Ah, adolescence! I remember it well. I have it on the highest authority, the Bride, that I've never progressed out of adolescence.
When we first enter this age, many of us rebelled. We disagreed with our elders just for argument's sake, tried to do things our parent's wouldn't approve of. We read revolutionary, subversive material, fought The Man.
I did all of this. I wanted never to be conformist, to be, in older terms, a square. I was what I now call primary cool.
But I noticed all the other primary cool people did the same exact things in the same exact way. We were trying to show just how individual we were, and wound up wearing the same clothes and thinking the same thoughts as 90% of our generation. Our identical rebellions made us interchangeable bodies of a generation.
But I thought maybe I could do better. So I went for secondary cool. I started ignoring current fashion, and reading what would be revolutionary to the revolutionaries.
I read it all. Hitler and Heinlein. Friedman and Falwell. Gorbachev and Gingrich. Mao and Marx, both Karl and Groucho (Groucho is MUCH better!).
I didn't have the words for what I was doing until later. In the movie "Platoon" (1986), the character Junior summed it up, "Simple. Free your mind and your ass will follow."
Now I look around at the youth of today. They get the similar tats in similar places. Just style, no substance. They get similar piercings. Style. They wear similar baggy clothes. Style. (Trust me kids, the time to wear tight clothes is NOW. If you wait a decade or two, your body will remove that option from you.)
When I look at the substance of the majority of youth, and of older revolutionaries, it's just funny. Instead of "fightin' The Man", you're supporting him. You're not fighting the establishment, you're supporting it. What's next, tweed jackets with elbow patches and finger sandwiches?
You have come to revel in group think. You do not seek individuality in any substantive way, you seek to fit in with the establishment. You are not cool. Not Hip.
You, and the sixties holdouts are now the squares.
And since you might not read this, or think about it, and I can't present these thoughts in interpretive dance, I'll give it to you musically:
The Grey Man
09 May 2009
08 May 2009
Tea Party Continued?
We had good success with the Tea Parties here in Louisiana last month. Many of the well connected (electronically) came and have helped spread the word about how fed up we are with government spending. But we had two significant problems.
First, the MSM, predictably, almost totally ignored us.
Second, our elected decision makers did not see us, and will also find it easy to dismiss voter's concerns.
I propose we keep showing up, but now where the politicos will be. The advantages are obvious.
Second, the politicos will have to acknowledge that all us sheep are not happy with their spending our money like teenagers with credit cards.
And first, with politicos come media. The MSM might not like us, but will have to explain us if we're in the background.
A couple of events come to mind.
Senator Mary Landrieu, who did not read the stimulus bill before voting, will "discuss how the federal stimulus bill will impact small businesses" at the Baton Rouge Small Business Outreach Conference on May 15. The event is at the Baton Rouge River Center, and Senator Landrieu will "kick off the program" at 11 am. You can register for the conference beginning at 10 am.
Governor Bobby Jindal will be speaking at the Hammond Chamber of Commerce General Meeting on the 21st of May from 11:30 am to 1 pm. The event is at the Twelve Oaks Dining Hall on Southeastern's campus in Hammond. I think it's member's only, but the dining hall is all glass, so anyone outside WILL be seen.
Governor Jindal is doing OK right now, but remember the pay raises? Politicians work best when they know they're being watched.
As before, please be polite at all times. Take nothing but pictures (and video and lots of both), and leave nothing behind but an uneasy feeling in a politician.
Please, especially you bloggers, spread the word.
The Grey Man
First, the MSM, predictably, almost totally ignored us.
Second, our elected decision makers did not see us, and will also find it easy to dismiss voter's concerns.
I propose we keep showing up, but now where the politicos will be. The advantages are obvious.
Second, the politicos will have to acknowledge that all us sheep are not happy with their spending our money like teenagers with credit cards.
And first, with politicos come media. The MSM might not like us, but will have to explain us if we're in the background.
