Trading Places

This is a classic scene from the film, 'Trading Places.' If you haven't seen it yet go to a movie store now, rent it (get popcorn too), come back home, watch it, and then continue reading. I'll wait....


That'll do nicely.


With the new year coming swiftly many are looking back to remember what has happened in the last year and decade to say, 'Wow I don't know how we came out of that.' I would rather not look at the depth of the valleys behind us but would prefer instead to turn towards the mountains that we have before us to climb. There are a lot of things we have to do in the next year and decade.

We must fix Social Security. There are many in the country who think that Social Security shouldn't exist anymore. There are some who think that once a person has worked for 20 years they shouldn't have to lift a finger ever again. These two viewpoints obviously have a lot of space between them and some compromise is necessary. I would like to see care for the poor and disabled to be removed from Social Security's charter so that it may be regulated separately from retirement benefits for retired workers. The quickest and easiest fix for Social Security is to put more people to work to put more money into the system. That would also, I might add, solve a lot of other problems...

We must fix Healthcare. Yes the Senate passed a version of a bill and yes the House of Representatives passed one too. now the Joint Committee has to agree to something and God only knows if they can do that. Once they do it's going to be a miracle to see it passed. Legislation takes a very long time, especially of this magnitude. When a bill has as many provisions in it as this newest healthcare bill does, it usually dies.

We must fix the economy. As mentioned earlier, putting more people to work will fix a lot of our problems. We must return to being a producer and exporter of goods and return to a strong dollar fiscal policy so that our nation may once again 'rule the world' with our goods, services, and money instead of our military.

We must fix the military. Our current path is unsustainable. We must find a way to be able to maintain our safety and deter future attacks without the deployment of a quarter million men and women in harm's way and the possession of 9600 nuclear weapons. Raising tax barriers against other countries will not improve the condition of the domestic worker. That will only hurt our relations with other nations that we want to buy our products. We must instead tear down the regulation barriers that make it so difficult to own a business in this country.

We must fix civil rights. I don't know if anybody noticed or not but a justice of the peace in Louisiana refused to marry a man and a woman who were of different racial backgrounds. He quit his job after severe political pressure to do so. Every single day men and women of homosexual orientation are refused their equal right to the pursuit of happiness. We must end this hypocrisy or else we should stop criticizing countries like China for their moral fallacies.

We must fix our infrastructure. Our bridges are falling apart, our roads are old, our phone and internet and cable lines are becoming outdated. Surely there is some way we could fix all of these and a few aforementioned problems... ah yes. That stimulus money could be used to update our power grid and our roads and our other vital tools so that we can step into the 21st century (a little late). This would create countless jobs as well as accomplish a necessary goal. We might also send some people down to New Orleans to fix the levies, that would be nice.

I think that's a pretty short list but a hard list. We must look forward to the challenges ahead of us to accomplish them or else we will see another decade pass us by rife with problems. Many other countries have seen such 'lost decades' and we can be sure that more will in the coming years. I would hope that we are not on the latter list. I would hope that we, like Dan Akroyd in the film 'Trading Places' can join with the Eddie Murphy's in the world who have taken our place at the top and overcome our problems.

Merry New Year to everybody and I'll see you a little farther down the road.

I Don't Have Time To Discuss This In A Committee

Someone should draw a comic of Barack Obama shouting that at Nancy Pelosi while she shouts the classic response, "I am not a committee!" Would Joe Biden be Chewbacca? (I would cast Harry Reid play C-3PO and Olympia Snowe play R2-D2 (not to say that Ms. Snowe is a little person but referencing her minority status as a Republican and the character being the lone voice of reason that nobody wants to listen to) The Millenium Falcon could have the word Healthcare on it since the two were both standing on shaky ground at the time of the exchange. I digress.

The Senate came in to work on Christmas Eve so that they could vote on the most important issue of the year: healthcare. The headlines on Christmas morning read that the Senate had passed landmark legislation set to go to committee in the new year. They didn't even need 60 Democrats or any Republicans to move on to voting and the 58 Democrats and 2 Independents also voted yes on the actual bill, moving the bill into the next stage of the legislative process.

I'm blogging from my work computer so if you read this before I can fix it, look up 'I am a Bill' on youtube and enjoy the video.

The link in the title takes you to an article from the Washington Post that compares the House and Senate bills on some of the major points.

I'd like to give the Dems kudos for muscling a bill through both houses of Congress. It's been a long time since a Democratic majority in Congress actually meant anything other than creating a sitting duck. I'm going to hold off my commentary on the healthcare bill until a final version is passed by Congress simply because there are too many facets to explore and I don't want to write a thesis (that's a lie, I don't mind writing it but apparently nobody would read it).

Hopefully the next piece of life-altering legislation that comes through Congress will see a more productive response from the GOP. While "You Lie" activates the base, garners some campaign money, and wins some elections in off-years, giving 30 million Americans health insurance improves the quality of life in our country and might win the Presidency (again).

In he dream world I like to think we might create some day, the moderates will split off from both parties and then nobody would have a majority and would have to form coalitions to get anything done, much like.... almost every country in Europe has to. (Aren't they making an international President soon? We'll talk about that later)

I think that's where I'm going to end this one. I'm glad that something got passed and I'm glad that the Dems flexed their muscles. I hope that the GOP does more in committee to help mold a more cost-effective and private-run bill and I hope that people will realize that higher taxes aren't always a bad thing. Merry Christmas to all of you and thank you for reading!

Blessing in Disguise?

The headline out of the Washington Post begs the question: Can Swine Flu Shut Down the Internet? People staying home from work or school either suffering from or in fear of the new strain of flu that has so far killed fewer people internationally than regular strains of flu kills in this country alone are starting to strain internet networks in several communities. At present this is not a serious problem. The government, in a surprising twist, is doing what it is supposed to do and is planning for future disasters and is afraid that the strained networks will make it difficult if not impossible for government agencies to send out warnings and for e-commerce to survive.

The article says that the companies have several options from laying down new cable which takes too long and is expensive or can figure out a way to slow traffic down which might violate contracts. Sounds like a lose-lose situation right? Perhaps not.

Laying down new cable to deal with an emergency will be too slow if it is in response to a disaster and too expensive if the companies have to pay for it. Enter the stimulus bill.

We have already decided to give money to people for projects vital to communities. Very little of the money has actually been given out because planning such civic projects takes a long time. Laying down upgraded cables in many areas, and more in the rest, is a project that can be written up relatively quickly and paid for. This creates new jobs, promotes e-commerce, increases infrastructure, prevents unnecessary problems in security, and in all ways improves the economy.

So perhaps the swine flu epidemic can do something good for everyone after all. Perhaps if everyone has better access to better internet they can find out that 20-something active healthy males don't need a vaccine and they should let the pregnant women in front of them in line. Does the internet teach decency?

Annulment

To quote directly from Wikipedia, "Annulment is a legal procedure for declaring a marriage null and void. Unlike divorce, it is retroactive: an annulled marriage is considered never to have existed."

I agree fully with protecting the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution. I believe that it is written in the Christian Bible that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. I think that going to a justice of the peace and signing a marriage license and being declared married is not a religious ceremony and does not create a holy union and does not constitute a marriage.

I think that if two homosexuals want to go to a justice of the peace and be legally united with all benefits allowed therein the government should not say anything about it because it is a legal union of two individuals. To continue, if two adults, even if they are related, desire to join into a legal union they should not be stopped by any force of government or church. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

With a divorce rate at or beyond 50% and many celebrity marriages lasting a matter of days or weeks, it is difficult to argue that what is currently called marriage compares to the holy union many people think of when they use the word.

I think that if churches do not want to marry gays that is fine. If the Baptist church down the road doesn't agree with the practice that is well within their rights as an institution to decide. If the Episcopal church does agree with the practice then they should be allowed to unite any two people into sacred matrimony as they see fit without any interference. I believe that refers to the freedom of religion discussed in the first amendment of the Constitution.

I think that marriage is a sacred word which implies a religious ceremony and a religious union and should not have any impact on legal discussion in any case. If two people want to get married but don't want to be considered legally united, what's the problem? They want ceremony without benefit.

I think that legal unions imply a secular contract and should have no impact on religious discussion in any case. If two people want to be legally united without getting married, what's the problem? They want benefit without ceremony.

Some people have seen too many divorces in their lives and don't think that marriage is a beneficial union anymore. They might live with someone else, share bank accounts, share children, share mortgages, etc. They should be able to get legally joined for the purposes of tax breaks and hospital visitation rights and so on.

