Archive for January, 2011

Boys and Girls: Providers and Producers (January 31, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Health Care, Law, Society, Supreme Court on January 31, 2011 by

. . .

M1          “We don’t even know what drives us.  That may be just as well.  Sociobiology, whatever that is, drives us.  It seems simple.  Men seek producers; women seek providers.  Males are looking for good breeders.  Females are looking for good providers.  Some guys are fixated on hair or eye color because, in their subconscious eyes, hair or eye color signals a fecund woman.”

M2          “Even in this age of feminism or post-feminism or whatever age we are in, girls still first pass through the bad boy phase as part of their emancipation from the home.  The journey can be self-destructive or amusing, protracted or passing, but it is a phase.”

M1          “A friend said that they survived the ordeal painlessly yet still hold their breath in case there is a relapse.”

M2          “Based on first hand evidence, fourteen is a four letter word.”

M1          “So once free of the home bonds, they subconsciously hunt for someone who will protect if not provide for them in the new home.  An alliance makes financial sense because few today can hunt and gather enough to support a one wage earner cave.  Pairing off with a strong partner also protects her from threats emanating from the pack itself.”

M2          “They are also looking for sturdy producers.”

M1          “The timeless hunt for good breeding stock with a good stock portfolio.”

M2          “That’s about it.  But here’s the irony I witness in the court room.  When the matrimonial alliance goes asunder, as a general rule riddled with multiple exceptions, the concerns flip.  Men are preoccupied with money; women are preoccupied with the kids.  Men are concerned with what was provided; women are concerned with what was produced.”

M1          “I’m aware of one or two fights over money.”

M2          “Vicious, protracted and often irrational wars.  And often tussles over the kinder.  I know guys who have given up every other interest and pursuit and recalibrated every aspect of their lives to focus on the needs of their kids after the divorce.”

M1          “The 3 p.m. Sunday afternoon kid swap.  Yet the generalizations are the starting point of wisdom.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Men seek producers, Women seek providers.  When things go asunder, Men pursue plunder, Women protect kinder.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to use audited financial statements and certified medical records?

This Birth Control Rig Is Paid For

If you don’t believe in evolution, can you embrace Social Darwinism?

A kid from Sacramento, California is America’s Health Care Czar – Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy

Deducing And Deducting The Mortgage Interest Deduction (January 24, 2011)

Posted in Congress, Housing, Less Government Regulation Series, Pogo Plight, Society, Taxation on January 24, 2011 by

. . .

L          “Decades ago, Congress made a very prudent and sage decision to eliminate the individual tax deduction for interest paid by taxpayers on consumer debt.  An economy driven by unrestrained consumption did not need any additional government subsidy to drive it.”

M          “No need to spray gasoline on a fire.”

L          “Taxes fuel decisions.  The deduction for mortgage interest remained but only for a residence not to support the acquisition of personal property.  The real estate industry secured and protected that deduction.  And you know what happened?”

M          “Humans did what humans do.  Acted like humans.”

L          “They acted humanly rather than humanely.  Citizens and consumers found a way to circumvent the law.  They could not deduct the interest paid to consume goods and services, but they could deduct the interest paid to consume their chateau even if they actually used the funds to consume goods and services.  They simply used their chateau as an ATM (automatic teller machine) to pay for the consumption of consumer goods and then deducted all of the interest on their taxes.  How many really knew what they were doing.  And yet, Americans of every creed and color, every region and religion circumvented the spirit if not the letter of the law.”

M          “The dilemma is that the mortgage interest deduction may be one of the last tax deductions available to the middle class, if the middle class can afford to buy homes.”

L          “Everyone would be better off without the deduction and most other deductions, exemptions and credits.  However, if Congress eliminated the mortgage interest deduction, the amount of the standard deduction may need to rise for a few years and then fall to zero during the transition to avoid jarring economic dislocations.”

M          “It’s not going to be easy.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

We have met the enemy, and boy oh boy is he ever you and me.  Mr. Pogo.

If one minute of cautionary commentary had been ventured last year for every month of coverage of the assault on Gifford and others, events may have developed differently.

