Slander and libel: Women park better than men

From the land renowned for its dentistry and gourmet cuisine comes a “study” commissioned by the NCP (Non Player Character) (National Car Parks) company. I’m guessing that “car parks” is British slang for parking lots, and not actually an amusement park for cars. The latter would be much cooler, but it wouldn’t make much sense in the context of their website.

Anyways, this study puts forth the claim that women are better at parking than men. At first I assumed “parking” was some sort of clever euphemism, but was shocked to find they actually meant parking automobiles. In parking spaces. Like, where people drive.

Background: NPC is supposedly one of the premier Car Park companies in Britain. It was founded in 1931…then some other stuff happened…to be honest, I only skimmed their “about us” section, but I’m pretty sure they were bought out a few times, most recently by the Institute of Stupid Faulty Science Nobody Believes (ISFSNB).

The report, which can be found in its entirety here, opens with this completely unbiased line:

After years of debate and banter, comes the news that will have men running for cover. It’s now official; women are actually better parkers than men.

No preconceived notions here. Apparently the NPC hired a few hobos they found in the streets of London to go watch people park cars over the period of a month. They rated them on several metrics (see picture below) and came up with a “parking coefficient” out of thin air based solely on the facts. The coefficients were 12.3 and 13.4 for men and women, respectively.



Naturally, my initial response was to simply question what they defined as “better”. I knew this alone would not be sufficient. In the interest of maintaining a balanced view of the subject I turned to JAC’s resident Director of Female Studies.

Presumably fearing retaliation from the other vindictive, spiteful members of her hell spawned race, she requests that she remain “totally anonymous”. Her identity, therefore, will remain a tightly held secret that I totally will not reveal to anyone willing to buy me a beer. She will be known as “Mik”.

Mik, Director of Female Studies

Her quotes shown below may have been edited for better word flow*.

Mik states that in her experience “men are better parallel parkers” and that women are better “closer parkers”, not because of any skill on their part, but because “[they] can squeeze between the cars in tight spots”. So, score a point for female flexibility, but zero for parking capabilities. (On second thought, make that score a ten for female flexibility. You know what I’m sayin’. Hiyo!)

She also raises several questions.

Mik: What were they driving? Women tend to drive smaller cars overall.

Obviously, since the men were universally driving heavily armored tanks as a reflection of their masculinity, the amazing thing is that they fit into the spaces at all, and did it in a shorter period of time with no need to “cheat” by moving back and forth.

Mik: “What store was it? Obviously if it’s a mall there’ll be less men [parking flawlessly every time, and looking hot while doing it] than women [who oscillate their cars in their spots faster than an electronic dil…err…dynamo…to get it “just right”, because they’re stupid bad parkers]”

Valid point, Mik. What was the sample size selected by their science hobos? How many of the women did the hobos not report on? The report is mum on the subject, and NPC has not answered any of my infinite** requests for further information.

Mik: “…how many people were in the car? …With [an] elderly parent or children…it might…matter how fast you can park.”

Absolutely, Mik, another valid point. While the women were all competing for Miss Pretty Parker Pants, the men were accomplishing the parking objective quickly and efficiently so they could fireman carry their elderly parents into the hospital, thus saving their lives.

What do you have against saving the elderly, NPC? Huh!? Answer me that!

Maybe if NPC valued efficiency of parking as opposed to ending in the dead center of a parking space, we wouldn’t be burning up so many fossil fuels. Basically, what NPC is really saying is that women are single handedly responsible for destroying the environment***. Way to go, women.

And their periods attract bears. It’s science.

Footnotes:

* - If, by word flow, I mean the flow of words that supports my arguments. Then the statement is totally true.

** - Number of requests made = 0. Number of requests ignored = 0. So, the ratio between requests made and ignored is basically infinite.

*** - Assuming that global warming is man made. Or woman made, as it were. It’s not. But if it were, it’d be the women’s fault.

Disclaimer: The above article is written with an emphasis on hyperbole. All quotes were taken out of context whenever [deemed appropriate, or necessary, or I felt like it] to make my point, and the views represented here are not necessarily…ok, probably aren’t…definitely are not representative of: Mik’s, Fluffy’s, our affiliates, lawyers, nuns, Captain America, nurses, churches, lead, a duck, Captain America, Jesus, or even my own opinions.

You know what they do represent though?

Your mom.

Burned.