Some people just want to get married without all of the legal mumbo jumbo and want to express their love in a religious venue. They should be able to get married and wear their rings etc.

The government should not use the word marriage and the church should not be involved in creating contracts. Though most people would go to a courthouse and get a legal union and then go to a church and get married (or vice versa) there are plenty of outliers that would not to make such a separation beneficial to everyone.

Rather than force the government and the church to go through a painful divorce and try to figure out who gets which books, they should get an annulment and just go their separate ways.

BRIC Building

In economics, BRIC (typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRICcountries") is an acronym that refers to the fast-growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first coined and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001.^[1][2] Goldman Sachs argued that, since they are developing rapidly, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRICs could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. The four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the world's population.^[3][4]

Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, as the European Union has done.^[5] However, there are strong indications that the "four BRIC countries have been seeking to form a 'political club' or 'alliance'", and thereby converting "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout".^[6][7] On June 16, 2009, the leaders of the BRIC countries held their first summit in Yekaterinburg, and issued a declaration calling for the establishment of a multipolar world order.^[8]

The numbers came from Wikipedia. I don't normally like using their stuff but in this case they have some really good sources and it's far better than a summary I would have written. Do check the articles they linked to for some more background reading to this post. I've already written an article about Russian foreign policy and about Chinese fiscal policy, but I have quiet till now about Brazil or about the BRIC as a whole. In light of the recent pick of Rio de Janeiro as the location of the 2016 Olympic Summer games I'd like to change that.

Back in July, there was a G8 summit to discuss the global financial situation, which I suppose is the only thing that the G8 does (the G8 is a group of the leaders of the 8 largest economies in the world) but I didn't want to make that such a short sentence. Brazil, China, and Russia went and said that they wanted to shift the global currency away from the US Dollar. No real alternative was given and discussion on the topic wasn't even really held. The thought of ending the United States' financial dominance, however, was out in the open. According to Forbes shortly after,

A possible BRIC replacement for the dollar has more to do with a political and economic power struggle than with getting a stronger currency as the world reserve. "[The BRICs] 'have to' if they want to be able to exert their desire to be taken more seriously and seen as real economic powerhouses on the world's economic stage," says Stephen Roseman, manager at Thesis Capital.

If you actually look at that link don't give me any guff about the titles being similar, I hadn't read that article since July. China is especially wary of the dollar's current dominance in the markets. They have been trading for a lot of dollars and they are now the US' largest lender. What this means for China's economy is that if the bottom falls out of the dollar and it becomes worthless, so does the yuan. Rather than buying fewer dollars and allowing for less risk China has been buying more dollars and looking for more profit. They are in almost no position to jockey for becoming the next major currency. As TIME put it, "Don't expect to change those greenbacks for redbacks anytime soon."

Barack Obama tried to hit the big reset button with Dmitri Medvedev, the President of Russia, in an attempt to warm the re-cooling feelings between the two nations. Russia invaded a smaller country during last year's Olympics, has quietly supported Iran's nuclear program, and has been knocking heads with the United States over plans for missile defense shields across Europe. Russia left Georgia and has presented evidence that they were provoked. Iran is finding support from many more places than just Russia. We aren't putting our missiles in Europe. It seems that Russia has won three major battles. However not everything in life is what it seems. During Obama's visit in Russia, he and President Medvedev agreed to cut each nations nuclear arsenal by almost a quarter in seven years. Russia is going to allow us to fly planes through Russian airspace en route to Afghanistan, a move that helps both countries. The missile defense shields were really only ploys by George W. Bush to upset Russia in the first place so they were easy to give up.

Russia has even begun to lessen its support for Iran's nuclear program. Part of this may come from Ahmadinajed's widely-thought rigged election and increasingly anti-Semitic tone, and part of it may come from the previously mentioned nuclear agreement with the United States. This is incredibly important for more reasons than the preservation of Israel, which I won't discuss any further here. I personally buy into the Samuel Huntington theory of the Clash of Civilizations to a point. I think that Iran, formerly part of the Soviet Union, has enjoyed support from Russia for a long time and with that has been much more comfortable going against our wishes. Since Russia maintains a permanent seat on the Security Council at the UN, they are able to veto any meaningful action against Iran. However, with Russia starting to question that support, Iran might find that a decision to turn a peaceful energy source into the most powerful weapon in history would be the opposite of desirable. I had mentioned that there are other reasons for Russia to put pressure on Iran than to prevent 'the bomb.' Iran controls a major portion of the world's oil supply. While the popular media in this country would like to make us think so, we are not the only country in the world that requires oil from the Middle East.

Iran recently re-elected President Ahmadinajed in what many called a rigged election. The opposition rioted in the streets and was beaten back, literally, by state forces. I was asked by a very good friend about my opinion on the matter and I am afraid I did not provide a very good perspective on the matter. I would like to fix that now. 30 years ago the United States put the current Supreme Leader into power by supplying him with weapons and money secretly so that they could fight off who? Islamic extremists and Russian influence. Oops. I stated that doing the same with the new uprising would hardly be prudent because of past failure and probable renewed failure. I was correct, but that is hardly helpful to the conversation. What should happen in Iran is Russia should use its considerable influence and limit nuclear desire and help international agencies make sure that the next election is open and fair. Russia has certainly had its own trouble with fair elections but maybe working to make Iran more democratic will help it look in the mirror.

Ok, I've covered China's economics and Russia's diplomatics. Familiar territory for many writers and especially this one. Let's delve into some less familiar space on the atlas.

Another former colony of Britain, India is an up-and-coming player in world economics and politics. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. India is another country that has dealt with terrorist attacks in recent years. Attacks on a hotel in Mumbai came from Pakistan and, according to Forbes, funded and armed by China. India is dealing with the growing pains of industrialization and moving into post-industrialization. The location of many outsourced technical support jobs and the homeland of many foreign students and doctors, India is now starting to outsource its own tech jobs and as the education debate rages on in this country it is also the home of ideas for better teaching. India is also the home of new companies that are making smaller cars and cheaper laptops. As these new technologies come out of the largest democracy on the planet, the middle class will boom and their growing economy will continue to grow and we might soon start asking them for the loans that China can no longer afford to give.

Lastly: Brazil. Home of Rio de Janeiro and the 2016 Summer Olympic games, Brazil is perhaps the country I'm most interested in that I don't hear enough about. A couple years ago they found oil just off of their coast and as soon as that oil hits the market not only will the price go down but the economy of Brazil will explode. A side note: gas prices should go down when it hits the market because we will have an option for oil imports that isn't Iran or Venezuela. It should not be taken at face value that Rio was 'awarded' the Olympics. Rio is a beautiful city with a vast population but that is not the only reason they were picked. Rio is the first city in the southern hemisphere to host the summer games as well as the first city in South America. (NOTE: Thanks to one of our dedicated readers I have learned that part of that statement is false. Australia hosted the summer games in 1856 and 2000. I heard that statistic on television and didn't bother to check the facts and I apologize.) The games have been in America, Japan, and Europe before. I don't think that the choice was a move against Obama but a move for Brazil. Obama should publicly embrace the choice and speak proudly of Brazil as an American brother. This could be a very important friendship in a continent, and a world, where our list of friends is somewhat shorter than it used to be.

Each of these four nations still has a little growing up to do. I have listed them in a very particular order: China, Russia, India, Brazil. I don't think they are quite ready to be the foundation, or BRIC, for the world yet because they are still each in their own CRIB.

China needs to bring its poor into the 21st century and make the middle class vastly more independent economically. Russia needs to stop playing Cold War politics and realize that we are in a new world with new problems and they can't keep blaming us for everything while their people starve. India needs to find its own voice and become the kind of regional and global leader that its economy and population allow. Brazil needs to grow out of its former corrupt shell and also lead South America towards freedom from fear and foreign influence.

Once they have each done that they may become the BRIC that we can stand upon to find our own place in a world where we aren't the only superpower and where we must rely on others for survival.

Nancy Pelosi is Killing Old People

See? I can use strong language that isn't completely true but isn't completely false too!

Nancy Pelosi has now said that co-ops will not be in any form of a House bill that goes to the President. Last week she said that there would not be any 'trigger' language written in, meaning that a public option would only be enacted if the private insurance firms don't provide cheaper rates etc.

Moderate and conservative Democrats and all Republicans in both the House and Senate have said that either of those options must be in anything that they approve. Barack Obama hasn't exactly said it, but everyone knows that he will sign anything that actually gets put on his desk.

Here's the problem: Nancy Pelosi and liberal Democrats only control about 20 percent of the seats in the House and a couple seats in the Senate. That minority controls all of the leadership of both and has a choke hold on the legislature.

