I will probably write something later in the week about the shooting of Rep Giffords. But there being no need to reinvent the wheel: Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit has a very comprehensive post with lots of sources!
Category Archives: headlines
New Year’s Day Excitement
Saw an article from the Hill come across on Twitter and thought it was interesting! I guess a plane was flying around DC and lost radio communication while at the same time drifted into restricted air space. That caused the Capitol building to at least begin be evacuated. It seems that it was over in moments.
I hope no one else’s New Year’s Day has been that exciting.
Consistency or Pompascity?
I can’t figure out it this is carrying a belief to a logical conclusion or if this is just the making of pompous jerks! We know that there were many people who said that we shouldn’t have gotten the tax cuts (which weren’t actually tax cuts but a continuing of the status quo) because the economy and Federal government need all of our pennies.
So in response to that some professors from Yale and Cornell have built a website called Give it Back for Jobs. They will calculate your tax cut and then you can choose a group to donate it to. I don’t know if they are just being consistent or just a bunch of pompous jerks.
My first question is: Did they do it? We don’t see anywhere how much their tax cut is or where they donated.
My second question: What are they claiming as “operating expenses”, ie going in their pockets? (yes, I am always the cynic)
Of course I disagree with their basic premise. I don’t believe that taxes will fix the economy but that is a separate issue. If this is really on the up and up, I am happy to see people following through on their own claims. If they think I shouldn’t have my tax cuts, I welcome them to go first and give theirs back;).
(HT: ABC)
Net Neutrality or Free Market?
Ok, before you all jump down my throat please hear me out.
On the whole I believe that the government getting involved in any industry and regulating it or making rules for it is bad. I think the whole net neutrality thing is a perfect example. Why, because it is only needed because the government got involved in the internet game to begin with. I know it sounds far fetched and crazy but bear with me because I will get back to this point.
For those who aren’t familiar let me do a basic over view along with why it is needed. Those who are familiar hop down to the next paragraph. Basically by the Federal government adopting net neutrality it would mean that all internet would be considered equal. Why is that important? Lets supposed that your internet carrier is Comcast. When you are downloading your Netflix On Demand Comcast may slow down your service. That could be so you don’t “slow the network” or because they want you to get premium channels through them and not get Mad Men through Netflix. Either way you are paying for a service and your traffic should be considered equal with everyone else. Internet companies will point out that there are people clogging traffic by downloading bit-tor material (which is usually illegal) so it is their right to prioritize traffic. Of course I don’t agree with groups messing with internet traffic but the idea of the government telling businesses how to run just bugs me.
The internet, like traditional phone service, power, and garbage is semi regulated. It doesn’t seem to be a truly free market. Many places only have 1, maybe 2, choices for dependable, ground based internet service. But why? Why isn’t this a wide open market? The lines that are in the ground are a utility and should then be open to all businesses using them. If that was happening I think the need for Net Neutrality legislation would be gone. Say Comcast decided to not allow media downloads, well then go to someone else. Would this possible effect pricing? Yes and in both directions. People who have no need for substantial traffic might pay less while people who use the internet as their exclusive source of entertainment along with regular gaming traffic, might pay a little more. But there would be more choices and there more competition. If you want to prioritize traffic, go ahead but that would make many people buy the internet commodity elsewhere. The problem would solve itself.
So how about we just deregulate this along with all other utilities. Then maybe we can have a free market with not only the flow of ideas but internet traffic!
(That said, if we don’t deregulate Net Neutrality is a necessary evil.)
Amazon: To Boycott or Not to Boycott
For those who don’t live on Twitter, there was a book discovered on Amazon’s
I have seen a couple of articles on this (Examiner.com Tacoma and MSNBC) and there is no information about what Amazon
I have always liked Amazon
Now it is still there but I believe we can all give them the day before the mob decides to burn them down. I am just a little shocked that everyone freaked out so thoroughly without giving Amazon
Now if Amazon
**UPDATE: I am hearing from different sources that they have heard from Amazon that they will be keeping the book up. I am still hoping that Amazon will do the right and legal thing by removing this book. I am just hoping that the 1st Amendment rights argument is their go to argument until the facts are known.
Prop 19: Let’s Come Together
OK, this post has been mulling around in my head and I have sat down to write it multiple times this weekend. But I have been hesitant because I am not sure of the response that I will get from my friends;).
I was listening to a local radio guy, Austin Hill I think, and he was talking about how some states are fighting the feds over the health insurance issue and Arizona fighting over immigration. But he said that to take on the Federal government over pot (Proposition 19) was stupid. Well, I strongly disagree! I think this is the one issue that the liberals and the conservatives can come together. Health care is a definite party issue as is immigration. This is an issue that we can unite on. But let’s back up to why I think we should be taking on the Federal government to begin with.
I know that I am not the only person who thinks that the Federal government has overstepped their purview time after time. Here in Central California we had our water shut off over a fish, they tell us how to run our schools and legislate in various areas that they just don’t belong in. Other than being annoyed, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution tells us that the Federal Government is over stepping.
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.
