Why Michele Bachmann Is Wrong To Ask Iraq For Reparations

Michele Bachmann says Iraq should pay us back for giving them freedom. They should also pay each of the 4,000+ families "million of dollars" for their loss of family members there.

Okay. Fair enough.

But then we should pay the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq the same debt.

Sounds like a wash to me. Or a pretty easy way to increase our debt exponentially.

Michelle Bachmann is not a stupid woman, but she does nothing but say stupid things.

What's Wrong With Calling The President A Dick?

Don't get me wrong, I like President Obama, and I don't think he's a dick. I like his press conferences, especially when he has a little spunk (as he did the other day). Do I agree with all of his policies? No. Most of them? Ehh, I don't know. But I think he does a solid job in the current climate. Frankly, I'm surprised he ever gets anything done, because congress certainly tries their damndest to stop anything resembling progress.

This, of course, warrants the obvious but necessary Philosoraptor reference.

But I really don't understand what the issue here is.

Mark Halperin called the president a dick. He is a journalist. Journalist speak and write, presumably, quite freely. I really don't like that MSNBC has suspended him indefinitely and backed off from his remarks.

Obviously they want to appear fair and balanced, but seriously, he's an analyst. I wouldn't expect Michael Moore to appear as a centrist. Or Matt Taibbi. Sure, Mark Halperin is Time magazine's Editor-At-Large and being in that position and saying what he said is controversial.

But who cares. Everyone has made a big deal out of this. The White House disapproves. MSNBC disapproves. Time disapproves. I bet Fox News disapproves, even though they're saying basically the same thing.

Congress seems to basically agree with Mark Halperin, since they've said the same thing, if not worse, suggesting the president take a Valium and calling his press conference "disgraceful" and disrespecting the office of the presidency. I wonder how Senator Cornyn has disrespected the office of the Senate? I imagine the founding fathers would be pretty pissed off and use words far worse than "dick" (though sounding far more refined) to describe our current political climate.

I understand that calling the president--any president a dick is "inappropriate" but not once did I read or hear anyone say anything in his defense.  But don't worry Mark, I've got your back. I know you don't think the president's a dick. I know your reaction to his conference was reactionary, and that you probably meant that the president was perhaps more combative than you'd like. But you shouldn't have to apologize. Journalists should really never have to apologize for their opinions--so long as they're not purporting them as facts.

How many people have called Dubya stupid? Do I think he's stupid? No, of course not, and I think he'd be pretty amazing to spend a few hours with. He seems like a really charming guy. But as a president I think he did a terrible job. For my interests. But to the people who he "represented," he did an amazing job.

You know the press conference the other day? Yeah, you probably missed it. I don't blame you at all for not watching it. No one watches C-SPAN either. (I do sometimes. For reals.)

Well, President Obama was kind of a dick during it.

But that's okay, because I loved it. The president doesn't have to be a stuffy pushover, or a quiet diplomat. Sometimes, people need a firecracker shoved up their asses and the fuse lit.

Happy Fouth of July, 112^th Congress; you've earned it.

On Terrible Ironies

There is currently a movement in New York for a living wage. I wrote about Minimum Wage and how as a system it's full of fail twice back in December, and it's refreshing to see people fighting against it, even if the war isn't being won, small battles won are nice.

The problem with minimum wage goes far deeper than it's name suggests. Seriously, how has no one given this a nice sounding euphemism by now? Nothing about "Minimum Wage" connotates good feelings. Where is the pro-business lobby on this one? Oh right, they were trying to eliminate the minimum wage entirely, almost forgot.

What they are fighting for in New York is livable wages, though, not just the bare minimum. And this is why the battle, and the war, are ultimately foolhardy. You see, they are fighting and protesting over, not a livable wage, but ten dollars an hour. Could you live in NYC for ten bucks an hour? Remember, that's just over twenty grand a year, before taxes or any kind of expenses--like healthcare for example. The answer is obviously no. No one can.

Minimum wage should be abolished, and replaced with a system that scales based on location and average expenses.

