While I love my Playstation, I generally steer clear of Sony brands. Their TVs have long been junk. (Go into any Sony store and ask them about the specs and they'll say something snarky like "specs don't mean anything")

Recently I purchased a new camera. My old Sony camera was just too big and clunky to carry around. I was also burned by the memory stick format. While the camera takes great photos, I'm stuck with memory sticks that max out at 128 MB. This time around a I settled on a point and shoot Nikon. It has it's own faults, but it was inexensive, small, and takes cheap hi-cap SD cards. All other camera features aside, if it costs too much to own and operate and can't fit in my pocket, I don't want it.

But there is a lesson to be learned here for Sony. When shopping, I saw a few Sony models that would have fit the bill. But I'll be damned if I'm going to be stuck with memory sticks again. And Sony continues to release different formats of memory sticks, with no concern for backward compatibility.

Sony has so many other foray's into proprietary formats that it borders on obsession (ie: memory stick, betamax, minidisc, ATRAC, etc.). When will they learn?

Bitter argues that 'frickin' isn't foul language. IMHO, "frickin" is just as back as "fucking". Personally, I'm tired of these idiots who don't want to swear, so they replace the real cuss words with fake words that sound nearly the same. If you are going to fucking cuss, then fucking do it.

A guy at work chastised me for saying goddammit. He said I shouldn't take the Lord's name in vain, and he's probably right. But he says Gosh Darn all the time. I yelled right back at him for using replacement words that mean exactly the same thing. Disrespect is disprespect. Even though you replace a few letters, the intent is there.

Bitter is worried about Virginia's future. With anti-freedom Democrats ramping up gun control platforms what's a girl to do. As Northern Virginia becomes more liberal and drags Virginia down with it, I sometimes share her distress.

The Democrat Party is resorting to scare tactics against pro-gun Senator Ken Cuccinelli, with an ad that says "Ken Cuccinelli voted to allow criminals to buy guns at gun shows and is against nearly all common-sense gun laws." My first thought was that Democrats must be really stupid to believe such nonsense. As if the Senate really passed a bill that said criminals can buy guns?

But Democrats and anti-gunners have been making inroads in the state legislature. In 2006, Del. Black who represented parts of Loudoun County was voted out of office. He was a stalwart pro-gunner just like Cuccinelli.

While we must remain vigilant against the anti-gunners, I don't think that the anti-gun platform is making a serious comeback. Instead I think that the same anti-Republican sentiment driving Democrat victories in the national elections is trickling down to the states. And it doesn't help that Northern Virginia's population has become much more liberal over the years, and is dragging down the rest of the state.

These victories have emboldened the anti-gun left the same way they've emboldened the anti-war left. It doesn't mean that the country or state is headed the way, it just appears that way because of a small vocal minority. Case in point is Arlington County.

Arlington has long been somewhat anti-gun, but this is just crazy:

Delegates to the Arlington County Civic Federation have embraced what could become a controversial issue: publishing the names of local residents who purchase handguns.

The federation's membership on Oct. 2 voted 20-14 to include the provision in its 2008 General Assembly legislative package, which is slated for final adoption next month.

The proposal calls for officials to furnish to media outlets the names of those who have purchased handguns. Newspapers and other media organizations can then determine whether to publish them.

If you want to help thieves, why not just publish the name and address of all new car buyers while you're at it. Other wishlist items include:

* Allowing convicted felons to have their voting-rights restored after completing sentences and probation. Virginia today severely restricts the ability of felons to win back voting rights. Vote: 31-8.

Gotta get that felon vote.

* Proposing a constitutional amendment to permit Virginia's governors to serve consecutive terms. Last year, the Federation proposed expanding the governor's tenure to a single, six-year term. Vote: 29-11.

Because they really wanted Mark Warner to be able to run again.

* Allowing localities to ban smoking in restaurants. Vote: 31-9.

Another anti-freedom vote. How about letting restaurants decide for themselves?

* Eliminating the so-called "abusive-driver fees," which were enacted by the General Assembly this year, but which have attracted great opposition, and replacing the funding lost with a one-cent increase in the gasoline tax. Vote: 30-8.

Replacing the funding? It just became effective a few months ago, why not repeal it outright.

* Opposing any widening to Interstate 66 from the Potomac River to the Capital Beltway, unless such widening meets with "community consensus." Vote: 33-5.

Dumb, they've opposed widening 66 for decades. It's time.

* Prohibiting the use of cell phones by drivers while a vehicle is in motion. The proposal does not say whether "hands-free" phones would be exempt. Vote: 31-9.

Dumb. I hate distracted driving too, but we have existing statutes that already cover this.

* Restricting the amount of interest that can be charged to borrows by "payday lenders." Vote: 33-5.

So the poor and minorities can't get credit.

* Allowing Virginia counties, including Arlington, to levy a tax on gasoline. Cities already have this authority. Vote: 25-15.

Never saw a tax they didn't like.

Okay, so I got off guns for a little bit. But my point is that liberalism is alive and well in Virginia, and Northern Virginia especially. Gun control is but one facet, and right now the libs are emboldened to press their agenda across the board.

Now more than ever, we need to beat them at the ballot box.

UPDATE: Pro-gun lawmaker Dick Black is running for the late JoAnn Davis' seat. Best of luck to Dick Black.

One of my pet peeves is when stores post a guard by the exit that tries to grab your receipt or look through your bags. I mean I just paid for everything within plain view of the door. Why then do they feel the need to see/check/mark my receipt? I don't shop at CompUSA any more after I almost came to blows with a grabby employee who failed to identify himself.

So I was more than a little upset when I left the checkout line at Target yesterday afternoon only to see a uniformed security guard waiting to stop me. I had a cart with two large heavy items in it, and wasn't really in any mood to root around my pockets for a receipt. So when the guard tried to stop me, I couldn't help but get a little rude.

RENT-A-COP: How are you doing today sir? Would you please let me see your receipt?

RAVENWOOD: No. [Kept on walking right by him.]

RENT-A-COP: Okay then, have a nice day.

I don't know if the guy was too shocked to object, made a quick judgement call given that I was struggling to carry my large heavy items out to my car, or if Target has specifically instructed their guards that showing your receipt is voluntary. Regardless, I've pretty much decided that no matter what store I'm leaving, once the sale is tendered the purchases are my property as is my receipt. If they suspect me of shoplifting they should detain me and call the police. Otherwise I'm just gonna keep on keepin' on.

I had a similar experience a few years ago leaving CostCo (or maybe it was Sam's) with my father. He stopped to show his receipt, while I ignored their request and just kept walking. Outside he asked me what the deal was, and I told him it's my stuff now and I'm not letting them paw through it.

If any stores have a problem with this I can shop elsewhere.

My sister's birthday is coming up soon, and she was very specific in what she wanted. She has a membership to one of those warehouse clubs, and wanted a gift card. Now, I don't want to disparage the warehouse club by name, but it rhymes with Kostko. I don't have a membership there, but she assured me that I could still purchase a gift card without one.

On any given night during the summer, when I actually have the luxury of getting off work early enough to still have some daylight left, I like to get a little exercise by taking a walk. I checked Mapquest and the store was over 4 miles away or nearly 9 miles round trip. I don't usually walk that far, but I was determined to humanely euthanize two birds with one stone. So, I strapped on my MP3 player, and loaded up on bottled water and headed out for the store.

Now, I don't usually walk that way. The residential parts of the neighborhood are a mixture of nice and not so nice houses, and my trek would also take me through some heavy industrial areas. I had walked these roads before, but not since I discovered it was marked territory of the Salvadoran street gang, MS-13. (Evidenced by the numerous graffiti tags that say 'MS-13'.) But the store was down that way, so I figured what the hell. Besides, I'm a pretty big guy and I like to think I'm prepared to handle whatever trouble might cross my path. (G27 .40 10+1, for those of you who are interested.)

So I start the long arduous walk down to the warehouse club. About half way there it starts to rain. It was just a quick sprinkle, but it was enough to wet the ground and create a fog of humidity that you could cut with a Ka-bar. Like I said, I looked at mapquest before I left and it estimated the trip at over 4 miles each way. I wish I had looked a little more closely, because I took a wrong turn half way there and walked about a half mile out of my way. It was getting late and I had a knot in my stomach from not eating, so I stopped at a gas station to ask for directions and pick up a chocolate bar for some quick energy. The clerk gave me good directions and 15 minutes later I was trotting through the front door.

I walked up to the greeter and asked him about buying a gift card. I told him I didn't have a membership, so he directed me to the "Puerto Rican" guy (his words, not mine) behind the customer service counter. I told the clerk that I wanted to buy a gift card for my sister, but that I didn't have a membership. He asked if she was a member and I said yes. He said that it wouldn't be a problem, and gave me a pass to get by the guard at the front door. He was very helpful and told me where to find the gift cards, and said to just tell the cashier that I'm buying it for someone who's a member. I followed his directions exactly.

When I spoke with the stocker who was filling in at the register, he clearly had no clue what I was talking about. He quickly escalated the transaction to a "supervisor". I knew he was a "supervisor" because it was stenciled on his smock, and they don't just hand those out to anyone. Any way, he informed me that I had to purchase a membership (for $45) just to buy a gift card. I told him "negative" and said that the Puerto Rican behind the membership counter had told me it was okay to buy a gift card without a membership. (I didn't really say "Puerto Rican", but wouldn't it have been cool if I did?)

He told me that you could use a gift card without a membership, but to buy one I'd have to shell out an extra $45. It was beginning to look like it was all for naught. I told him to get a manager, and he ran off to fetch one. The manager never showed, but "supervisor" guy came back and escorted me to an empty register.

He told me that it was against their policy, but that he was going to make an exception. He made it a point to let me know that I was in the wrong, and that he was doing me a favor.

Did I mention that I don't shop at warehouse clubs? There's two major reasons. First, I don't like the fact that they don't give you any bags to carry your stuff out. The second reason is that they don't take credit cards. This was not the best time to find that out.

I handed him my VISA card, and he promptly handed it back to me. They only take Debit and ATM cards, or an American Express charge card. Credit cards are not welcome. I dug into my pocket, with this sinking feeling that the candy bar I had just bought would make me come up short. Luckily I had just enough cash to load up the card with the amount I wanted.

As I headed out of the store, I stopped by the customer service counter to complain. It was packed with other customers, and I was pretty ripe from the long walk, so I decided to just cut and run. It was getting dark, and I figured my complaint would fall on deaf ears any way. To me, it's a training issue. Either their employees aren't trained well enough to know the policy, or they aren't trained well enough to communicate the policy effectively to their customers. Besides, what could they do? Offer me a complimentary membership to a store I would never visit? I headed for home, hoping to make it back before dark.

Next time she's getting a check.

My sister traveled the country recently, and brought me back some popcorn from the Corn Palace in South Dakota. They call it on-the-ear popcorn. (click images to supersize)

The ear is small. Much smaller than a regular ear of corn you'd buy at the grocery store. Whether that is because of drying or they just pick small ears, I don't know. I put the ear in the small paper sack that came with it, and taped it shut with scotch tape. Into the microwave it goes.

The popping was irregular, not like traditional microwave popcorn. After it got going, there was a flurry of popping about every 3 seconds or so, instead of the continuous popping you get with regular popcorn. The popping got further apart and slower, so I pulled it out, perhaps a little early. You can see how much corn is on the end of the ear down inside the bag.

After burning the hell out of my fingers, I pulled the ear out and emptied the bag (a few kernels at a time into my mouth). The popcorn was extra crunchy but not tough. It was plain, but tasted very good and had a unique flavor. It wasn't bland like you'd expect regular plain popcorn to be. I tried lightly salting it, but with no oil the salt just ended up in the bottom of the bag. After I was done eating, I put the ear back into the bag for some re-popping.

The re-popping went well. Much more of the popcorn popped off the ear, and it wasn't the least bit scorched. Another little treat of crunchy corn. You can see that if you get the timing right, most of the kernels pop.

It's truly a novelty. It doesn't make much, and I couldn't see buying popcorn like this regularly. But it was a neat gift and the corn was quite tasty.

Taxation is just like robbery. The major difference is who's holding the gun. Like the enforcement of all laws, taxes are collected using the threat of lethal force; that is, with the barrel of a gun. A lot of people think I'm over-dramatizing that but it's true. People have just become so accustomed to it that they don't even realize anymore.

If you don't believe me, try not paying your taxes and see how long it takes for the men with guns to show up. I would advise you hire a good lawyer first, though.

For instance go down to the mall and try to buy something without paying taxes on it. Tell the cashier that you no longer pay taxes and demand that they take them off your bill. If you insist, it's only a matter of time before the guys with guns are called.

When your cable bill arrives add up all those taxes and fees on your statement. Then go down to the cable company and demand that they remove them from your bill. Tell them that you'll wait while they re-tally your bill. Or if you've already paid, demand a refund. Like I said, you'd better have the number for that lawyer handy because you're going to need it.

Next time you're looking for work, try to find a boss that will hire you "under the table". There might be such a job out there, but if you get caught you'll wind up talking to the guys with guns again. Or if you already have a job, next payday take your stub over to the payroll department and demand that they fork over the tax that they withheld. Tell them that you aren't paying taxes this month and demand a check for the difference. Pound on the desk until you get satisfaction.

Next time you're driving through New Jersey, tell the attendant at the toll booth that you're not paying taxes this week and drive on through. See how long it takes for the guys in blue to show up and extract payment.

You see, the problem with taxes is that not only are they confiscatory, but politicians have cleverly and systematically made them almost invisible. When you fill up your gas tank, the sign says $2 a gallon. If it weren't against the law, the retailer would probably put $1.25 per gallon on the sign and hit you for the taxes when you check out. They would much rather advertise their actual price. The reason it's illegal is not out of fairness to you, but because the government doesn't want you seeing how much they are hitting you for in gasoline taxes. If you're lucky, some retailers will put a small sign up that says how much tax you're paying per gallon.

Similar fights are being waged over taxes and fees on your telephone or cable bill. The vendor wants to itemize those taxes so that you don't think they're overcharging you. The government wants them to roll those up into his costs so you don't see how much you're being bilked.

Taxes are withheld from your paycheck up front. People are so accustomed to it that when you ask them how much they earn they say something like, "I take home twelve hundred a month." Tell them you didn't ask them what they take home, you asked them what they earned. A lot of them still won't be able to tell you.

Rep. John Hostettler, a Republican from Indiana, has proposed that federal withholding be repealed. He would have it go back to the old days where payments were mailed in quarterly. Withholding was supposed to be a temporary measure any way. The politicians had promised that withholding was only necessary to help pay for the cost of fighting World War II. They promised that once the War was over, we would go back to the old way again. Well, 60 years later and we're still waiting.

The Federal Tax Withholding Repeal Act of 2005 doesn't stand a snowball's chance of being passed. (It might as well be called the Stepping on Orphans and Puppies Act.) Politicians on both sides of the aisle know that all those spending programs, and all that pork that gets them re-elected year after year, depend on federal withholding. There is just too much at stake to risk public outcry over taxation. Because if people had to actually write a check every month, they might start questioning what they're paying for. And we can't have that.

Say Uncle tells his own story about TSA harrassment, which reminds me of my own.

It started in Kansas City, during the Friday afternoon rush hour. It's roughly 5 o'clock, and I and the other air-commuters are just trying to get home for the weekend. I walk up to the security gate, remove all my metal objects, my belt, and my shoes (as instructed) and walk through the detector. Everything is fine so far.

I get my belt and belongings back, but the TSA inspector wants to 'swab' my laptop bag and shoes. They swab on the laptop bag is clean, but they get a hit on the shoes. The guy says something to the effect of 'uh oh', and whips out this huge three ring binder. At this point, I know there's going to be trouble.

The TSA officer flips through the binder until he finds the page that tells him what residue my shoes are supposedly laced with. It's nitro-glycerin, a common heart medication as well as exposive. A supervisor is called to try to determine what needs to be done. As I stand there in my stocking feet, I tell him that it's probably a false positive, and he should test the shoes again.