The President is catching flack for being too liberal on healthcare and the Democrats are being accused of quelling filibuster when actually the party is much too fractured for that and the President doesn't have as much of a voice in the argument as everyone assumes. If the President had said during his speech to Congress that the public option was a sliver of the overall pie Nancy Pelosi would have stood up behind him and slapped the back of his head.

Barack Obama doesn't want to raise taxes and he doesn't want to infringe on care and he doesn't want to kill old people: Nancy Pelosi does.

Vocabulary Lesson

I don't know if anyone who reads this blog has been keeping track of the health debate as much as I have been, but I've spent hours researching what would have turned into a lengthy essay on the current status of the congressional debate. Scanning magazines and newspapers from across the country I have heard every side of each issue and seen most of the possible solutions. If any of you wants to see any of the articles, comment and I'll email them. I have decided nobody that does read this blog wants to read a lengthy essay, especially one written by me.

What I'm going to write instead is what I think we should do to move forward in the debate and ultimately move forward in our lives. We need, first off, to recognize a difference in vocabulary. There is a massive difference between health care and health insurance. Reform in one is not necessarily reform in the other, and both need help. End-of-life care does not mean unnatural death and does not mean Kevorkian-style assisted suicide, necessarily. While politicians must be the keepers and maintainers of politics, the time for politics is not now.

Health care, doctors taking care of patients, needs reform. Especially in Eastern Kentucky, where doctors develop reputations for prescribing any pills desired by their patients, also known as 'pill farms' give the entire profession a bad name, there must be a measure of control and assessment placed on those who can impact the very core of our lives, our bodies. Health insurance, planning for the unpredictable, needs reform. Especially in a country where 44 million people, or roughly 1 in 8 people, don't have any means of paying for health services.

Now that I have established my opinion that reform is necessary, the question is where should that reform come from? Should it be privately sourced or should our government be asked once again to rescue us from ourselves? Doctors are already required to get licensed by an independent organization and when they 'screw up,' which for doctors usually means end someone else's life, they are investigated by a private organization and can lose their license. Is it possible for these organizations, run by private companies, to run routine examinations of each doctor's skills and an evaluation of their diagnoses and care plans for their patients? Giving doctor's a check-up? Professors in colleges must undergo this sort of maintenance. While it certainly won't prevent all deaths and it certainly won't catch all 'bad doctors,' it is certainly a step in the right direction and it can be done without any government interference.

Health insurance needs to be reformed as well and it is in the particular area that I think that government interference may be necessary. The only reason that I think the government may have to step in in these aspect of health services is that insurance has been broken for a while now and the private system seems either unable or unwilling to fix itself, in either case someone might have to step in. Before there can be reform for insurance there must be reform in what I think is the biggest problem of all: hospitals.

Doctors have to make money, they should, they went to school for a long time and they provide a necessary service. Hospitals, on the other hand, should be entirely non-profit organizations. When hospital administrators are more worried about cost margins than they are the lives of their patients, care is impacted. Another source of frustration, and by frustration I mean destruction of human life, that stems from hospitals is the complete lack of any means of accountability. In a free market, services are provided for a price and then buyers decide if the service is worth the price set. If it is they buy it and if it isn't they go find a similar service somewhere else. This is supply and demand and it's the only way a free market works. I'm going to put this next sentence in capital letters so that everyone gets this. WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET HEALTHCARE SYSTEM AND THUS WE CAN NOT PROTECT IT. Hostpials need to set prices for procedures based on the price of supplies and labor such that the doctors are paid and the administrators are paid and the hospital staff are paid and the best quality products are purchased while the costs are able to be kept low because there is no eye for profit on the part of the hospital as a whole. That was a long sentence but not a run-on I'm keeping track. That last sentence was a run-on. Tee hee.

If hospitals list their prices then people will be able to decide if they actually want to purchase health insurance or not and they will also be able to see the direct benefits of that insurance. If you don't have car insurance and your brakes go out then you know how much it's going to cost to get your brakes fixed. If your insurance covers brake repairs you are able to see exactly how much money you're saving on that specific repair due to your monthly pay-in to the system and you are able to recognize the benefit: thus you understand the service provided.

If people understand the benefit of the service provided by insurance companies, they are also able to give that benefit a value, and then insurance becomes open to a free market as well. To speak to the issue of socialized medicine, people who mention that mean socialized health insurance, and we've had it for 40 years. The majority of people who are uninsured are not the old, who receive Medicare, or the poor, who receive Medicaid, or teachers or other government employees, who receive government insurance (yes, your Congressman too. Even Republican Congressmen receive public insurance, in case you were wondering), but instead it is the young and employed who are the most uninsured. In essence, me. So this issue doesn't affect the old or the poor or the government-employed, it affects me. When you see tapes of the town hall meetings, who is providing the most vitriol against healthcare reform? The old, the poor, and the government-employed.

So I'm going to end this blog with a familiar phrase: keep your hands off my health-care!

Ted Kennedy is Dead

Please read the linked article from The Hill. I don't know if we can truly appreciate at this time how great a loss the death of Ted Kennedy is. He was a pillar in Washington and an example for politicians. Hopefully the medical community will receive a new push to learn of new ways to treat, and perhaps even cure, the brain cancer that took Kennedy's life. For the first time in almost 50 years, the Kennedy boys are together, may God rest all their souls.

Well What Do You Know About That?

How often do we get to talk about a government program that works? Now that you've thought about that, how often to we get to talk about a government program that works so well it almost breaks down? Now comes the analogies. Like the engines of the clunkers being traded, the government program CARS was barely able to maintain the pace at which people bought new cars over the last few weeks. Dealers were selling so many cars that they began to think about not permitting the deals because they had too much paperwork to do. To quote the Boston Globe, ""A borderline train wreck," said Charlie Swenson, general manager at WalserToyota in Bloomington, Minn. In Glen Burnie, Md., Bob Bell, who owns Ford, Kia and Hyundai dealerships, said his employees were overwhelmed filing for reimbursement from the government's clunky system."

The government did not expect people to want to buy new cars in the numbers that people wanted to buy new cars. The government even did something right by having dealers send in their forms online, not only does this lessen the strain on the postal service, it speeds up the process for the dealers. But the tech guy at the White House was on lunch when the plans for the website were being discussed. Nobody bothered to mention that if a single site gets enough hits during a period of time it will slow down or even crash. So many dealers across the country were trying to process rebate applications that the rebate site took hours to upload the necessary documents for the applications.

Good news. People are buying cars, this gives a vital boost to an industry that was starting to, pardon the pun, run out of gas. Good news. People are buying cars that are more fuel efficient than the cars they had before which means less oil dependence and less environmental impact. Good news. The government was able to give out some of the stimulus money quickly and efficiently (mostly). Lesson? Instead of trying to find ways to spend 787 billion dollars in projects that won't get out of planning for another couple of years, perhaps the government could spend 10 billion stimulating the auto industry, the renewable energy industry, rebuild a few major highways which always need repairs, and inject some cash into some scientific research or artistic projects.

I know that in today's economies of scale 10 billion dollars doesn't sound like a lot of money, but the economy doesn't need to be completely rebuilt, it just needs a jump (yes another car pun). One thing I like the most about the Cash For Clunkers program is that it doesn't have a buy American clause in it or a buy GM clause, it just says buy a car with better gas mileage. Some commenattors have said that any stimulus for the industry unfairly props up the industry and I think that those people should shut up because they drove to work that morning. A relatively small injection of cash has gotten the economy flowing, even if temporarily. What I think is most important about this turn of sales events (too much?) is that it gives people a reminder that government spending isn't always bad and it gives the government a reminder that sometimes giving people money for something specific is better than any of the other spending they've been doing under the stimulus project.

Low on Capital

Avigdor Lieberman, the Foreign Minister of Israel, said that Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, shouldn't be putting Israel's continued settlement building at the top of the international agenda. He said, "North Korea fired three missiles yesterday" and he alsobrought up Iran's continued efforts to develop nuclear technology. Here's a tip for the Israeli Foreign Minister: don't align yourself with two members of the Axis of Evil. Two wrongs do not make a right and just because Iran and North Korea are breaking the rules doesn't mean that Israel gets to break them as well. Especially since North Korea and Iran are under heavy sanctions from the UN.

Israel has got to understand that while 6 million Jews were killed 70 years ago, a lot has happened since then. Germany has paid its debt to society, Jews got their own homeland, and we've been kissing their ass ever since. Here's the point: stop breaking the law. Eventually Israel is going to run out of the political capital necessary to keep its impressive list of allies and then the Muslim world, which will by then include a nuclear Iran, will be free to do as it pleases.