Unfortunately, this won't happen because Big Business has lots and lots of money to lobby with, and Republicans (and conservative democrats) really like that money, which is why so little progress has been made for regular folks in the wage department over the years.

You know what the worst part about this nonsense is though? It's not that it won't happen; I think we've resigned ourselves to that (as sad as that fact may be). No, it's that the people who fight against minimum and livable wages are the same people who fought for the Bush tax cuts being extended for uber rich people and for keeping executive pay high (and keeping "golden parachutes") "because we need to entice them to stay as CEOs, even if they are running the company into the ground" or something.

The message they're sending?

You only deserve the money if you earned it by running a business poorly, but those people who are now out of work, because that douchebag doesn't understand how to run a profitable company, sorry you're going to need to take a pay cut or lose your job. Don't worry though, with luck, you'll be able to find a job with another company-- and that same douchebag might just be running that one into the ground, too.

Effect And Cause

Certainly there are no benefits to a government shutdown, but I do love any excuse for our representatives and senators to have some personality (a la Anthony Weiner)

I may not be glued to C-SPAN on a regular basis, but I definitely approve of Donna Edwards channeling The White Stripes.

I Don't See How A Flat Tax Solves Anything

I fully admit, I don't understand the arcane art and science that is taxes and their applicable laws. But there's been something that has sort of been on my mind since around October or so.

Back when the Tea Party movement was in full force (not that it isn't now), there was clamoring for an overhaul of our tax system. I think anyone can agree our tax system is far from perfect, and needlessly convoluted. But their solution, I feel, far oversimplified things. I don't think you can take the most complicated of things, and reduce it to the simplest without losing something.

To boil humans, an extremely complicated species, for sure, into an amoeba, for example. So much would be lost in the process. Intelligent thought, for example. And no, I will not use this as an opportunity to insult tea partiers or republicans. =)

So you have our insanely complicated tax system, thousands of pages of tax codes, and thousands of people to help people understand all this. Big companies hire tax lawyers and accounting firms to pay as little as possible, so on and so forth. Poor people pay no tax, because, well, they're poor. Average people pay average tax, and the rich overwhelmingly pay most of the taxes.

Some people want to change this to a flat tax, and I understand the sentiment. Taxes are complicated, and who wants to pay someone to do their taxes. Who wants to employ an entire government agency to collect them, et cetera. Well, I do, for one.

Imagine that there was a flat tax. First of all, it doesn't work, a flat tax is regressive. Flat tax boils down to a very simple set of ideas:

First, the poor end up paying more taxes. The people who can afford it least actually have to pay more and, in effect become poorer.

Second, the rich pay less in tax. The people who need the money least end up with even more money.

The gross side effect of this nonsense is that the middle class basically disappears. The income inequality is already bad enough, with CEOs making hundreds of times what their workers earn, and that is largely due to the fact that our tax system has been slowly regressing more towards a flat tax (in theory).

But, taxes really aren't that complicated. Most people can file a 1040 or 1040EZ which takes only an hour or so of your time, even if you don't know what you're doing. For self-employed people, taxes can in fact be more complicated, but this is largely do to having to do your own bookkeeping, not an overly complex system of tax codes. How much did you spend on gas and electricity? There's a line for that on the form. How much in entertainment and food? Take half of that and slap it on the form. It's basically a boring adult version of color-by-numbers.

As for the people that taxes are really complicated for? The obscenely rich who have investments and the like who pay lobbyists to insert loopholes that they then hire tax lawyers and accounting firms to exploit to the max. Maybe this is a little biased, but when is the last time you took advantage of a tax loophole? I'll bet Exxon-Mobile does it on a daily basis, like monkeys on the discovery channel. Does it make sense that the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment gets paid $800,000 in wages (taxed at 35%) and $20 million in dividends (taxed at 15%). This is why the tax codes are needlessly complicated, because rich people intended it to be so.

Note: I'm being chastised because the other half would like to work out, so I will bring this post to a close. I actually only intended it to be a short little snippet of a post anyway.