Gingrich Vs. Romney (Taxes): Point to Newt

Since the current front runners of the race are Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, I suppose I ought to do something comparing the two of them. Really, the desire those two inspire in me is complete apathy, but I feel I owe it to Fluffy to inform him on the choices that are before him. Of course, with how intensely the primaries have fluctuated, it's entirely possible we'll be seeing a "Obama/Fluffy the Imaginary Monkey 2012" news coverage in the near future.

Fluffy for President

So, on that note, let's go into issue #1 of Mitt vs. Newt. Taxes.

First, we'll look at Romney. He has some good points:

• Lowers corporate tax rate to 25% (Believe it or not, that is lowering it)
• Transitions from worldwide to territorial taxation. Easier tax code to comply with makes America a more attractive place to do business.
  
• Eliminates the estate tax. Double taxation is a bad thing. Why should someone be penalized for dying, for Christ's sake?

Of course, he also has some bad points, most glaringly that it keeps the same basic, convoluted tax structure we have now; a punitive tax code that taxes the rich at a higher rate than the poor.

On the other hand, we have Newt's plan. This plan was recently endorsed by Arthur Laffer in the WSJ. Laffer was an economist who was a member of Reagan's advisory board.

• Lowers corporate taxes to 12.5%. That would drop us instantly from one of the highest taxes in the world to one of the lowest. Combine that with everything else that makes America awesome, and you've got a recipe for investment flow back into the States.
• Creates an optional personal flat tax of 15%. This is cool, except for the optional part. But hey, gotta start somewhere. It means that everyone pays 15% on what they make, regardless of how much they made in wages. That is the very definition of fair.
• Unless of course they made their money investing. This is my favorite part. You wanna hear the tax rate on Capital gains? Get ready: 0.00%. Rounding up, of course. That's right, capital gains is not taxable income.

Now, before you completely mob me for wanting to make the "rich richer", remember two things. One, investment is exempt for everybody, so it could make you richer too. Of course, since most investment happens by the already rich, it does benefit them, which brings me to number two.

"You can't love jobs and hate job creators."

By show of hands, who has gotten long term employment from a poor person? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

It is investment that allows businesses to grow. If you want less of something, tax it more heavily. Washington knows this, which is why they have tax breaks out the ass for things they like, such as fuel efficient cars. Why not apply that same logic to something that puts more money in our pockets?

Also remember that Government creates nothing. As Mr. Laffer says "Jobs and wealth are created by those who are taxed, not by those who do the taxing. Government, by its very nature, doesn't create resources but redistributes resources." No amount of moving money from person A to person B by the Government is going to create a lasting job. To do that, you must grow the economy, and to do that you must plant the seeds of investment. Newt's plan, if it were to be implemented and survives to the general election, would do that.

So, point to Gingrich. Hooray.

State of the Union: My analysis

Like every other politics geek out there, I sat poised on the edge of my seat on Wednesday when the President gave his annual State of the Union address to the joint session of Congress. I even took notes. (I've since lost those notes, but A for effort at least)

You can find the full text of the speech here. (Note, that text is not a transcript per se, but instead a copy of the speech the White House released as the address was happening, but it's good enough for government work) If I manage to find a series of youtube videos of the address I'll post them as well, in case you missed it.

The theme of the night was sort of like a swanky apartment building downtown; build a really nice, shiny facade; that will keep them from looking at the roach infested kitchen inside. Half the speech, the part about values and goals, was written by a capitalist out of an Ayn Rand novel. The other half was written by a college student who keeps the Communist Manifesto under her pillow.

The speech starts with bland platitudes about how fantastic America is and how badass we were after WWII. After the easy points he throws in a reference to the housing collapse.

"In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior."

Unfortunately, the facts are that banks made these loans in large part because there were huge safety nets, called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were more than happy to gobble up bad debts because they were government sponsored and could afford it. This removal of risk distorts the market, which in turn made it possible for the banks to make bad loans with no repercussions.

Then PBO channeled St Ronald.

I want to...lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values...This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

Fantastic! Unfortunately, FDR immediately rolled in on wheels of death.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

That's right. The reason that American Auto is #1 is because it was nationalized (remember, at one point GM was more than 50% owned by Uncle Sam) and the government got it fixed! Because if there's something the government does great, it's selling automobiles by golly.

