for the "Birthers" to work themselves into a frenzy, gave the Left time to paint all the opposition as such, and then gave the Magic O a chance to get in front of the Press and make his opponents look like idiots.

All in all, about as unpredictable as the end of a Scooby Doo episode. The only real question is why now, as opposed to right before the elections, for instance, or after the Republican primaries.

Of course, hard core belief in Obama being non-eligible for the Presidency due to his birth always required some suspension of disbelief. With the literally millions of dollars spent on elections and the dozens of very powerful people with their junk on the line, you would think this paper equivalent of a Disintegrate spell cast by a level 20 wizard (40d6 damage, because I know you're going to look it up if I don't tell you) would have come to the surface long before now if there was any true substance behind it. It is unlikely they'll let a little thing like proof get in their way.

Cue the thousands of youtube sleuths who will conclusively prove (without ever actually handling any kind of document) that this birth certificate is false, was actually created on Neptune, and shows irrefutably that Obama is in fact a dirty Muslim-pirate-cyborg.

Morals and the Implied Task

The military is fond of implied tasks. As a Joe, I've had this phrase spoken to me on numerous occasions. Usually, it's in the tones of talking to a particularly slow toddler. For instance, when I claim I could not mop the floor because the mops were frozen, the "Implied Task" is to run water over the mops till they thaw you effing moron.

Keep that in mind when you read this article, an excellent (and very brief) piece by a lawyer and OIF vet about war crimes.

"Every single Taliban wearing the civilian clothes of the surrounding villagers is committing a war crime. Every single Hamas fighter who launches his rockets at an Israeli town from a school courtyard commits a war crime. Every single al Qaeda suicide bombing of a hospital, restaurant, or even military checkpoint is a war crime.

These war crimes are designed not merely to make it easier for terrorists to engage American soldiers (whom they could never defeat in open combat); they are also deliberately chosen to inflate civilian casualties....So what possible moral justification exists for incentivizing these illegal acts by bestowing on captured terrorists the privilege of the full and comprehensive due process protections of a civilian trial? A prisoner of war captured in uniform would not enjoy such protections. Does the Left not understand that imposing such burdens on our justice system leads not to respect from our enemies but to contempt and exploitation?

Further, does the Left not understand that civilian trials (together with the consequent evidentiary requirements) would require our soldiers to act, essentially, as detectives in the middle of a shooting war?"

Funny thing about war. People tend to shoot at you during it, which makes the conducting of a forensic investigation a bit difficult.

Part of what's puzzling to me about the entire affair is why there is even an argument to begin with. Those who have never, will never, and could never face a real battlefield should hesitate before making value judgements about the morality of those who do. War is an ugly thing, and it makes necessary ugly actions.

So, what does this all mean to the Joe? When he's told that if he takes a prisoner, that prisoner will likely become a media circus show in the States? That he has to risk life and limb to gather enough evidence to convict if he wants the prisoner to be put away and prevent the enemy from being released by the Enemy At His Six to again become the Enemy At His Twelve?

What is the Implied Task?

Simple. Don't take prisoners.

Problem solved.

Ah, the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

Down, but not out

To both my loyal readers: You may have noticed a severely lowered output on this blog. By severely lowered, I mean practically non-existent. I have not died, or converted to an obscure Eastern religion that forbids political thought. Instead, I'm preparing for the possibility that my third job, the one that I have to wear the fancy uniform for, may be sending me on an extended vacation in the near future.

Until this is settled, I likely will continue not to speak much in this public forum...Maybe for a long time.

Fears of Japanese nuclear radiation slightly silly

There's a nuclear reactor in Japan that is melting down. It is going to explode and the cloud of radioactive death ninjas will spew forth, slaying everything in their path. Those on the West Coast of the US should lock their doors, ensure that their houses are marked with the blood of a lamb, and maintain a strict diet of iodine pills in order to ensure they don't instantly sprout a third arm. (Illegal immigrants are exempt from the last one. Three arms means that many more hands for picking vegetables!)

At least, that's the picture it seems some people are drawing. With Geiger counters selling out in Paris and iodine pills running for $15 a pop in Vermont, it's clear that a great many people worldwide are deathly afraid of the effects of their exposure to the Japanese based radiation. Is it really so dangerous?

Probably not. Please direct your attention to this pretty chart put together by XKCD creator, Randall Munroe.