The supervisor tries to give me an 'out'. "Sir, do you take any heart medication?"

"No."

"Do you live with anyone who takes heart medication?"

"No. I live alone."

"Were you staying with anyone who takes heart medication?"

"No. I was in a hotel."

"Do you know anyone who takes heart medication?"

Sigh. "No."

This went on and on for about 45 minutes. The TSA staff didn't suspect me of being a terrorist, but they didn't just want to let me walk on the plane either. So, they kept giving me excuses for how nitro-glycerin might have gotten onto my shoes. At one point they float the idea of letting me board the plane, without my shoes.

Finally, I plead with him to just test the shoes again. "I'm sure it was just a false positive," I tell the supervisor.

Suddenly, as if it were his idea, he tells the subordinate to test the shoes again. "It's probably just a false positive," he said.

They test my shoes again, and it comes up negative. By now, I'm the last person to board the plane before they close the doors, and my seat was nearly given away to someone waiting standby. Naturally all the overhead space is taken.

Now, I told you that story, to tell you this one. Contrast the TSA incompetence in Kansas City with the TSA incompetence in Washington, D.C.

I live near the Metrorail line, so I fly out of Reagan National Airport. Now, if you've never flown out of Reagan, you might not know that everyone gets extra scrutiny. Even passengers flying into Reagan go through an extra layer of security, and you can't even so much as stand up 30 minutes after takeoff or before landing. So if you take off from Reagan, and some numbnuts stands up 10 minutes into the flight, they claim they will divert the flight to the nearest airport and remove the passenger from the plane.

So, given that tense attitude toward security, I fully expected to get the anal probe before getting to my gate. I'm flying out around noon time, and there isn't much of a rush yet. I'm dressed in khakis with my black DEA polo shirt. By DEA, I mean I bought it from the gift shop at the headquarters of the Drug Enforcement Administration back when I had done some work for them. (I know, who knew they had a gift shop.) The shirt has their Special Agent shield emblazoned on the breast, and DEA in big bold letters underneath. It cost my $30 and is quite a nice shirt. (Although I wouldn't wear it out to the club.. unless I was trying to see how long it would take me to get stabbed.)

So the three people in front of me are going through the metal detector. Each one is individually instructed to remove their shoes and belt. The girl in front of me even cries, "But they're flip-flops."

"I don't care lady, put them through the machine," demands the screener.

So, I step up there and before the guy can even say anything, start to unlace my shoes. What do I get?

"No, you're okay. Go ahead and come on through."

No extra screening, no removing the shoes, no second glance, no nothing. My $30 purchase greased the skids at one of the tightest airports in the country; an airport that remained closed for months after September 11th, due to security concerns.

Doesn't that make you feel safe?

UPDATE: Here is a photo of the shirt:

(click to supersize)

I'm neither rich nor poor, but every year I have the joy of paying about 35% of my income to taxes. That doesn't even include all of the sales taxes, car taxes, property taxes, and taxes levied on telephone service, electricity, gasoline, etc, etc, etc. But this is tax time, so I'll just concentrate on the 35% that I pay in federal, state, and social security taxes.

What do I get for my 35%? Well for starters, I get a social security system that I'll never use. Every year they send me statements that say that if I keep working my ass off, and live another 37 years I'll get a whopping $1100 a month. That's assuming they aren't broke, and there are still enough suckers paying into the system to give me my fair share. I'd be much better off sticking that money into a private account every month than paying into the government mandated ponzi scheme.

My 35% also gets me a road system so filled with potholes that I have to get my car re-aligned every year. And I get endless miles of concrete barriers and orange cones that have been highway fixtures for the past 10 years. I've become convinced that the federal highway money is not much more than a jobs program used to pay for votes in upcoming elections. Of course I also get the obligatory road debris kicked up into my windshield. Since moving to D.C. where I get a twice daily commute on the federal highway jobs superprogram, I've got three rock chips in my windshield, one of which should blossom into a nice long crack this summer.

I also get a school system that I do not use. I have no children, but any realtor that buys or rents homes will still try to sell you on the added value of the local public school system. But this system, which supposedly adds so much property value to our homes, routinely graduates kids that cannot read, can't do math, and do not know who their vice president is; much less who George S. Patton was. First we pay to send them to school, and then we pay to send them to college where they usually protest against our very way of life. Worse yet, these skulls full of mush will one day be running things; a prospect which I find to be frightening.

I also get a police force that can only respond adequately enough to stop a crime 5% of the time. The other 95% of crimes an officer has to spend time investigating what happened after the fact and trying to bring the criminal thugs to "justice". Ironically, once they are brought to justice, even more of my taxpayer money is spent trying to defend the guy. His defense is usually on the grounds that it was my fault for being so rich and successful, and for providing him with the temptation to rob me in the first place. If convicted (and that's a big IF these days) I get to spend even more money paying for his state provided room and board, the numerous appeals with state provided attorneys, and the limitless lawsuits he'll inevitably file from prison.

I also get countless government agencies which issue unfunded mandates with no regard for the cost to the public. I get mandates for airbags, expensive gasoline formulas, dolphin safe tuna, cigarette warning labels, airport security, drinking water quality, and just about every other consumer product on the market. Some of them have real world benefits, but all of them have costs and none of them are voluntary.

I would like to think that for all it's worth, I at least get a government that protects my individual freedoms. But I don't. Instead I get a national, state, and local government that works to limit my speech, take away my guns, and search my house for no good reason. I also get a strong central government that constantly oversteps it's Constitutional authority and tries to run 280 million private lives from Washington. Each year government gets larger and more intrusive, and it seizes more of my money in exchange for votes from large blocks of sheep citizens. We're spending more and more money on failing programs, when we should be asking for our money back.

(originally posted, April 05, 2004)

I hadn't rented a movie for nearly 4 years. To be honest, I hadn't even thought of renting a video in the past four years. A quick glance at my DVD collection will tell you that any movie I like well enough to rent, I just go out and buy it. The last movie I rented was American Beauty during the fall of the year 2000. I remember it because my parents had come down to see my new house in Atlanta.

So it was with no great deal of familiarity that I wandered into Blockbuster Video last night. My only reason for going was because my mother gave me a gift card for a free rental. Oh, she wasn't being all that charitable. It was getting ready to expire, and would have gone to waste while my parents are touring the European countryside. So last night, I stepped into a video store for the first time in years.

I entered the store, which was empty save for the two employees standing behind the front counter, and headed for the back. I had a title already picked out, so I didn't waste any time. I wanted to see the remake of The Ladykillers for two reasons. One because I love Tom Hanks and two, because I had just heard of the movie ten days ago. So I grabbed the movie and headed for the counter. I didn't have a membership, so I had to get one of those. The manager, James, took my gift card and gave me a receipt. Although it cost me nothing, I could see that the regular rental fee was $4.50 for less than 2 days. I asked about late fees, and James told me that they no longer use daily late fees. Instead they just charge you another $4.50 for another 2 days. Lovely.

Although I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I can see that I will probably never rent another movie in my life. At least not for another 4 years.

Aside: And I don't want to hear any crap from you Netflix users. It's a well known fact that Netflix is a religious cult, and it's only a matter of time before the Hale-Bopp comet returns to wisk them away to a far off universe.

Back in 1997, a group of friends got together to go see the movie Titanic. I was unable to go because Monk and I got stuck babysitting. When I say "stuck" I really mean "volunteered", and when I say "babysitting" I really mean "telling the kids to go play while we played games on the computer and got drunk." At the time, we both figured why bother. The movie seemed predictable enough: kids fall in love, boat sinks, she lives, he dies, blah blah blah.

A year or two later Monk finally watched Titanic on VHS. He told me to just put in tape two, but I never bothered. For years afterward I would hear people talking about the movie.

"Have you seen Titanic?" they would ask.

"You mean the iceberg movie? Kids fall in love, boat sinks, she lives, he dies. Nope, never seen it."

Many people wouldn't believe me, or would accuse me of lying. Or they would try to explain it to me like I cared.

"Well you see there's this boat, and an iceberg..."

Well, a few months ago I saw the DVD on sale for $10, so I broke down and bought it. I figured 7 years was long enough, so this weekend I finally freed the movie from it's cellophane prison and watched Titanic.

If you haven't seen it, aside from the obvious Iceberg vs. the unsinkable ship, the movie is about a slutty rich girl slumming it with a homeless transient on her way across the Atlantic. Her lack of virtue and morals are justly rewarded when a giant iceberg comes from out of nowhere to smite her and her forbidden lover boy. I found the movie to be quite watchable, but I still found myself actually rooting for the Iceberg. I also wanted the predictable villian, Billy Zane, to punch that smartmouthed brat in the face; just because.

They also made me wait nearly two hours to see a single boob shot of the comely tramp Gwenyth Paltrow Kate Winslet. I understand that they can't show too much and maintain their PG-13 rating, but come on. Kramer vs. Kramer was rated PG and they rewarded the audience with full frontal JoBeth Williams.

Overall, I'm glad I didn't spend $10 to see it in the theater. The movie's not bad so much as it is long, and dull. Okay, so maybe it is bad. Yeah, I know the movie won 11 Oscars, but aside from Best Picture and Director the rest were all nobody awards like Best Digital Iceberg Effects. Neither Caprio, Winslet, nor the Iceberg won any acting awards.

I'm neither rich nor poor, but every year I have the joy of paying about 35% of my income to taxes. That doesn't even include all of the sales taxes, car taxes, property taxes, and taxes levied on telephone service, electricity, gasoline, etc, etc, etc. But this is tax time, so I'll just concentrate on the 35% that I pay in federal, state, and social security taxes.

What do I get for my 35%? Well for starters, I get a social security system that I'll never use. Every year they send me statements that say that if I keep working my ass off, and live another 37 years I'll get a whopping $1100 a month. That's assuming they aren't broke, and there are still enough suckers paying into the system to give me my fair share. I'd be much better off sticking that money into a private account every month than paying into the government mandated ponzi scheme.

My 35% also gets me a road system so filled with potholes that I have to get my car re-aligned every year. And I get endless miles of concrete barriers and orange cones that have been highway fixtures for the past 10 years. I've become convinced that the federal highway money is not much more than a jobs program used to pay for votes in upcoming elections. Of course I also get the obligatory road debris kicked up into my windshield. Since moving to D.C. where I get a twice daily commute on the federal highway jobs superprogram, I've got three rock chips in my windshield, one of which should blossom into a nice long crack this summer.

I also get a school system that I do not use. I have no children, but any realtor that buys or rents homes will still try to sell you on the added value of the local public school system. But this system, which supposedly adds so much property value to our homes, routinely graduates kids that cannot read, can't do math, and do not know who their vice president is; much less who George S. Patton was. First we pay to send them to school, and then we pay to send them to college where they usually protest against our very way of life. Worse yet, these skulls full of mush will one day be running things; a prospect which I find to be frightening.

I also get a police force that can only respond adequately enough to stop a crime 5% of the time. The other 95% of crimes an officer has to spend time investigating what happened after the fact and trying to bring the criminal thugs to "justice". Ironically, once they are brought to justice, even more of my taxpayer money is spent trying to defend the guy. His defense is usually on the grounds that it was my fault for being so rich and successful, and for providing him with the temptation to rob me in the first place. If convicted (and that's a big IF these days) I get to spend even more money paying for his state provided room and board, the numerous appeals with state provided attorneys, and the limitless lawsuits he'll inevitably file from prison.

I also get countless government agencies which issue unfunded mandates with no regard for the cost to the public. I get mandates for airbags, expensive gasoline formulas, dolphin safe tuna, cigarette warning labels, airport security, drinking water quality, and just about every other consumer product on the market. Some of them have real world benefits, but all of them have costs and none of them are voluntary.

I would like to think that for all it's worth, I at least get a government that protects my individual freedoms. But I don't. Instead I get a national, state, and local government that works to limit my speech, take away my guns, and search my house for no good reason. I also get a strong central government that constantly oversteps it's Constitutional authority and tries to run 280 million private lives from Washington. Each year government gets larger and more intrusive, and it seizes more of my money in exchange for votes from large blocks of sheep citizens. We're spending more and more money on failing programs, when we should be asking for our money back.

Okay, okay. I've put off doing this meme long enough. Basically, I don't read crap like this, and I never figured you'd want to either. But then again, someone must be reading it because I see it being passed around a lot. I figure that while I post a lot and let people in on certain aspects of my life, I generally don't talk about my personal life as much as other folks. So, in an effort to open up and be more {augh} personable, here goes:

* Full Name: Ravenwood
* Birth date: November 28th. (Leaving the year off. Don't want you guys opening a credit card in my name.)
* Birthplace: Virginia
* Current Location: My bedroom
* Eye Color: Brown
* Hair Color: Brown with increasing grey "highlights"
* Height: 6'3"
* Righty or Lefty: right
* Zodiac Sign: If you're into this 70s crap you can figure it out from by birthdate, genius.

LAYER TWO:
* The shoes you wore today: Rockports
* Your weakness: Guns and cigars.
* Your fears: None. I'm fearless.
* Your perfect pizza: Pepperoni and banana peppers.
* Goal you'd like to achieve: Earn my pilot's certificate.

LAYER THREE:
* Your most overused phrase on AIM: LOL
* Your first waking thoughts: Time to make the donuts.
* Your best physical feature: Broad shoulders and a strong back
* Your most missed memory: College daze.

LAYER FOUR:
* Pepsi or Coke: Coke - I'm from the South.
* McDonald's or Burger King: Wendy's
* Single or group dates: Single
* Adidas or Nike: Rockport
* Lipton Ice Tea or Nestea: Anything fresh brewed.
* Chocolate or Vanilla: Vanilla.
* Cappuccino or coffee: Coke.

LAYER FIVE:
* Smoke: Cigars.
* Cuss: My father was a sailor and my mother, a sailor's wife. What do you think?
* Sing: Only in the car.
* Take a shower everyday: Yes. I'm not French.
* Do you think you've been in love: Yes.
* Want to go to college: Been there, done that.
* Liked high school: Yes, but that was before zero tolerance, political correctness, and metal detectors.
* Want to get married: Probably not. Other people are too hard to live with.
* Believe in yourself: What good Libertarian wouldn't?
* Get motion sickness: No way.
* Think you're attractive: It doesn't matter what I think.
* Think you're a health freak: No. I'm always looking for new ways to pollute my body.
* Get along with your parent(s): Yes. But it takes lots of alcohol sometimes.
* Like thunderstorms: Absolutely.
* Play an instrument: Yes, several.

LAYER SIX:
In the past month:
* Drank alcohol: Who me?
* Smoked: A cigar, yes.
* Done a drug: No.
* Made Out: Yes.
* Gone on a date: Yes.
* Gone to the mall: Yes.
* Eaten an entire box of Oreos: No.
* Eaten sushi: Yes.
* Been on stage: No.
* Been dumped: No.
* Gone skating: No.
* Made homemade cookies: No.
* Gone skinny-dipping: No. It's winter.
* Dyed your hair: No. I'm a man.
* Stolen anything: No.
* You sound boring: At least I'm not the one still reading this crap.

LAYER SEVEN:
Ever:
* Played a game that required removal of clothing: Yes.
* If so, was it mixed company: Of course, I'm not into playing "strip poker" with a bunch of other guys if that's what you mean.
* Been trashed or extremely intoxicated: Yes, but never trashed enough to play "strip poker" with a bunch of other guys.
* Been caught doing something: Yes, but never caught playing "strip poker" with a bunch of other guys.
* Been called a tease: No. Guys don't tease.
* Gotten beaten up: Well, there was that time I suggested playing.. I mean NO! I've never been beaten up.
* Shoplifted: Once when I was 12. Got caught. Scared me straight.
* Changed who you were to fit in: In college I once walked into a stranger's apartment during her birthday party to get free beer.