Bypassing the fact that nationalizing industries like that is textbook socialism; bypassing the fact that badly run businesses fail all the time and jobs don't just go up in smoke (Those factories would not have simply died. More likely, other, better run businesses would have taken them to use for themselves); instead look at his claim that GM of all people are #1 in the world.

For this we turn to PolitiFact.

• While true that GM sold more cars than anyone else in the world, many of their sales come from joint ventures in China, which GM doesn't fully own.
• Toyota, GM's leading competitor, had to contend with a record breaking earthquake, tsunami, and other disasters. So, when your competitor has bad luck, naturally that helps you, but it doesn't mean that the bailout had anything to do with it. To support that, remember...
  
• ...that Ford, who he touts as part of his success, didn't take the money. It saw it's sales go up 11% without any of the TARP funds. So, if both GM and Ford saw an increase in sales, and one took the funds and one didn't, perhaps the causality isn't there? Also, remember, GM did go through bankruptcy, and companies tend to rebound straight out of bankruptcy.

Moving along, cue more capitalism:

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.

So let’s change it.

Hell yeah! Let's change it! Let's lower our tax rates so that they aren't the second highest corporate rates in the world!

First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.

*sigh* Or we could do that.

This sounds great, right? Yeah, screw those terrible companies that make profits overseas! How dare they steal our jobs!? I'll tell you how dare they: Because companies exist to make a profit, stupid. And if they can do that better somewhere else, they can, will, and should.

We are one of the only countries which taxes corporations for their overseas earnings. In fact, according to the OECD, we are the only nation with a worldwide tax system and effective corporate taxes above 30%. No wonder companies are leaving!

It's not a competition of us vs. them with the corporations as the bad guys. It's a competition where we should be doing everything we can to make America an attractive place to invest. If we build it, they will come.

Instead, PBO rattles off tax deduction after tax deduction, making our tax code even more complex and distorting the market to suit his whims.

Next, he turns his sights on bad businesses overseas.

Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders.

My reaction to this is: Meh. I mean, it's good to have the government enforce the laws. A market requires stability, and if incoming products don't have to meet the same standards or are breaking American laws, they shouldn't be sold here. At the same time, I'm not a fan of yet another government entity...But whatever. If that's what's gotta happen to enforce the law, so be it. Then again, the protectionist measure could mean bad things between us and China.

PBO goes on about education, how we need to be the best, cut regulations, etc., etc. All good stuff with no substance. Tucked at the bottom of all this fluff is a shocker:

We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

Mandating that students stay in High School, no matter what, until they are 18. At least he gives a nod to the 10th Amendment and says the States should do this, but still. Does nobody else see why this might be a bad idea? I know this might be earth shaking to some people, but what if little Johnny doesn't need the diploma? What if he's going to be an auto mechanic, or a farmer, or a factory worker, or something else where a different certification or a GED is adequate? Rather than the Government telling Americans how to plan their life, why should we not let the citizens determine how best to chart their future? Not every American needs to go to college.

PBO then puts on his 9th level Cleric hat and casts Raise Dead on the DREAM Act.

Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn’t make sense.

At the face of it, I agree with him. If a child has been raised in America, gone to American schools, and is in every way American, then that's one thing. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of this are dangerous. By granting an exception for this group of illegal immigrants over here, you risk encouraging lawbreaking with all the other groups. Compassion we must have, but we need to tread carefully and err on the side of enforcing the law. Also, though it may be true when he says that "there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office", that's just as easily explained by the fact that there aren't as many jobs to attract illegals as there were.

He goes on to claim that he's supported drilling for oil and natural gas at home (Not even going to grace that with a response), and that "We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade."

I mean, it could support jobs...that is if Congress doesn't succeed in passing legislation to confiscate the profits of natural gas companies that make too much money. (To be fair, Obama didn't propose that. Just his party.)

There is one conspicuous industry missing in the list of technologies for clean energy: Nuclear. You know, the one that actually exists, isn't based on future tech that might not happen, we have the resources and technology to produce it in abundance, and is being used successfully to generate nearly all the power in France, of all places?

"There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his."

This is technically true. The devil is, as always, in the details. From FactCheck.org:

Obama is right, as far as his statement goes. Bloomberg News, based on a review of Office of Management and Budget data, reported that the Obama administration approved 613 regulations in the first 33 months. That was 30 fewer than Bush approved in his first 33 months.