A couple of events come to mind.
Senator Mary Landrieu, who did not read the stimulus bill before voting, will "discuss how the federal stimulus bill will impact small businesses" at the Baton Rouge Small Business Outreach Conference on May 15. The event is at the Baton Rouge River Center, and Senator Landrieu will "kick off the program" at 11 am. You can register for the conference beginning at 10 am.
Governor Bobby Jindal will be speaking at the Hammond Chamber of Commerce General Meeting on the 21st of May from 11:30 am to 1 pm. The event is at the Twelve Oaks Dining Hall on Southeastern's campus in Hammond. I think it's member's only, but the dining hall is all glass, so anyone outside WILL be seen.
Governor Jindal is doing OK right now, but remember the pay raises? Politicians work best when they know they're being watched.
As before, please be polite at all times. Take nothing but pictures (and video and lots of both), and leave nothing behind but an uneasy feeling in a politician.
Please, especially you bloggers, spread the word.
The Grey Man
06 May 2009
The Monkey Recovery
With our current economic downturn, we could use some help. We could use new jobs, new products, new wealth creation. But who to provide it?
Right now, many, if not most, are looking to the Federal government to provide the above relief. But the problem is that the government is a single entity, pursuing it's own economic goals. Is this the best solution?
Someone once said that an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters would eventually reproduce the works of the Bard, William Shakespeare. Wouldn't it be better for our recovery to have multiple entities working on it?
Instead of a single entity, we could have a couple of hundred million entities pursuing their own economic goals. Do you think this would increase the chances for and speed of recovery?
This would be the Free Enterprise Recovery Plan. Instead of having the Federal government direct the recovery, perhaps it's best role would be to make it easier for hundreds of millions of citizens, our little economic monkeys, to each direct their own recovery?
And how would the government do this? Easy. Remove the impediments to personal economic freedom. Since the government directly competes with private citizens for money, the government should cut itself back.
Cut spending. Reduce spending. Cut taxes. No deficit spending. Cut onerous regulation. Cut paperwork and compliance costs. A fair and flat tax system.
This isn't rocket science. Just smart math. Are our odds of recovery greater with one entity to perform this mighty task, or hundreds of millions each doing a small part?
Let my economic monkeys go.
Right now, many, if not most, are looking to the Federal government to provide the above relief. But the problem is that the government is a single entity, pursuing it's own economic goals. Is this the best solution?
Someone once said that an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters would eventually reproduce the works of the Bard, William Shakespeare. Wouldn't it be better for our recovery to have multiple entities working on it?
Instead of a single entity, we could have a couple of hundred million entities pursuing their own economic goals. Do you think this would increase the chances for and speed of recovery?
This would be the Free Enterprise Recovery Plan. Instead of having the Federal government direct the recovery, perhaps it's best role would be to make it easier for hundreds of millions of citizens, our little economic monkeys, to each direct their own recovery?
And how would the government do this? Easy. Remove the impediments to personal economic freedom. Since the government directly competes with private citizens for money, the government should cut itself back.
Cut spending. Reduce spending. Cut taxes. No deficit spending. Cut onerous regulation. Cut paperwork and compliance costs. A fair and flat tax system.
This isn't rocket science. Just smart math. Are our odds of recovery greater with one entity to perform this mighty task, or hundreds of millions each doing a small part?
Let my economic monkeys go.
01 May 2009
Top Gear Goes Grey
Some say, unlike the Presidential Auto Task Force, he actually owns American made cars.
Others say his secret identity is "The Dread Blogger Roberts", cruising the internet aboard the "Revenge".
All we know, is he's called The Grey Man.
Ahh, the late 70's! America being bullied by Iran, our ships captured on the high seas, bad music, leisure suits, Chrysler going broke.
I didn't do any heavy drugs back then, and damned little of the minor ones. But it must have been enough, I'm having a flashback.