LAYER EIGHT:
* Age you hope to be married: I'll die first.
* Numbers and Names of Children: I don't know any children, nor do I have their number. Try someone else, freak.
* Describe your Dream Wedding: Is this meme for chicks? Guys don't dream about weddings. (They're called nightmares.)
* How do you want to die: With my boots on. Also, I never want to be attached to a piece of luggage.
* Where you want to go to college: If I ever go back to get my MBA, it'll probably be Virginia Tech.
* What do you want to be when you grow up: I yam grown up, and I yam what I yam.
* What country would you most like to visit: The United States (The way it used to be, around the 1870s)

LAYER NINE:
* Number of drugs taken illegally: None.
* Number of people I could trust with my life: I'm paranoid, and trust no one.
* Number of CDs that I own: Several hundred, but I haven't bought any since the RIAA started harassing people.
* Number of piercings: None.
* Number of tattoos: None, because they won't do it while I'm drunk.
* Number of times my name has appeared in the newspaper: Probably three or four.
* Number of scars on my body: Too many to count.
* Number of things in my past that I regret: Well, there was that time I asked my buddies to play... oh nevermind.

LAYER TEN:
What's your favorite:
* Person: I like some people better than others, but I don't have any favorites.
* Song: Again, I don't play favorites.
* Color: None.
* Place: Anyplace with beer.
* Thing(s) to do: Drink, smoke, hang out with friends.
* Position: I'm not picky. I'm pretty much just happy to be there.
* Feature: I look for a woman with a terrific personality. (See how stupid that sounds, ladies.)

LAYER ELEVEN:
* Describe your perfect life partner: I'm looking for a woman who will love me for who I am, and who won't try to change me into what they want me to be. She'll also know when to shut the hell up. So far, I haven't found her.
* Describe your perfect date: The perfect date would be a sexy, intelligent, brunette with ample boobs and a good figure. She wouldn't be too skinny, and would let me pamper her as I see fit. She wouldn't be threatened by a man who opens her door, orders her meal, or picks up the check. A little sex at the end of the night would be nice too, but it's not necessary.

One good thing about cleaning all my crap out of storage is that I get to look through all the old memorabilia that I've collected throughout the ages. While going through some old video tapes and throwing them out, I ran across a tape of some home movies from high school. Not being one to turn down a good reason to put my spring cleaning on hold for a while, I popped the tape in the VCR. There were a few marching band competitions (yes, I was in band) and a skit we did for senior English class. There was also a tape of my high school graduation.

Looking back on it, I don't think of high school graduation as some big event. Actually, looking back on it now it all seems trivial. But at the time it was a big deal. I had forgotten about all the family members that had shown up. This guy was there, as was his mom and brother. That's no small feat considering they lived 600 miles away. His high school chum John was also there. My grandfather and late grandmother were also there with bells on. Another of my Aunts was there with her husband who is since deceased. And of course my older sister and parents were there. My sister was a mere 20 years young, and my father had some strange 1980's style tuft of hair on his upper lip.

I don't even want to talk about the clothes. Everyone pictured looked utterly rediculous, including me. Sure my suit was concealed under my cap and gown but unfortunately our high school colors were powder blue and white (and the gown wasn't white). Thankfully my mom had forced me to get a hair cut. Junior and senior year my hair wasn't exactly long, but it had that typical 1980s thickness to it that came down over the ears. I couldn't imagine letting it get that long today.

What struck me as being most notable about the graduation video wasn't the people, but rather what happened at the end. After all the caps were thrown and after all the speeches were given, someone took to the microphone and offered a prayer. And here, at this government sponsored school function, people of all faiths bowed their head and prayed to God. Does that still happen in this day and age?

Overall the trip down memory lane was enjoyable, and I'm thankful that we had actually captured some of those events on video. It really makes me realize how much time is fleeting. In the immortal words of Ferris Bueller, "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in awhile, you could miss it."

I was raised by Democrats, grew up as a Democrat, voted Democrat, and thought Democrat. Then, between the years 1990 and 2000 the Democrat Party slowly drifted away from me. I had never really believed in all of their principles, and was genuinely split on the issues. During that decade, I was truly disgusted with the actions of some during Gulf War I, and of a select group of others who supported the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. During the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton, I pretty much hated all politics. The last straw was when Clinton admitted that he had duped all his supporters into defending his sexual promiscuity.

Today, I cannot believe what a wretched, morally bankrupt group of people the Democrats have become (on average). While my list of grievances is growing ever so longer, what has really flamed my shorts lately is the argument over President Bush's military service. I'm no big fan of President Bush, but I grew up in a military family. I've got several friends with military and national guard service, and cannot help but retch whenever I hear the Democrats denigrating the military. Lately there has been a lot of talk that the National Guard is not the real military. John 'F the South' Kerry himself claimed that the National Guard was akin to draft dodging.

"I've said since the day I came back from Vietnam that it was not an issue to me if somebody chose to go to Canada or to go to jail or to be a conscientious objector or to serve in the National Guard or elsewhere."

Kerry continues to dwell on his own service in Vietnam, while pointing out that Bush only served in the National Guard. This is a far different tune than what he was singing in 1992, when he defended Bill Clinton's European Vacation, and complete lack of military service during Vietnam. Back in 1992, Kerry claimed that military service wasn't important.

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."

Kerry's attempt to portray himself as a great patriot is laughable. I have no doubt that his military service was admirable, but his behavior after leaving the Army was indeed deplorable. Kerry protested with the likes of Hanoi Jane, and helped found a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The group was lauded by the Communist Vietnamese as being crucial to their will to fight. While our boys were fighting and dying, Kerry testified before Congress that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were committing war crimes. His testimony gave comfort to our enemies abroad.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam...

Kerry went on to conclude that "we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now". If you wonder what kind of President Kerry would be like, read that again and substitute the word communism with terrorism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Bush lover. I feel he is doing a good job on the war and tax cuts, but other than that, he's no different than any other big government democrat. But when some Democrats would try to convince you that Bush dodged the draft (by signing up for military service) and that he was AWOL from the National Guard, I cannot support them. Even after Bush released his military records, Democrats like Terry McAuliffe balked. While McAuliffe cannot prove his guilt, all we hear in the liberal media is that Bush cannot "prove" his innocence.

Meanwhile, I think we are all still waiting for Bill Clinton's military records.

UPDATE: Apparently I'm not the only one upset with Kerry's anti-Guard slander.

The AP reports that DUI offenders in Escambia County Florida are being branded with a scarlet letter, and subjected to an "operation tips" style of public monitoring. Previously, drivers convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol had their cars badged with "Convicted DUI". The public shaming apparently wasn't enough to stem the tide of DUI offenses, (big surprise) so now the powers that be are tagging offenders for monitoring by stool pigeon neighbors.

Some convicted drunken drivers in the Florida Panhandle have been ordered to put bumper stickers on their cars asking, "How's my driving? ... The judge wants to know!!!"

Escambia County Judge William White said he hopes the bumper stickers, which include an identification number for each driver and a toll-free phone number, will reduce repeat offenses for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Won't it be fun to have the last laugh and report that jerk that cuts you off in traffic, drunk or not? Nothing like some cruel and unusual punishment to fix him up good.

Don't take this the wrong way, because I realize that drunken driving is indeed dangerous, but then again, so is speeding, aggressive driving, and any other number of traffic violations. Driving erratically, or while distracted or impaired should be punished, but the punishment should fit the crime. People who drive under the influence but do not actually do harm to anyone else should be treated on equal footing as all the other reckless or aggressive drivers out there.

I'm not advocating going soft on drunk drivers, but I am tired of the government taking punishments too far, and taking measures that don't actually have any affect on safety. For instance, lowering the minimum levels from 0.10 to 0.08 probably does little to make our roads safer. The people driving in that narrow range are not usually the problem, and should probably be treated like people that drive 5-10 mph over the speed limit. Sure, they may cause an accident, but how much of a danger are they really?

If you read most accident reports in the newspaper, people accused of DUI are usually 0.20 and above. A level of 0.15 would probably be sufficient for holiday checkpoints, and the lower levels should only come into question if there is an accident or a report of erratic driving. The lower levels should be used only to measure impairment during an accident investigation. After all, alcohol affects different people differently, and some people would probably be impaired at much lower levels than 0.08 while others would not.

Setting the science of blood alcohol levels aside, there are some localities that practice instant punishment and double jeopardy. New York City for instance started impounding vehicles at mere accusation, regardless of a conviction. Even if defendants won in court, they still didn't necessarily get their car back. Facing punishment without a trial, and then facing a second punishment later isn't a practice just isolated to New York. In many other localities you can lose your drivers license on the spot. Licenses are considered "privileges" and some states don't think twice about yanking them at any time without proving their case in a court of law. (And some people wonder why we don't want gun registration.)

Unfortunately such unreasonable government powers are often tolerated due to the stigmatizing of people caught driving under the influence. Proponents scream that it "saves lives", and that we should do it "for the children", which the excuse most often heard when freedoms are being removed.

I'll admit that views like mine are usually met with hostility, and irrelevant horror stories by people who's lives were tragically altered by drunk drivers. I say irrelevant, because you can find similar stories of people being killed by speeders and red light runners. Nobody wants to see innocent people killed, but violating the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the Bill of Rights should not be acceptable no matter what the benefit. Deterrence should, instead, come from the harsh punishments meted out to those that actually do deprive others of life, liberty, or property.

UPDATE: Kate has more, including a graphic of the sticker.

I don't know about you, but it bugs me whenever I see someone desecrating the flag. Even though I would never support an Amendment banning it, I still think that if you are going to burn the American flag, you should have the decency to wrap yourself in it first. That is why it bugs me whenever I see people showing disrespect to our flag by flying them on vehicles, or letting them get frazzled and worn out.

I am highly patriotic, and I like it when other people are patriotic too, but flying a flag on your vehicle is wrong. Flags are normally flown from flag poles. Whenever a hurricane or strong storm comes through, most flag owners go out and remove their flag. They fold it up and tuck it away until the storm passes, and then return the flag to it's perch. They do this out of practicality as well as respect. After all, 75+ mph winds will ruin your flag, and you'll have to have it replaced, as well as properly dispose of the old flag. Why then, would someone willingly subject their flag to 70-90 mph winds by sticking it on their automobile? Flags are not meant to take such a beating, and even the best flag will start to show wear and tear immediately.

I think a lot of people don't know even basic flag etiquette. For instance, flags are supposed to be retired when they begin to show wear. If they are severely damaged, they should be properly disposed of. Local VFW posts often perform this service for free. Also, flags should always hang a certain way. When hanging flat on a wall, the stars should be on the flag's right. (The observer's left). Hanging a flag backwards or upside down sends a completely different message than what you were originally trying to convey.

Flags should never be raised to half staff. Instead they should be raised to full staff and then lowered half way. Also, the flag should be raised swiftly, and lowered slowly, and it should never be allowed to touch the ground. Allowing it to do so is another sign of disrespect. Once a flag is removed from the pole, it should be properly folded, so that only the stars are showing.

There are numerous other protocols that should be followed, many of which are readily violated. For instance, the flag should never be worn. It should not be used for disposable napkins, and should be properly lighted if flown at night.

I'm not trying to be a flag nanny, but merely hoping to help educate the masses. I'm happy that people want to express their patriotism. But not when doing so results in disrespect for our nation's flag.

(Click here for more on flag etiquette.)

School choice is coming to Washington D.C.. Congress approved $10 Million worth of vouchers so that students who currently attend government schools can opt for a private school instead. The AP notes that now that the Fed has moved forward on vouchers, the states will be pressured to do likewise. Still, there is a perception that this is money being spent. Check out this gem from the article:

Still, with states in their worst financial shape in decades, this is not a time when many state leaders will be inclined to start earmarking money for private schools, [Todd Ziebarth, policy analyst for the nonprofit Education Commission of the States] said.

This quote is indicative with what is wrong with the big-government attitude. They view it is their money and not taxpayer money. Sure, they may be diverting $10 Million away from D.C. government schools, but they are also removing a lot of students from using government services.

Let me put this in perspective. The D.C. voucher program allows for up to a $7500 voucher. As of June 2001, D.C. was spending more than $10,800 per pupil. It is safe to say has not decreased in the last two years. To simplify the exercise lets call it $10,000 per pupil, and say a school has 10 pupils. That would mean that a DC school is currently spending $100,000 for 10 students. If we take away 1 pupil and $7500, the total spending drops to $92,500, but there are now only 9 students. That means the per student money available actually increased from $10,000 to over $10,275. It is doubtful that 10% of the students will be allowed to participate in the program, but no matter what the percentage, the money per student will always increase.

Likewise, if so many students are taking advantage of the program that it begins to implode on itself, than it is indicative of just how bad the government schools are failing. If parents end up leaving them in droves, perhaps it is time to do away with them altogether.

CNN reports that the economy hasn't hurt everyone. Congress is planning to give themselves a 4.1% pay increase; the fourth consecutive pay increase. Not only does Congress have the unique power of being able to vote themselves a raise, but they have actually it set up so that their raises are automatic, and a vote needs to be held to stop them from occurring.

Last year, Senator Tom Daschle, Soc.-SD gave himself a pay raise and then had the nerve to tell Greta Van Susteren on "On the Record" that it was "not a raise." By Tom's logic, since his pay raise was but a mere 3.1%, it was in fact a pay "cut". We should all have that luxury.

Personally, I haven't had a raise in over two years. At my last company, we were told that pay raises would be frozen for during the hard economic times. While weathering the storm, I watched our number of employees decrease from over 90,000 to less than 30,000. After two years of layoffs, I had the experience of being let go right before the holidays. My layoff was followed by about 5 months of unemployment. Considering my current job pays about 3% less than my last one, I still have some catching up to do to match the 3-5% annual pay raises that Congressmen enjoy.

I will also note that my cost of living has increased threefold in the past year, since I moved from low-rent Ohio to high-rent DC. While the move was self inflicted, even had I stayed in Ohio or been living in DC the entire time, I would still be facing pretty steep inflationary increases. Property tax increases have pushed up rental prices and tax payments for everyone. The hot housing market has inflated the cost of homes, and of course there have been the ubiquitous "War on Terror" travel, insurance, and gas price hikes.

My biggest complaint about Congressional raises is the lack of accountability. Regular folk like me don't have the luxury of setting their own salary, and then seizing money from Americans (using the threat of lethal force) to pay for it. I mean I could try to give myself a raise and force my neighbors to pay for it, but I'd probably end up in jail. Even union employees have to negotiate a raise with management, and management has to negotiate their raises with the shareholders. There is always a bottom line. With government, there is no bottom line. When they want more money, they just go out and take it.

Democrats and Republicans alike have been "serving the public" for so long that they seem to have forgotten who they work for. Spending and taxes continue to increase, while private sector salaries have pretty much stagnated. I'm tempted to ask that Congressional and political salaries be tied to economic performance. Since Congress ultimately has so much say in how much money this country pisses away, they should be paid for performance. During economic slow downs their pay raises should slow down. During recessions and/or periods of high unemployment, Congressional salaries should be frozen or even rolled back. I'm tempted to recommend tying it to the size of the deficit, but I know they'd just raise taxes to cover their spendthrift habits.

Of course, for many in Washington the pay seems largely symbolic any way. Many Congressmen (Senators especially) would probably work for free if they could hold onto the tremendous power that they currently wield. That power is best illustrated by the big lobbying money that comes in to gain access to their political influence. With the passage of the dreaded Seventeenth Amendment, the checks and balances of state power over Senators was effectively eliminated. Throw in a six year election cycle, the Incumbent Protection Act, and pork barrel spending, and it's no wonder that Senators rarely worry about their job.

Yesterday was an interesting day, not so much for me, but for some of the people in my life. It started out like a normal work day, but at about 4 o'clock, my friend Ken called from California. We got to chatting, and he informed me of some good news. His wife is halfway through her first pregnancy, and he knows that it's his. They are due to have a baby boy on January 1st. Of course, that screws up 18 years of NCAA football bowl games, but that was his choice.