The United States, the European Union, and soon the United Nations, are toughening their stances on Israeli settlements and for good reason. As Chancellor Merkel so astutely states, "they are blocking the peace process." Jews should understand what it's like to be kept down due to religion and race, and they should remember the golden rule that even Moses followed: do unto others what you would have done unto you.

Nobody likes a bully and though we've turned our back to Israel's practices for 60 years, their continued belligerence towards the Palestinians and apathy towards the international community's concerns will find them in a tough spot: alone.

The Cost of Liberty

Kevin Sabet wrote an op-ed piece for the LA times a couple months ago about the high cost of legalizing marijuana, sorry it took me so long to write about it, I should be getting back into a normal schedule soon. I really enjoyed reading a piece that was against the legalizing of marijuana but refrained from any moral or religious argument. He stated that the social costs (i.e. abuse treatment, accidents, healthcare, etc.) of legalizing marijuana were so high that the tax revenue possible was not worth it. One figure he used dealt with alcohol. He said that while alcohol brings in roughly $8b in tax revenue, the social costs are approximately $200b. That's and understandable argument. Certainly a much more tolerable one than "drugs are bad for you".

I would like to respond to his comments in a manner that hopefully won't sound like the usual hippie-styled "but it feels good". Would Mr. Sabet rather that we made alcohol and tobacco illegal? What about all harmful things, a la Demolition Man, such as caffeine, salt, spicy food, even so far as cursing (I'm sure that bit was a joke)? Where is the line between arguing against the gateway drug and arguing against personal choice?

The only reason that I am for a legalization policy is that I do not feel that it is the government's job to protect me from myself. Protect the general welfare should mean promote legal activity and ensure equality not prevent unsafe decisions and ensure mediocrity.

If it weren't for alcohol and tobacco and the hundreds of billions of dollars in social costs would we have as many doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, social workers, jailers, probation officers, counselers, support groups, etc? That's a lot of jobs to consider. Cheap argument I know, but it's valid.

I suppose the real issue for me isn't marijuana or tobacco or heroine or whatever other specific substance one could choose, the issue is much more broad: does the government have the right or the ability to protect me from myself? I do not believe that it does and I believe that the cost of losing our liberty is much greater than any dollar figure anyone can make up about the social cost of our vices.

I Thought I Told You Never To Say That Word

Hey look everyone, the leaders of Congress are calling their opponents un-American. House Democrats responded to these claims... oh, they made the claims? You mean the same people who just three years ago balked at being called un-American for their opposition to the Iraq War are now calling opponents of healthcare reform the same thing? Really?

Have I mentioned I don't like Nancy Pelosi? I don't like using the term California liberal, but she is. There's not way around it. Who made her Speaker of the House? It wasn't me.

Luckily, John Boehner (pronounced Bay-ner, not Boh-ner. Can we grow up?) was there to respond and say that such verbal attacks were "outrageous and reprehensible" even though he made such attacks three years ago. To quote Al Michaels, "Thanks John."

the screwed-up-idness of the American financial system.

First, let me start out by saying that since the great Cr. Hunter S. Thompson (peace be upon him) passed by a self inflicted shotgun vblast to the face, i have not made a habit of reading the Liberal Shill that is rolling stone. This is the mag that had Obama on its cover ... god knows how many times during the election often imaged almost as a god. I happened across this article as I checked out one of my regular Net hangouts, Fazed. It is a great piece of investigative journalism, but it misses a few of the important points. I found it interesting for one that this article only found its way to the pages of Rolling Stone when they found a way to pin the economic crisis and bailout on the Republicans. There too is blood on the hands of the Dems. Obama signed bailouts and the Omnibus spending bill that was INCREDIBLY overinflated and beyond the imagination. It is the Liberals (both Ds and Rs" that give the power to make these bubbles and give bailouts to companies. The power to make these mistakes should have never have been intrusted to the federal government and now that they have claimed it will difficult to take it away. The federal government no longer likes to be limited the way it did before FDR and Wilson. If anyone needs a lesson in how bubbles are made see below.

If you want to make a great stride in fixing the drastic economic problems in this country we have to make drastic measures. We MUST end the income tax and cut spending. We Must take away the federal governments blank check to companies. For gods sakes Goldman Sach is not doing better than ever without the bailout money. We MUST END THE FED. allow the god made organic markets to do their job. We must stop interfering in the natural laws of the world. Liberals get that when it comes to global warming but miss it ompletely when it comes to economics. Take a nap on this one Stan. We all know economics is not your strong suit.

Yes I'm late so what of it

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY !!! Spend some time today thinking of the wonder and glory that is liberty and don't forget, liberty comes at the cost of those willing to stand and fight for it. Whether the enemy of freedom is across the seas or right here at home, pay respect to all those who fight with their hands, wits, and words.

My Hero

The war against the war on drugs has found a new hero, whether he knows it or not. A student was asked to give a persuasive speech and he did. About marijuana. He finished the speech by pulling out a joint, smoking it, and eating the remains. He was eventually charged with suspicion of possession of a controlled substance. Thirty kids in a room watched him smoke it and they got him for suspicion... Hopefully this kid has some idea what he's doing unlike the last high school student with a meaningful pro-drug message...

States like California, Oregon, and Washington are beginning to discuss thinking about their marijuana policies. That's a long way from actual change, but with New Hampshire passing a medical marijuana bill, hopefully not too long. There is a movement in politics, has been for a very long time, that the government is supposed to protect you from everything that is wrong in the world. Sorry folks, that's what your parents and church are for. If a person wants to sit in his living room and hit a doobie, the government should take their tax cut and be done with the matter. Unfortunately, some of the best activists for the cause, as discussed and pictured above, will probably lose interest and lie around the house eating cheetos instead of doing anything productive.

What'd He Just Say?

Please read the linked article, I'll wait. It's pretty important. I mean this. Have you read it? Good.

Joe Biden said that we won't stop Israel from attacking Iran. Syria has even said that they won't notice if Israeli war jets fly through their airspace. Iran has already countered as saying that they'll defend themselves like they always said they would.

ISRAEL HAS NUKES! I know they say they don't and we say they don't but they do. In case you hadn't noticed, there are a lot of little countries in that region that don't like each other very much. If it hits the fan between Israel and Iran, how bad do you think it will get? I think it will get pretty bad. Hopefully we'll stay out of it, even though Israel is an ally of ours, because otherwise Russia will get into it, they're an ally of Iran. It could very quickly escalate into a major conflict the likes of which the world has never seen, or it could fizzle out because Joe Biden was just talking to hear himself talk and the Israelis and Iranians are just making the same noise they've made for a few hundred years. It could go either way. Which way do you think it will go?

UPDATE: The State Department has since come out saying that Joe Biden's statements are not a 'green light' for Israel to bomb Iran. Thank goodness. Still, answer the questions because they are going to apply for a long time.

Independence Day

Today we remember the wonderful events of July 4th, 1776: when the Christians came across on three boats sailed by a Spanish guy who was bringing them here so that they could defeat the heathen natives with the power of the Bible, and turkey and dressing.

Moving on to real history....

The real reason that those brave men signed the Declaration of Independence was that they were being taxed without being asked what should be taxed or what the tax money should be spent on. To be sure, the colonists were more than happy to pay taxes to the crown, they'd been doing it for 200 years. Without true representation though, they said that they weren't going to tolerate their money being taken from them anymore.

Let's look at the title of the document they signed 233 years ago. The Declaration of Independence. It wasn't a non-binding agreement sent from Congress to the President, it wasn't a UN resolution, it wasn't even a nice letter asking for some representation in the House of Commons (British Congress a.k.a. Parliament). These gentlemen didn't ask anyone for permission to be independent. They TOOK it. We STOLE our own country away from the hands of oppressors who were taking our money and spending it how they wanted without asking us what was proper.

We now find ourselves in a time when our government raises taxes without asking, spends taxes on programs no citizen votes on, and propogates a class of politician in which your only real choice is between a douchebag and a turd sandwich (thanks South Park). We must sign our own declaration in this day and age. We must DECLARE that we are tired of our government acting like our god and our politicians like our masters. We must declare that we are INDEPENDENT from our leaders and that we, as individuals, can make it or lose it on our own and that the only thing that government can do is get in our way. On this day we must remember what actually happened in Philadelphia in 1776: men put it all on the line because they believed the words that were uttered by Patrick Henry the year before, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Here's another fine speech about independence.

200 posts!