This is commonly known as the States Rights Amendment. It basically means that anything that wasn’t included in the Constitution was up to the States to legislate or regulate. I think that the Federal government has forgotten that it exists merely to support the States and protect basic individual rights.
I feel that Proposition 19 gives us the opportunity, nay the responsibility to take our government back!
Now before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, there are lots of things that I don’t like that are legal. I think smoking is bad for you and strip clubs are stupid. But people have a right to be stupid;). Why to we have to outlaw pot? Do you realize that alcohol was never as popular as it was during prohibition. Not to mention the fact that prohibition made gangsters like Al Capone. Maybe, just maybe legalizing it would take the thrill out of people who are just using it to rebel. Not to mention the fact that it is seen as a reasonable treatment in some medical conditions.
I don’t think I will ever smoke pot and that isn’t why I want to vote to legalize it. I could go down the road explaining the tax revenue that our state could acquire but that isn’t the real issue either. I want to take back our rights and stop allowing Big Brother to be well, Big Brother. This can be our first battle! I say vote yes on Proposition 19!!!!
MisMatch Letters
Ok, so Meg Whitman hired an illegal as domestic help. The question is if she knew. A mis-match letter is supposedly (according to Allred) the nail in Whitman’s coffin. Here is the deal with those letters, they really mean nothing. They are given to employers to basically to give/notify their employees so everything works out for the employee. According to the SF Chronicle, it would have been illegal for Whitman to have done anything about that letter. Supposedly the letter says it has nothing to do with immigration status.
So does this make Whitman look bad to me? No way.
I got one of these letter every year from 18 until 21. I was raised under my step father’s last name and worked under it until I was married. The name on my social security card was not that name, possibly because it was never legally my name, but I digress. Occasionally an employer would give me a copy of the letter they received and advise me to fix whatever was going on, but not all of them. So how do I know that these were sent out every year? Because I got a mis-match letter from the IRS every year sent to my home. Nothing ever happened and it wasn’t a big deal, I still got my refund every year.
Oh, 1 of the employers that never even bothered saying anything? The State of California.
Could This Be the Difference?
Paul Rodriguez has now endorsed Meg Whitman for Governor of California. Up to now Whitman and Brown have been pretty much tied in the Governor’s race.
For those of you who don’t know, Paul Rodriguez is not just a comedian when it comes to political issues in Central California. He was very involved and outspoken when it came to the water issues for the farmers. He was even one of the big names in organizing the water march that happened last year. So it raises the question, will Rodriguez’s support help Whitman with the Hispanic community?
We can hope! I may not be Whitman’s biggest fan but she has to be better than Brown, right?
Separate and Different
The Army burning Bibles and a Pastor burning Korans. This has been talked about a lot for the last week and it all drives me crazy. I hear over and over from the pundits the questions of why it is ok to burn Bibles but not ok to burn Korans. These are 2 different issues for me because they are 2 different situations.
First off, the Bible situation was complicated. A soldier had a bunch of Bibles sent to him in the local dialects. He wasn’t aware that proselytizing is forbidden, for any religion, by the Military. They (being the local officers in charge) didn’t want to have these sent home just to have them redistributed in the area. The biggest fear is that it would look like the US government was trying to convert the locals. So they trashed them and when overseas, garbage is burned. Best choice? I don’t know but it wasn’t some big “We Hate Christians” ceremony. The followed Military procedure, which is there to protect the soldiers. Like I said. I don’t think this was the best choice but…
Now skip over to a crazy pastor who wants to have a “Burn Koran Day”. I have issues in 2 ways. As an American and as a Christian. First, we have the issue of Petraeus saying it could be dangerous to soldiers overseas. Duh! Did everyone really need to told that? I mean our soldiers are overseas with a highly over reactive, violent group that might take offense to “White Satan” purposely disrespecting their religion so is the warning so far fetched to the short sighted among us? I haven’t heard of any threats of arrest or anything like that. It didn’t sound like anyone was legally stopping the idiots. They have a freedom and were being warned what the consequences could be of exercising it.
Now as a Christian. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. This pastor is angry and I understand that. But we are called to a higher standard. The idea of doing something solely to show your anger and to disrespect someone’s religion is not furthering the gospel! And our purpose here as Christians is to bring glory to God and they will know us by our love. Giving someone the proverbial bird isn’t showing them the love of Christ. And I am pretty sure there are some verses about the fact we are to love those who hate us. I am not saying to ask them to beat us but…
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Tightening Race!
It looks like Barbara Boxer is losing her lead in the California Senate race! The Rasmussen numbers that just came out leaves Boxer and Carly Fiorina basically tied at 44% for Boxer and Fiorina at 43%. Things do getting dicey with the 8% undecided because when pressed another 5% say they are leaning towards Boxer. But it is progress!
Earlier this month, Boxer held a five-point lead, 45% to 40%, and she was ahead 49% to 42% inJuly. Since February, Boxer’s support has ranged from 42% to 49%. In those same surveys, Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, has earned 38% to 43% of the vote.
We still have a fair amount of time before the election but it looks like Boxer could really be outed! WooHoo! (I never claimed to be unbiased;)
(HT: Hot Air)