Later that evening, I went to a friend's house warming party. Mike and Anna served as gracious hosts, even though they must have had 30 to 40 people in attendance. While I was mingling, Anna came up to me and delivered her good news. She is 2 months pregnant, and just starting to show.

Their house warming party was a lot of fun, but it actually served a dual purpose. It helped serve as a ruse for my friend Dwayne to pop the big question to Jenn with two 'n's. They have been dating and shacking up for about 6 years now, so it really is about time they make it legal. I'm still not sure why Dwayne wanted to propose to his girlfriend in front of an audience, but it was still pretty touching. He gave her flowers, said a little speech, spoke some French and got down on one knee. All of the women were crying.

Only about half of the people there were in the know, with most of the women left out of the loop. It's not that women cannot be trusted with a secret, but mostly because Dwayne wanted to keep a lid on it, while still making sure that people showed up. My wishy-washy attitude toward attending the party put me into the need to know category, so I was told what was going to happen, and that I should definitely be there.

I think it is quite strange how changes seem to come in threes. Sometimes they creep up on you, and sometimes they come all at once. Other times they are spread out. For me, I found out about two sets of friends starting a family, and I witnessed two other friends planning to spend the rest of their lives together in the span of about 4 hours.

Part of what makes all of this so interesting, is that while all of this change was happening around me, my life has remained relatively empty and unchanged. Sure, I've lived in a lot of different places over the years, bought and sold a house, and even experienced a few months of uncertain unemployment. Still, my day to day life is pretty much the same. I wake up, I go to work, and I come home; day in, and day out. Every now and then I do something exciting: I take a trip, visit with family and friends, pick up a girlfriend for a month or two. In the end, however, I wind up in the same position in life that I started from.

My friends seem to come and go, especially as their children get older, and their lives become more self-involved and less centered around friendship. Old friends disappear and are never heard from again, while new friends enter my life. Me, I am but an observer, watching the people in my life grow older, get married, start families, and move on. Meanwhile, my life is still pretty much the same. It hasn't grown much at all. It almost feels like my friends are all graduating and going on to bigger and better things, while I'm stuck waiting for the damned school bus to show up.

Actually in the simplest of terms, I am pretty much just sitting around waiting to die. Perhaps one of these days, I'll go out and get a dog or something, just to keep from dying alone.

While California Governor Gray Davis goes on a Scavenger Hunt for a way to stay in office, and minimize the Collateral Damage of an out of control budget deficit, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to become a Running Man.

It may be the End of Days for Davis, if on The Sixth Day plus one of October, the election is allowed to proceed. While the record budget surplus is a major factor in the Total Recall, for many voters it has more to do with the True Lies surrounding the size of the overall deficit. Davis was accused of using a big Eraser on the financial ledgers and coming up with some fuzzy math.

With the plethora of candidates Pumping Iron, and lining up to replace him, will it be Judgement Day for Gray Davis? Will the recall be The Terminator of his political career? Opponents of the recall have acused Schwarzengger and Republicans like Darrell Issa of being a Predator of democracy. Although they aren't Twins on the political spectrum, the Dynamic Duo will no doubt take a lot of blame from Californians who are loyal to Davis.

Supporters think Davis is getting a Raw Deal, in having to face the Red Heat of the voters for the second time in as many years. To them, a GOP takeover is like a Rise of the Machines. Arnold is seen as Conan the Barbarian, coming "back" to be The Destroyer of democracy.

Regardless of what happens, it's Jingle all the Way to the bank for Gray Davis. He's no Junior fund raiser, and campaigning is what he does best. Davis has put on his Commando gear and will Stay Hungry to prove that he's no Kindergarten Cop. He's ready to be the Last Action Hero of California Democrats. Who knows, if that doesn't work, he could always play Hercules in New York to Hillary's Red Sonja.

--= Sorry for all the puns, but somebody had to do it =--

The Hill makes the astounding prediction that Bloggers won't match Limbaugh Well, who the hell ever claimed that they would? After all, Rush is still considered to be in a class of his own in Radio. Comparing him to the fledgling world of blogging is asinine. Even then, the Hill completely misses the reasons for the inevitable. They list four main hurdles that bloggers must overcome.

First, they list Rush's show prep as a huge asset. They are right, but any blogger could easily scour the internet for news and information. Having the discipline to read through them all is something else that anyone could train themselves to do.

They also make a claim about Rush's persuasiveness. The Hill claims that bloggers spend too much time mimicking each other, and not enough time coming up with original ideas. "Because some bloggers, even prominent ones, spend so much time writing throughout the entire day, they don't research their own ideas well enough to be persuasive."

Persuasiveness is about more than preparedness and research. It helps to be grounded in truth and fact. The Hill is on the right track, but the still miss the boat with this one.

Second, they note Limbaugh's production technique. Rush's experience as a disc jockey taught him that entertainment value is king. Then they go off on a tangent, and blast all bloggers for some people's poor web design. "By comparison, most bloggers seem oblivious to the production details that might polish their communication efforts. Few seem to care about the principles of effective Web design. Some even seem to consider the primitive style of their blogs a badge of honor."

They are on the right track with entertainment value but they go on a wild goose chase with the presentation. Many weblogs are brilliantly presented and have professional designs. Blaming everyone for the poor designs of a few would be akin to blaming Rush for Opie and Anthony's solicitation of a couple to have sex in a Catholic church.

Third, they harp on entertainment value again. Sure, entertainment is hugely important, but to say that all bloggers are boring is yet another baseless generalization. Limbaugh can be very witty, but then so can plenty of bloggers out there.

Fourth, they claim that the bonds that Limbaugh builds with his audience are somehow unique. "He provides enough details about his personal life that loyal listeners know something about his parents, brother, wife, their cats, his golf game, his diet, his hearing problems, etc." Like bloggers never do that?? This one is completely bogus. Sure it works for Rush, but that is not the reason bloggers will never be as successful.

All of these points about Rush are completely valid. Of course, they have nothing to do with their claim that bloggers will never be as successful as Rush. First of all, the idea that bloggers won't be as successful is a little silly. Being that Rush runs his own web site with political commentary, Rush could actually be considered a blogger. Neal Boortz, who also makes his bread and butter from radio could also be considered a blogger.

If I were to make the case however, I would say that the biggest handicap for bloggers, is the competition. There are literally hundreds of thousands of blogs, whereas in even the largest markets, there are only a handful of talk radio shows. Talk radio also has it's practical limitations. In the spectrum of public radio waves, there never could be hundreds of thousands of talk radio shows. Even with the advent of subscription based satellite radio, which is comparable to digital cable or satellite, there would probably only ever be a few hundred talk radio programs in any given market.

Not only does Rush face much less direct competition, but he rose to prominence when talk radio was effectively a dead medium. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to claim that Rush revitalized AM radio. Rush is, and always will be, the Godfather of talk radio. He pioneered the business.

Who pioneered blogging? Nobody really has. Sure, you have people like Taranto and Glenn Reynolds, but outside of the blogging community, they are still largely unknown. Even people that don't listen to Rush, recognize his voice, and know who he is. Ask someone on the street who Andrew Sullivan is, and you'll probably get a blank stare.

To put it in the simplest of terms, Rush started out as just about the only fish in a tiny pond, and has grown into a huge fish in a relatively small pond. Bloggers however, are much smaller fish in a much, much bigger pond.

The second biggest handicap for bloggers is probably the medium itself. Humans like to have stuff fed to them, like on TV and radio. For that reason, the internet as we know it will probably never be quite as big as radio or TV. Not discounting future developments, humans would still rather have radio or TV on even as a background noise, than spend time reading through pages of text and pictures.

A third reason is the profit model. Internet advertising just doesn't pay like it used to, and until it does, radio and TV will continue to be bigger cash cows. Naturally, competition comes into play here as well. With few exceptions, usually it is radio and TV that bring people to the web, not the other way around.

But then again, what do I know? I'm just a blogger.

If you have ever lived in Virginia, you probably know what a headache car registration can be. In addition to normal DMV hoops that you have to jump through, Virginia makes you pass a state inspection, before you can put your vehicle on public roads. In theory, the state inspection is a good idea. After all, not allowing people to drive around with no brakes, one bad headlight, and only one working brake light is beneficial to us all, right? Unfortunately, as with most government regulations, the end result is hardly what was intended.

Each year, residents must take their car to a state inspection station to have it inspected. The inspector usually checks all the signals and lights, the brakes, the shocks, and various other parts of the car. If you pass, you get a sticker to put in your window that is good for one year. If you fail, you also get a sticker for your window, but it says REJECTION. Once your car has been branded as a reject, you have 10 days to make the proper repairs and get it re-inspected. The whole process costs $10 $15, which is the limit under state law.

At the core of the problem is how Virginia implements this inspection process. Instead of Virginia inspectors being agents of the commonwealth, they are auto mechanics who are certified to inspect vehicles. This of course creates a huge conflict of interest, whereby auto mechanics have a vested interest in your failing the inspection. Instead of losing money by tying up a mechanic for a measly $10 $15, the auto shop stands to earn hundreds or even thousands of dollars on cars that need to have work done. To put it plainly, the state is basically forcing you to take your car to a mechanic and ask him to poke around and see if he can find any work that needs to be done. Who, in their right mind, would do that if the state didn't make them?

Of course, some inspection stations are completely honest. However, there are enough dishonest ones out there to ruin it for everyone. I recall one encounter I had with an inspector back in 1995. My car was only two years old, so I expected it to pass. Rather than slap my $10 $15 sticker on the window, however, the mechanic handed me an estimate for over $500 worth of work that needed to be done. He claimed that my tires needed to be replaced, that I had "moisture" in my headlight caused by a tiny hole (which would require the whole assembly to be replaced), and that I had an unknown electrical problem that kept the hazard lights from working properly.

Rather than give the bastard the satisfaction, I took the car down the road to another mechanic, to get a second opinion. The mechanic there could find no electrical problem, and both sets of hazard lights seemed to work just fine. I did need new tires, which he sold me for $150, and he told me how to fix the headlight myself with a hairdryer and a dab of caulk.

Recently, a friend of mine has had her own horror story with a mechanic. She took her aged 1989 Honda in for it's annual inspection, and had it come back rejected. From as far as I can tell, they gave her a four figure estimate. Rather than pump thousands of dollars into a 14 year old car that drives just fine, she has been risking a ticket by driving around on the rejection sticker for several weeks. The last I heard, she will probably end up having to buy a new car.

Of course, while the annual inspections go a long way to pad the pockets of dishonest mechanics, they do very little to actually keep unsafe cars off the road. Whenever you're out on the road in Virginia, there are still plenty of folks driving around with bad brakes, mispointed headlights, and no burned out tail lights. Yet another case of good intentions ending up being a huge nightmare for everyone.

After 14 grueling days, working 14+ hour days and studying late into the night, I emerged from my training class weary and tired. Still, I managed to accumulate a 7-0 record on the exams, and walk away with my MCSA and MCSE certifications. Our entire class did extremely well, with 8 of 11 people passing everything the first time, and two more only having to re-take one exam. A nod goes out to my instructor.

I also want to thank Lope for taking the reins from me while I was taking my training class. Had I not been able to leave my weblog in his capable hands, I probably would not have been able to pass the class. Instead of using those lunch breaks and spare moments to study the next chapter, I would have undoubtedly been busy trying to publish a quick weblog entry.

I did however, manage to save a few bookmarks. I tucked away articles and stories that I really wanted to talk about. I saved them all up, for what I'm calling the "Longest Entry Ever" or "The Week(s) in Review" or "Chicken Soup for the Blogging Soul".

In blogging news, I missed Spoon's big comeback. I had a feeling he might be up to something when he left this cryptic message on my web-site. Oddly enough, Spoons added me to his blogroll right before he went on hiatus, and removed me from it right after he returned. Mrs. DuToit also put me on her blogroll, right when she started her hiatus, and her hiatus started right around the time Spoons came back from his. Both Spoons and DuToit have the same number of letters. Spoons lives in Chicago, and Mr. DuToit used to. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Is Spoons really Mrs. DuToit? Hmm... Inquiring minds want to know.

Speaking of Ohio, (okay, I wasn't, but I needed a segue) on Tuesday, I read about the city of Cincinnati going all 1984 on people's asses. Up go the cameras, which should make for some good "Stupid behavior caught on tape" videos. Ironically, Cincinnati lawmakers are Ohio's biggest opponents to allowing law abiding citizens the right to carry concealed firearms. It just goes to show you that they would much rather spend government money to investigate your murder, than to allow you to have prevented it in the first place.

Meanwhile, Fox News featured an AP story about a West Virginia man that went nuts at a school board meeting. He doused a man with gasoline, and opened fire with an "AK-47 assault rifle", because some people were smoking around him. I'm sure the pleasure police liberals will be falling all over themselves to try to ban cigarettes, AK-47s and gasoline from school board meetings.

Kim gives us a story about Massachusetts gun registration. It seems as though the police agency in charge of processing registration requests simply decided not to do it any more. The sheriff blamed budget cuts and imposed a moratorium on all new gun purchases. Thankfully, the town council had the sense to tell the sheriff he had to do his job, regardless of the budget. Hopefully this will be a wakeup call for citizens to tear down registration barriers once and for all.

In another gun registration story, Kim notes that the U.N. may be pushing for world wide gun confiscation registration. Specifically, they want to wield power over the citizens of the United States and our lawless, freedom loving ideas. All I'll say is that it isn't going to happen. Not to my guns any way.

Speaking of gun bans, one of these days, the citizens of Washington D.C. may finally get their rights back. The Post reports that Senator Orrin Hatch has proposed legislation to end the gun ban. Despite having a handgun ban and a longgun ban/registration scheme in place since 1976, Washington D.C. is the murder capital of the United States.

Speaking of murder capitals, the violent crime rate in England is still on the rise. Despite passing a sweeping gun ban in the late 1990s, overall violent crime is up 20%. Murders in London jumped 22%, while "gangland" crime has skyrocketed 72%. Gee, you make guns illegal, and prosecute homeowners for defending themselves, and look what happens. Go figure.

Speaking of guns, Kim has yet another good one about the age old argument between the .45 ACP vs. the 9mm Europellet. I've always thought size mattered, and for that reason, I don't own a wimpy 9mm. If I do buy a 9mm, it'll be something that like this mean and nasty Cobray M11, that is sure to drive fear into gun grabbers everywhere.

In other gun news, Taranto pointed out this tidbit of media bias. Journalists at the Olympian (Washington) are shocked, just shocked, to discover that gun owners can actually get together for some friendly competition and not end up killing each other in "Dodge City" fashion. Their headline: "Despite presence of guns, friendliness abounds at state championships" says it all, and makes me wonder about the mental stability of their reporters.

Speaking of media bias, Eugene Volokh caught CBS in not one, but two flaps about Iraq. I guess when you can't find any bad news, you just have to make it up sometimes.

While I'm thinking about Iraq, dems are acting like they've found the Rosetta stone with George Bush's state of the union address. Even though they voted to go to war months prior to the speech, Dems are claiming they were duped by the "bad" intelligence info. Desperate for a campaign issue, presidential wannabes like Kerry and Graham have been giving pointing the finger at Bush and his deceptive yet persuasive fifteen words that retroactively convinced them that attacking Iraq was the only option. They never would have voted to attack Iraq if they had known that the 15 words Bush interjected into his speech three months later were going to end up being false.

So distraught were some democrats, that they forgot all about the NAALCP's convention. After some harsh words from the race warlords however, dems were quick to Step'n Fetchit. They would have garnered more respect (and kept their spine) had they used this excuse instead.

Speaking of racial warmongering, Kim DuToit notes that the Congressional Black Caucus is upset because Bush didn't invite them to go to Africa. Kim notes that "perhaps if you stopped referring to the President as a moron, or as a right-wing fundamentalist, or as someone owned by Big Oil or Enron, or as someone who allowed 9/11 to happen so he could enrich his family -- perhaps if you stopped doing all those things, he might actually care about what you think."