Casting aside the irreparable harm that a flat tax would cause to this country's economy and to it's people, I have another extremely large concern. This is my main concern, really, and why I started this post originally.

If we went to a flat tax for everything, and got rid of the IRS, then what? What about those people? They are now not only out of a job but out of a career. They will have been trained for an industry that no longer exists. The IRS workers would all be out of jobs and basically screwed. Would tea partiers be willing to have the government pay to reeducate these people for new careers? Or are they strictly on their own? Would my dad be able to retire? I don't think he can go back to school for a new career at his age. What about my brother and his family? Would they be out of luck too? Would they add to unemployment and homeless statistics? What about Kaulean who does something related to taxes and auditing for the government?

Also, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and the like. Although I don't like them as businesses, certainly they employ at least some decent people who'd be out of work. As would every other CPA or accountant.

So tell me again, how is a flat tax good, and what problems does it solve? Because frankly, my dear, I just don't see it.

The Moral Ambiguities Of The Pro Choice/Pro Life Argument

Rick Santorum, if you don't kow, will probably run for president in 2012. Recently, he came under fire for saying this:

"The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer -- is that human life a person under the constitution?" he said. "And Barack Obama says no. Well if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

He then explained what he meant a few days later:

"For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country."

I know that there are few fights that incite more anger and vitriol in this country than ones centered around abortion rights, and everyone is entitled to their views. There is no right or wrong, necessarily, just right and left, up and down, et cetera. Views are views, they are unique to each person and we must all deal with that fact.

What never really occurred to me, though, is the argument Rick Santorum is making. I don't mean about Obama and blacks and slavery. No, I mean how he is arguing that an unborn fetus is a person, and that he would hope the constitution might recognize that one day.

I understand the moral argument against abortion. I can see how people would think it's wrong. It's not a choice I'd make, and certainly not one I'd ever want to have to consider. But, I know there are many situations where it is the right choice. For those who make it. And their choices never affect me, so I don't really get hung up over what other people choose to do with their own bodies.

But Rick Santorum is suggesting that unborn fetuses are people. People. But how? In what capacity? Do fetuses have any rights? Obviously he'd want them to have the right to life, but what else? I can't imagine what other rights they could give, really. I mean, they are unborn, they have no physical presence in this earthly world.

But what really got me thinking is death. Specifically, the death of an unborn person.

You see, if an unborn fetus is a person, and they have the right to life, then what of their deaths? What if abortion were illegal, but someone did it anyway? Who is the criminal? Is it the mother? The doctor? The father? Maybe it's all of them.

What if the baby is stillborn? That's really no one's fault, but that doesn't change the fact that a person is dead. Would there be a crime there? What about a lithopedion pregnancy, or an ectopic pregnancy?

When does a cell become a person? Conception? When they develop organs? A brain? A heartbeat? How does one even decide that? At the very least, I can understand the rationale some have for arguing that a fetus isn't a person until they are born, until they exit the womb. At that point, they are here, on land, independent of their mother's body. How could one pinpoint any stage earlier than that? Even conception is kind of early, considering it's mostly just two things mushed together to form a cell. (My recollection of health class is a bit fuzzy, so my terms may not be super accurate.)

So would that make abortions murder? Would they be punished the same way killing a child or baby would be? Would it be capital punishment? Is taking someone's life because they took someone else's just another moral conundrum? Especially if that "person" hasn't breathed their own air yet?

Is a miscarriage, or any other complication like those mentioned before, considered manslaughter? Because, when people dies, there are investigations. Someone is at fault when someone dies. A little kid in Connecticut recently died at a gun range firing an Uzi. His dad and the owner of the range were help responsible. If the mother's body destroyed the fetus or the baby, is she liable?

I don't necessarily think people should get abortions, but sometimes they are vital to saving a life. What if the pregnancy will kill the mother, should the baby be aborted? Would that abortion be legal or illegal?

There are a great many things that I do not know, and even more that I am unsure of. but I don't think we can or should legislate morality, because everyone's morals are different. In some cultures, shaking hands is prohibited, or rude. Some people settle arguments with a few punches. Sometimes, maybe it's necessary to have an abortion.