Back then, I was interested in getting rid of zits, getting booze, getting laid, and cars. I only had occasional success with the first three, but did pretty well with cars. And no, my priorities haven't changed much.
Back then, environmental weirdness and uncertainty over gas prices led to some of the worst cars ever. The only way you'd have fond memories about those cars was if you got laid in one. And given how anemic those cars were, it was difficult to keep it up long enough to even get laid. Remember the Chevy Citation?
The only citation you could ever get in it was for insulting caskets worldwide. Or how about Chrysler's savior from bankruptcy, the K car?
Naming this the Reliant is like Brittany Spears changing her name to Virginia.
Now, the President has decided that Chrysler's new savior will be Fiat. It seems the President is NOT a car guy. Anybody who can tell a Johnson rod from a lug nut knows FIAT stands for "Fix It Again, Tony". Not the best choice for car owners, but pretty good for the repair guys.
But Fiat's reputation for reliability is much better that it's support for free enterprise. According to Wiki:
"Fiat has a long history of licensing its products to other countries regardless of local political or cultural persuasion."
Well that explains why they want to do business with Obama.
Fiat has co-operated with Mussolini and the Nazis. They've also done joint ventures with all the paragons of civil liberties: Turkey, Egypt, Ethiopia (They make cars?!?), South Africa, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union.
Now that Obama's invited them in, he'll be able to apologize a lot more.
But enough of the politics, lets look at their joint venture cars.
With the Soviets, they helped make the Lada Riva. According to
Wikicars, "often regarded as one of the worst cars ever made".
Damn, something that looks even worse than the Citation, less reliable than a Ford Fairmont, and performs worse than a Reliant. The Trifacta!!
But, gentle readers, it can get worse. And it does. Fiat was also involved in the Yugo.
A good friend owned a Yugo, affectionately named "The Blue Yugoslavian Death Trap From Hell". The car had an amazing tendency to regularly shed parts. Something would just fall off, and usually when he was on a date. After a couple of years, he'd had enough. He couldn't sell the bloody thing. Nobody would take it in trade. The best he could do was get $50 from a junkyard, but only if he's bring it in.
And now, by Presidential direction, Fiat will take control of Chrysler. Bye bye, Hemi Challenger.
Bye bye turbodiesel Ram.
Hello to Change, to the eco-friendly multicultural, White House approved, Congressionally mandated, Fiat Designed transportation of the future!!
To drown my sorrows, I'm going to pour some high octane through eight cylinders in a V.
The Grey Man
Others say his secret identity is "The Dread Blogger Roberts", cruising the internet aboard the "Revenge".
All we know, is he's called The Grey Man.
Ahh, the late 70's! America being bullied by Iran, our ships captured on the high seas, bad music, leisure suits, Chrysler going broke.
I didn't do any heavy drugs back then, and damned little of the minor ones. But it must have been enough, I'm having a flashback.
Back then, I was interested in getting rid of zits, getting booze, getting laid, and cars. I only had occasional success with the first three, but did pretty well with cars. And no, my priorities haven't changed much.
Back then, environmental weirdness and uncertainty over gas prices led to some of the worst cars ever. The only way you'd have fond memories about those cars was if you got laid in one. And given how anemic those cars were, it was difficult to keep it up long enough to even get laid. Remember the Chevy Citation?
The only citation you could ever get in it was for insulting caskets worldwide. Or how about Chrysler's savior from bankruptcy, the K car?
Naming this the Reliant is like Brittany Spears changing her name to Virginia.
Now, the President has decided that Chrysler's new savior will be Fiat. It seems the President is NOT a car guy. Anybody who can tell a Johnson rod from a lug nut knows FIAT stands for "Fix It Again, Tony". Not the best choice for car owners, but pretty good for the repair guys.
But Fiat's reputation for reliability is much better that it's support for free enterprise. According to Wiki:
"Fiat has a long history of licensing its products to other countries regardless of local political or cultural persuasion."