The basic message is this. Fukishima is dangerous inside and immediately surrounding the plant. Once you leave the immediate area (which has long since been evacuated), the threat of radiation drops to something almost non-existent. A single mammogram dwarfs the daily extra dose given by being nearby. Fun fact: The amount of extra radiation witnessed in your average near-Fukishima town is roughly equal to that gained by eating 35 bananas.

Better watch out for that grocery aisle.

Of course this disaster is not exactly a good thing. But Chernobyl it is not. Lest we forget this plant was hit with the largest earthquake in Japan's history, then with a massive tsunami, both of which could not possibly be predicted...yet glowing Japanese citizens did not ensue.

President Obama gets kudos for me for sticking by his plan, announced in February, to expand nuclear power in the US when it would have been all too easy for him to use the Fukishima incident to run and hide behind a windmill somewhere...probably in the dark, since the lights would be wind powered. This decision contrasts somewhat with his striking of the Yucca Mountain dump site early on in his Presidency. Still, a rational decision I approve of wholeheartedly (The nuclear part, not the let's drop 20 years of work on a safe storage solution for nuclear waste part).

I mean, France gets 80% of their power from nuclear energy. Since when do we let the French beat us in anything?

Obama to Libyan Rebels: Hey, good luck with that!

The good news: The UN has finally decided to take decisive action involving Libya! They are now engaged in talking about maybe implementing a no-fly zone.

The bad news: The UN got involved at all.

A few weeks after the initial uprising in Libya which were followed by rapid gains, Qadaffi has all but won back control of his nation. Through the enlightened strategies of firing upon his own people, calling air strikes against protesters, and executing peaceful protesters he has nearly restored his benevolent dictatorship to pre-revolution conditions.

There is but one stronghold left, a town by the name of Benghazi. It is packed with fearful rebels who vow to fight to the death, but the situation is grim. The easy progress Qaddafi's well funded troops have made proves yet again that air superiority is often all that is required for victory.

The United Nations could possibly approve a no-fly zone, though it means that both Russia and China would have to at least abstain from the vote. Unfortunately, it is far too late for that to be helpful. Simply ordering a few air strikes to punch holes in runways and force any planes out of the sky will do little for the beleaguered rebels now. Perhaps even more tragically, it could very well have been a guarantee of victory had it occurred only a few weeks ago when the opposition forces were advancing on Tripoli and Qaddafi was on the ropes.

Morale is very important in any battle, and the knowledge that foreign nations such as the US back your enemies could very well have been enough to cause another round of defections. Very few people wish to be on the receiving end of that kind of stick.

As it is, the Libyan people now see first hand that for all the US governments posturing about supporting democracy, they will get no aid when it comes to overthrowing their dictators.

I will be the first to say that we cannot be the World Police. Not every dictator deserves our attention, and we do not have the ability nor authority to remove every person who oppresses his people.

But, when the people of a nation are already in active revolt against a brutal, anti-American dictator and are actively appealing for our help, should we not also weigh the valuable thanks that would result from us tipping the scales in freedom's favor? When other Arab nations saw a dictator toppled by his own people, it could very well have acted as a catalyst for change across a region that has troubled us here and abroad.

As it is, this entire debacle shows that the best way for a dictator to remain in power is to slay all those who oppose him because he can do so without fearing any reprisal from the West. It also shows that the opinion of the White House (e.g. Obama's declarations and calls for Qaddafi to step down, the comments about a "tightening noose") carries no weight behind it. Finally, it shows the people of the Middle East and beyond that if they want freedom, they better be prepared to die, because there isn't any cavalry on the horizon.

Wisconsin Senators pass Collective Bargaining bill 18-1

In case you haven't been following this story in the news, here's the recap:

Wisconsin is facing a severe budget crisis. As part of their budget repair bill the Republicans in the Senate there included provisions that would hamstring unions in Wisconsin in order to save the state cash. These provisions included things like making union dues voluntary, forcing regular votes by members to keep unions operational, severely cut back their options on collective bargaining, etc.

The Republicans have enough votes to pass said bill over the Democratic Senators' objections. Their solution was to literally flee the state and refusing to return until their demands were met. This denied the majority Republicans the quorum necessary to have a vote. They literally took their ball and went home...well...fled home. They left, anyway.

For the last two months the negotiations raged, and protesters flocked to the capitol. Last night, however, the Republicans decided that the talks were going nowhere. So, they stripped all the financial portions away from the bill. Wisconsin law requires a quorum only for fiscal bills, and since this bill no longer had any fiscal, it no longer required the Democrat's input. It passed. The bill removes collective bargaining power from the public unions and also allows them to be fired if they strike during a state of emergency.