What a sad day to have my 200th blog. Yesterday saw the loss of Ed McMahon, and today Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson went to their eternal homes. The world has lost some great icons of television and music. I know each of them has had their troubles, but the world really is different because of each of them. Take a minute and remember how precious life is and how often we take it for granted.

Thriller, Billy Jean, Bad, Beat It, Smooth Criminal

A Time for Games?

Administration blames Bush for GM crisis

Really? We're playing the blame game still?

We're blaming Bush for the economy, foreign policy, education, healthcare, and immigration. Have I missed something? Probably.

Can we stop spending so much time worrying about who is to blame for our problems and get on to solving our problems?

A better question: with the way the Administration has been fixing them so far, making them more expensive and complicated, do we want them to spend more time trying to fix them any more?

A Long Night

I know it's silly for the authors of this site to have monikers even though most of our readers are our friends. I'm going to post a conversation between two of the authors, but I'm not going to tell you who is who, just in case you don't know already. The only reason I keep up the anonimity is to try and allow the thoughts of the authors to matter more than the names. I hope that my friend doesn't hate me too much after this long conversation, I really had a good time for its duration.

[00:53] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: BAH
[00:53] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'M ANGRY
[00:53] Frank Fields: ?
[00:54] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/planning-to-retire/2009/6/5/should-retirement-savings-be-required.html
[00:54] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: just read the opening question
[00:54] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: sorry, they have a different by-line on the rss
[00:54] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it says that ther's a new government plan that might require retirement savings
[00:54] Frank Fields: it's not that bad
[00:54] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: we already fucking have one
[00:55] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it's called SOCIAL SECURITY
[00:55] Frank Fields: Yes
[00:55] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it's bankrupting our economy
[00:55] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: jesus
[00:55] Frank Fields: Not really
[00:55] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: damn socialists just don't get it
[00:55] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: yes really, that's what it was designed to do
[00:55] Frank Fields: They just had the chairman of the federal reserve on 60 minutes tonight
[00:55] Frank Fields: 30 minutes
[00:55] Frank Fields: you should have watched it
[00:55] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I can't help it that the socialists have changed it over the last 70 years that it wasn't supposed to it exist
[00:56] Frank Fields: it really dispelled a lot of what people say about the bailouts in general and the action of government interferring into private sector
[00:56] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm not angry with bailouts
[00:56] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that's a different rant
[00:56] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: we alrady have a government required retirement plan and we don't need another
[00:56] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: we actually need to drop the one we have
[00:56] Frank Fields: also, this isnt tax payer money that this article is talking about
[00:56] Frank Fields: at least as its described
[00:57] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: just a second, I'll allow for that comment to sink in and read the article one more time
[00:57] Frank Fields: I'm looking for where this money is coming from
[00:58] Frank Fields: but not finding it
[00:58] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it's coming out of your check
[00:58] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: exactly like social se3curity
[00:58] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I swear to god it is
[00:58] Frank Fields: Coming out of your check for yourself though
[00:58] Frank Fields: and
[00:58] Frank Fields: the proposal says you can opt out
[00:58] Frank Fields: so its not really a big deal
[00:58] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it's a huge deal
[00:58] Frank Fields: why?
[00:58] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: the government needs to have less control on our money, not more
[00:58] Frank Fields: thats not giving them control
[00:59] Frank Fields: it would give them control if you couldn't opt out of it
[00:59] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it creates a beauracracy
[00:59] Frank Fields: but you can
[00:59] Frank Fields: so it can have as little effect as you want it to
[00:59] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you already have a retirement plan you can join if you want but don't hvave to
[00:59] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it's called a savings account
[00:59] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: there's no need for this
[00:59] Frank Fields: .........
[00:59] Frank Fields: Yes there is
[00:59] Frank Fields: its encouraging people to save
[00:59] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: social darwinism my friend
[00:59] Frank Fields: ..........
[00:59] Frank Fields: Employees could opt out if they choose.
[00:59] Frank Fields: Employees could opt out if they choose.
[00:59] Frank Fields: Employees could opt out if they choose.
[00:59] Frank Fields: Employees could opt out if they choose.
[01:00] Frank Fields: Employees could opt out if they choose.
[01:00] Frank Fields: Employees could opt out if they choose.