Besides, you have to admit, it's kind of ironic that people get so angry over abortions but those same people (generally) don't seem to have any problems whatsoever with the death penalty.When is it okay to take a life, and when is it prohibited?

Where does the line get drawn?

Let's Give Green Companies A Little Encouragement, Madge.

To begin with, I don't know why I added "Madge" nor do I know who or what "Madge" is. I do know with one hundred percent certainty that it is not Madonna.

That said, I always have a lot of tabs open in my browser. And I usually have several windows open too. I'm going to assume I have around thirty open at this very moment, and most of them are from the New York Times. One article that is really bothering me though is something I've known about for awhile now: Green companies get no respect.

Consider that as a country we rely on oil. Oil from other countries, mind you. Yes, we have oil, but we've also depleted most of it. And I don't think we need to be drilling in the arctic destroying the habitats of polar bears. People who want that can go fuck themselves.

There's coal, yes, but coal isn't green at all. Even clean coal is something of a misnomer. They just take the dirtiness of coal and hide and bury it. Doing that has never come back to bite us in the ass though, right? Coal is awful for the environment, and it's awful for the workers who have to mine it. It literally kills them by the second. I wouldn't work in a coal mine if they paid me ten million dollars an hour, and you shouldn't either. I hate knowing that thousands of families across the country have to deal with the repercussions of coal-mining.

There's natural gas, too. I don't know a lot about natural gas except that it's better for cooking, and T. Boone Pickens gets a hard-on any time he talks about it. But of course he's an oil-turned-gas magnate, so he's biased. Though he does have a very cool name. What I do know is that the way they find gas is not safe.

Basically, they use pressurized water and chemicals to blast through miles of rock to get to the gas. These chemicals are secret. They guard them as if they are the recipe for KFC or Coca-Cola. The only thing is, these chemicals get into the water supply and kill people. While being able to set the water from your faucet on fire might be cool for a YouTube video, I don't think you should be able to ignite your tap water.



Wind and solar are free, though, and there is plenty of solar energy out there. We can even predict solar energy pretty well, what with sunrise and sunset and cloud cover and such. Or we can just do what the Chamber of Commerce wants and ditch renewable energy for Oil and Gas.

Can we, in the economic times in which we find ourselves, continue to fund the type of research and development that were spent in the stimulus package on very high cost energy sources? It may be lovely to think about a world without fossil fuels, but that simply is not America's reality.

Yes, he's right. We shouldn't try to progress at all. Maybe we should wait until we deplete everything.

“Can we, in the economic times in which we find ourselves, continue to fund the type of research and development and the types of monies that were spent in the stimulus package on very high-cost energy sources?” Harbert said….

“It may be lovely to think about a world without fossil fuels, but that simply is not America’s energy reality.”

Which brings me to this New York Times article about a Solar Panel company out of Massachusetts. In a nutshell, because they innovated and with some government assistance from Massachusetts, they grew, eventually becoming the third-largest solar panel company in the country. But now they are closing shop here in America, laying off 800, and shipping production to China. This is unacceptable.

This isn't an isolated incident, either. China is kicking our asses in everything green.

- First Solar plans to build the biggest solar plant...in China

- Congress removing programs that encourage investment in renewable energy.

In its current form, the deal would allow the only effective federal support mechanism for renewable electricity to expire, killing the 20,000 wind energy jobs and 11,200 jobs in geothermal that would be created in 2011, and the 65,000 jobs in solar over the next two years.

In addition, without an extension of the Renewable Energy Grant Program (1603), the domestic wind industry will lay off upwards of 25 percent of its workforce -- 20,000 people

And I agree with Rep Markey (from Massachusetts). The best way to increase jobs is with new industries. How many more jobs in coal, oil, or gas can there be? How many jobs can there be in Solar, wind, and other renewable sources?