Detractors, such as our good friend Michael Moore, say this is an assault on the working class. In a bit of delicious irony, a common chant among protesters was "This is not democracy", which begs the question: What do you call it when representatives simply choose not to vote?

One wonders what the response would be next election cycle if the situation were reversed. Let us say that the Democrats are in charge and they propose a bill on gay marriage. If the minority Republicans fled the capitol to avoid the vote and stop the bill, I am absolutely convinced that the Left would call for their immediate execution remain consistent and praise their noble acts in defense of their closely held values.

News Flash: Michael Moore, still a moron.

Michael Moore once again surfaced today to show what a deep respect he has for the rights of all people*, everywhere.

* - Note: Those with money aren't real people, and as such don't have rights like the ability to own property.

More GRITtv

This video is full of lovely gems of wisdom but here's the best one (Right around the 6 minute mark), which follows a question about the solution to Wisconsin's budget problem:

"To me the solution is quite simple. First of all, we are not broke. This country is not broke. State of Wisconsin is not broke. There's a ton of cash in this country...but it's a finite amount. There is only so much cash. What's happened is we've allowed a vast majority of this cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people...

They're sitting on the money, they're using it for their own -- they're putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We've allowed them to take that. That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this -- we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it...

I think we need to go back to taxing these people at the proper rates. They need to -- we need to see these jobs as something we some, that we collectively own as Americans and you can't just steal our jobs and take them someplace else."

Those mean, dirty Rich people! How dare they have their money and spend it the way they wish! How dare they not give the money to the government who knows how to spend it better anyway?

Side note, completely and absolutely unrelated Michael Moore's net worth: $25 million USD.

To begin with, the idea that the Rich aren't taxed enough is absurd. From The American:

"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."

Second, economies are cyclical. That means that no matter how well run a business is, or how booming an economy, it will eventually have some sort of downturn. Provided that there is not a restrictive environment or some other outside influence, the natural greed of people will drive them to work through, find solutions, so that they can earn more money. It boils down to a simple principle, elucidated by Henry Ford:

"There is one rule for industrialists and that is: make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.

If I had a chicken that laid golden eggs, I would naturally wish to retain this chicken. If said chicken laid better eggs if I fed it higher quality feed, I would naturally wish to do this. Not out of any altruism or gratitude towards the chicken, but rather because I wished to have larger hunks of egg shaped gold. Greed motivates success for everyone involved.

Lastly, to have the supposed virtues of the poor working class extolled, and those of the rich vilified, by a man who is himself fabulously wealthy is a delicious irony. Let me be clear: I do not care how much Michael Moore is worth. If he can make a bajillion dollars by producing a product that some people, for reasons that I cannot understand, want to pay for then fantastic! More power to him. That money is his to spend as he likes, and if he believes the government can do such a great job with it I am positive the IRS takes donations.

Unfortunately, I also support the right of the other wealthy Americans to spend the money they have earned however they see fit. There is this strange belief that circulates at times that purports that because the Rich have so much money, they cannot have earned it, and even if they did, they have less right to it because they have so much. In Moore's terms, it's a "National Resource".

Let's analyze the condensed version of Moore's position:

The Rich are not choosing to spend their money in a way that benefits other people. Therefore, the government should take their money from them and spend it for the Public's benefit.

First, remember we are all citizens and hypothetically equal under the law. This is guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment, which is pulled out of its dusty shelf by liberals whenever they wish to tout gay rights, among other things. What applies to one applies to all.

Second, the status of your citizenship does not hinge on the money you make. There are no "Upper Class" citizens in the eyes of the law.

Third, while the government has used its power of taxation in a graduated fashion which discriminates based on total wealth, these levels are not fixed. In other words, the definition of "Rich" is fluid.

This means that if we accept the principle behind Moore's statement, namely that the government has the positive right to dictate how people spend their own money and utilize their own property if it's not benefiting other people enough, then Moore's statement truly becomes this:

American Citizens are not choosing to spend their money in a way that benefits other people. Therefore, the government should take their money from them and spend it for the Public's benefit.

Beware, ye would be class warriors. The chains you give to the government to bring down the mighty above you today will be the same that bind you into servitude tomorrow.

Now that nobody is looking...

It's time for me to start posting again! In true Capitalist fashion, I've responded to my increased expenses and debt burden by printing off unlimited amounts of money and running massive defecit!