[01:00] Frank Fields: Employees could opt out if they choose.
[01:00] Frank Fields: get it?
[01:00] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: quit spamming whore
[01:00] Frank Fields: that should make it a non issue
[01:00] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: well you'll just have to read about it when I blog on it
[01:00] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because I don't agree with this at all
[01:00] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: not even close
[01:00] Frank Fields: dude
[01:00] Frank Fields: i just read the article
[01:00] Frank Fields: the fact you can opt out
[01:00] Frank Fields: makes it insignificant
[01:00] Frank Fields: you dont want to do it, then don't
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: the fact that you can opt out makes it nonessential
[01:01] Frank Fields: its a psychological thing
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because savings accounts are optional too
[01:01] Frank Fields: that's all it is
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: yeah, and it's working
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I don't want them stealing my money
[01:01] Frank Fields: They aren't....
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and giving it back to me later
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because they already do that with social security
[01:01] Frank Fields: Do you have an IRA?
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and medicare
[01:01] Frank Fields: Do you know how an IRA works?
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I do
[01:01] Frank Fields: ok
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: know how it works
[01:01] Frank Fields: then whats the problem?
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I don't have one
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I haven't opted in yet
[01:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: but that's my option
[01:02] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: the government doesn't need to have any say in the matter
[01:02] Frank Fields: then why do you have an issue with the government saying, heres an IRA, if you dont want it, dont take it
[01:02] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because banks already say that
[01:02] Frank Fields: no they dont
[01:02] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they actually sell t damn things
[01:02] Frank Fields: they dont set them up for you
[01:02] Frank Fields: and then say
[01:02] Frank Fields: do you want to cancel
[01:02] Frank Fields: you have to take the initial step
[01:02] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: if the government says everyone gets one, then there's not need for the banks to compete with different terms
[01:02] Frank Fields: and many people dont know or dont understand
[01:02] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: removing competition hurts the consumer
[01:03] Frank Fields: this doesn't remove competition either
[01:03] Frank Fields: Who says the government will have the best APY?
[01:03] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: but what if you're too dumb to understand how any of that works?
[01:03] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it doesn't take long for a government monopoly to exist
[01:03] Frank Fields: then opt out
[01:04] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: we should opt out of the program existing
[01:04] Frank Fields: .........
[01:04] Frank Fields: im not talking about social security
[01:04] Frank Fields: do you hear me defending social security?
[01:04] Frank Fields: no
[01:04] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: if you want to save money go into a bank and say "I want to save money, how do I do it."
[01:04] Frank Fields: so stop bringing it up
[01:04] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm talking about the universal IRA program
[01:04] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it shouldn't be created
[01:04] Frank Fields: something that is optional, you shouldn't complain about
[01:04] Frank Fields: its like gay marriage
[01:04] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it already is optional
[01:04] Frank Fields: if you are against it
[01:04] Frank Fields: dont get one
[01:05] Frank Fields: and stfu
[01:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it's nothing at all like gay marriage
[01:05] Frank Fields: yes it is
[01:05] Frank Fields: if you dont want the IRA
[01:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm about to call you just so that I can shout at you
[01:05] Frank Fields: dont get one
[01:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you're using a fallacious argument
[01:05] Frank Fields: ?
[01:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: one of them is a human right and the other isn't
[01:05] Frank Fields: It's optional
[01:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it's a flase analogy
[01:05] Frank Fields: optional
[01:05] Frank Fields: as in, an option
[01:05] Frank Fields: meaning not required
[01:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: but you're comparing two things that can't be compared
[01:05] Frank Fields: ok
[01:05] Frank Fields: ignore it
[01:05] Frank Fields: its optional
[01:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you're really close to getting a phone call
[01:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I know it is
[01:06] Frank Fields: .......
[01:06] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and so is the program
[01:06] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and it shouldn't exist
[01:06] Frank Fields: Are you refuting that it wouldn't get people to save more?
[01:06] Frank Fields: And the people that still want control of that money, would that affect them?
[01:07] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm saying that if people don't know how to go to a bank and start saving money themselves then they will be too dumb or too lazy to go through the government channels to opt out of the program.
[01:07] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: this hurts the poor
[01:07] Frank Fields: That's like saying people who don't know how to do their taxes won't do them
[01:07] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: the rich will opt out, because they already know how to save money
[01:07] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you're the one who called people dummb
[01:07] Frank Fields: No
[01:07] Frank Fields: I said they don't understand economics and finances
[01:07] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you said they don't know how to save without government intervention
[01:07] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: which includes taxes
[01:08] Frank Fields: that's different
[01:08] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you might not think you're calling them dumb but you are
[01:08] Frank Fields: no
[01:08] Frank Fields: im saying
[01:08] Frank Fields: I said they don't understand economics and finances
[01:08] Frank Fields: like i just said
[01:08] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: lack of understanding is also called stupidity
[01:08] Frank Fields: stop trying to extend my argument to something else
[01:08] Frank Fields: in one area
[01:08] Frank Fields: not all areas
[01:08] Frank Fields: that doesn't make people stupid
[01:08] Frank Fields: just because they don't know economics
[01:08] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: did I say that a financial idiot can't care for a family?
[01:08] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: no
[01:08] Frank Fields: or accounting
[01:08] Frank Fields: no
[01:08] Frank Fields: but you are calling people stupid
[01:09] Frank Fields: not me
[01:09] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you're making my argument more than it is
[01:09] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you are calling people too stupid to know how to save money
[01:09] Frank Fields: no
[01:09] Frank Fields: im not
[01:09] Frank Fields: jesus
[01:09] Frank Fields: fuck
[01:09] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I am saying that the government needs to leave them alone
[01:09] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: lol
[01:09] Frank Fields: shut
[01:09] Frank Fields: the
[01:09] Frank Fields: fuck
[01:09] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: yes you are
[01:09] Frank Fields: up
[01:09] Frank Fields: you're not listening
[01:09] Frank Fields: at all
[01:09] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I type faster than you
[01:09] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you're defending yourself in an argument that has nothing to do with the actualy topic at hand and your'e doing it badly
[01:09] Frank Fields: dude
[01:09] Frank Fields: if you keep this up
[01:09] Frank Fields: im about to block you
[01:09] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I would have just won the debate because everyone would get pissed at you for calling people stupid
[01:09] Frank Fields: you arent listening to a thing I've said
[01:10] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I know exactly what you're saying
[01:10] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I think you're wrong
[01:10] Frank Fields: no you don't
[01:10] Frank Fields: because i diddnt call anyone stupid
[01:10] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you said they don't understand
[01:10] Frank Fields: i dont understand how to mine silver, does that make me stupid?
[01:10] Frank Fields: i dont know how to fly a plane
[01:10] Frank Fields: does that make me stupid?
[01:10] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it makes you stupid when the conversation is about silver mining
[01:10] Frank Fields: no
[01:10] Frank Fields: it means
[01:11] Frank Fields: i dont understand silver mining
[01:11] Frank Fields: that's it
[01:11] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: silver mining is a rather specialized area of work
[01:11] Frank Fields: so is accounting
[01:11] Frank Fields: There is a reason there is a CPA certification
[01:11] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: personal financing is something that every taxably independent person has to go through
[01:12] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and if a person wants to save money, thank the good lord we have lots of CPAs lying around waiting to show off their expertise
[01:12] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: the government is unnecessary
[01:12] Frank Fields: I'll give you a perfect example
[01:12] Frank Fields: Ariel
[01:12] Frank Fields: No savings account
[01:12] Frank Fields: No IRA
[01:12] Frank Fields: Reason: Doesn't understand how they work, thinks they are bad, money sink, etc
[01:12] Frank Fields: if you want to call her stupid
[01:12] Frank Fields: feel free
[01:13] Frank Fields: but if the government had a program to save for her, think she might understand how it works, or might find out
[01:13] Frank Fields: and if she still felt it was bad
[01:13] Frank Fields: she could say, "No, id ont want this"
[01:13] Frank Fields: and problem solved
[01:13] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: but do you think it's easier to learn how a savings account works or how to opt out of a government program
[01:13] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because actually, federal taxes are optional
[01:13] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: how many people opt out of those?
[01:14] Frank Fields: federal taxes are not optional
[01:14] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: federal income taxes*
[01:14] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: yes they are
[01:14] Frank Fields: if you don't pay federal income tax, the government takes your property...
[01:14] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and then you go to court
[01:14] Frank Fields: .......
[01:14] Frank Fields: that doesn't mean they are optional
[01:14] Frank Fields: they are required by law
[01:14] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it's a long process, but federal income taxes are optional
[01:14] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they are not
[01:14] Frank Fields: no its not
[01:14] Frank Fields: because
[01:14] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: property taxes are required
[01:14] Frank Fields: my mom is now paying 15 year old taxes
[01:14] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they're different
[01:14] Frank Fields: on my dad's income
[01:14] Frank Fields: because he never paid
[01:15] Frank Fields: and they were going to take the house
[01:15] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because she doesn't want to go through the legal process to opt out of them
[01:15] Frank Fields: no
[01:15] Frank Fields: she did
[01:15] Frank Fields: they ruled against her
[01:15] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it usually goes to the supreme court
[01:15] Frank Fields: you dont know what you're talking about
[01:15] Frank Fields: trust me
[01:15] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they've ruled for other people
[01:16] Frank Fields: you want to go against the grain or her accounts and lawyers feel free - income taxes are not optional
[01:16] Frank Fields: that's a pretty dumb thing to say
[01:21] Frank Fields: Here's a good counter example: FASFA. If you were automatically qualified for a FASFA without filling out a form, wouldn't that be good? If you didn't want FASFA money, and you could opt out, great, but how many students miss the deadline and are SOL for a year? Thousands. If that was proactive instead of the way it was, it would be easier avoided. Obviously not a direct parallel, but similar implementation
[01:22] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: well I have to go back and agree that it doesn't say they are optional, the cases that i referred to were based on the premise that it doesn't say specifically in the tax code that they are required and a handful of people have been voted for in the courts, so I apologize for being wrong
[01:22] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and that's a very good counterexample
[01:22] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: however
[01:22] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: there is already a government required and controlled retirement program