Last year, republicans blocked any attempt to move forward on renewable energy, and it cost us, literally. Aside from any jobs that were lost, or simply not created, it lost us investors. With no hope for America to lead in renewable energy, foreign investors had no choice but to put their money elsewhere, costing us trillions of dollars.

These solar panels on the roof of the Jets Training Center? Not American.

There is a bright spot though. We exported more than we imported in 2009, to the tune of $723 million. This is good, but now great. For such a large booming industry, we can do much better. Oil and gas get tens-of-billions of dollars in subsidies alone.

Really, what we ought to do is encourage renewable. By definition, it isn't going anywhere. It is a fact that one day we will run out of oil. Coal will run out, too, as will natural gas. We need to discourage nonrenewable energy and encourage renewable. Why do oil giants need billions of dollars in subsidies? Why cant those subsidies go to progressing our energy policies? There is nothing progressive about oil. Natural gas is leading people to their deaths and destroying ecosystems. Coal, too, is just killing Americans.

Subsidize solar and wind. We need the jobs.

I'll end on a slightly depressing, but nonetheless funny note:

Anatomy of a Greenwash from Paul Scheer

I love satire, but I love informed satire even more.

On Consequences: When What You Do Provokes Death And Crazy People

First and foremost, the fact that this is necessary sucks, but it is. There are crazy people in the world. Lots of them. There are lots of stupid, idiotic, morons out there, who misinterpret, misunderstand, and otherwise just don't get it.

This is about Congresswoman Giffords who, in case you aren't aware, was shot in the head yesterday, along with several others. The congresswoman is alive but a judge who was passing by to say hello is dead, and so is a little girl. There is no denying that the person who did it is imbalanced to say the least, but a small part of me has to believe that this wasn't a totally random act of violence.

Before the election, Sarah Palin famously marked various congressional seats up for election as targets. These were very literal targets, using crosshairs (wouldn't a circle or a square have sufficed?). Naturally Sarah Palin's camp denies that this has anything to do with the shooting, but what are they supposed to say? "Whoops, our bad!" I'm sorry but that's not going to fly, so all they can do is condemn the action, and duck the blame.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't Sarah Palin's fault. Or Republicans fault. There are far too many aspects of the crime to point to any single fault. But it didn't help any by putting a target on her head, and the heads of nineteen others. Remember when the graphic first came out? Remember how bricks were thrown through windows, bullets were shot into offices, and so on? One of those offices was congresswoman Giffords. And now a bullet is in her head (actually, it went straight through her brain).

So rather than be politically correct, why doesn't Sarah Palin and her aides admit that maybe they might have played a minor, inadvertent role in this? I know they didn't intend on anyone shooting anybody, but when you place crosshairs on people, someone is going to take the message the wrong way.

There is no denying that conservatives love guns. That's fine, they are entitled to them. But when conservatives bow to the bastion of gun lobbyists that is the NRA, and the conservative princess paints crosshairs on democratic "targets" can anyone blame someone for getting a mixed message? I'm not surprised this happened, which is what makes this whole scenario so frustrating. A lot of "liberals" saw this coming, or more accurately, were afraid of it occurring. This fear was unnecessary and could have been avoided.

By the way, if Sarah Palin's Take Back The 20 campaign "had nothing to do" with this, then why is it all of a sudden taken down? Sure, the election is over, but it was over two months ago, why now? Palin also argued that the symbols on the map aren't gun sights, but map crosshairs. But she tweeted this:

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page.

and then later congratulated herself on 18 of the 20 on her bulls-eye list being defeated. What kind of message does this send? Reload? Bulls-eyes? Crosshairs? This may not be calling explicitly for violence, but at the very least does so implicitly.

But this isn't Palin's fault. Nor is it the fault of conservatives, republicans, gun owners, or gun rights advocates. This person is imbalanced, and he is to blame. But would he have done it otherwise? We can't be certain, but the rhetoric surrounding the mid term elections cannot have stayed this attack. Journalists are pointing out that he read Karl Marx, and Hitler, and that he wants a return to gold and silver currency. But I don't think that's relevant. Lots of people read Marx, I would read Marx if I read more often. And I remember picking up the biography of Hitler and being earnestly interested in reading it after reading the introduction. But I am the last person who would shoot anybody. And wanting a gold standard? Lots of people want that; Ron Paul for instance.