Oh wait, that's the government's response.

I've responded by getting a third job and working enough hours to kill an elephant. I only have to do this for...Oh...the foreseeable future in order to scrape my way out of the hole. No big deal.

Anyhow, much of my mental faculties are geared towards not going insane and trying to salvage some vestige of a social life. What's left over I'll try to keep giving to the blog so the ten of you that read this stuff can remain entertained. What can I say, I'm a giving person.

The State of the Union is Strong!...ish...

It's that time of the year again. The time when every President since Washington (With the exception of every president between Jefferson and Wilson in 1913) gets up and delivers a speech before Congress on the State of the Union. I, like dozens of my fellow Americans, went out of my way to watch the entire affair on TV. Here's the transcript if you missed it, or want to read along. A quick youtube search would find you the entire speech.

There were some things that came as no surprise. John Boehner burst into tears immediately and continued wet eyed through the entire presentation, which really goes a long way in showing the image of strength and determination we need to be presenting to our enemies. Obama, flanked by his two ever-present bodyguards/teleprompters, claimed that "The State of the Union is Strong!" to massive applause. There were non-political attendees, most notably MoH recipient SSG Giunta, easily the most badass American in the room...or the state...Likely on the East coast.

Other things broke with tradition. Republicans and Democrats sat intermingled in a pathetic display of mindless false cooperation heartwarming gesture of solidarity.

Overall, the speech was exactly what you'd expect on the campaign trail. A massive load of lofty ideals and empty generalities, with very little actual plan or substance.

For instance, he says we need to strengthen social security for the future...then says that we can't lower benefits, doesn't mention the retirement age, and forbids privatization...so basically the plan is to keep on exactly the way we are and hope for the best. What could go wrong?

The speech also made for an excellent game of "Finish that phrase!"

Obama: "...to help our companies compete, we also have to knock down barriers that stand in the way of their success." We should do this by...

If you said close loopholes so businesses have to pay more taxes, you're right! At least he also says we should use these "savings" (read: Higher tax receipts) to allow for a lowering of the corporate income tax rates.

Obama: "And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot..."

Cannot...raise taxes on job creaters? Create an environment of uncertainty that will harm tax receipts of the future? Continue to spend outside of our Constitutional responsibilities? Not so much.

"...afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools, or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break.

It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success."

That's right, you dirty millionaires. How come you get to keep all your money, huh? How is it fair that you get to spend the dollars you earned all by yourself however you want? Why should we allow you to invest in new jobs and stuff when the government could just take it and give it to poor people?

He also hammered about research. Specifically, how the good for nothing private sector free enterprise system doesn't spend enough on it because it isn't profitable, and how the government needs to step into the void.

There were a couple of benchmarks and drop dead statements he offered.

2026: 80% of Americans have access to high-speed rail.
2035: 80% of energy from clean sources (Viable solution: Existing nuclear technology, with construction beginning on all necessary plants in the next ten years so they can be completed by the given deadline. Solution offered: We should totally use wind turbines and solar power and ALIEN TECHNOLOGY AND STUFF!)
Promise: "If a bill comes across with earmarks, I will veto it." (Bold statement. Shelf life: Two weeks. Cue rationalization about how the new community action park in Chicago isn't really an earmark but an "investment")

He joked about the "rumors" that some people weren't happy with the healthcare law. He said he was eager to fix it. (Hey, maybe we ought to have read the law before we signed it?...Nah.) He is not, however, willing to go back to the days of pre-existing conditions. Which means that health insurance companies, which are in essence gambling entities, will continue to be forced to roll the dice on patients they know for a fact will end up losing them money. Of course, there's no way they'll spread that cost to the rest of us, making the entire system more expensive for everyone. Nope.

That's not to say there weren't good ideas tucked in there. Medical malpractice reform, the aforementioned corporate tax breaks, the posting of lobbyist meetings online...Unfortunately, while the speech was full of things about eliminating the debt, strengthening business, and slashing regulation, the specifics were all about spending more money, "investing" in green energy, and replacing slashed regulations with new ones.

The truly sad thing is the solution is so easy. The speech should have lasted all of ten minutes. It could've gone something like this.

"My fellow Americans, we are poised on the brink of a financial meltdown caused by the reckless spending of the past. No longer can the government spend more than it takes in, and no longer can it simply burden it's greatest earners in order to pay for entitlements and feel good programs.

