Friday, March 31, 2006
Community Urine Test
My cup runneth over....
Good God Almighty, how is it that we've survived this long as a country with these boobs at the helm?
Following up with my posts on government morality laws and how it wastes our money, here is a doozie: The Feds are doing a urine test on an entire county. Really.
And common sense, too...
|
Good God Almighty, how is it that we've survived this long as a country with these boobs at the helm?
Following up with my posts on government morality laws and how it wastes our money, here is a doozie: The Feds are doing a urine test on an entire county. Really.
Earlier this month, the county agreed to participate in a White House pilot program to analyze wastewater from communities throughout the Potomac River Basin for the urinary byproducts of cocaine.WTF is going on? We don't have a full enough plate, what with terrorism, and budget deficits, and illegal aliens? We need some government schmuck with a dip tube testing the piss in Fairfax county to see how many are using coke? WHY DO WE CARE??!!
"It's a very strange request," Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D) said of the White House program.Ya think?
"We're ready to do anything and everything we can do to eliminate illicit drug use. But I'd want to know a lot more about what this will actually lead to."Uhm, I don't know. How about sensors at the sewer pipes as they exit each home. Hey, after you flush, it's no longer your "shit", right? It's not so far fetched. We have red-light cameras handing out tickets. Electronic surveillance of our email and phone conversations. DUI checkpoint stops. We don't need no stinkin' Constitution, we just gotta fight those bad, bad drugs, COST BE DAMNED!
And common sense, too...
War On Drugs
The cure is worse than the ailment...
This post is somewhat of a follow-up to the one I posted yesterday. It's about the Feds and morality laws. The War On Drugs is a direct assault on an individual's right to do as they please, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Any drug, any time.
And don't hand me the crap about, "Drug abuse leads to gangs and robbery and moral decay, and blah, blah, blah".
No, the War On Drugs is what leads to the gangs. Since the police can't protect the dealers, they have built their own enforcement arm. It's not like this is a new revelation: Just ask Al Capone or any of the Medellin Cartel members.
If an individual user has gotten so bad that he resorts to theft for his habit - like an alcoholic might do - you throw his ass in jail for the theft. And morality, well that's a personal issue, as each of us has different standards for morality. I certainly don't want the government telling me what is moral, and what isn't. Do you? If you do, who exactly in the government is qualified to make such a judgment?
ABC News guy, John Stossel, has written an excellent article in TownHall.com that everyone should read. He presents my point of view very well: Drug addiction is bad, the drug war is worse.
|
This post is somewhat of a follow-up to the one I posted yesterday. It's about the Feds and morality laws. The War On Drugs is a direct assault on an individual's right to do as they please, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Any drug, any time.
And don't hand me the crap about, "Drug abuse leads to gangs and robbery and moral decay, and blah, blah, blah".
No, the War On Drugs is what leads to the gangs. Since the police can't protect the dealers, they have built their own enforcement arm. It's not like this is a new revelation: Just ask Al Capone or any of the Medellin Cartel members.
If an individual user has gotten so bad that he resorts to theft for his habit - like an alcoholic might do - you throw his ass in jail for the theft. And morality, well that's a personal issue, as each of us has different standards for morality. I certainly don't want the government telling me what is moral, and what isn't. Do you? If you do, who exactly in the government is qualified to make such a judgment?
ABC News guy, John Stossel, has written an excellent article in TownHall.com that everyone should read. He presents my point of view very well: Drug addiction is bad, the drug war is worse.
I was once among the majority who believe that drug use must be illegal. But then I noticed that when vice laws conflict with the law of supply and demand, the conflict is ugly, and the law of supply and demand generally wins.
The drug war costs taxpayers about $40 billion. "Up to three quarters of our budget can somehow be traced back to fighting this war on drugs," said Jerry Oliver, then chief of police in Detroit, told me. Yet the drugs are as available as ever.
Oliver was once a big believer in the war. Not anymore. "It's insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over again," he says. "If we did not have this drug war going on, we could spend more time going after robbers and rapists and burglars and murderers. That's what we really should be geared up to do. Clearly we're losing the war on drugs in this country."