If we as a society diverted one percent of the funds spent on the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) airport monitoring to FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) airline maintenance monitoring, the skies would be 100 times safer.

O’Bama Revisited (January 17, 2011)

Posted in "L" Shaped Economy, Bailout/Bribe, Economics, Federal Reserve, Military, O'Bama on January 17, 2011 by

. . .

F          “Cold day on the Mall two years ago.  Can’t say that things will be much warmer this week.”

G          “It’s still cold and is getting colder.  The day will live in infamy.  Neville Chamberlin O’Bama.”

F          “Not going to throw in Hussein for good measure.”

G          “That’s silly.  His first name was Arthur.  He gets a C-.”

F          “Arthur?”

G          “Neville C. O’Bama.  After the tax sell-out, I called the White House and the delegation and told them that I have had it.  I unsubscribed from seven political e-mail lists.  My contributions are too miniscule to matter, yet I told them that I am not making any more contributions.  No bumper stickers, no canvassing, no money, no more.”

F          “No one subscribes to my political views, so I can’t even unsubscribe from e-mail lists.  We confronted a Hobson’s choice in 2008.  O’Bama was and is a centrist.  He’s the better we could do.”

G          “He hasn’t challenged the massive continuing transfer of wealth to a small elite who do not contribute to the economy.  It is almost as if he got into office and discovered that there are certain unwritten overriding rules that cannot be undermined or even challenged by anyone in the office.  The cabal of trolls in the basement of the White House call the shots.”

F          “He hasn’t.  And you may be right.  The economic fundamentals are worse than they were in September, 2008.  The poison is still flowing in the financial system.  The banksters know that they will be bailed out by both the Republicans and the Democrats and will never need to make bail for their crimes.  The recent bailouts have been detailed and delegated to the Fed.”

G          “When is someone going to realize that the aggregation of wealth in the hands of a very small group is actually an impediment to economic growth?”

F          “When the Nobel Prize Committee signals that it will give a Nobel in Economics for the conclusion.”

G          “The expenditures employ yacht builders and polo saddle makers, but not ordinary unemployed butchers, bakers and brick makers.”

F          “Yacht builders and polo saddle makers need jobs.  Politics is about compromise.  Compromise is not pretty.”

G          “Compromise is different than capitulation.  He has capitulated.  Someone said that the country may need a war to pull us out of the economic depression.  He and we have two of them going that have not done much positive.”

F          “Is the third war a charm.”

G          “Just watch.  America can be broken.”

. . .

[President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his “Military-Industrial Complex” farewell speech/warning 50 years ago about the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.”]

[MLK Day]

Bumper sticker of the week:

Hope (I hope, hopefully)

Incite, Sarah, Indict? (January 10, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Crime/Punishment, Elections, First Amendment, Guns, Health Care, Law, Press/Media, Society, Supreme Court, Tea Party on January 10, 2011 by

. . .

R          “You cannot get out of bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code, the federal criminal code.  In fact, and as a matter of law, you cannot stay in bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code.”

S          “So why not indict her?  She incited and directed others to kill and targeted the targets by first and last name and address.  She created a mindset and a market for death.  She legitimized killing.  The specific nature of the killer’s mind and his motives are still emerging.  Maybe he did not do it for her or for some specific political purpose.  Nonetheless, he took her specific message and tactics to heart.”

R          “Perhaps her twisted comments about death panels and the like confused a twisted and confused mind.  Others stridently proclaim they have not heard anything inflammatory, yet he heard the shrill dog whistle.”

S          “Her comments were one of the legal, moral and proximate causes of the death and maiming in Arizona.  Look, she took down the targets on her website recently which is an admission of guilt.”

R          “A subsequent remedial measure?”

S          “What about the bull’s eyes?  Listen to others who now opine that political discourse has taken a turn for the worse.  The political discourse has not changed course one degree in recent years.  The entreaties to kill have simply reached their predictable and inevitable outcome.  Why is everyone now so shocked and stupefied?  What happened was intended.  It was only a matter of time.”

R          “During the 2008 and 2010 elections, a few commentators noticed that she promoted and encouraged violence against specific candidates.  Her threats of violence against specific candidates were and are not protected by the First Amendment and were and are clear violations of provisions of Title 18 when they target federal officials or occur on federal property.”