Well that explains why they want to do business with Obama.
Fiat has co-operated with Mussolini and the Nazis. They've also done joint ventures with all the paragons of civil liberties: Turkey, Egypt, Ethiopia (They make cars?!?), South Africa, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union.
Now that Obama's invited them in, he'll be able to apologize a lot more.
But enough of the politics, lets look at their joint venture cars.
With the Soviets, they helped make the Lada Riva. According to
Wikicars, "often regarded as one of the worst cars ever made".
Damn, something that looks even worse than the Citation, less reliable than a Ford Fairmont, and performs worse than a Reliant. The Trifacta!!
But, gentle readers, it can get worse. And it does. Fiat was also involved in the Yugo.
A good friend owned a Yugo, affectionately named "The Blue Yugoslavian Death Trap From Hell". The car had an amazing tendency to regularly shed parts. Something would just fall off, and usually when he was on a date. After a couple of years, he'd had enough. He couldn't sell the bloody thing. Nobody would take it in trade. The best he could do was get $50 from a junkyard, but only if he's bring it in.
And now, by Presidential direction, Fiat will take control of Chrysler. Bye bye, Hemi Challenger.
Bye bye turbodiesel Ram.
Hello to Change, to the eco-friendly multicultural, White House approved, Congressionally mandated, Fiat Designed transportation of the future!!
To drown my sorrows, I'm going to pour some high octane through eight cylinders in a V.
The Grey Man
27 April 2009
Burning Up About Carbon Pt. 2
Yesterday we discovered that there is no link between increases in global temperatures and CO2, and therefore no scientific reason to tax or trade or regulate it. So why the big push?
If one were to try to gain maximum control a population of creatures, one could try controlling each of their individual activities.
You'd need to control their food gathering, what they gathered, when they gathered, where they store it, when they ate, how much they ate, who got to eat, when and where they eliminated, etc. And this just considers food gathering. We haven't even thought about recreation, reproduction, politics, religion, and all the other activities that sentient beings do. As you can see, all this controlling gets rather complicated and tedious.
But there's an easier way. All the truly lazy tyrant need do is to control some substrate that is used in each and every activity of the creatures. Let's take energy as an example. Since energy of some form is, by definition, needed for all activity, all the tyrant need do is control the energy and therefore all activity is controlled. Energy would be a vulnerable strategic choke point.
So let's move our hypothetical tyrant here, to Earth. If we want to control sentient beings on this planet, we'd need to find some substrate to control. Some logistic and strategic choke point. Any suggestions from the crowd?
That's the reason they want to tax and trade and regulate carbon. It isn't that carbon is evil, or that you're evil. It isn't because you're human or even that you're a mammal. It's just that you happen to be sentient, and worth controlling, and happen to be a carbon based life form. If they control carbon, they control YOU.
That's what it's about to me. Freedom.
I live in a rather rural area. Some years ago, a young boy (Hi Jack!) asked why I lived there. I told him, "Because it's my land, and I can do what I want here". My land, not the State's nor the King's. My home. My trees. My deer, not the King's deer.
But soon, that won't be true.
Many activities here require internal combustion. Mower or tractor or trimmer or chainsaw can now be taxed and traded and regulated. Use electricity? Also controlled. Want to go off the grid and just use the generator? Controlled. Drive? Controlled. Give up IC engines and go for horse power? Also a carbon source, and also controlled.
What about the basics? All I ingest contains carbon except water. All can now be controlled. (possibly even a home veggie garden, see HR 875) We all, I hate to say, produce methane. Literally, they can control your butt. Go exercise? That increases my personal CO2 output and can be controlled. Decide to have kids? WHAT!? And bring another CO2 producer into an overpopulated world? Guess what? Controlled.
If they control carbon, they control YOU.
In the classic Robin Hood movies, the Merry Men, to avoid starvation, eat the King's deer. They are sentenced to death for their crime.