Back at the NAALCP convention, Bob Graham, who is no doubt a product of government schools, noted that he would "use the five-letter word: deceit" to describe the Bush Administration. I wouldn't normally grandstand over such a trivial mistake, if it weren't for dickheads like Jacob Weisberg. The "Bushism" crowd, who tape every Bush event, in hopes that he'll stumble over a syllable or two, were eerily silent. What, no book of Grahamisms?

Speaking of the product of government schools, the top item on the PC Watch list are parents of an Oregon school system that want the schools to stop flying the American Flag. One of those who would be offended by the flag is Tracy Bungay, who whines, "I want to raise my children to be citizens of the world, and the flag does not represent ideals I want to instill ... It represents dominance, greed, corporate power and not freedom." Too bad state law requires the flag be flown. Perhaps Tracy can use her school voucher to put her children into a private school. Oh wait, she's probably against school vouchers too. Oh well, deal with it, Tracy.

Tracy may not understand what freedom means, but the Iraqis sure do. Over in the gulf, the fall of Saddam's regime has been made an official Iraqi holiday. I'm sure this is driving the peacenik's absolutely crazy. They could only be more pissed off if the Iraqi's started calling it George Bush Day.

In other war news, Puggs over at Random Nuclear Strikes finally got around to watching Gods and Generals. He seemed to enjoy the movie, but claims that his Yankee blood could feel empathy for the "confederate men, but not their cause, not their passion for the war that was to come." So just what did he feel empathy for, if not the cause or passion of men defending their homeland from invasion? Perhaps it was just indigestion he was feeling.

Meanwhile, in state news, the Rhode Island state police have declared war on the natives over cigarette sales taxes. First the white man stole their land and used their images as sport's mascots, and now they cannot even sell tobacco (which is a truly Native American product) without paying tribute to the man. If anything, we should be paying Native Americans for giving us the wonderful product that is tobacco. I wish the Narragansett Indian Tribe the best of luck in federal court. Those yankee pleasure police droogs need to be taken down a peg or two.

I really had to bite my tongue when I read about the Nevada Supreme Court overturning their own Constitution. Apparently the Nevada constitution mandates that school funding be taken care of, and that tax increases be passed by two-thirds majority. Lawmakers discovered that by diverting budgetary funds away from the school budget, they could try to push through a tax increase under the constitutional provision protecting school funding. The question that comes to mind is how mandating a simple majority is any more constitutional than a two-thirds majority. Well, it could have been worse. At least they didn't use the words "compelling interest". Augh, you know this is all her fault.

Last Sunday in Virginia, I missed the commissioning of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan. She looks like a good ship, and should help usher in the next wave of super carriers. The U.S.S. George H. W. Bush is right behind her, and should be the next carrier out of dry dock. Apparently, there may just be a U.S.S. George W. Bush in the works too. Hmm, I wonder why there is no U.S.S Clinton. I wouldn't name a carrier after him, but perhaps a yellow submarine that's long, hard and full of seamen. (rim job er.. shot)

In other national news, the AP notes that the RIAA has won hundreds of federal subpoenas against music fans. I find it most interesting that the ISPs that are being targeted for enforcement, are in direct competition with RIAA members like TWAOL. Verizon and Comcast users have been hit the hardest, neither of whom also has a music business division. Meanwhile, even though they are the nation's largest ISP, not a single AOL user has been served with one of the 871 federal subpoenas.

Fox News brought us the sob story of former college students that are stuck with "high interest" loans. Apparently we've gotten to the point where 6.45% is "high interest". Oh woe is Gene Riccoboni, a New York lawyer who is prevented by the government from locking in his taxpayer subsidized loan at the low 3% rates that are common among today's student loans. You know, with seven years (or more) of college, you'd think he would have learned the difference between FIXED and VARIABLE rates. You don't see me crying to Ford Motor Company because I'm locked in at the ludicrously high rate of 4.9% on my car loan. Gene, you always have the option of trying to find non-government subsidized financing in the private sector. You could always walk down to the bank and ask them for a 3% personal loan. (Good luck with that!)

There has been a lot of good offbeat news lately. Last Thursday, I sent out an email about a nice South Carolina girl I'd found. She has a few skeletons in her car.. er closet, but at least I don't have to worry about her running off. About a week later, my cousin's wife asked me about this mysterious new girlfriend I had. I guess cynicism is lost on some people.

In a rare bit of journalistic humor, Reuters featured a truly bizarre story about a Swiss rent-a-cow service. Apparently the cows are rented out for their milk production and cheese. I wonder if PETA has a European branch?

In other offbeat news, On the Fritz featured this truly bizarre story about the tracking of rubber duckies. Ahh, our scientific dollars hard at work.

In related scientific news, the mystery of Van Gogh's Moonrise has finally been solved. This has long been one of my favorite paintings. Scientists, not wanting to squander a perfectly good government grant, have calculated the precise time and day that Van Gogh would have created such a masterpiece. On July 13th, 1889 at 9:08 PM local time, Vincent Van Gogh forever immortalized a ridge of the French countryside. We can all rest better, now that they've cleared that up.

In other French news, actor Johnny Depp, known for his roles in Private Resort and Cry-Baby, plans to make Paris his permanent home. The Seattle PI reports that Depp says that the United States "mortifies" him with its "childish freedom fries and freedom toast." Depp also campaigned for the "Father of the Year" award by noting that if his kids ever wanted to smoke pot, he'd go get it for them. After watching his friend River Phoenix go dance with the devil in the cold moon light, Depp doesn't trust street drugs anymore, because they could easily be laced with other substances. Ahh, another liberal, doing it "for the children".

France's ally, those pesky Iraqi guerrillas, are going to have to suffer through their shortage of white flags. France has ruled out sending troops to Iraq.

Also in France, cyclist Lance Armstrong, who is trying to win his fifth Tour de France in a row was held up by some French anti-globalization nutjobs. Taranto linked this SI article, and noted that only in France could a political protest that stopped a bike race be deemed "a normal race incident."

In other sporting news, Tazteck notes that home town hero Maurice Clarett may be getting more than just tutoring. Apparently communications is a harder major than it looks like, and the star running back may have taken drastic measures to make it to the Tostito'stm Fiesta Bowl last year. I'll hold my judgement until the facts are in, but I've taken classes with student athletes that seemed to never show up, yet always still managed to pass.

And of course there's Kobe. Kobe Bryant was charged with felony sexual assault. I'm not sure what to make of athletes who get in trouble with girls. On the one hand, there are plenty of women out there who would love to trap an athlete in this exact situation, in hopes of getting a huge settlement. On the other hand, there are plenty of grab-ass athletes out there that think they can get away with murder. (cough) OJ (cough)

Well, that brings me to the end of a long post. If you made it down this far, congratulations. Give yourself a gold star for attentiveness. Happy hour is rolling around, and somewhere there is a beer with my name on it. Salud.

On July 4, 1776, American patriots signed the Declaration of Independence. The document was inflammatory, in that it accused the King of England of tyranny and heinous crimes against man. It could have spelled a death sentence for everyone who signed it. Yet, the document proved to be the framework for world wide freedom. It professed that man is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", and that "among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Hapiness."

Those are ideals worth fighting for, and worth dying for.

This is not just July 4th. This is not just a day to sit around the pool and bar-b-que. This is not just a day to sell new cars at 0% interest and $1000 cash back. This is not just a day to drink tall frosty beverages with your friends.

This day, is first and foremost, the anniversary of our Independence Day.

If you like politics like I like politics, then you love the idea of General Wesley Clark getting into the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, whether you are to the left of Pat Leahy, the right of Rick Santorum or somewhere in the middle. In order to be elected President, a nominee has to run against type. This means a Republican has to appear to be compassionate and inclusive (sound familiar?) and a Democrat has to appear to be militarily and fiscally sensible.

General Wesley Clark doesn't have to answer charges of being "weak on the military" and his stay at Oxford studying economics and then later serving as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Ford administration should serve him well in establishing "fiscal credibility".

As to charges he has waited too long to enter the race for the Democratic nomination, Clinton didn't run the first time until October. General Wesley Clark has plenty of time and he has said he is considering seriously a movement to draft him.

I predict General Wesley Clark will enter the race and win both the nomination and the Presidential race. I could be wrong but I've been right every Presidential Election since 1984 (despite my best efforts to help defeat Bush II.) It will be a tough bitter battle for the Democratic nomination but is doable with his friend Bill Clinton maneuvering behind the scenes. It will be a tougher battle for President against a man who has already been successful in defeating two candidates with better military records and a better grasp of economics (McCain and Gore).

Some folks are already worried about General Clark's political ambitions and are attempting to smear him in a similar manner to McCain four years ago. I'm still pissed about Bush's Evangelical Right Stooges savaging of McCain and it will be a long time before I worship THEIR Jesus, as a result. Jesus can't be too happy that they are more interested in making Political Enemies than carrying out The Great Commission but that's between he and them. I digress.

Republicans will make much of Clark's association with Bill Clinton but this will only serve to remind moderates of better economic times and the Clinton-hating Republicans won't vote for any Democrat anyway. Expect to see scurrilous attacks on Clark's military record from the Chicken Hawk Right from which Bush will cleverly distance himself, while enjoying the bounce he gets from it.

Also expect to see some Fundementalist types (rural and South) make much of his being born a Jew, raised a Baptist and now a Catholic convert. In the churches I grew up in, he'll be a shoo-in for Revelations' AntiChrist Role and hell awaits the Good Fundemental Christian that votes for the AntiChrist (although, if they believe the AntiChrist is in God's Plan for the world, shouldn't they get behind this Prince of Darkness?) The "First-A-Jew-Now-A-Catholic" thing may also cost him a few votes with the bigots of America. They are still out there, marching in the woods and stockpiling weapons (Hey Rich!).

Ultimately and despite conservative's lock on cable and radio, more Americans identify with Democrats than Republicans. Republicans (and Republiterians) have spent over 20 years trying to make "Democrat" and "Liberal" synoyms, which makes the numbers favor them because more Americans identify as conservative than liberal. Solid moderate candidates like Bill Clinton and General Wesley Clark are difficult for Republicans to "smear" as liberal and they reach across a broader spectrum of political thought.

Of course, the wildcard in all this is the effect the Green Party will have on the process. I will write on this more in the future as I address Alternative Voting Procedures.

That may seem like a silly question, but in some corners of the country it really may be in doubt. Apparently in Waltham Massachusetts, the government owns your kids, or at least, that is how it would appear to one family. Sierra Times writes about two home-schooling parents, Kim and George Bryant. The Bryant's home-schooling has raised the ire of the Waltham Public School system (WPS), who wants them to fill out forms, file paperwork, and administer government mandated tests to assess the children's education level. When the Bryants refused, WPS went so far as to enlist the Department of Social Services (DSS) to seize their children.

When DSS officials and police officers showed up to take the children away, DSS trooper Susan Etscovitz apparently told the Bryants, "We have the legal custody of the children and we will do with them as we see fit. They are minors and they do what we tell them to do." I can only imagine how this would make a parent feel.

That statement seemed to strike a chord with parents across the country, because the DSS and Susan Etscovitz have been deluged by some less than flattering letters. I'm sure some of them even questioned the marital status of Susan's parents. DSS spokesman Denise Montero had this to say to the media: "There have been calls from all over the country, threatening Susan's life and children. We have had to change her phone number and not allow her to check her e-mail account... ...The ultra-conservatives and Bible-thumpers have inundated us with threats and phone calls. No one deserves to be threatened..."

Indeed she is correct. Threats and intimidation are no way to conduct yourself (nor is namecalling for that matter). However, as Sierra Times points out, threats and intimidation seemed to be a justifiable vehicle for the WPS and DSS to use against the Bryants. They noted that "when it comes to government officials, their threats don't count, or are done under the 'color of law'."

So according to the Waltham Massachusetts Department of Social Services, it is justifiable to show up with armed government agents, and use the threat of lethal force to seize children from a home where no abuse has been demonstrated to have taken place. However, it is altogether unjustifiable for the public to express outrage, sometimes through threats and intimidation. That doesn't seem like a very level playing field to me. But then, when has it ever been?

Perhaps we should return to the good old days of one-room school houses, or home schooled chil'ens. I mean, it used to be that if your kid didn't do enough book learnin' in school he simply ended up tearin' tickets at the tilt-a-whirl. Ok, so maybe that isn't the best solution. But have we come so far that you can have your children taken away, merely because you didn't fill out some government mandated forms? It all seems very authoritarian to me. Then again, I'm just a "bible thumper" or an "ultra-conservative".

The heavy backpack crusade marches on. CNN reports that they've conducted a "study" to prove the obvious. Heavy backpacks make you walk funny. (That was money well spent.)

Thirteen children ages 8 and 9 walked about 1,310 feet without a backpack, and wearing packs weighing 9 and 13 pounds, while researchers filmed them with a high-speed camera.

"Immediately, you can always tell when backpacks are too heavy, or the kids are tired," said researcher Heidi Orloff of the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington. "Their chins are on their chests."

They needed a high speed camera to recognize when a kid is walking funny with an overstuffed back pack? How much lab analysis did that require?

Studies conflict on whether the packs cause the pain, however.

Research by Dr. Andrew Haig, an associate professor of physical medicine, rehabilitation and surgery at the University of Michigan, found no relationship between the weight of the pack and reports of back pain. In his study conducted in 2000, 184 Ann Arbor, Michigan, pupils from third grade through middle school filled out questionnaires. [...]

About one-third of all the children reported back pain, ranging from about 15 percent of the third graders to 46 percent of middle schoolers. But there was no relationship between pack use and pain, Haig said. [...]

He speculated that packs could cause pain by making some pre-existing back problems more severe. But in most cases, parents should not assume first that the pack caused the pain, he said in a telephone interview from Vienna, Austria, where he is on sabbatical.

Regardless of who concludes what, look for the heavy backpack crusade to call for less homework, lighter text books, and books issued on CD-ROM. As I reported back in October, some school systems have already started down that path. I'll also reiterate my prediction that books on CD-ROM will lead to government subsidized computers for the "less fortunate".

All of this pampering and nannyism is making me worry about the future of this country. Could we have liberated Europe in WWII with people that had grown up whining about every little thing?

"Sarge, my rifle is too heavy. Do I have to carry all these bullets around with me?"

Someone doesn't understand how a tariff works. In discussing the steel tariffs, Tazteck writes:

You, as the buyer of an American made vehicle, will not pay any more.

You will also not be driving a vehicle made from sub-standard steel, and you will be keeping Americans working in good paying jobs.

Being from Ohio, we have seen first hand what the effects are from importing(dumping)sub-standard steel. Our steel mills are closing at a fast pace, dumping many workers into the unemployment line.

Lets say that steel was being imported at $100 per foot, and then being made into mobile homes by the ACME mobile home company. Along comes Bush with his 40% steel tariff that promises to save 5000 steel worker jobs. Now ACME mobile home company has to buy steel for $140 per foot from their import company, or $140 per foot from a local U.S. steel mill. No matter who they buy it from, they are paying more, which is what a tariff does. The whole point of tariffs is to raise the price of imports so that U.S. companies don't have to compete against global competitors.

Now when ACME goes to sell those mobile homes, that increased cost of steel is built into the price of the home. Elasticity of demand means that as the price goes up, the sales go down. The higher cost to the end user for steel products means decreased sales. Decreased sales, means decreased jobs. You may have just saved 5000 steel jobs, but it ends up costing you jobs at the ACME mobile home company. It also costs jobs in the construction business, automotive industry, and anyone else that relies on imported steel. Also, American consumers end up paying higher prices across the board for steel products, so we are all financially impacted.