So if people want to peg his reading material on why he did this, then they should be fair and equate equal blame to the hateful political rhetoric of late. Hate, violence, aggression, these are all things that don't belong in politics. Politics is and should be all about diplomacy, but it's not. Political ads do nothing but attack, attack, attack their opponents. Rarely do these ads talk about the merits of a politician. Instead, we are left with a mentality of "who isn't worse than the other" rather than "who is the best."

The best example of this rhetoric that we need to avoid? Congresswoman Giffords's opponent last election, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event to supplant her. Actually, the event was more specifically themed with removing her from office. This, from the Arizona Daily Star:

Kelly’s campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”
The event costs $50.

Yes, a photo of a marine, in uniform, holding his weapon, asking supporters to come fire an M16 for crying out loud, under the guise of removing her from office. Not only is this in extremely poor taste, but this does not strike me as behavior a Marine should exhibit. No one should, but a Marine especially. This is madness (cue 300 references "This. Is. Sparta!) This kind of garbage needs to stop. It shouldn't be tolerated, by anyone regardless of where they stand on issues. And I don't care how badly you disagree with someone, you don't take it into your own hands with a weapon, you do it at the ballot box.


Here's the original graphic, judge for yourself whether or not they are crosshairs or not. I certainly hope those crosshairs were worth a little girls life.

On Minimum Wage

Minimum wage is kind of misleading. One would think, by its name, that it is the very least you could make and survive, but that's just over $17,000 before taxes in Connecticut, and ours is higher than the rest of the country's. I can't think of a single place you could live in Connecticut on that. Maybe you could hope to find a couch to sleep on at someone else's home, and hope they don't charge you rent?

I understand the argument people will make; minimum wage isn't meant to live on, it's for 16-year olds who are working their first job. Maybe that's true, but I believe there's a better way to go about it. Technically, for the first forty-five days (give or take, I'm not an HR person) they don't even have to pay minimum wage.

So how about we make the minimum wage something a person could actually survive on? Connecticut is expensive. Our taxes are high (we have the third highest tax burden of the country, go us!), homes cost a fortune, and land is exorbitant. So make the minimum wage something like $20/hour. Don't think I don't understand what that means though. Believe me, I know that people would argue that that wage would crush small businesses, but I think those people are wrong.

I realize that that is a lot of money; it's a bit over $41,000 before taxes, and I understand that costs three times more per employee than it does now. I can add up the numbers and figure what that would do to our local grocery store (who pays minimum wage) and realize the costs that would add on. I do realize that this would cost billions of dollars across the country and cost large companies like Target and Wal*Mart millions. But that's okay. I don't mind.

For what it's worth, if I ever employ someone, I am going to pay them a fair wage, not minimum wage, and here's why. Do I want someone doing the bare minimum for me? Say I owned a grocery store, does paying my employees minimum wage inspire them to care? There are a lot of theories in running a business, and I don't know any of them, but I know how I'd run mine: I want everyone to care. When I see school pictures from Lifetouch (or any of the other studios) I can tell the photographer doesn't care. The entire process is filled with people who don't care.

Lifetouch could actually use a pre-school photographer right now; let's look at what they want:

Requirements
• High school diploma or equivalent
• Customer service experience strongly preferred
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
• Previous experience working with children preferred
• Ability to work with minimal supervision as well as in a team environment
• Willing to work a varied seasonal schedule, including early mornings
• Demonstrate a positive and professional image
• Ability to effectively interact with preschool age children and adults
• Accessibility to reliable insured transportation to reach assigned locations. Vehicle insurance must be current and in compliance with state law.
• Must have a valid driver’s license
• Ability to operate camera equipment
• Ability to travel up to 75 mile radius