Will you be put in a similar situation? Will you be free to pursue your dreams and goals? Will you be free to live your own life in your own manner? I can sum this up better in one line.
Who owns you, you or a King?
The Grey Man
If one were to try to gain maximum control a population of creatures, one could try controlling each of their individual activities.
You'd need to control their food gathering, what they gathered, when they gathered, where they store it, when they ate, how much they ate, who got to eat, when and where they eliminated, etc. And this just considers food gathering. We haven't even thought about recreation, reproduction, politics, religion, and all the other activities that sentient beings do. As you can see, all this controlling gets rather complicated and tedious.
But there's an easier way. All the truly lazy tyrant need do is to control some substrate that is used in each and every activity of the creatures. Let's take energy as an example. Since energy of some form is, by definition, needed for all activity, all the tyrant need do is control the energy and therefore all activity is controlled. Energy would be a vulnerable strategic choke point.
So let's move our hypothetical tyrant here, to Earth. If we want to control sentient beings on this planet, we'd need to find some substrate to control. Some logistic and strategic choke point. Any suggestions from the crowd?
That's the reason they want to tax and trade and regulate carbon. It isn't that carbon is evil, or that you're evil. It isn't because you're human or even that you're a mammal. It's just that you happen to be sentient, and worth controlling, and happen to be a carbon based life form. If they control carbon, they control YOU.
That's what it's about to me. Freedom.
I live in a rather rural area. Some years ago, a young boy (Hi Jack!) asked why I lived there. I told him, "Because it's my land, and I can do what I want here". My land, not the State's nor the King's. My home. My trees. My deer, not the King's deer.
But soon, that won't be true.
Many activities here require internal combustion. Mower or tractor or trimmer or chainsaw can now be taxed and traded and regulated. Use electricity? Also controlled. Want to go off the grid and just use the generator? Controlled. Drive? Controlled. Give up IC engines and go for horse power? Also a carbon source, and also controlled.
What about the basics? All I ingest contains carbon except water. All can now be controlled. (possibly even a home veggie garden, see HR 875) We all, I hate to say, produce methane. Literally, they can control your butt. Go exercise? That increases my personal CO2 output and can be controlled. Decide to have kids? WHAT!? And bring another CO2 producer into an overpopulated world? Guess what? Controlled.
If they control carbon, they control YOU.
In the classic Robin Hood movies, the Merry Men, to avoid starvation, eat the King's deer. They are sentenced to death for their crime.
Will you be put in a similar situation? Will you be free to pursue your dreams and goals? Will you be free to live your own life in your own manner? I can sum this up better in one line.
Who owns you, you or a King?
The Grey Man
26 April 2009
Burning Up About Carbon Pt. 1
The other day former VP Gore testified before Congress about "cap and trade" taxes vs. carbon taxes. His answer: "both". Last week, the EPA decided to regulate CO2.
Unfortunately, I'm handicapped when it comes to these sorts of issues. I understand science and numbers. My BS and Doctorate might not compare to Mr. Gore's journalism degree and JD when it comes to talking "all that scientifical stuff", but I'll give it a whirl.
Point One - Atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT cause temperature increases.
Atmospheric CO2 lags behind temperature rise. How can CO2 increases cause the temperature to rise if the rise happened first? This is akin to saying your farts cause you to eat beans.
So why the lag? Wiki says there are 50 times more CO2 in the oceans as int the air, and increasing temps decrease ocean solubility. Therefore atmospheric CO2 rises.
Another possible cause of increased CO2 following warming would be life itself. If the warming is caused by the nearest convenient heat source, the Sun, then the CO2 rise is logical. Solar radiation is the basis for almost all life here. If it goes up, the life that uses it, plants, do better. The secondary life, animals, having a larger food supply also increase their population. All these extra animals exhale CO2, causing it to increase.
Point Two - Our CO2 production doesn't matter. WARNING - MATH AHEAD!!