I come at this from a personal freedom point of view, which is supported by the economics of the situation. He appears to be coming at it strictly from an economics point of view. Either way, this War is doomed to failure - or the continued waste of our precious national treasury unless we get politicians elected that will stop this abuse.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Can Ya Spare Some Gray Cells?
Opine, if you please....
I'm in the process of writing a book. Without going into a lot of detail ('cause someone will steal my awesome idea!) it is about government (gasp!) and how it has grown out of control. I have a number of questions that I am unable to answer. I'm asking you to read these questions, and either respond here in the comments, or send me an email message. Even if you don't agree with the point of view, if you are able to explain it, or shed some light, I'll be forever grateful.
Regarding "morality" or "prohibition" laws: Why do you think the government believes part of its responsibility is to manage our morality? Think about our drug laws, sex laws, TV/movie content laws, whatever. Under what authority do they pass these laws? Why does Uncle Sam care? The states and local governments might be able to declare that this is a local issue, and the locals want, say, prostitution laws. OK, I can live with that (or move). But, unless it's specifically granted in the Constitution, the feds have no authority. In fact, the 10th Amendment makes that abundantly clear. I've done the research to know how they did it, but I'm missing the motivation, and why the public stood for it.
Secondly, regarding "charity" laws: Why has the government gotten into this business? Think Social Security, welfare, National Endowment For The Arts, Pell grants, the Department of Education, Medicare, etc. Again, the powers of the Federal government are clearly defined in the Constitution. Feeding the public or making sure we're entertained aren't listed anywhere. Where did this all come from? Can it all be traced back to the Depression era?
Much thanks.
|
I'm in the process of writing a book. Without going into a lot of detail ('cause someone will steal my awesome idea!) it is about government (gasp!) and how it has grown out of control. I have a number of questions that I am unable to answer. I'm asking you to read these questions, and either respond here in the comments, or send me an email message. Even if you don't agree with the point of view, if you are able to explain it, or shed some light, I'll be forever grateful.
Regarding "morality" or "prohibition" laws: Why do you think the government believes part of its responsibility is to manage our morality? Think about our drug laws, sex laws, TV/movie content laws, whatever. Under what authority do they pass these laws? Why does Uncle Sam care? The states and local governments might be able to declare that this is a local issue, and the locals want, say, prostitution laws. OK, I can live with that (or move). But, unless it's specifically granted in the Constitution, the feds have no authority. In fact, the 10th Amendment makes that abundantly clear. I've done the research to know how they did it, but I'm missing the motivation, and why the public stood for it.
Secondly, regarding "charity" laws: Why has the government gotten into this business? Think Social Security, welfare, National Endowment For The Arts, Pell grants, the Department of Education, Medicare, etc. Again, the powers of the Federal government are clearly defined in the Constitution. Feeding the public or making sure we're entertained aren't listed anywhere. Where did this all come from? Can it all be traced back to the Depression era?
Much thanks.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Double Standard
Scratchin' My Head
In an early post below titled, Shocking Disclosure, I talked about the government lying to people that were trying to find out about the guns confiscated in NOLA right after Katrina. It turns out the government lied to us, saying they didn't have any guns, when in fact, they had over a thousand of them.
Why is there no consequence for the government - at least the individual official telling the lie - for lying when they are asked for information?
Think about Martha Stewart. She was not convicted of insider trading, she was convicted of lying to the government. That bastard that was the 20th hijacker may be put to death, not because of what he did with regards to September 11th, but because he lied to the government about his knowledge of events that were in play.
Now, I have no love lost for either of these folks, but why is it illegal to lie to your government? If you're actually guilty of something, wouldn't that be like giving up your 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination?
Now, the obvious answer is that you can just keep your mouth shut, and not say a damned thing. I can see that lying to an investigator could cause them to expend resources that would not have to be spent, so that could be illegal. I get that.
But why isn't it equally as illegal when Uncle Sam or any of his offspring lie to us? Why is it OK for the public to be led down some rose path when some bureaucrat has screwed up? Or, as in the NOLA case, possibly encroached on the constitutional rights of citizens?