However, Bloomberg also found that it cost more to comply with Obama’s regulations than either Bush’s or President Bill Clinton’s during that same time period.

Bloomberg News, Oct. 25, 2011: The number of significant federal rules, defined as those costing more than $100 million, has gone up under Obama, with 129 approved so far, compared with 90 for Bush, 115 for President Bill Clinton and 127 for the first President Bush over the same period in their first terms.

Skipping down, PBO once again goes after those evil rich people, saying that it isn't right that Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage in taxes than his secretary. (As the local radio guy quipped, "It never occurs to him to lower the taxes on the secretary.")

He says that tax reforms should follow the Buffet rule, that nobody who makes more than $250k should pay less than 30%, so that they pay their "fair share". I suppose PBO went to a different school than I did, because when I learned the meaning of fair, it meant equal. As in, everyone pays the same percentage. I guess fair isn't as fair as it used to be?

The difference between that billionaire and his secretary is this: That secretary isn't giving me, or anyone else, a job. Rich people make investments, which drive businesses, which create jobs. If anything, we should lower their tax rate and reward the behavior which allows the rest of us to prosper.

In a bit of irony, PBO suggests that Congress pass a rule saying that any nomination receive an up or down vote in 90 days. Which is funny, because he's demonstrated the rules don't much matter if he wants to appoint somebody. But hey, what's the big deal about completely violating the Constitutional bounds of your office to appoint someone without the consent of Congress? No big deal.

The speech rattles on for a little while longer, talking about increased security in Afghanistan, how much our allies love us, our position of strength abroad, etc. He closes with a tangent about how we need to be like soldiers in battle. "When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind."

I guess one of his advisors who actually wore the uniform must have told him about that over a beer once.

Special Forces rescue American hostage from PIRATES

Last night I watched the State of the Union address, pencil and paper poised to take notes with which to execute my traditional blow-by-blow analysis of the speech. Naturally, I left those notes at home today. So, instead of working on that article, which I promise will be forthcoming, during my lunch break I instead bring you this news from Somalia.

Those wacky Somali pirates were at it again. They had kidnapped an American citizen, one Jessica Buchanan (32), and her Danish companion who's name isn't important at all because he isn't American, and also because she's way hotter.

Seriously, who looks at this and says "I wonder what I should call the old guy?"

They apparently hoped to get a ransom for holding the two. Naturally, the Administration was "considering a rescue operation for weeks" (AKA, stabbing informants in the face in order to find out where they were) "but stepped up its plans after receiving reports that Buchanan’s health was deteriorating." After receiving intel on where the pair were being held, the Pentagon dispatched the infamous Seal Team 6 to rescue them both.

Oh, and also mercilessly slaughter every single pirate who dared to raise their hand against America. You know, since they were in the neighborhood.

How bad ass is that? Not only do you get dropped into an exotic land, not only do you rescue the hot chick from certain doom, but you do it all while bathing in the blood of pirates!

Kudos to President Obama for authorizing the raid.

"Reasonable Profits Board". You just can't make this up.

From thehill.com (I found the link on hotair.com, credit there):

"Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits."

Let that sink in for a moment. Really massage it into the lining of your frontal lobe. They wish to create a board who's express purpose is to control the profits of a private entity.

Seriously? Do I even need to write a blog about why this is a bad idea?

Naturally, I'll write one anyway, but let the record show it shouldn't be necessary.

The bill, HR3784 AKA the "Gas Price Spike Act", can be found in its entirety here. Its stated purpose is to "impose a windfall profit tax" on oil and natural gas. It will use this money to fund a tax credit for purchasing new fuel-efficient vehicles, and to bring down fares on mass transit.

Don't worry, though, no cause for alarm. The percentage of profits above a certain level to be taken is only a meager 50-100% . That's all, just all of them. No biggie.

Basically, any profits from 100-102% above the reasonable level gets stolen taxed at 50%, 103-105% at 75%, and 105%+ at 100%.

Now you may have had the same question I did: What exactly is a reasonable level for profit? See, I've labored under this crazy delusion that the reasonable level for profit was equal to the most you money you could possibly conceive. So, if you manage to run a successful business that follows all applicable laws and have a profit margin of one bajillion percent, then that is reasonable. And also awesome.

Au contraire, says Mr. Kucinich. It is up to the Government to tell us what the reasonable level is. Fortunately, they have a very fair mechanism to do this.