As for quality, that should be a consumer choice, not a government mandate. For instance, when I go to buy a car, I can buy a Kia, or a Cadillac. Now both cars have 4 wheels, airbags, and all the government mandated safety devices. However, I get to make the personal choice between the quality/luxury brand, or bargain basement brand. Steel should be the same way.

So, what should we do about those 5000 steel worker jobs, and all jobs threatened by imported products? Well, I could take the heartless, kitten stomping point of view and say screw 'em. If they cannot compete, then they lose their jobs. However, since there is a better solution, I'll present that instead.

American companies should face a level playing field with foreign companies. Currently, they do not. U.S. companies are required to pay income taxes to the U.S. on all revenue generated in this country. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, they also must pay income taxes on all revenue generated outside of this country. That means that if Ford Motor Company, has overseas operations where cars are made in overseas plants by overseas workers for sale overseas, they still have to pay income taxes to the U.S. Since they are also paying income taxes overseas, they are double taxed.

Now, foreign companies that set up a manufacturing plant in the U.S. are also taxed by the U.S. for their business that is done here. However, since they are NOT taxed by their own government on operations in the U.S., they have a huge competitive advantage over U.S. corporations.

In addition to the double taxation, Congress is threatening to 'penalize' companies that try to move their operations off shore. Stanley (the tool company) recently backed off from relocating their business to Bermuda, because the U.S. Congress threatened severe economic penalties. Some congressmen had the nerve to claim that Stanley was trying to shirk their civic duty by getting out of paying higher taxes. Under that train of thought, people should be 'discouraged' from moving from New York to Florida to take advantage of the lower state income tax. Rather than New York lowering their tax to give people incentive to stay, they should simply use their governmental police power to prevent people from leaving, and thus shirking their civic duty to the state of New York.

When it comes to imports, the easiest way to level the playing field for U.S. companies, would be to eliminate the double taxation. After all, that is the variable that the U.S. has control over. We cannot dictate what other countries do, and tariffs on imported goods only risk retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods in other nations. We are at a point where trade barriers should be coming down, not going up. And then, if the U.S. companies still cannot compete, too bad. It's time to find another line of work.

I am deeply upset that I have been excluded from receiving the Child Tax Credit. Unlike people making minimum wages, I actually pay taxes. (Thousands of dollars in taxes) Unfortunately for me, not only will I not receive the $400 increase in the child tax credit, I won't receive the initial $600 either. I am being discriminated against simply because I was smart enough not to have any children. Now, I realize that many of you are probably thinking that I've gone off the deep end, but please hear me out.

You may be thinking that since I don't have any children, I don't "need" the child tax credit. You may be thinking that the child tax credit is for people that have actual children. To that, I ask why do people with children get to claim them as dependents, AND receive a child tax credit, while I get neither? To me, it doesn't seem very fair.

I can understand that people that are caring for dependents, can certainly benefit from a lower tax liability, but they already have that in the form of deductions. They've had it for years. Joe Taxpayer claims himself, his wife, and his four kids as deductions from his income. Then for some reason, and I suspect it has something to do with political vote buying schemes, he gets to double dip, and claim those children again for a "child tax credit". Here I am, Mr. Single Guy, Mr. Responsibility, paying huge sums of cash to the government every year, so that Joe, who doesn't know what a condom is, or how to use it get to claim his children twice and get out of paying taxes altogether.

[This is the part where people get upset at me, and claim that I don't "need" the money as much as Joe, or some single mom with four kids.]

Well that may be true, however, nobody forced Joe to go out and have four kids that he could not afford to raise. Bringing a child into the world without the means to care for it, is the worst form of abuse, and it certainly should not be rewarded. If anything, people with children should pay more taxes because they use more government services. Instead they punish those of us that don't have children by making us cough up more tax money every year.

Wow, some actual praise for webloggers. While I really don't give a hoot that some paid blogger who writes for geeks and computer programmers thinks that I am antisocial, it is nice to hear something positive every once in a while. John Naughton of the Observer (UK) writes:

I would sooner pay attention to particular blogs than to anything published in Big Media - including the venerable New York Times. This is not necessarily because journalists are idiots; it's just that serious subjects are complicated and hacks have neither the training nor the time to reach a sophisticated understanding of them - which is why much journalistic coverage is inevitably superficial and often misleading, and why so many blogs are thoughtful and accurate by comparison.

He goes on to make a valid point that many issues are ignored by media outlets, to protect commercial interests. This is a point I've made time and time again.

Even though most reporters deny it, it IS all about the money. Otherwise they wouldn't have a job. Media outlets that freely admit that their primary function is to earn money for their owners score big points with me. Neal and Rush are the first to admit that they are nothing more than entertainers, whose sole purpose is to keep people glued to the station while they run ads. Fox News also admits this, as they routinely mention having to "pay the bills" whenever they cut to a commercial break.

Then there are the media outlets out there that suffer from delusions of grandeur. The ones that act as though they are making some great sacrifice in the name of pubic servitude. Shows like NBC's Dateline, who once deceitfully strapped explosives to a GMC pickup truck to demonstrate how easily it exploded in an auto accident. Earlier this year, Dateline chastised Fox for pandering to Michael Jackson's freakishness, despite the fact that NBC had offered Jackson a cool $5 Mill to obtain the same content. They try to pretend it's about news, when it's really about money. If it weren't about money, CNN wouldn't try to charge you $40 every time you click on a video on their site. If it weren't about money, the 11:00 news would give you the good stories in the first five minutes, instead of making you stay up late. If it weren't about money, they'd be PBS, who runs just enough ads to pay the bills that the taxpayers don't cover. (Even with PBS, it's about getting more money from viewers, or more access to public funds, so that they can pay for their pet projects, or 'artistic' shows that don't have enough entertainment value to hold an audience.)

So how does this apply to blogging? Well, there are some bloggers out there that do it for the money. There are others out there that simply want to take advantage of their traffic, and earn a few extra bucks. Others still, claim that they just want to recoup their production costs. I don't really have a problem with anyone doing that. It is their business, and this is America, so I say go for it.

Personally though, I refuse to run ads, accept gifts, or try to earn any money from the web site. Basically, I run this web site, for my own personal interests. I like it when people visit, and I like it when traffic goes up. I get a certain amount of enjoyment and self satisfaction out of it, but that is not my reason for existing. I do not want my mission to be about increasing traffic, or earning money. I feel that once I start down that road, it gives me an obligation to my readers, or to my advertisers to keep people coming back. I feel that I'll have to be entertaining, or at least attempt to hold an audience. I feel that I'll have to make some guarantee about quality, and pander to readers' interests. It would basically mean that I would have to post more photos of Anna Kournikova, and less photos of my pistols. It would mean that I would have to open up my blogroll to hundreds and hundreds of web sites, to feast off of the reciprocating linkage. It would mean that I'd have to try to unlock the hidden secrets to the MT trackback system that confounds so many of us.

Perhaps one day, I'll change, and actually care about revenue generated from this site. Perhaps one day my hosting fees will get so prohibitively expensive, I'll have to do something to cover the cost. Then again, perhaps one day, I'll just walk away.

Tazteck notes that the Bush tax cut will definitely help his bottom line. Still, he seems to have some reservations about the deficit. I cannot say that I blame him.

The fact is, that the tax cut will put more money into the hands of most Americans. Still, we do have the looming deficit out there to think about. So, just what is the real cause of the deficit? If you said the tax cut, you'd be wrong.

There are actually several factors involved in creating the budget deficit.

1. Lower tax receipts -- This is the single biggest cause of the deficit. The economic slow down meant that less revenue was being collected. With job losses, and stagnating salaries, tax receipts from individuals declined. With consumer spending stagnating, and the dot-bomb bubble bursting, receipts from corporate income taxes also declined. A look at the Congressional Budget Office numbers show that the government received $2.025 Trillion in tax receipts for the year 2000. In 2001, the receipts had declined to $1.991 Trillion, and in 2002 they declined even more to $1.853 Trillion.

2. Increased government spending -- While government revenue was declining, lawmakers kept on spending. Naturally, the 9/11 attack necessitated the need to increase defense spending, but there were plenty of other pork programs in there too. Did we really need, TWO farm subsidy bills? Those steel tariffs seemed a bit unnecessary as well. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been doling out cash to 9/11 victims, commercial airlines, state and local governments, and many other special interests. With a thin margin in the Senate, and as Republicans and Democrats struggle for political power, spending isn't likely to be kept in check. Partisan politics are largely to blame for the spendthrift Congress.

In addition to new projects, not one single existing government program had their budget held in check, much less suffered from an actual reduction in funding. In fact, every single government program received an increase in funding. Again, we turn to the CBO figures. For the year 2000, lawmakers spent $1.788 Trillion. In 2001, spending increased to $1.863 Trillion, and in 2002 spending increased even more to $2.011 Trillion. Since Congress deceitfully labels a tax cut as an "expense" I'll note that only about $50 Billion ($0.050 Trillion) of this spending was from the 2001 Bush Tax Cut.

So what about the budget surplus?

Well, there never really was much of a surplus. The budget surplus was a projection based on growth figures that never materialized. A look at the CBO figures shows that the largest surplus that ever really materialized was $236.4 Billion in the year 2000. That figure includes a $151.8 Billion surplus from Social Security. Taking out Social Security and the Postal Service, means there was an actual "on-budget" surplus of only $86.6 Billion at it's peak. In 2001, the last year of the Clinton budget, the budget surplus was gone, and we had an on-budget deficit of $33.4 Billion. The $120 Billion swing is too big to be accounted for by the Bush tax cut alone. After all, in 2001, we only received those $300 checks.

The Big Lie

Democrats would have you believe that giving out those $300 rebate checks is what recessed the economy. They keep blaming the deficit on the Bush Tax Cut of 2001; a tax cut that largely hasn't even been implemented yet. Somehow, taking money out of Washington, and putting it back into taxpayer hands, created a massive deficit. Never mind that Congress has passed ever increasing budgets, punctuated by a $2.3 Trillion budget this year.

The second "Big Lie" is that all the money went to "the rich". In fact, the $300 rebate was figured by lowering the bottom tax bracket from 15% to 10%. The 5% cut on the lowest bracket (the first $6000 of income) means that it actually went to everyone that earns at least $6000 a year. Crunching the numbers means that anyone making minimum wage and working at least 23 hours per week got a full rebate check. (23hrs/wk x 52wks x $5.15/hr = $6159) That's not exactly "the rich", in my book.

In addition to the rebate checks, the tax brackets have been resized, with the larger brackets decreasing later on in the process. In the year 2000, the 15% tax bracket for singles included incomes up to $26,250, with income from $26,251 to $63,550 being taxed at 28%. In 2002, the 15% bracket included income from $6,001 to $27,950. The first $6000 was taxed at 10% (as stated before). The next bracket was reduced to 27%, and included incomes from $27,951 to $67,700. That means that income that was taxed at 28% is now taxed at 15%; a substantial cut.

As 2010 approaches, the 15% bracket will be expanded to include incomes as high as $43,850, and the upper part of the original 28% bracket will eventually drop to 25%. The 31% bracket will be lowered to 28%, the 36% bracket lowered to 33%, and the 39.6% bracket lowered to 35%. Of course, all this changes with the 2003 Bush Tax Cut.

So who pays taxes?

If you look at historical data, it's not hard to see who pays the most taxes. By the IRS' own data, you'll see that over the years, the bottom 75% has been paying a decreasing percentage of total taxes. (<--click for graph) They've also been paying a decreasing percentage of their overall income. (<--click for graph) It only stands to reason then, that when taxes are cut, those people that pay more taxes will get a bigger cut.

Conclusion

It's no mystery that consumer spending has kept our economy afloat for the past few years. That indicates that getting more money into individuals hands will speed up economic recovery. Given that the vast majority of Americans work to provide a good or a service to consumers, people spending money on those goods and services is what keeps most of us employed. As incomes rise and people start going back to work, tax receipts will increase. It is that increase in tax receipts that will turn our deficit into a surplus once again. Then we can start paying down some of the national debt*. Of course, it'd help if Congress would keep spending in check.

*Given that interest rates and bond prices are at all time lows, the debt shouldn't be much of an immediate concern.

The House of Representatives sent a message to the jobless today. There is no need to rush out and find a job just yet. You can keep riding the federal gravy train for another three months. Yes, they have passed yet another 13 week extension of unemployment benefits, that the Senate and President are just chomping at the bit to sign.

"We must ... give displaced workers the peace of mind in knowing they have a little time in finding a job," said Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., the bill's sponsor.

Adding a second slap in the face are the freakin' Democrats, who are whining that it doesn't do enough to help the "long term unemployed".

"You did absolutely the minimum you could do and keep a straight face and put out your press release that you did something for unemployment," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash.

The bill would extend the federal program to Dec. 31 at a cost of $6.5 billion.

You can bet that in December, the Christmas spirit will kick in again, and there will be yet another cry for an extension.

It is absolutely shameless that Congress will not pass a tax cut for those of us who do work, without having a gun put to their head, but when it comes to simply doling out dollars to those that sit around on their couch watching Oprah, it passes the House by a 409-19 vote.

When I lost my job in early December of last year, I was doing contracting work the very next week. It was only a temporary job, but the few weeks of pay were just enough to buy the computer I needed (to replace the one that work took away), and enough to allow me to still buy Christmas gifts for my family. In January, my job became finding a job, and by the end of March, I had two pretty good offers on the table. I never even considered filing for unemployment benefits.

I hate to sound heartless and mean spirited, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the difference between the "long term unemployed" and me, is one of motivation and effort. Where did I get such values? From my parents.

When my father retired from the Navy, he found a new job and purchased a house. Shortly thereafter, he was laid off. With two children and wife to feed, and a new mortgage that he'd just spent most of his savings to assume, he didn't run down to the unemployment office and get in line. Instead he hit the pavement, and found another job.

When I took a spring semester off from college, I laid around my parent's house for a few weeks. During summers I had worked as a landscaper, but it was January and we were still on hiatus because of the seasons. At 7 AM, my mom busted down my bedroom door, ripped off the covers and kicked me in the ass. She told me to get the hell out and not come back until I had a job. I took the first job I was offered, and was back in bed by 7:45. It is all a question of motivation.

What federal legislators are doing is called coddling. Rather than kick these deadbeats in the pants, they are telling them that it is ok for them to lay around the house for another 3 months. Meanwhile, the message being sent to working stiffs who actually get out of bed and go to work everyday is that we don't "deserve" a tax cut.

If your congressman voted in favor of extending unemployment, and against a tax cut, you need to ask him where his priorities are!

UPDATE: As expected, the bill breezed through the Senate today, without so much as a roll call. Bush has already said he'll sign it into law.

Less leg room. American Airlines, who received $360 Million in taxpayer dollars, is using some of the money to add seats to their aircraft. Leg room will be reduced by about 2 to 3 inches. These are the planes that American had previously reduced capacity on, as part of their "More Room in Coach" ad campaign. The Seattle PI notes that while the increased leg room was a big hit with business travelers, it failed to woo vacation travelers who typically choose an airline based on ticket price.

This is yet another nail in the coffin for big name airlines. As I've said on numerous occasions, air travel is becoming more like a comodity, and airlines are doing less to differentiate themselves. When my favorite airlines started taking away perks and increasing the restrictions on frequent flier loyalty programs, I switched from being a loyal customer to being a price sensative customer. From a business perspective, you would think they would try to move people in the other direction. In this case, American tried, and apparently, they failed.

Over the years, it was widely believed that business customers were the bread and butter for airlines. I guess after the dot-bomb, airlines are more interesting in wooing vacation travelers than regular business customers. This leads me to ask, what's a 6-foot 3-inch frequent flier to do? I guess I'll try Hooters Air.

Just when I thought things were starting to go well in Iraq, I hear that Iraqis are going to be subject to dictatorial-style gun grabs by U.S. and Allied forces. The New York Times reports that Allies will begin seizing guns from Iraqis, and those that refuse to comply will risk being arrested.