Shouldn't someone's ass end up in jail for this? I'm just askin....
|
In an early post below titled, Shocking Disclosure, I talked about the government lying to people that were trying to find out about the guns confiscated in NOLA right after Katrina. It turns out the government lied to us, saying they didn't have any guns, when in fact, they had over a thousand of them.
Why is there no consequence for the government - at least the individual official telling the lie - for lying when they are asked for information?
Think about Martha Stewart. She was not convicted of insider trading, she was convicted of lying to the government. That bastard that was the 20th hijacker may be put to death, not because of what he did with regards to September 11th, but because he lied to the government about his knowledge of events that were in play.
Now, I have no love lost for either of these folks, but why is it illegal to lie to your government? If you're actually guilty of something, wouldn't that be like giving up your 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination?
Now, the obvious answer is that you can just keep your mouth shut, and not say a damned thing. I can see that lying to an investigator could cause them to expend resources that would not have to be spent, so that could be illegal. I get that.
But why isn't it equally as illegal when Uncle Sam or any of his offspring lie to us? Why is it OK for the public to be led down some rose path when some bureaucrat has screwed up? Or, as in the NOLA case, possibly encroached on the constitutional rights of citizens?
Shouldn't someone's ass end up in jail for this? I'm just askin....
March Madness Observation
Kinda cool....
As many of you hoop-nuts know, part of the NCAA Tournament is being played at the Oakland Coliseum Arena. My office is located between the Oakland Airport and the Coliseum. The distance from the Airport to the Coliseum is just a few miles - I'd guess 2 or 3.
Because of the location of my office, I can see the traffic that passes between the two locations. On a regular basis, I see professional football, basketball and baseball teams on their way to the Coliseum for games.
Today was a little different.
I heard a number of sirens and motorcycles and looked out the window. A motorcycle cop blocked an intersection like they do when a dignitary comes into town. Suddenly, one of the big buses full of players sped on down the road. I thought to myself, "What the hell?", and then it dawned on me: Wouldn't a bus load of young athletes on their way to a national stage be an inviting target for terrorists?
I don't have an overly complimentary opinion of our Department of Homeland Security, primarily because of the lousy job they do with our airports and borders. But I'm glad we have someone in that organization that stays awake at night thinking about giving the athletes a straight shot from Point A to Point B and removing a potential target for terrorists.
Well done, folks.
|
As many of you hoop-nuts know, part of the NCAA Tournament is being played at the Oakland Coliseum Arena. My office is located between the Oakland Airport and the Coliseum. The distance from the Airport to the Coliseum is just a few miles - I'd guess 2 or 3.
Because of the location of my office, I can see the traffic that passes between the two locations. On a regular basis, I see professional football, basketball and baseball teams on their way to the Coliseum for games.
Today was a little different.
I heard a number of sirens and motorcycles and looked out the window. A motorcycle cop blocked an intersection like they do when a dignitary comes into town. Suddenly, one of the big buses full of players sped on down the road. I thought to myself, "What the hell?", and then it dawned on me: Wouldn't a bus load of young athletes on their way to a national stage be an inviting target for terrorists?
I don't have an overly complimentary opinion of our Department of Homeland Security, primarily because of the lousy job they do with our airports and borders. But I'm glad we have someone in that organization that stays awake at night thinking about giving the athletes a straight shot from Point A to Point B and removing a potential target for terrorists.
Well done, folks.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Shocking Disclosure
The gummint lied (gasp)!
For all of you true, blue "patriots" out there that believe all of the pablum fed to you by Uncle Sam and his state/local siblings, here's yet another case of "government statements not supported by fact".
Well, you can kiss this dirty, low-life bastard's ass. I belive that if you accept anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician, you're a dumbass, and don't deserve the title of "American". You're nothing more than a drone.
The fucking list of lies is endless: Iraq. The budget. The border. The deficit. The ports. Domestic spying. Homeland security goons. Pork-barrel payoffs.