[01:22] Frank Fields: That should be destroyed
[01:23] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: agreed
[01:23] Frank Fields: So
[01:23] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and no replacement should be created
[01:23] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: retirement is a personal issue
[01:23] Frank Fields: It's not the same type of program
[01:23] Frank Fields: This is an individual basis
[01:23] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: recognizing all of your arguments
[01:23] Frank Fields: it's not even socialization
[01:23] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and appreciating the difference
[01:23] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it still has its problems and it still shouldn't exist
[01:23] Frank Fields: EVERYthing has problems
[01:24] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: if the government wants to create a program to inform people about the benefits of savings, that would be great
[01:24] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I believe they call it high school
[01:24] Frank Fields: And when do they have college level accounting classes in high school?
[01:24] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: IRAs and savings accounts don't use college level math or college level accounting
[01:24] Frank Fields: No, but they do implement concepts never taught officially in high school
[01:25] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: even compound interest is taught in freshman algebra
[01:25] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: so fix education
[01:25] Frank Fields: .........
[01:25] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: much easier than fixing the tax code
[01:25] Frank Fields: that's a completely seperate issue
[01:25] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: true
[01:25] Frank Fields: you're grabbing straws man
[01:25] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: not really
[01:25] Frank Fields: you're trying to find anything to go against this
[01:25] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: no
[01:26] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: there are already reasons to be against this
[01:26] Frank Fields: when really it would have almost no effect on the people who didn't want it
[01:26] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm pointing them out
[01:26] Frank Fields: I don't think those are valid
[01:26] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: except the people who didn't understand who FICA is
[01:26] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: if they don't understand how to start a savings account, which is going into a bank and giving it money, then how do you expect them to understand how to look at their check and figure out where their money goes?
[01:27] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: how many people even look at the different taxes?
[01:27] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: does Ariel?
[01:27] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: or does she look at the number she puts in the bank and live with it?
[01:27] Frank Fields: Do you remember when you go to your job and fill out all the tax paperwork
[01:27] Frank Fields: and the options and the programs
[01:27] Frank Fields: and how they handle your money?
[01:27] Frank Fields: It would be on there
[01:27] Frank Fields: with a box that explains it, and if you want to opt out
[01:27] Frank Fields: just like all other optional programs
[01:27] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: how many of these people who don't understand economics actually read w-4s?
[01:28] Frank Fields: you have to...
[01:28] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: no, you don't
[01:28] Frank Fields: you have to sign it
[01:28] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you just have to fill it out and sign it
[01:28] Frank Fields: to say you read it
[01:28] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: which employers ask you to read it aloud?
[01:28] Frank Fields: So you're basically saying, we shouldn't have it because people commit perjury
[01:28] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: yes
[01:28] Frank Fields: wow
[01:28] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that's a straw you put there, but I have to admit, it was a good one
[01:29] Frank Fields: that's completely retarded
[01:29] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: how many employers have CPAs at the hiring to make sure that every facet of the taxation is explained upon entering t ecompany?
[01:29] Frank Fields: I did
[01:29] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: must be nice
[01:29] Frank Fields: But not all do
[01:29] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: very few do
[01:29] Frank Fields: but you do have to sign saying you read and understand
[01:29] Frank Fields: and if you dont
[01:29] Frank Fields: you shouldnt sign it
[01:30] Frank Fields: what do ya know!?
[01:30] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and which programs are ptional that you opted into?
[01:30] Frank Fields: Are you asking for the names?
[01:30] Frank Fields: I couldn't tell you that
[01:30] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because social security, federal, state, and city income taxes, medicare, school taxes, I don't think those are
[01:30] Frank Fields: No, but they are shown on my weekly paycheck
[01:30] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I didn't get a list of programs to checkmark when I got hired
[01:30] Frank Fields: bi-weekly
[01:31] Frank Fields: and I did get a list of programs to checkmark
[01:31] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that's because you must get benefits of some sort
[01:31] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I don't
[01:31] Frank Fields: no
[01:31] Frank Fields: i dont get benefits
[01:31] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: then what programs are you paying for that I'm not
[01:31] Frank Fields: im just a part time hourly worker
[01:31] Frank Fields: im not
[01:31] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because I didn't checkmark anything
[01:31] Frank Fields: i didnt opt into anything
[01:31] Frank Fields: except
[01:31] Frank Fields: to have my income tax taken directly out of my check
[01:32] Frank Fields: so i didnt have to worry about paying the govt when tax time comes along
[01:32] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that's not an option I've ever been given
[01:32] Frank Fields: It's on there man
[01:32] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: then I'm on the list of morons who lie and sign the form
[01:32] Frank Fields: lol
[01:32] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and I don't want yet another program taking my money when it's not necessary
[01:33] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: if I want to save for my retirement I can figure it out
[01:33] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they have CPAs
[01:33] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and attorneys
[01:33] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and bankers
[01:33] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and teachers
[01:33] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and I'll bet the IRS would tell you if you called and asked
[01:33] Frank Fields: and still people don't use them
[01:33] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and that's their problem
[01:33] Frank Fields: Part of the economic crisis
[01:33] Frank Fields: is because people didnt know how to save money
[01:33] Frank Fields: THis is being proposed to prevent that
[01:34] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they knew how to for decades
[01:34] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they know how to in other countries
[01:34] Frank Fields: No, they never knew, it just wasn't compounded with more problems
[01:35] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: so educate them in the publicly funded educational system and be done with it
[01:35] Frank Fields: You keep screaming socialism and foul with these minor programs
[01:35] Frank Fields: and say they'll be the end of economic freedom
[01:35] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: when the government controls my money, that's the definition of socialism
[01:35] Frank Fields: but you still live in the most economically conservative country in the Western world
[01:35] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and this is the first time i've ever said it
[01:35] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: be careful with statements of most and least
[01:35] Frank Fields: Ok
[01:35] Frank Fields: Which is more economically conservative
[01:36] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and I didn't say that it would be the end of economic freedom
[01:36] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I just said it's unecessary
[01:36] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and the people who are pushing these programs are socialists
[01:36] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I was cursing them, not the idea
[01:37] Frank Fields: A lot of things are unnecessary, that doesn't make them unhelpful
[01:37] Frank Fields: there's a huge difference
[01:37] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: agreed
[01:37] Frank Fields: a lot of things are unnecessary and beneficial
[01:37] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I didn't say that the program was unhelpful
[01:37] Frank Fields: but you are arguing against it
[01:37] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I said it was unecessary
[01:37] Frank Fields: if it's beneficial
[01:37] Frank Fields: then stfu
[01:38] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
[01:38] Frank Fields: I know the constitution
[01:38] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: this program is unconstitutional because it creates a federal power that isn't enumerated in the Constitution
[01:38] Frank Fields: dude
[01:39] Frank Fields: thousands of programs are unconstitutional
[01:39] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: yes
[01:39] Frank Fields: don't get constitutionalist on me
[01:39] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: why not
[01:39] Frank Fields: because im not going to argue against it
[01:39] Frank Fields: its just the way it is
[01:39] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: this is a country that is supposed to be led by the rule of law, and we're saying that the supreme law has no real meaning in the discussion
[01:39] Frank Fields: the constitution, unfortunately, means shit in regards to federal programs
[01:39] Frank Fields: and that's not going to change any time soon
[01:39] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and that's why I'm pissed
[01:40] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: now you know where I'm coming from
[01:40] Frank Fields: this doesn't have anything to do with that
[01:40] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it has everything to do with it
[01:40] Frank Fields: that amendment
[01:40] Frank Fields: has been raped for hundreds of years
[01:40] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and that needs to be corrected
[01:40] Frank Fields: ......
[01:40] Frank Fields: that has nothing to do with this proposal
[01:40] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it has everything to do with this proposal
[01:40] Frank Fields: ............
[01:40] Frank Fields: why are you hellbent on winning this argument
[01:41] Frank Fields: just let it go
[01:41] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you allow the tenth amendment to be broken because you say that this program is helpful, but the point is that it doesn't matter if it's helpful or not, it's illegal
[01:41] Frank Fields: ok
[01:41] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm not hellbent on winning, I just wanted you to recognize that my point had a right to exist, and now you have
[01:41] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: just as I earlier allowed your point to exist
[01:41] Frank Fields: i never said it DIDNT
[01:41] Frank Fields: JESUS CHRIST
[01:42] Frank Fields: i just said i dont think its valid
[01:42] Frank Fields: you never mentioned the tenth amendment until 3 minutes ago
[01:42] Frank Fields: fucks sake
[01:42] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: ace up my sleeve
[01:42] Frank Fields: get off the high horse
[01:42] Frank Fields: news flash
[01:42] Frank Fields: the 10th doesnt mean fucking shit
[01:42] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you're on the moral horse
[01:42] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it means as much as the first
[01:42] Frank Fields: it should
[01:42] Frank Fields: but it doesnt
[01:43] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because you don't require it to be by calling the government's hand
[01:43] Frank Fields: by doign what exactly?
[01:43] Frank Fields: protests?
[01:43] Frank Fields: petitions?
[01:43] Frank Fields: writing your senator?
[01:43] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: write your congressman
[01:43] Frank Fields: lol
[01:43] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: there you go
[01:43] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: :P
[01:43] Frank Fields: it doesnt make a difference
[01:43] Frank Fields: and you know that
[01:43] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because when you, a poor minority, tell your representatives that you have a problem, they listen
[01:43] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: don't you know that
[01:43] Frank Fields: and i've written my senator (and gotten replies) several times
[01:43] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that's the point of democracy
[01:43] Frank Fields: it doesnt matter man
[01:43] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it doesn't
[01:44] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: here's what does matter
[01:44] Frank Fields: you're getitng into a seperate argument
[01:44] Frank Fields: and im not going to get into this
[01:44] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: in twenty years we're going to be in charge, and if we think that t etenth amendment doesn't matter then we will continue to go along the downward spiral