The bill creates a "Reasonable Profits Board" that will consist of three guys appointed by the President. These three guys are brought on for a term of 3 years, and they cannot have any "financial interest" in any of the companies they are to judge.

So these three Robber Barons set a level for "reasonable profit" on oil and natural gas, a level that is completely arbitrary and is tied to exactly nothing but their own whimsical fantasies. Also, since they can have no financial interest in the companies (which at face value seems logical), that practically guarantees that they will have no idea what they are talking about.

The rest of the bill is also silly. It creates a tax credit for buying fuel efficient vehicles (as long as those vehicles are made in the US, and not just by any US worker. Only those fashioned by unionized workers count. No joke, check Sec 25e, sub section (c) paragraph (1)C). This only serves to distort the market, creating artificial demand for a product that consumers don't really want. The same logic applies to the reduction in mass transit fares.

But forget all that. How about we examine the premise, that oil and gas profits are completely out of whack with reality? Let's check the board. Show me exorbitant oil and gas profits! Survey says!?

False.

In fact, oil and gas run at a healthy, but not outlandish, 10.2% margin. That puts them below financial data (11.6%) and railroads (12.6%), and it is completely dwarfed by internet retailing (19.4%) and network communications (20.4%). Where is the rallying cry to confiscate the profits of eBay?

But let's forget that too. Let's say for the sake of argument that the oil and gas companies made a profit of 1000%. What does that have to do with anything?

This Board would be given the authority to punish law-abiding companies. Companies which have done absolutely nothing illegal. Companies whose only "crime" is being too gosh darned successful! How DARE they provide a product that satisfies a demand of the private sector!? Those heartless bastards.

The message the government would be sending is "Invest your money but don't make too much now! We want you to be successful, but if you get too successful then by god we will crush your profits with a force like the mighty hammer of Thor!"

I could go on for days, but my brain might explode.

JAC totally blacked out too

In support of the movement to stop the SOPA/PIPA bills from becoming law, and as an act of protest, JAC will declare solidarity with Wikipedia, Reddit, and all the other WAY better websites out there that are totally more popular. That's right, we will also be blacked out drunk. It's a hard life, getting wasted for a whole day, and I'm not really sure what it has to do with the internet, but screw it. Fight the Power!

Wait? What's that Fluffy?
...Oh. That's what they mean by being blacked out? Not posting?

Huh. I do that all the time, but they just called it lazy when I did it. We should hold protests more often.

Official Just Another Capitalist Endorsement

EDIT (and spoiler): Pay no attention to the picture that shows up on Facebook. It's not who I picked. Sorry for the confusion...well, it would only be confusing if you were lazy, just looked at the picture, and didn't actually read the blog I slaved over for hours. So, on second thought, screw your confusion.

Two days ago I told you the wait was over because I'd determined who I would be supporting for the Republican Presidential nomination. Then I said you actually had to wait a little longer.

Well, now the wait is over. For realsies, bitches.

And the winner is...

Ron Paul

It literally hurts me to type this. My fingers are cramping as we speak, and I can hear my anarchist hippy friend (you know who you are) who's been preaching Paul to me since we deployed together almost five years ago cackling in the background.

So why Ron Paul? It isn't his good looks, I can assure you. Mitt Romney looks like the actor they always cast to play the President in movies where he's being skyjacked and has to tear off his shirt and slay terrorists with his bare hands.

Shooting terrorists with his laser beam eyes

Here's where Paul stands on a variety of issues. My primary sources are Ontheissues.org and votesmart.org. I am also advised by Fluffy, my imaginary monkey.

Abortion: Paul has demonstrated, through voting and statements, a consistent commitment to opposing abortion. He has said that abortion should be a state level choice, which I don't necessarily agree with; if abortion is murder, it interferes with one of the basic rights of humanity, and should not be allowed anywhere. Still, if going state by state is the way to get things done, then so be it.

Romney also claims to be pro-life, though his history is more rocky on the subject. He was pro-choice originally, but changed his mind after a visit to a lab that performed human cloning. He realized what abortion has done to devalue human life, and changed his position. In this subject I don't fault Romney too much for flipping the one time. People grow, learn, and change opinions. At the same time, Romney does not appear to be willing to take much action to change the status quo.

