This one’s about gay marriage, folks.

This is unintentionally funny to me, but I have to admit… though the message is simple, I’m afraid I just don’t understand the point each one of them is trying to make.  On second thought, though, I suppose that only validates how pointless the argument is to begin with.

“Some who advocate for same sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same sex couples.  They want to bring the issue into my life… my freedom will be taken away.”

Nobody is trying to interfere with your life… in fact, it’s you who are interfering with theirs.  And your freedom will be taken away?  …?  By allowing gays to marry?  Wait, this is an anti-gay marriage ad, right?  Let’s watch it again.

“I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.”

Yup, anti-gay.

Read the rest of this entry »

On tax day, there were a bunch of “Tea Parties,” or organized protests around the country to speak out against over-taxation and over-spending. In this situation, Tea was used as an acronym for Taxed Enough Already.

What I don’t understand—and I’m not trying to be an ass, I really don’t get it—is what taxes these people are protesting. Just last week I saw a $20 increase in each one of my paychecks thanks to the stimulus bill. To me, that’s just as good as a tax break. And if my understanding is correct, 90% of people out there are seeing the same thing.

So “taxed enough already?” I don’t understand it. The people attending the Tea Parties were claiming to be average Americans, but if that’s true, they aren’t part of the 10% getting their taxes raised. Ten percent of the population is not “average.” And I have a hard time believing they are going out there protesting on behalf of someone else who makes a lot more money than they do.

It seems to be that the message they’re trying to convey is not at all about taxes, but about over-spending. That part, I get. The budget is outrageous and shocking, and it concerns me in terms of the future. But I’m not protesting it because I don’t have any better ideas and am trusting that the President knows what he’s doing — I’ve already said that. But if it’s over-spending that these people are protesting, shouldn’t they just call it that? The money being spent is not coming from an increase in taxes (as it should), it’s coming from bonds and loans from places like China.

If they had called them Poops Parties, (Pissed Off Over Poor Spending), I might have taken the whole thing more seriously.  But then I suppose they wouldn’t be able to draw some kind of parallel with the Boston Tea Party… in an age where everybody wants to recall things from the past, starting something new is just too hard.

And I’m tired of the protesters saying, “It’s a free country, we’re just expressing our first amendment rights!” Well, of course. As a member of the ACLU, even if I don’t agree with what you’re saying I’d stand up for your right to say it. That goes for anybody. But it also follows that just because someone doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t automatically mean they’re trying to oppress your message.

One last thing that bothers me in all of this goes beyond political differences, though, and it worries me even more than maxing out every one of the government’s lines of credit: the media.

Watch this video.

In a perfect world, journalism is neutral. But here we have a CNN reporter claiming that all of this is perpetrated by Fox News, “the right wing conservative network,” out to get the “left leaning” CNN (she claims it’s an Anti-CNN rally). It’s been a running joke that Fox is conservative and CNN is liberal, but I don’t think it’s ever been so blatantly stated like this by one of their own. On each station, there are “news commentary” shows where the hosts are free to say whatever they like because it’s commentary. But it crosses a different line when reporters start to say it. Fox has been off my radar for a while, and I’m sorry to say my respect for CNN is even further down the toilet.

I said a few posts back I don’t think we’ll be living in the same world we do now in another 40 years.  I constantly worry about this, mostly because I feel like I should be spending all my money now instead of hording it for retirement in a government account that probably won’t even exist.

When we get a house in November I’m going to be one of “those guys,” because one of the first things I’m going to do is start a stock of canned foods and fresh bottled water, and weapons, in the basement.

I’m also not ruling out the idea of burying land mines and remote-detonated explosives in my lawn to ward off any T-800s that may trickle in.  Or any of you crazy starved, thirsty bastards.

In all seriousness, though, it’s both humbling and terrifying to really think about how fragile we are.  Case in point.  (That’s two links).

It’s images like this that scare me (click the pic to make bigger).  I’m also reluctant to post stuff like this because I’ll likely hear a lot of “I told you so“‘s from those who were for McCain.  The thing is, I still trust my president and accept that this spending may be a necessary evil — because really, I have no idea myself and kind of have to trust him at the moment — but I just don’t see anything really getting better.

I understand now the difference between a budget deficit and the national debt.  It’s easy, really, I’m not sure why it wasn’t clear to me before.  If you spend more than you take in over the course of any given year, you have a deficit that year.  The deficit has to be made up by taking loans.  We take loans from ourselves (printing money) and from other countries.

The thing is (and this is from that documentary I watched yesterday), government programs like Social Security and Medicare will take up 100% of the government’s income by 2050.

This is why I said in 30 to 40 years we’re going to be living in a totally different world.  This isn’t going to last.  You can’t run an organization without making any money.  The problem is, nobody wants to do anything about it, because we’re a nation of cowards.

No politician will ever get elected by saying, “I will raise your taxes.”

I’m not saying I have all the answers—that’s why I elect people who presumably do.  But the blame cannot be placed squarely on the shoulders of a President.  They only act according to what the public can tolerate—what the public will let them do—and we can’t tolerate things like giving the government more money.  But at the same time, we can’t really tolerate cutting any government programs.

It scares the shit out of me when I really stop and think about it.

I just watched a very freightening documentary on Frontline about the national debt and was left with one inescapable conclusion:  the world we know now will not exist 30 or 40 years from now.

Update on the bonus issue.

(CNN) — Insurance giant AIG will have to return to the Treasury Department the $165 million it just paid out in executive bonuses, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Tuesday.

“In addition, we will deduct from the $30 billion in assistance an amount equal to the amount of those payments,” Geithner wrote.

That would be a double payment, essentially a $165 million penalty on AIG for issuing the bonuses.

The move comes after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo confirmed in a letter to Congress that this year, after receiving federal bailout money, AIG paid 73 employees bonuses of more than $1 million each.

Cuomo also wrote that 11 of the employees no longer work for the company.

The largest bonus paid was $6.4 million; seven other people also received more than $4 million each.

Read more at the link above.

We Report, You Decide! We Deport, You Recide. Ye Depide, Wou Report. We Decide, You Report.

FoxNews.com put up a question:  “How would you recover the AIG bonuses?”

Most of the replies are:  “We shouldn’t!  They deserve that money!”

The prevailing argument is that the employees getting the money had contracts that promised them the money, and whatever AIG does with the money after we give it to them isn’t our business.

Like I said yesterday:  this whole thing is fucking stupid.  Let’s draw up a contract that guarantees you BONUS money.

If it’s specified in a contract, it’s SALARY.  The word “bonus” implies it’s not necessarily expected.

AIG to pay out $165,000,000 in bonuses using our money.

AIG has made the “tough” decision to pay their employees bonuses.  They say it’s “retention payments,” that is, money to keep their employees around so they don’t go to other companies or other countries.

I suppose I can understand that, but not when you’re company isn’t turning a profit.

If I owned a business and the decisions of my employees made it such that I’d go bankrupt unless someone rescued me… I’d fire them.  If any of them came up to me and demanded bonus money “or else I’m leaving,” I’d laugh in their face and tell them they have to be out by five o’clock.

I don’t think anybody really blames themselves.  I think this has something to do with our culture and our inability to point out when someone is wrong for fear of hurting their feelings.  These people were probably the kids who were promised cake and ice cream for an A+, but when they came home with a C started to cry until their parents gave them the ice cream anyway and patted them on the head and said, “at least you did your best.”

This whole thing is stupid.