"We are in the final stages of formulating a weapons policy to put rules on who can and cannot possess a weapon," Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the chief allied land commander said in an interview. "We want to get explosives and AK's out of the wrong hands."

So much for the God given right to self defense. I agree that criminals shouldn't be permitted to run around with guns, but the Allies aren't targeting the criminals. They are targeting anyone and everyone who is not a member of the police force or military. The mass of Iraqi civilians are being treated like criminals for the misdeeds of a few miscreants and looters.

The sad fact is that criminals will undoubtedly evade having their firearms confiscated, leaving the average law-abiding Iraqi at their mercy. Not too mention that any government that is set up in Iraq will have an easy time oppressing the populace, given that the U.S. has already disarmed them. As soon as our troops leave, they are a lot more likely to return to being an Islamic Fundamentalist dictatorship.

When I think back to the founding of our own nation, I don't recall reading anywhere in the history books that guns were rounded up for the safety of our fledgling government. In fact, firearms ownership was encouraged, and protected with the drafting of the Second Amendment. Where is George Mason when you need him?

What's a government to do when they are facing a severe budget crunch? Raise taxes? Cut programs? Well in Los Angeles County, they may have resorted to rigging red light cameras to issue extra tickets.

Did LA County intentionally rig their cameras to issue tickets while the light was still yellow, or was it the vendor? Let the finger pointing begin. No matter who is at fault, it is a perfect illustration of the conflict of interest red light cameras cause. They are a cash cow for both the local government, and the vendors, who routinely get a percentage of every ticket issued. I originally pointed out this conflict of interest back in August.

Back in October, it was reported that the American Automobile Association (AAA) pulled their support for red light cameras out of concern over increased rear end collisions. Data suggests that rear end collisions may actually create a more dangerous intersection, due to drivers slamming on their brakes at the sight of a yellow light.

It was also discovered that in San Diego, cameras were placed too close to intersections, and the length of the yellow light was actually shortened to maximize the profitability of the cameras. The easiest way to make an intersection safer is to increase the length of the yellow light. But that doesn't bring in any money.

UPDATE: San Diego had turned the cameras off to let the heat die down. Now, Deb reports that they are turning them back on.

Webloggers like Michele and Kim have been talking about the wussification of our nation's school children. (On a side note, Michele raves about the word 'wussification', even though it is an obvious rip off of Dr. Williams' coinage, 'sissification'.) They have pretty much covered the flap about the onslaught of political correctness in our nation's text books. Words and phrases like apartment, busybody, the elderly, huts, jungle, lumberjack, and regatta, have been deemed offensive, and are banned.

Another form of sissification of our school children is the idea that whenever anyone dies, the school must provide 'grief councilors' or 'crisis councilors', to tell kids that it is okay to cry. Recently some teenager thought it'd be neat to slide down the staircase railing at a museum. She met with a tragic and untimely demise after falling from the railing. Naturally, "museum officials called in crisis counselors to work with the other members of the youth group," so that they would not be 'traumatized'. Personally, if I had a child in one of these schools, I would be very concerned about them providing or mandating therapy for my kid without my permission.

As for other examples, I noted last year, much to the chagrin of several parents, that their kids are being sissified by the heavy backpack crusade. Schools have been mandating less homework and issuing books on CD-ROM to combat the growing problem of whining kids back strain. It is my personal prediction that government subsidized computers are the next step. After all, those CD-ROMs, won't play themselves. Of course, there will also be a double digit increase in the number of kids suffering from myopia, caused by staring at those computer screens all day.

Is my prediction way off base? Well, it seems like the obvious socialist answer to a problem that could be easily solved by rolling backpacks, or by teaching kids to use both backpack straps instead of worrying about looking cool. My picture of the future doesn't seem too unrealistic when you throw in the latest anti-war craze, and the teaching of our kids to ask "why do they hate us?".

All of this pampering and nannyism is making me worry about the future of this nation. Could we have liberated Europe in WWII with people that had grown up whining about every little thing?

"Sarge, my rifle is too heavy. Do I have to carry all these bullets around with me?"

UPDATE: In a usual bout of schadenfreude, Laurence Simon offers this suggestion:

Besides, what do they need crisis counselors for when museum instructors ought to take advantage of the situation and teach a lesson in Natural Selection:

Walk up and down the stairs: survive.
Slide down the railing like an idiot: die.

With the democratic primary race heating up, candidates are scrambling for issues to grab onto. With the end of the war, Howard Dean was almost left out in the cold. Today, Fox News reports that Dean has latched onto 'Free' Health Care, a platform that had previously been championed by Dick Gebhardt. Dean plans to pay for the 'free' health care by raising taxes $1 Trillion. By doing this, he hopes to capitalize on an issue that the article labels as a "key voter concern".

I'm not sure who all these people are, that are bitching about their health care, but I am certainly not one of them. I, along with my staff writers, have been reporting on 'Nationalized' Health Care horror stories for months. Some oldies but goodies include health care waiting lists in the UK increasing in August, and even more in November.

Waiting lists for necessary treatment are common with a nationalized health care system. Even though the London Telegraph reported on the waiting list problem last year, there is still a critical shortage of doctors and nurses, and problems with outdated equipment. Naturally, the government answer is to throw more money at it, which means higher and higher taxes. Remember that with government programs, they never seem to have enough money.

Problems in the UK are not just limited to in-patient care either. Early last year, international news wires picked up on the story of 94 year old Rose Addis, who fell and hit her head. She arrived at the emergency room with blood flowing. Approximately 48 hours later, she was still there, sitting in a wheelchair, caked in dried blood, wearing the same clothes, waiting for treatment.

National health care problems are not isolated to the UK, either. New Zealand is known to have their horror stories too. Last August, there was the story of a New Zealand man that cut off his own fingers, rather than wait in pain for six months for them to be surgically removed. More recently, overcrowding in emergency rooms was literally the death of a man, while he waited over four hours for critical care. While New Zealand offers some good news that their waiting lists are decreasing, it would appear that the reason is that people are either being turned away, or simply living with the pain. Late last year, doctors claimed that the health board was deliberately turning people away to keep the waiting lists under the mandated limit.

Would you let American politicians bring this type of health care to the U.S.? Presidential hopefuls are making promises that everyone will receive a-list style health care that is now only reserved for the super rich. In reality, they would doom us all to the third world style of health care that the super poor are forced to wait for. A national health care system means no choices. One service, one price, and you pay for it up front on a biweekly basis.

We should learn from the lessons of people who have been there before us. So far, the best advice that people in the UK have to offer is, whatever you do, don't get sick.

There have been a lot of questions about the relevancy of the U.N. lately. You have to wonder then, why they would elect Cuba to the Human Rights Commission, just weeks after they rounded up and jailed 'dissidents', and executed three hijackers that tried to escape the Communist regime. Earlier this month, Cuba was emboldened when the U.N. HRC voted not to admonish them for the executions and jailings. Now the U.N. has gone so far as to reward Cuba with a seat on the very commission that should be raising ire. With the proverbial 'nuts running the asylum', how can the U.N. garner any respect.

If there was any remaining doubt about the relevance of the U.N., keep in mind that this is the same U.N. Human Rights Commission that is led by Libya. For the record, just last month Libya reached a settlement for the Pan Am Flight 103 Lockerbie terrorist attack. It is pretty clear that both Castro and Qadhafi know all about violating human rights.

This actually proves to be a very good example about the dangers of democracy and majority rule. Majority rule (or mob rule) tends to lend credibility to otherwise immoral actions. To some people, violating the rights of the individual seems to be ok as long as we vote on it first. Countries like Cuba and Libya voting on what is or is not a human rights violation, is akin to having convicted axe murderers sit on the Scott Peterson jury. Of course, that would be something the U.N. and other socialists would hold up as a shining example of democracy in action.

Day after day, the idea of pulling out of the U.N. and kicking them out of the U.S. seems more and more rational.

Hawaii recently amended and passed an extension to the 'hate crimes' (a/k/a thought crimes) bill, that adds 'protection' for "transvestites and others whose gender identity might make them a target of abuse". Although Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle did not sign the bill, she let it pass into law without opposition.

The governor said she had a lot of questions about the concept of hate crimes, "about whether any particular life is worth more than any other particular life so if you fell within a certain class somehow the penalty should be greater or lesser."

"But once you've gone down that road, this seems a reasonable addition," Lingle said.

So there you have it. In the state of Hawaii, gays and transgendered people are worth more than regular folks like you and me. If one of them get's murdered, the sentence will be much stiffer than if you or I get murdered.

The concept behind 'hate crimes' legislation, is to try to measure what the criminals were thinking, and what their motivations were. Therefore, if I get murdered for the $10 I have in my pocket, it isn't as serious a crime than if I was murdered for wearing a dress. Naturally, opposing such an idea results in the usual cries of racism or in this case, bigotry against gays and transgenders. Ironically, however, it is the law (and not the opponents) that is inherently bigoted.

I'm from the school of thought that all violent crime should be treated as serious, not just those that impact a minority. The idea that a straight white male attacking another straight white male is somehow less serious than if he'd attacked a transgendered she-male is not only offensive, it would seem to be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Amendment Fourteen states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", which is clearly what 'hate crime' bills do. They deny non-gays the same protections that gays currently enjoy.

So the question becomes, what to do about violence toward people that are different, in this particular case, homosexuals and transgendered people. Well, since the police have been unable (or unwilling) to protect them, I would start by letting them protect themselves. Hawaii should loosen the restrictions on the concealed carry of firearms. While Hawaii technically allows concealed carry, they choose not to issue licenses. Since the state has no 'shall issue' law, unless you are a police officer, a politician, or Don Ho, you are shit out of luck.

I hate to have to be the one to put it bluntly, but let one of these ignorant gay bashing mo-fos run across a 'Pink Pistol' packing a .45 in his purse. After a few of these neo-nazi thugs get their head blown off and they'll think twice about their random unprovoked attacks. Firearm's are the great equalizer, and even the most effeminate man could take down an attacker without so much as breaking a nail.

Now that would be progress.

Even though I never planned on it, I have a little roommate. He doesn't take up much space, and he lives under the sink in my bathroom. He's usually comes out to greet me in the morning, but ducks back in before I start my shower. I don't know whether he doesn't like the humidity, or if he's just respecting my modesty.

So far, I haven't seen him catch anything to eat. My house is pretty clean, so it must be meager pickings, especially in the bathroom. I've had this annoying little 'miller moth' flapping around for the past few days, but he rarely flies into the bathroom. I tried catching him with a cup, but he's just to fast and erratic. I also tried steering him into spidey's web, but herding miller moths is more difficult than herding cats.

I know that Acidman would say I'm 'bore blogging' but I see it differently. The little guy genuinely fascinates me, and I'm sure that somewhere out there, a spider lover appreciates this post.

FOOTNOTES: Sorry about the quality of the pic. Taking a picture of a tiny spider with a digital camera is extremely difficult. Even using the macro feature, the camera just wouldn't focus on the little guy. To keep it from being a total blur, I had to fix the focus at a half meter, and position the camera that far away.

I paid my taxes yesterday, a full day early. I figured there was no sense waiting until the last minute. Despite paying thousands and thousands of dollars throughout the year, I still had to pony up another grand for the fed. Having been unemployed for the past four and a half months, I'm a bit bitter about it.

For 2002, I paid over 30% of my income in taxes. I am not rich, and despite what Dick 'head' Gebhardt says, I have not "won life's lottery". Now I have to listen to Dick whine that tax cuts have not "done anything other than enrich the wealthiest people in the country." Gebhardt and his lackeys are the reason I will never vote Democratic again. And if Bush and the spend thrift Republicans don't get their shit together, it'll be Libertarian or nothing for me. If no Libertarian candidates run in my district, I might be forced to break my own rule and throw my hat into the ring myself.

By far, gun rights and taxes are my two biggest pet peeves. Smoking rights aren't far behind. I've always prided myself as a strict Constitutionalist. I don't think that taxpayer dollars should be spent aiding foreign nations and the U.N., when all they do is turn around and shit all over us. Forcibly seizing taxes from hard working Americans in the name of 'charity' is both despicable and Unconstitutional. Democrats have developing a system where a minority of people pay the majority of taxes. That majority is in turn bribed with programs and 'free' money that ensures their continued support at the voting booth. He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

As I grow older, more and more of my friends are getting married off. When that happens, as a single guy, I get to witness 'the change' first hand. When it comes to married people, they aren't as much fun to hang out with as single folks. I'm not saying that I dislike married people, I'm simply saying that marriage is akin to 'fixing' a pet. Sure, they look the same after the process, but they don't seem to walk with the same spring in their step that they used to.

My biggest gripe is that married people are always attached at the hip. They also seem to always utilize a veto power over their spouses. Now, I've been to a lot of weddings, and never once did I hear the holy man ask 'do you promise to always get permission before you go out and have too much fun?' Spouses and married people try to sell it as having respect for one another, but I look at it as not trusting each other. Throw kids into the mix, and you get the "you're not going out and having fun and sticking me with the kids" attitude.

For instance, if I ask a married friend to go see a movie that I've been wanting to see, I always get the "Let me ask my wife (or husband)" response. At this point in the conversation, I am thrown into a sort of marriage purgatory. While they go ask permission from their spouse, I'm left wondering if I'll get to see the movie I started out wanting to see. On more than one occasion, I've had a friend ask their wife if they can go see a movie with me. Naturally, their wife gets upset, because he hasn't taken her to a movie in over three years. If they have kids, next thing I know the whole family is coming, and I'm roped into seeing Monsters, Inc. instead of Monster's Ball. I realize this sounds selfish, but why should I be punished simply because this clod never takes his wife to the movies? Ultimately, what happens is that I've become conditioned to rarely ask married people to do anything separate from their spouses. After all, I pretty much know what the answer is going to be.

Another thing that bugs me about the married is that they always act as if single folks have some sort of disease that desperately needs treatment. I realize that misery loves company, but I'm not at a point in my life where I'm ready to settle down. Still, that doesn't stop married people from grilling me on my dating prospects, or trying to fix me up with their socially rejected friend. I hate blind dates, and I've never had someone billed as 'perfect for me' actually turn out to be perfect for me.

When it comes to marriage and dating, I value my independence. I will not attach myself to a woman that won't let me go out and have a good time without her every once in a while. I also will not tolerate a woman who doesn't like my friends and doesn't want me to hang around with them. I wouldn't dictate who she can be friends with, and she shouldn't limit me. When it comes to your spouse, I think it's important that you treat them with respect. In my opinion, that should include not having to ask permission to go out and have a good time. Besides, if the answer is often 'no', what does that say about your marriage?

Don't take this the wrong way. I've been thinking about this for quite some time, but don't know how to say it without sounding arrogant or mean. Also, I'm not saying that married people suck, I'm merely saying that this is what sucks about married people. I'm sure single people have their flaws too.

Basically, I don't mind hanging out with married people, but sometimes you just want a guys (or girls) night out. Perhaps I don't understand marriage. Perhaps I'm way off base, and I will end up simply alienating all of my married friends. Perhaps I'll live and die alone. Perhaps the only people that show up to my funeral will be there to piss on my grave*. So be it. I'll make sure I'm buried face down so that all of you can kiss my ass.

*Actually, I hope to have an open bar at my funeral, not so much to celebrate life, but to make sure someone (besides me) shows up.

In the spring of 1996, about a year after I graduated college, I received a call from a cute sounding young co-ed about an alumni organization. I was told that the class of 1995 was starting a group called the Pylon Society. They were going to be characterized as those alumni who give financial contributions year after year to the university. Although I had a job, I wasn't making much money, but the girl on the other end of the phone sounded cute and sincere, so I decided to go ahead and enlist. I pledged $100 support, but had to have it billed quarterly, because of my dire financial status.