Taxes: There's a website called The Tax Foundation that rated the various candidates based on their tax plans. Their basis for rating is pretty much in line with what I'd use; namely, a ideal tax code would be simple, fund the essential workings of the government and nothing else, interfere with the economy to the lowest extent possible, etc. Read their website for more details.

Paul's plan gets a B-. He supports a large cut in the corporate tax rate, which might possibly get us from our current spot of 2nd highest corporate taxes in the world. He also wishes to exempt capital gains and estates from taxes. Big win.

Romney's plan, C-. He also supports a cut in the corporate tax rate, but a much smaller one. He also supports adding more arbitrary deductions and exemptions, which does nothing but muddy the waters.

Budget, spending, and economy: Here both candidates talk a good game. Both oppose bailouts, seem to support letting good companies succeed and bad companies fail, on their own. Paul voted against every stimulus package, while Romney at least verbally opposes them, though he supports the Wall Street bailout:

"Subsidizing failure doesn't stop failure--it merely prolongs the final act.

But Secretary Paulson's proposal was not aimed at saving sick Wall Street banks or even at preserving jobs on Wall Street. It was intended to prevent a run on virtually every bank and financial institution in the country. It did in fact keep our economy from total meltdown."

In addition, Romney has actually run businesses which are both legal and profitable.

Ron Paul supporting Big Oil profits (brave man) while opposing handing them money:

"I don’t think the profits is the issue. The profits are okay if they’re legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don’t think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn."

The big separation is the amount of spending cutbacks that Paul wishes to implement. Paul has spoken out against big government spending again and again, for years on end. Romney has not, not nearly to the same level.

Big Government: Here, Paul pulls way in the lead. He pretty much had me at hello:

Q: If you're elected president how do you plan to restore the 10th amendment, hold the federal government only to those enumerated powers in the Constitution and allow states to govern themselves?

PAUL: Well obviously, it would take more than one individual, but the responsibility of the president would be to veto every single bill that violates the 10th amendment. That would be the solution.

Yeah, baby. I like that...tell me more about my favorite amendment. [swoon]

Foreign Policy: And here we come to the man behind the curtain. Paul's foreign policy is...well...it's...interesting...Can we go back to the 10th amendment part?

Ok, it sucks. I can't stand it. He supports an entirely isolationist, non-intervention agenda, to an extreme I cannot get behind. He has made many statements saying that part of the problem is the maintenance of our "empire", and that we should "mind our own business".

While I agree we do not need to intervene in every instance, the fact of the matter is this is a global nation we live in, with global enemies. If we do not step up on the world stage, someone else will. We would leave a power vacuum that our Asiatic foes would be more than happy to fill. In today's world our enemies don't need to set one toe on American soil to harm American interests (See Strait of Hormuz).

That being said, I do have faith that if an enemy reared it's ugly head, Paul would have no trouble smiting it from his shoulders. (Article about the typical stance of Paul's supporters in the military: Rubble doesn't cause trouble)

Final note, Paul has a much wider base of support, particularly with the nation's youth, than is typical for any Presidential candidate, especially one as old as Paul. It is extremely difficult for any candidate to fight back up the age jump; once a President has been elected from the next generation, it is nigh on impossible for one of the previous generation to seize the reins again. Paul's younger crowd support will be invaluable there.

So, we can stop all these silly debates and whatnot now that I've decided the issue.

Hypocrisy and irony on the Daily Show

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart recently had an interview segment that featured the president of the Civility Project, with National Conference of Editorial Writers, which has the goal of furthering civil discourse in America. She states that they want a higher quality of discourse, because a "lot of people want to be in a conversation...that's civil...where they don't feel like they're attacked".

True to the stone-cold serious nature of the Daily Show, they also had the opposition represented, an editorial writer who had written an article blasting the Tea Party as "economic terrorists" and "al-Qaida bombers". She said they attempted to destroy the economy and were involved in a "hostage situation".

Watch the following video closely, and you may just notice slight similarities between the two writers. Namely, that they are the exact same person.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

My favorite lines:

John Olliver: "What do the Tea Partiers say?"
Froma: "[They] objected to me calling them terrorists. A lot of them don't recognize understand irony or humor."
Olliver: "Right, they...they don't....they don't understand it."
Froma: "A lot of people don't."
Olliver: "They just don't get...irony."
Froma: "They don't, no."
Olliver: "Even when there's a textbook example of it right in front of them."

Priceless.