I was going to figure out my own numbers, but I found
Wikipedia's while researching this. I'll be using their numbers so I'm not accused of cherry-picking the data. Opening the link in a new window would be helpful here.
Please note that the total atmospheric CO2 is 3000 gigatonnes, or 3,000,000,000,000 metric tonnes. Their data lists all human CO2 emissions at a total of 27 billion tonnes, or 27,000,000,000 tonnes. Lest knock off 9 zeros from each to make comparison easier.
Total CO2 = 3000 gigatonnes, human annual emissions = 27 gigatonnes.
So they're saying that human activity should be increasing total CO2 by 0.9% annually. That's equivalent to 9 parts per thousand (ppt). But their data also shows the total annual change at 3 ppm or less. That's only 1/3000th of our total carbon footprint from all sources. So either their data is hosed, or our activity just doesn't matter to the planet.
If their data is correct, the Earth would seriously be losing almost 1% of it's CO2 annually if it weren't for humans. At that rate all plant life on the planet would be dead within 100 years, and all animal life would follow within months. Does anybody believe that GIGO induced hypothesis? Why doesn't anybody do the math before publishing?
So we now have two possibilities from the data. Either our CO2 is the only thing saving the planet, or the Earth is a 4.5 billion year old self-sustaining system, so huge that our puny butts don't matter to it. I know which one I'll bet on.
Since our CO2 is totally unimportant to the planet scientifically, just why are we talking about taxing it or trading it or regulating it? We'll get to that in
Part 2.
The Grey Man
Unfortunately, I'm handicapped when it comes to these sorts of issues. I understand science and numbers. My BS and Doctorate might not compare to Mr. Gore's journalism degree and JD when it comes to talking "all that scientifical stuff", but I'll give it a whirl.
Point One - Atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT cause temperature increases.
Atmospheric CO2 lags behind temperature rise. How can CO2 increases cause the temperature to rise if the rise happened first? This is akin to saying your farts cause you to eat beans.
So why the lag? Wiki says there are 50 times more CO2 in the oceans as int the air, and increasing temps decrease ocean solubility. Therefore atmospheric CO2 rises.
Another possible cause of increased CO2 following warming would be life itself. If the warming is caused by the nearest convenient heat source, the Sun, then the CO2 rise is logical. Solar radiation is the basis for almost all life here. If it goes up, the life that uses it, plants, do better. The secondary life, animals, having a larger food supply also increase their population. All these extra animals exhale CO2, causing it to increase.
Point Two - Our CO2 production doesn't matter. WARNING - MATH AHEAD!!
I was going to figure out my own numbers, but I found
Wikipedia's while researching this. I'll be using their numbers so I'm not accused of cherry-picking the data. Opening the link in a new window would be helpful here.
Please note that the total atmospheric CO2 is 3000 gigatonnes, or 3,000,000,000,000 metric tonnes. Their data lists all human CO2 emissions at a total of 27 billion tonnes, or 27,000,000,000 tonnes. Lest knock off 9 zeros from each to make comparison easier.
Total CO2 = 3000 gigatonnes, human annual emissions = 27 gigatonnes.
So they're saying that human activity should be increasing total CO2 by 0.9% annually. That's equivalent to 9 parts per thousand (ppt). But their data also shows the total annual change at 3 ppm or less. That's only 1/3000th of our total carbon footprint from all sources. So either their data is hosed, or our activity just doesn't matter to the planet.
If their data is correct, the Earth would seriously be losing almost 1% of it's CO2 annually if it weren't for humans. At that rate all plant life on the planet would be dead within 100 years, and all animal life would follow within months. Does anybody believe that GIGO induced hypothesis? Why doesn't anybody do the math before publishing?
So we now have two possibilities from the data. Either our CO2 is the only thing saving the planet, or the Earth is a 4.5 billion year old self-sustaining system, so huge that our puny butts don't matter to it. I know which one I'll bet on.