Years went by, and each year I diligently sent in a check to the university. I spread it around, giving to my major department, the college of business, and in 2000, I even started making donations to the Virginia Center for Civil War Studies. Still, while I got plenty of nice letters from Virginia Tech, I never heard back from the Pylon Society. Was it for real? They had no web site, no literature, and of everyone I asked, no one except me had ever heard of them.

It didn't bother me much, it's not like I had been duped in some two-bit ponzi scheme, or a game of three card monty. It did bother me enough though, that I mailed a letter to the University to inquire about the mysterious group, of which I was apparently a member. I sent my letter off in 2001, and about a month later I heard back from the Office of University Development. I was told that the Pylon Society did exist, and that I was considered a member in good standing. Still, there was no literature, and no physical evidence to show that it even existed. Instead I received generic instructions on how to continue donating to the University.

Well, today I received in the mail, a letter from the elusive Virginia Tech Pylon Society. It thanked me for dutifully giving to Virginia Tech every year, and welcomed me as a member of the exclusive Pylon Society, as someone who had donated for the past five consecutive years (actually seven, but who's counting). It included a nice 'Pylon Society' window decal, and some pre-printed address labels; just desserts for my years of loyalty. It would seem as though they are even getting a web site, however it is obviously still in the construction stages.

While I did have to wait seven years to get any sort of recognition from them, I'm not the least bit bitter. I'm actually happy that the organizers of the Pylon Society are finally getting their act together, albeit a bit late. I'm also happy to know that I'm not crazy, and that the phone conversation I had years ago wasn't all in my mind. Who knows, if I ever start going to ball games regularly, perhaps I'll join the Hokie Club.

UPDATE: Now that I think about it, I never got my membership card to the U.S. Beer Drinking Team either.

Lately, I've been biting my tongue on the whole 'under God' pledge controversy. A lot of people seem very confident that the Supreme Court will overturn the wacky Ninth Circus Court of Appeals once again. I'm not so sure.

As CNN points out, "the words 'under God' were added to the pledge in 1954 through a federal law amid a Cold War push to distinguish the United States from an atheistic Soviet Union." In my opinion, that would seem to be a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Clearly the U.S. was trying to put a little religion into our schools to combat communism.

Now don't take this the wrong way. When I was a lad, I was always proud to stand up and say the pledge, and I was never once offended by the words 'under God', nor by anyone's refusal to say them. When I look at it objectively, the whole controversy seems a bit silly and unnecessary. But logic tells me that forcing people to say 'under God' is clearly wrong.

If and when the Supreme Court looks at this ruling, I think it will invariably come down to the act of saying the pledge, and not the words themselves. Is the pledge mandatory, and are atheist children really being 'forced' to pledge allegiance to a flag 'under God'? Is being able to opt out of saying the pledge, or the words 'under God', enough of an out to overturn the ruling? Clearly there are some coercive effects in a schoolyard situation, and the PC police will naturally argue that it creates tension and a hostile learning environment. What the Supreme Court will decide, however, is anyone's guess.

In the rule of law though, it would seem as though the atheists have a pretty solid argument.

As someone who was born and bred a Virginian, and as a history and Civil War buff, I thoroughly enjoyed Gods and Generals. Obviously, I'm biased toward a film like this. It was told from the Confederate perspective, which is a nice change from typical Civil War films, but had plenty of sub plots on the Union side as well. The setting was mostly in the Fredericksburg and Manassas area, and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.

Specifically, the film featured great Virginians such as Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and A.P. Hill, although it centered around Lee and Jackson. (Mostly Jackson) Stephen Lang and Robert Duvall were perfectly cast as Jackson and Lee. Jeff Daniels was brought in to reprise his role as the Union Lt. Colonel Chamberlain, and did a magnificent job. I thought the film properly portrayed the Southern point of view, and how slavery began to become an issue on both sides. Too many of today's historians revisionists deliberately try to convey that the Union was fighting to abolish slavery, and that Confederates were fighting to preserve it. It is this ignorance and deliberate revisionism that plague southern history, and whitewash the accomplishments of the men who fought and died during the war.

While the film was over 3 1/2 hours, it had an intermission in just the right place, and the pace seemed to move rather quickly. Still, the IMDb reports that it is getting it's share of negative reviews. In the films defense, I'd like to point out that critics love drivel like Titanic, and hate anything as it relates to history. Especially when the facts fly in the face of the liberalism that the NY Times and LA Times love to disseminate.

You may be interested in the following: Virginia Center for Civil War Studies; Unofficial Gods and Generals Home Page; Books by James I. Robertson (Historical Consultant for Gods and Generals, Distinguished Professor at Virginia Tech, Founder of Virginia Center for Civil War Studies, and my former professor)

In early March of 1861, Illinois was enjoying an early spring. Although warm weather had come early that year, it wasn't the climate that was on Chicago native Nathaniel Chester's mind. Chester worked in the printing room of the Chicago Tribune. He saw first hand that the newspapers were full rhetoric about an impending war. The Crittenden Compromise had failed, and South Carolina had seceded from the U.S. only a few months ago. Several other states quickly followed suit, and federal forts across the south had been seized. Munitions were salvaged, and the new states were banding together with a common army. They had even elected their own President.

Four other states, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina were contemplating secession. Votes for secession in those states had failed, but issue was far from dead. Virginia could be a problem. Virginia was not only full of resources, but it had manufacturing capability. It was also just across the river from the national capital.

Just days before, a new President, Abraham Lincoln, from Chester's very own state had been inaugurated. Already, Lincoln was talking about preserving the Union, and using troops to re-take forts in the South. To many northerners, this was about slavery and preserving the Union. They didn't really understand the southern way of life, and many of Chester's fellow Chicagoans saw slavery as an evil institution.

Nathaniel Chester saw things differently. Slaves were considered valuable property, and were rarely mistreated by their owners. They were provided a good home, with food and clothing. They got to work outdoors in the warm sun, and they were often surrounded by family and friends. Slaves were provided a time and place to worship, and overall, didn't lead too bad of a life. Chester felt that certainly, their life was no worse than that of the homeless beggars that plagued the streets of Chicago.

With the Union on the verge of war, Chester felt that he had to do something. Chester had access to the Tribune's printing presses and supplies. He printed and distributed fliers protesting the military build up, and the holding of Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens in the South. With the surrounding of the forts by Confederate troops, giving them up seemed to be a good way to diffuse the tension and open up negotiations.

Although they were still a vast minority, Chester found that he had the support of hundreds, perhaps thousands of fellow Chicagoans. Lincoln's plans to re-supply the surrounded forts and send military aid to federal troops stranded in the south were clearly an act of aggression. War was so immanent that even General Winfield Scott, a chief advisor to Lincoln, sent him a letter asking him to abandon the federal outposts to avert a bloody war. He could only hope that his anti-war message would sink in. Why should northerners spill their own blood for the freedom of others? Why try to preserve a union of states that did not want to remain?

Despite the protests, marches, and attempts to stop aggression toward the south, Lincoln pressed forward with the re-supply of Forts Sumter and Pickens. The re-supply order forced the Confederate's hand, and with the shots fired at Fort Sumter, the Union and Confederacy were plunged into Civil War.

Was Chester wrong? Was slavery an evil that northerners should dispel with their own blood and guts? Was preserving the Union so important?

I can only surmise that these are the questions that most pacifists face. Today, as anti-war protesters march in support of Saddam Hussein, I think of Nathaniel Chester and his misgivings about the institutions of slavery. Some people are ignorant and close-minded to the horrors of oppression. And, after all, if it doesn't affect them directly, what is the big deal?

Just who did coin the phrase? The New York Post likes it so much they commonly use it on their front page. There is even an AxisofWeasels.com that was registered to a 'Jacque Chirac' (sic) on January 31st. Most bloggers, however give Scott Ott credit for coining the phrase on January 22nd, with this delightful bit of satire.

Still, there is some protest as to the Scrappleface connection. A few days after Scott Ott used the phrase, an anti-war blogger (and anti-phrase stealing blogger) got upset because he thought he'd coined the phrase. He even jokingly asked for a lawyer to sue Ott, because he stole it fair and square back on January 18th from an anti-war protest sign. He even admits to seeing it on LGF back in November of 2002.

I was unable to find the LGF comment, but I did find a usage back on February 20, 2002 at Citiblog. Assuming that the author hasn't back-dated the post, (I don't know why anyone would), that is the first usage I can find.

So, I guess it comes down to how you define 'coined the phrase'. Miriam-Webster define it to mean 'create' or 'invent'. By that definition, who knows who really first came up with the phrase.

Still, I give Scott Ott credit for creating it in it's current meaning. After all, Ray Garraud, the author of Citiblog meant for it to be an alternate usage for the 'Axis of Evil'. The jokingly bitter Max Sawicky of Nowarblog meant for it to refer to the Bush Administration. Scott Ott was arguably the first person to apply it to France and Germany, and thus 'created' it's current definition.

'60 Minutes' started off their expose with a story about how ballistics tests linked a recently confiscated firearm to a recently committed crime. Analysis of markings on shell casings was used to find the proverbial 'needle in a haystack'. They then transferred this good detective work to the grand idea of cataloguing every gun in the nation in a huge database.

Their first witness to the benefits of ballistic fingerprinting was Pete Gagliardi, whose company, Forensic Technology, Inc. has developed ballistic fingerprinting hardware and software that they hope to sell. Gagliardi is not exactly an unbiased proponent. CBS also gave air time to NRA Veep, Wayne LaPierre, and his views. Although CBS acknowledged LaPierre's claim that it is very easy alter a gun 'fingerprint', they demonized the NRA for putting out a how to video on the subject. (As if a criminal couldn't figure out how to file down the barrel and firing pin.) Next up was AGS clown spokesman Matthew Bennett. His only defense on how easy it was to defeat ballistic fingerprints was to claim that criminals won't bother to alter their guns. (Riiight, because criminals never try to conceal their crimes.)

CBS contends that no long guns would be included in the database, and no names. Only new handguns would be required to be added. They admitted that it does amount to a national firearms database, but concluded that Americans were just as resistive when fingerprint technology emerged decades ago. (As if we currently have a national fingerprint registry.)

Overall, I would have liked to see CBS play the part of a skeptic a bit more. I thought that is what journalism was all about.

First of all, there are no guarantees that a national database would only apply to new handguns, and wouldn't include names. New laws almost always lead to more restrictive laws. The game plan of using a failing program as an excuse to expand the program is time tested, and pretty clear. Failure of all government programs is almost always met with a cry to expand the program and add more money and more resources.

Second, CBS only mentioned in passing that ballistic databases in Maryland and New York haven't solved a single crime. The fact is that they haven't managed to link a single cartridge to a single firearm; stolen or otherwise. This is a huge caveat, that CBS failed to trumpet. Instead, they simply admitted that opponents point to this fact as a failure, while proponents claim that it illustrates the need for a national program.

Third, very little time was spent discussing the failures of such a database. While the California study was very briefly mentioned, CBS failed to point out any of the findings. The California study found that cartridges among a specific manufacturer were subject to a 38% failure rate. When differing manufacturers were added, the failure rate climbed to a staggering 68%. None of this was discussed in the '60 Minutes' expose.

Fourth, nothing was said about the cost to taxpayers and gun owners of the cost of a registry. Paul Januzzo, VP of Glock, admitted that test firing and cataloguing the cartridges is expensive. This cost is ultimately passed on to the gun purchaser. Meanwhile, the cost of the database is ultimately passed on to all taxpayers. Given the prohibitive costs, and the likelihood of very little return, you would think that CBS would have at least mentioned it.

Fifth, there was no mention that even police organizations like the FOP admit that ballistic fingerprinting is a pipe dream. It was reported last October, when the FOP issued a statement saying that "the FOP does not support any federal requirement to register privately owned firearms with the federal government." Their main reason is that the funds are best spent on other proven methods of law enforcement. Management of a database, and checking tens of thousands of records would also spread them pretty thin.

Sixth, CBS never once mentioned that the ballistics of a firearm are not constant. The characteristics change over time with the wear and tear over repeated firings. Instead, their initial illustration, where a recent shell casing was compared to a recently confiscated firearm was taken as proof that the comparison does work. Never was there an attempt to analyze a recently fired shell casing with one that had been fired years before, as would be the case with a national database.

Seven, there was no challenge to the motives behind the opponents and proponents. Gagliardi has obvious motives in wanting to sell his technology, and the NRA's motives are to preserve civil liberties. Those were somewhat obvious. However, Americans for Gun Safety, masquerades behind the idea of being a proponent of gun safety. In fact, AGS is a gun control lobbying firm, with an agenda for making firearms ownership more difficult for everyone. Ballistic fingerprinting is merely one of their tools, and does nothing to promote 'gun safety'. In fact, I'd be willing to argue that the NRA and its members are more interested in gun safety than AGS.

In the end, I found CBS to be biased. Their lack of a challenge to the technology, and failure to discuss real numbers on cost and probability of success, might as well have been a ringing endorsement. Ballistic fingerprinting is a pipe dream that proponents hope to fund with millions, perhaps billions of taxpayer dollars. It is also tantamount to firearms registration, which has proven time and time again to lead to confiscation. Given the pros and the cons, why should Americans be so quick to sign away their Second Amendment protections? Given the gravity of the argument, why didn't CBS investigate it more?

Well, I originally didn't plan on writing about this, but Dawn has asked me for my view on Pre-Employment Credit Checks. Whenever I think about pre-employment credit checks, I think about employee horror stories I've witnessed first hand. We had a contract firm that didn't check a candidates references good enough, and he ended up stealing his rental car, our laptop, and all of our test tools. There was another contractor that left us with a $1000 fuel bill with the rental car agency. Rather than use a credit card to fill up the tank, he simply turned the car back in, to get a new car filled with gas. Both of these scenarios, probably could have been mitigated with a proper credit screening.

When employers hire someone new, they take a pretty big risk. The costs associated with hiring a new employee are often as much as $10,000. The new employee is usually granted access to sensitive information, and given access to physical corporate assets such as keys to the office building, and a personal computer. When employers decide to take that risk, it helps to know as much as you can about the candidate prior to hiring them.

A person's credit report is often times a good reflection of how they meet their day to day obligations. While there is no direct insinuation that a person in financial trouble is apt to start embezzling funds, it is an insightful look into how they handle responsibility. A person with poor credit is probably more prone to tardiness and calling in sick. Someone in the habit of procrastinating about their phone bill is more likely to continue that habit on their work assignments. On the other side of the coin, a person with exemplary credit is more likely to be proactive and more detailed in their work.

Obviously there are exceptions. A poor credit report doesn't automatically translate into a poor work ethic. It is also possible that someone with exemplary credit can be just as indolent or slothful in their duty as the next guy.

Now to address the notion of something catastrophic affecting your credit report. The insensitive libertarian in me points out that while the death of a spouse, or the sickness of a loved one is impossible to predict, it is not impossible to plan for. If the death of a spouse would severely affect someone's financial position, then they ought to have sufficient life insurance coverage. There is also insurance for medical bills, disability, accidental death and dismemberment, and any number of unforeseen incidents. There are even umbrella policies to cover any unforeseen personal liabilities, such as a lawsuit.

When it comes to selecting an employee, do you really want to hire someone who didn't have the foresight to have an effective car insurance or medical insurance policy? Even in the event that planning is not enough, or in the event of poor planning, there is room in a credit report for a person to speak to their transgressions. Comments and excuses can be added, and poor credit marks can be challenged with any credit agency.

I could spend a lot of time playing 'what if', and probably come up with several examples of someone unfairly turned down for employment based on their credit report. Sometimes life isn't fair. (Sometimes a person stopped for speeding, really wasn't speeding.) Still, you have to take your lumps in life and move on. Just as prospective employees have the right to pick and choose where they want to work, employers have the right to use a credit screening as part of their application process. Sure, it may lead to turning down a worthwhile candidate, but that is the price they pay for being too picky. Are pre-employment credit checks perfect? No they aren't, but they aren't Morally Reprehensible either. I'll save my moral reprehension for the wife beaters and child molesters that truly deserve it.