Upcoming: JAC declares for a candidate

The primaries are in full swing, and as all three candidates make their trips round the states (The three candidates being Romney, Paul, and non-Romney) there is really only one question on their mind: Who is JAC going to declare for?

Well, the wait is over.

Ok, actually it's not, because I'm not actually writing the blog that this is foreshadowing till Monday or Tuesday. But, the decision has been made regardless. Come this week we can finally put aside all this campaigning nonsense and get back to questions of real importance, like "How much better would Tim Tebow have performed against Tom Brady last night if Tim was actually a quarterback?"

Unconstitionally installing bureau head is totally cool

I realize I'm a week late on this. Sue me.

So, for those of you who don't follow the minutia of politics, you may not have heard all the details about the recent appointment of one Richard Cordray as the head of the recently created consumer protection bureau. This bureau's purpose, according to the front page of their website, is "to prevent fraud, deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace." Bypassing whether such a bureau should have been created (Fun family activity: Check the Constitution for the part where the government creates bureaus practically immune to Presidential oversight! Spoiler: It's not there), we'll go straight to the part of how the man was appointed. The President exercised his power of recess appointments in order to bypass the approval of Congress and install Mr. Cordray as the new bureau chief.

The catch? Congress wasn't technically in recess...and by technically, I mean they definitely, totally weren't.

"What's the big deal?" you might ask to those around you. "I don't know. Who cares? Let's eat chips and gossip about celebrities." would be the response you'd probably get, statistically speaking, from those in your vicinity. Fortunately, you're asking that question in my vicinity...sort of...through your computer screen and miles of cable...Anyway, I'll tell you what!

The power of recess appointments is Constitutional, in and of itself. It comes from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Normally, appointments work like:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...

The Founding Fathers knew, though, that sometimes Congress just wouldn't be available. So, they provided for that.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

This way, the President could appoint fellas when Congress was too busy polishing their golf clubs if he needed to. These people would have to be confirmed by the Senate when they decided to show up to work next, thereby appeasing the necessity of having the "Advice and Consent of the Senate".

So far so good. So, what makes it so that Congress is in Recess? Well, as it turns out, the Founding Fathers didn't want the Senate skipping out on the House and vice versa, just cause they didn't wanna be there no more. So, they made a specific rule about going into Recess in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

You may have heard that the Senate was not really sitting in the usual sense, but calling "pro forma" sessions, wherein they are called into order and then immediately adjourned. This may sound like a stall tactic, and it can be, but it wasn't the Senate doing it, but the House. (As was pointed out by Ed Meese, Attorney General under St. Ronald, these sessions aren't just for show. The two month extension of the payroll tax holiday was approved during a pro forma session. At any point the Senate could have confirmed this guy, if the fancy struck them.) The Senate had not yet received permission to Recess by the House. The House was blocking the Recess, specifically to block to appointment of Cordray. In doing this they were acting within the framework of checks and balances laid out in the Constitution. President can circumvent Senate to temporarily appoint people if Congress is in Recess. No Recess = No Recess Appointments. Checkmate.

Until, that is, the President just tosses the Constitution out of the window and does his own thing.

The White House sees this as a win. Obama says that when "Congress refuses to act" he has to go out there and do his thing. He gets to look like a hero, while the rest of us are seen as quibbling over Constitutional technicalities. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that Congress was acting. It was acting in its capacity as a check on the President, using the rules of the Constitution to block a move by the President they did not like. That is their job.

To put it in perspective, this would be like Congress passing a law, the President vetoing the law, and Congress saying "Tough crap. You don't like it? Too bad, it's a law anyway." and everyone else going along with it.

This may seem like a small issue, but the fact is the President blatantly ignored the Constitution to get what he wanted. You can say that Congress was being petty blocking this nomination, and I wouldn't disagree with you. They had to go into recess eventually, and it would have happened then. I ask you this: What happens next time the Office of the President (not just Obama, because remember precedents carry on from term to term) comes up against a barrier they don't like? Will they simply circumvent that one because it "would've happened anyway" or "Congress isn't acting fast enough"? The Constitution is designed, in part, to slow down decision making so that one branch of government does not become too powerful. This dangerous sort of precedent, ignoring constraints on power that are inconvenient, paves the way for an overpowered executive branch that can make decisions very quickly without being constrained by the other two branches.

You know what system of government allows for really fast decisions by a strong executive branch?

Monarchy.

Long live the King.