No longer can the government decide what to spend, then figure out how to pay for it. Which is why, beginning this year, I propose that Congress determines a sensible, sustainable percentage of GDP that the government can spend annually. We will start with this number, and spend up to it, and not one dime more.

This will mean hard cuts and difficult choices. It will mean the a return of the Federal government to its Constitutional obligations and leave the rest to the States. It will mean the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, and other large programs that absorb greater than 50% of our budget every year.

We will destroy these programs with extreme prejudice. The difference between our current tax receipts and our new, much lower, operating budget will be spent on the Federal debt until we as a nation do not owe a nickel to any other power in the world. At that moment, the savings will be given back to the people who earned them. We, The People, will be allowed to drive the country again with the power of their purse.

The State of the Union today is precarious. Tomorrow, once we have fought through the hard times, it will be stronger than ever. God bless you all, and God bless the United States of America."

But what do I know?

Amazing: John Green, father of shooting victim, says death is the price of a free society.

The video below is an interview given by John Green, father of the 9 year old victim of the shooting on Saturday. The girl was born on 9/11/2001. The father called the two tragedies bookends of her life. The most heartbreaking, and also the most amazing, moment comes right at the end of the video. Mr. Green, who remember had just had his daughter taken from him the day before, says that shootings like this are the "price of living with a free society", and that he "prefers this to the alternative".

Wow.

To have that much poise, grace, and grit to be able to see through the tragedy of the moment and see the greater good is truly amazing, and I'm not ashamed to say it brings tears to my eyes. Watch it for yourself.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Roseanna Barr: 0, Ted Nugent: 1

Take 6 minutes out of your day to watch this video. See as Ted Nugent, complete with camo cowboy hat, slashes Ms. Barr's arguments to shreds.



It's beautiful. Hearing Barr shrilly cry out "But what about the rich!", as if being rich were some terrible crime that ought to be punished, is music to my ears.

Let's face it: No person has ever gotten a job from a poor man. If you reward behaviour through money or subsidies, you get more of it. Therefore, when you tax productivity and reward non-productivity, bad things will happen. It's simple human nature.

New Year: Wives cause alcoholism, and destroy the Earth.

Since I've been working two jobs the mental capacity that I retain has been significantly reduced. Contrary to popular (aka, my own) belief my intellect is, in fact, limited. Thus the reduction in posting frequency. Combine that with my lack of access to Facebook, the primary engine with which most people found my blog, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Still, life goes on. So, to reward those who are still listening, I provide you some really, really cool links.

First, have you ever thought "Gee, I wonder what would happen if an asteroid composed of iron half a mile wide crashed into the Earth at an approach vector of 45 degrees, travelling an average of 17 km/s?" If you're reading my blog, you probably have. Now this question can finally be answered. (It creates a crater 10.7 miles wide and 2300 feet deep. It also shakes window panes in Raleigh, NC.)

This amazingly awesome website, provided by Perdue University, allows you to find out exactly what would happen in the above scenario. Choose the composition of your deadly missile, how fast it's going, where it'll hit, what it'll hit, and presto! Google Earth image showing you how big the crater is, how far the seismic effects travel, the area covered by the fireball and even a nice summation paragraph at the bottom telling you exactly the effects on the Earth. Everything from a tiny little crater to the complete destruction of the planet is possible. Finally, now you too can destroy New York City from the comfort of your home.

Second, the news all you men out there already knew but scientists just had to spend thousands of dollars researching. Wives drive men to drink!

This fascinating study (which is 44 pages long, but the narrative is only 26ish) details the correlation between alcohol consumption and monogamy. They are very careful not to call it a causal relationship, but the implications are clear: The more monogamous the man, the more he drinks.

Third, another geekasm (that's a geek orgasm) engine. It's a calculator. For Relativity! It accepts input of the speed of the object travelling (either in miles or km/s or percentage of C) or the relativistic factor you wish to investigate, and bam! You can now know how much time dilates when you drive on the highway, or how fast you'd have to travel in order to outrun your nagging spouse. Ok, maybe not that last one. But it will tell you how fast you'd have to go to make one year seem like an eternity! (Answer: None. This occurs naturally. See alcohol consumption).

Finally, from the folks at NASA, a little, tiny, insignificant discovery. Arsenic based life.

The article speaks for itself. Granted, nearly every other credible scientist is challenging the findings and it does not appear likely that the question of whether this little microbe is actually arsenic based or if it just has an extraordinarily high tolerance to arsenic will be settled anytime soon.

But we can dream, can't we?