Since our CO2 is totally unimportant to the planet scientifically, just why are we talking about taxing it or trading it or regulating it? We'll get to that in
Part 2.
The Grey Man
25 April 2009
Bordering on Sick
Yoo hoo, Government? Anybody home? Administration? Congress? Anybody listening?
Do any of you remember your oaths? That pesky little thing about upholding and defending the Constitution? Don't worry, I won't ask you anything complicated, like asking about Article IV Section 3. I know you might not have read that far.
No, I just want to ask about the first one sentence, the Preamble. Do you recall that little bit about providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare?
Tonight, there's a lot of news about an outbreak of swine flu south of the border. It seems a bunch of people are dead.
With a disease outbreak next door, the sensible thing would be to control the border, limiting the outbreak here.
But, oops, you've failed to put in mechanisms to control the southern border. Right now the border is as secure as Brittany Spears chastity belt. Some of you have actually encouraged violations of our border.
If this disease spreads north, some of our citizens, those pesky "party of the second part" to our Constitution, can die.
I just have a couple of simple questions.
If our people are sickened and even die, how would you rate your common defense/general welfare part of your oath? Think you're doing OK?
If you haven't done too well with that oath thingy, would resignation be in order?
(I personally favor a bit more multicultural solution: a new TV show. "Liar's Survivor" Elected officials face either return to office or Japanese Hari Kari. A call in vote show, $100/per vote. All money goes to retiring the national debt. If more vote for the Japanese solution, well, we'd just call a special election. This would do wonders for the networks flagging ratings.)
Since the disease effects would be better controlled if we could secure the border, and you refused to do it, wouldn't any increased effects be caused by man? And if you are the cause of this man caused disaster, does that make you extremists or terrorists? Should Napolitano and DHS mount a "domestic contingency operation"against you?
I guess this is just a slightly different way that that those in DC can make us just sick.
PS. I know some will say that the Obama Administration has only been in a few months. True. I hold the Bush Administration just as responsible. But Bush is gone, and Obama has the job. And Congress, well most of them have been there since Fulton invented the steamboat.
Do any of you remember your oaths? That pesky little thing about upholding and defending the Constitution? Don't worry, I won't ask you anything complicated, like asking about Article IV Section 3. I know you might not have read that far.
No, I just want to ask about the first one sentence, the Preamble. Do you recall that little bit about providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare?
Tonight, there's a lot of news about an outbreak of swine flu south of the border. It seems a bunch of people are dead.
With a disease outbreak next door, the sensible thing would be to control the border, limiting the outbreak here.
But, oops, you've failed to put in mechanisms to control the southern border. Right now the border is as secure as Brittany Spears chastity belt. Some of you have actually encouraged violations of our border.
If this disease spreads north, some of our citizens, those pesky "party of the second part" to our Constitution, can die.
I just have a couple of simple questions.
If our people are sickened and even die, how would you rate your common defense/general welfare part of your oath? Think you're doing OK?
If you haven't done too well with that oath thingy, would resignation be in order?
(I personally favor a bit more multicultural solution: a new TV show. "Liar's Survivor" Elected officials face either return to office or Japanese Hari Kari. A call in vote show, $100/per vote. All money goes to retiring the national debt. If more vote for the Japanese solution, well, we'd just call a special election. This would do wonders for the networks flagging ratings.)
Since the disease effects would be better controlled if we could secure the border, and you refused to do it, wouldn't any increased effects be caused by man? And if you are the cause of this man caused disaster, does that make you extremists or terrorists? Should Napolitano and DHS mount a "domestic contingency operation"against you?
I guess this is just a slightly different way that that those in DC can make us just sick.
PS. I know some will say that the Obama Administration has only been in a few months. True. I hold the Bush Administration just as responsible. But Bush is gone, and Obama has the job. And Congress, well most of them have been there since Fulton invented the steamboat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