[01:44] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: fine
[01:44] Frank Fields: for all practicality
[01:44] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: let me sum up
[01:44] Frank Fields: the 10th is irrelevent
[01:44] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: yes it is
[01:44] Frank Fields: end of discussion
[01:45] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I don't think that this program should exist because not only is it unecessary, but it's redundant and illegal. That's all I got.
[01:45] Frank Fields: You just described.... probably 80% of federal programs
[01:45] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that 'but' shouldn't be there, incidentally
[01:46] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: yes and I'm pissed off about them too
[01:46] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I didn't think you'd have time for the whole list
[01:46] Frank Fields: yet you want an international executive and legislature?
[01:46] Frank Fields: that's assbackwards
[01:46] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and this one just popped up, so it's more relevant to be pissed off about
[01:46] Frank Fields: that would compound the problem even more
[01:46] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: we already have an international legislature
[01:46] Frank Fields: Europe does
[01:46] Frank Fields: the US doesn't
[01:46] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: the UN
[01:47] Frank Fields: they don't pass laws for us
[01:47] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that's a legislative body
[01:47] Frank Fields: that go into effect in our country
[01:47] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it creates laws for how we deal with other countries
[01:47] Frank Fields: yes
[01:47] Frank Fields: but not our own
[01:47] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: which makes it a legislative body
[01:47] Frank Fields: It's a legislative body, but it doesn't affect us INTERNALLY
[01:47] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you're arguing semantics with me
[01:47] Frank Fields: only EXTERNALLY
[01:47] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: but that doesn't remove it from being a legislative body
[01:47] Frank Fields: Whereas the federal government affects BOTH
[01:48] Frank Fields: its a different kind of legislature
[01:48] Frank Fields: with a different purpose
[01:48] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: did I say I wanted a sovereign international body?
[01:48] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I just said I wanted a body of sorts
[01:48] Frank Fields: I want the EU
[01:48] Frank Fields: for international
[01:48] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you want a sovereign body
[01:48] Frank Fields: the UN is fucking useless
[01:48] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: we aren't going to get into that
[01:48] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because it has no executive to back up the laws it passes
[01:49] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: but it does pass them
[01:49] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: making it a legislative body
[01:49] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that's the definition
[01:49] Frank Fields: Does the EU?
[01:49] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: the Eu is closer to a treaty, if I'm not mistaken, I haven't read the charter
[01:49] Frank Fields: The EU has representatives from each country
[01:49] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: NATO doesn't have an executive
[01:49] Frank Fields: and passes laws that affect the entirety of the countries a part of it
[01:49] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: ASEAN doesn't have an executive
[01:50] Frank Fields: my point is
[01:50] Frank Fields: you dont need an executive to enforce laws
[01:50] Frank Fields: because the EU does
[01:50] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that's the definition of an executive branch
[01:50] Frank Fields: .......what is your point?
[01:50] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it doesn't have to be a separate branch
[01:50] Frank Fields: are you disputing my point?
[01:50] Frank Fields: [01:50] Frank: you dont need an executive to enforce laws
[01:50] Frank: because the EU does
[01:50] Frank Fields: thats all im saying
[01:50] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm disputing your definition
[01:50] Frank Fields: of what?
[01:50] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: executive
[01:50] Frank Fields: what did I define executive as?
[01:50] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: executive power is the enforcement of laws
[01:51] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you're using words
[01:51] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: words have definitions
[01:51] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you don't have to give them to me
[01:51] Frank Fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)
[01:51] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: Legislatures create laws and executives enforce them, sometimes, like in the EU's case, the two bodies are the same
[01:51] Frank Fields: my definition of executive
[01:51] Frank Fields: feel free to dispute it
[01:52] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: The role of the executive is to enforce the law as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judicial system
[01:52] Frank Fields: an executive is a person
[01:52] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that's the last sentence of the third paragraph
[01:52] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: not necessarily
[01:52] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: the EU proves that
[01:52] Frank Fields: ........
[01:52] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: if they enforce their own laws, then they are the executive and the legislature
[01:52] Frank Fields: that's not what an executive is.
[01:52] Frank Fields: its not as simple as just enforcing laws
[01:52] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm using your own definition to prove that it is
[01:52] Frank Fields: otherwise POLICE could be executives
[01:53] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they are
[01:53] Frank Fields: oivey
[01:53] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they are members of the executive branch
[01:53] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they president is their boss
[01:53] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: they enforce the laws that the legislatures pass and the adjudicates interpret
[01:53] Frank Fields: executive branch is not the same as an executive
[01:54] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: but executive power is executive power
[01:54] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: executive power enforces laws
[01:54] Frank Fields: the only thing that enforces laws in the EU is the nations themselves
[01:54] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: so if the EU actually enforces a law it passes, then it is executive as well as legislative
[01:54] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: then it's as much good as the UN
[01:54] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and that's a treaty organization
[01:54] Frank Fields: why is that a problem?
[01:55] Frank Fields: Interpol and Europol
[01:55] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: you said that you like the EU and not the UN and I just proved they're the same thing
[01:55] Frank Fields: for international disputes
[01:55] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: did Interpol arrest Saddam Hussein?
[01:55] Frank Fields: I don't know
[01:55] Frank Fields: did they
[01:55] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: no
[01:55] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: the US military captured him
[01:56] Frank Fields: okay...
[01:56] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: if you want to say that Interpol should serve as international executive, fine, but somebody has to be at the head of that organization
[01:56] Frank Fields: I'm not saying they should
[01:56] Frank Fields: I'm saying they assist in international disputes
[01:56] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: so who enforces the laws
[01:57] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because if they can't be enforced then they're pointless
[01:57] Frank Fields: I believe for the EU
[01:57] Frank Fields: its Europol
[01:57] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: which may be truue
[01:57] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: like I said, haven't read the charter
[01:58] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: but if Europol enforces the laws, then the EU isn't
[01:58] Frank Fields: I don't really care what the charter says
[01:58] Frank Fields: I care about practicality
[01:58] Frank Fields: and practically, the EU actually has their laws enforced
[01:58] Frank Fields: the UN does not
[01:58] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and why doesn't the UN have their laws enforceD?
[01:58] Frank Fields: just like the US breaks it's own laws
[01:58] Frank Fields: and the 10th is ignored
[01:58] Frank Fields: it doesn't matter if its there if its not enforced
[01:58] Frank Fields: its irrelevent to any meta discussion
[01:59] Frank Fields: I don't know how it started, it sucks
[01:59] Frank Fields: but its fact
[01:59] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because we allow it to be
[01:59] Frank Fields: There's nothing to do
[01:59] Frank Fields: the US should have sanctions on it for the Iraq war
[01:59] Frank Fields: but it never will
[01:59] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: because those of us who speak out against the breaking of our own laws are told that we're stupid and heartless and weak
[01:59] Frank Fields: Like I said
[01:59] Frank Fields: nothing to do
[01:59] Frank Fields: it doesnt matter
[01:59] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: except take over
[01:59] Frank Fields: and that wont happen
[02:00] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: watch it
[02:00] Frank Fields: when was the last revolution in a western nation?
[02:00] Frank Fields: Germany 1945
[02:00] Frank Fields: right?
[02:00] Frank Fields: last time the government was removed
[02:00] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that wasn't a revolution
[02:00] Frank Fields: ok
[02:00] Frank Fields: it was a replacement of the government
[02:00] Frank Fields: whatever you want to call it
[02:00] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: that would have been somewhere around 36
[02:00] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm not talking about replacing the government
[02:01] Frank Fields: you're talking about revolution
[02:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm talking about a fundamental shift in the political discourse of this country
[02:01] Frank Fields: which is overthrowing the government
[02:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: did I use that word?
[02:01] Frank Fields: that can't happen
[02:01] Frank Fields: what you are saying, is more or less impossible
[02:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it did 40 years ago
[02:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: Reagan did it
[02:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and he was an actor
[02:01] Frank Fields: What did Reagan really do?
[02:01] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: before him JFK did it, and he was rich
[02:02] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: before him FDR did it
[02:02] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and Wilson
[02:02] Frank Fields: What is this huge demonstrative action you're talkinga bout?
[02:02] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I'm talking about forcing the government to obey its own laws
[02:02] Frank Fields: that has never happened
[02:02] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: it has
[02:02] Frank Fields: Ever since John Adams was president
[02:02] Frank Fields: lol
[02:02] Frank Fields: the government will always break its own laws when it's convienent
[02:03] Frank Fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
[02:03] Frank Fields: ring a bell?
[02:03] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: which would mean, according to Hobbes, that the law would no longer be sovereign. and this country is not a christian nation, it's a nation of laws
[02:03] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: yeah thanks Andrew
[02:04] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I believe I was him on a facebook quiz
[02:04] Frank Fields: You were John Adams on a facebook quiz?
[02:04] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: I was Andrew Jackson
[02:04] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: have I mixed up my history
[02:04] Frank Fields: Adams passed those
[02:04] Frank Fields: not jackson
[02:04] Frank Fields: that was my point
[02:04] Frank Fields: unconstitutional laws (4 of them) passed 11 years after we were a nation
[02:05] Frank Fields: it will always happen
[02:05] Frank Fields: there were riots int he streets about them back then
[02:05] Frank Fields: he was an immensely unpopular president as result
[02:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: and the guy after him corrected it
[02:05] Frank Fields: but it still didn't change anything long term
[02:05] Frank Fields: Yes, but long term, it did nothing
[02:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: according to the article, Jefferson's main argument against them was that they broke which amendment?
[02:05] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: the tenth
[02:05] Frank Fields: I know
[02:06] Frank Fields: but then its only a matter of time
[02:06] Frank Fields: before something else gets passed
[02:06] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: yeah, long term we're all dead anyway
[02:06] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: so what does retirement matter?
[02:06] Frank Fields: ............
[02:06] Frank Fields: good night
[02:06] calvin.sidle@gmail.com: good night