S          “She is white and connected, so she will be given a pass.  U.S. Attorneys expend considerable tax dollars prosecuting some harmless jaywalker on federal property who has the misfortune to be non-white and unconnected.”

R          “The Supreme Court decreed that corporations are legal persons.  The nattering news network is a legal person.  Persons can be indicted.  Another option is to indict the network, the president, the board of directors and the pitch men and women on tv.  We need to return to personal responsibility as a governor of behavior.  Law plays a role.”

S          “White.  Extraordinarily well connected.  And capable of getting a U.S. Attorney fired.  Same story.  Same outcome.  Those in power get a pass.  Carte blanc, the White Card.”

R          “Her vitriolic rants against a sitting President may be her undoing.  Title 18 criminalizes threats against a sitting President.  The grand irony would be to watch on YouTube after one of her tirades as her Secret Service protective detail turns and cuffs her for direct threats against the President.”

S          “That might go viral.”

R          “America sports a billion laws and yet has become such a lawless nation.  In the absence of personal responsibility and without some rules and the rule of law, affairs can and will get worse.”

S          “So why not simply allow a dozen jurors to decide?”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “In The Land Of Fury And The Home Of The Fearful (November 1, 2010).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Incite, Sarah, Indict

Incite, Sarah, Indict Sarah

There oughta be a law; no, there are laws but there oughta be some law enforcement.

What happens when you take an arrow out of the quiver, nock it with care, draw back purposefully, release while slowly exhaling and then look up to see that you have hit the bull’s eye?

I was walking across a bridge one day and saw a man standing on the edge and about to jump off.  So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!”  “Why shouldn’t I?” he said.  I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”  He said, “Like what?”  I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?”  He said, “Religious.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Christian or Buddhist?”  He said, “Christian.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Catholic or Protestant?”  He said, “Protestant.”  I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”  He said, “Baptist!”  I said, “Wow!  Me too!  Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”  He said, “Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!”  I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him over the edge.

The First Look At The “Second Political Party” (January 3, 2011)

Posted in Abortion, Capital Punishment, Death Penalty, Drugs, Economics, Elections, Gay Politics, Government Regulation, Kleptocracy, Political Parties, Politics, Society on January 3, 2011 by

. . .

R         “I’ve been shut out by the venal and feral nut cases in my party.”

D         “I’ve been sold out by the effete and craven fruits in my party.”

R         “My team is fraudulent; yours is feckless.”

D         “Your team markets fear; mine peddles hope.  No one addresses problems or provides answers.”

. . .

D         “Your team caters to the very rich; you’re not very rich.”

R         “But I can be.”

D         “Not any longer.  They let you nourish that delusion to string you along.”

R         “But I could have been.”

. . .

R         “We need a third party.”

D         “We already have a third party, but it is a rabid and toxic mix of nuts and fruits.  We need a fourth party.”

R         “At core, both parties are owned hook, line and over the barrel by the same corporate and financial interests.  The Repubocrats and the Demolicans.  Maybe we need a second party.”

D         “Our country has transformed from a democracy to a kleptocracy.  Each party protects and serves the kleptocrats and banksters who keep the public diverted and entertained with frivolous diversions and entertainments.”

R         “The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was designed to promote the interests of my party and also has doomed the prospect of any other party emerging in America.”

. . .

D         “We need less government involvement in our personal lives.  No government definition of marriage.  No government regulation of abortion.  No government criminalization of marijuana.”

R         “We need government to dictate the definition of marriage.  It is what I say it is, between a man and a woman.  We need government to invade each bedroom and demand delivery of every conceivable baby.  If the little tyke steps out of line, we need capital punishment.  Remember that life begins at conception and ends at birth.  We need government to imprison people for smoking marijuana when it is still legal to drink all the alcohol they want.”

. . .

D         “So now once again what are the essential bedrock policies of the ‘Second Political Party’?”

. . .

Bumper sticker of the week:

TPTB America has abandoned the Middle Class; what is interesting to watch is how the Middle Class abandons TPTB America.