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?