You kool-aid drinking bastards make me want to puke. We're not in this mess because of the politicians, we're in it because the fucking drones don't give a shit anymore.
|
For all of you true, blue "patriots" out there that believe all of the pablum fed to you by Uncle Sam and his state/local siblings, here's yet another case of "government statements not supported by fact".
The disclosure came as attorneys for both sides were preparing for a hearing in federal court on a motion filed earlier by SAF and NRA to hold the city in contempt. Plaintiffs' attorneys traveled to a location within the New Orleans city limits where they viewed more than 1,000 firearms that were being stored.We're told over and over that we're UnAmerican to question our government. We're unpatriotic. We're assisting the enemy. We're just dirty, low-life bastards.
Well, you can kiss this dirty, low-life bastard's ass. I belive that if you accept anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician, you're a dumbass, and don't deserve the title of "American". You're nothing more than a drone.
The fucking list of lies is endless: Iraq. The budget. The border. The deficit. The ports. Domestic spying. Homeland security goons. Pork-barrel payoffs.
You kool-aid drinking bastards make me want to puke. We're not in this mess because of the politicians, we're in it because the fucking drones don't give a shit anymore.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Wifely Expectations
Oh, this is rich....
It seems as though some fella in Iowa wanted his wife to sign a contract for "Wifely Expectations". Somehow or the other, he's been charged with kidnapping (her) and the wife gave the contract - the 4 paged contract, which she didn't sign - to the cops.
Some of my favorite "expectations":
|
It seems as though some fella in Iowa wanted his wife to sign a contract for "Wifely Expectations". Somehow or the other, he's been charged with kidnapping (her) and the wife gave the contract - the 4 paged contract, which she didn't sign - to the cops.
Some of my favorite "expectations":
- She can only wear thongs and thigh-high hose with garters. Unless, of course, she's on her period. Then she can wear regular panties
- She can receive Good Behavior Days (GBD's) when she has been totally compliant with his needs and desires. She can turn these in to get a day off from "performing". Unless it's a birthday, anniversary or regarding shaving or sleepwear. Duh!
- Oh, yeah, shaving. Must be done at least every 3 days from "stem to stern" if you get my drift. She is allowed to leave a small patch above her, well, you-know-what, as long as it's not bigger than 2 inches by 1 inch in size, and no more than 1/3 of an inch thick.
- All applications of lube will be done by her. That includes application to him, her or "objects".
- She can earn 14 GBD's for anal sex that was not expected. Only 7 GBD's if it was expected. Well, that's only fair, right?
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Planning Your Own Death
No, This Is Not About Kevorkian
Were you aware that when you die, after a certain exemption, the government currently takes about HALF of your estate? Half of what you save for? Half of what you were going to give your kids, your church or your favorite charity?
Unless you plan to die in 2010.
Really. The tax is currently at 46%, dropping to 45% next year. In 2010, it goes to zero. Then back up to 55% in 2011. How stupid is that?
The House of Representatives has passed legislation to permanently repeal the tax in 2010. The Senate has enough for approval, but not enough to beat a filibuster.
Contact your Senators and tell them that the way they vote on this issue, will be the way you will vote when they are up for re-election. If they vote for it to pass, you'll vote for them. If not, you'll be sending money to their competition, who will also get your vote.
This is the only hammer we as individuals have. Use it.
|
Were you aware that when you die, after a certain exemption, the government currently takes about HALF of your estate? Half of what you save for? Half of what you were going to give your kids, your church or your favorite charity?
Unless you plan to die in 2010.
Really. The tax is currently at 46%, dropping to 45% next year. In 2010, it goes to zero. Then back up to 55% in 2011. How stupid is that?
The House of Representatives has passed legislation to permanently repeal the tax in 2010. The Senate has enough for approval, but not enough to beat a filibuster.
Contact your Senators and tell them that the way they vote on this issue, will be the way you will vote when they are up for re-election. If they vote for it to pass, you'll vote for them. If not, you'll be sending money to their competition, who will also get your vote.
This is the only hammer we as individuals have. Use it.