First and foremost, they want someone who graduated high school, fair enough. They want someone who has customer service experience. I can see that being useful, but for pre-school kids? I kind of don't think customer service helps you deal with pre-schoolers. Communication and interpersonal skills are great, too, but four and five year olds require far different approaches with regard to interpersonal skills than, say, teenagers or adults. Just sayin'. Finally, they get to working with children. I think this is more important, personally. Children are very fickle, and can see right through you; knowing how to approach them and deal with them is paramount, in my opinion. The next few make sense and are basically par for the course with any job. Eighth on the list is the ability to interact with teachers and students, really? Again, I'd suggest this would be more appropriate at number two or so, certainly not eight. Astonishingly, though, is that second to last is the ability to operate a camera, which unto itself is incredibly vague.

If you think about it, though, you realize what their priorities are. Lifetouch doesn't want to hire photographers. No, photographers are expensive. They want someone who can take a picture the way they tell them to. Notice, they don't look for photography experience, just the ability to operate a camera. My niece is four and can operate a camera; alas, she doesn't have a high school diploma though, their number one priority. It doesn't talk about pay, but I'm going to assume it's not a lot; they're looking for, arguably, the bare minimum.

Think about when you go to retail stores and how unhelpful people are. Sure, you get that one really helpful kid that you always look for (that was me!), but most of the people seem like they could care less, right? Well, why should they? These kids generally get treated like garbage (I've seen it, and it's been me), they need to do the jobs of three people, and they have to deal with customers who are usually upset for a reasons that aren't their fault. So for $8.25 an hour, how much do you think they are going to care? Not much, they just want their shift to end.

Imagine if they were paid $20 an hour though. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I think it's worth it. Consider how expensive training employees is; companies hate having to hire people because of that cost. Most of the time they have to go through the pain that is hiring someone because someone quit or was fired. If a business owner needs to hire someone new because business is going so well, I doubt they'd be unhappy. I bet business owners would treat that process better if it cost them $20 an hour, but more importantly, they'd put more effort in because the quicker their employee can work, the better.

Anywhere I have ever worked, training has been an afterthought. They stick you in front of a computer, or have you listen to a CD, or watch a video. That's hardly effective training. It's like going to college. Book knowledge is great, but the real learning is the first six months on the job (from what I hear, I wouldn't know). You had better believe anyone I hire, will be trained by me. I want to know them and I want to trust them. An employee for your company represents you; would you want that person to honestly care, or be there for spending money, because that's what minimum wage is at its current rate.

At this point, I've discussed why I would pay someone a fair wage, but am I right? Moral obligations to your fellow man aside, what about financially? It is awfully expensive to be a human being sometimes, you know. Maybe I am a dreamer, and what I envision in my mind is utterly wrong, but this is how I see it.

I live in Woodbury, it is a small, but affluent town. We have a lot of elderly people here and probably more antique shops than I can count. But let's pretend it's your town. Think of all the business and workers in your town, think of the people spending money. Imagine they all made $40,000 minimum. Most who retail jobs shop where they work. It's convenient because they are there all the time and they know where everything is. Plus, I bet if they were paid well, they'd like the store more (and care about being there more). There are a lot of little shops here in Woodbury. We have a really awesome indie toy store, Geppetto's, but it's expensive. That is, I can't afford it, unless I really think the recipient will appreciate the gift. But I'd rather shop there than K-Mart. Actually, I wouldn't buy a toy from another store (unless it was similar in style). I do this because their toys are well constructed and will last, unlike those from most stores.

There's a grocery store here too. It's different than your average grocery store, though. There are two checkout lanes, they use a wood stick for an order divider. They offer local produce, and local handmade items. I can buy chocolate goat milk there (yum!), along with all kinds of spices and baking goodies I've not found elsewhere. But I can't afford it, although I really wish I could. I want to give them my money (and indeed I sometimes do), but just not enough of it.

I could do a lot with $40,000 a year, though. Combined with Krissy, we'd make no less than $80,000 pre-tax. That's a number I like, and it's just above the number surveys have shown is what it takes to make people happy. (Technically the survey is $75,000 a year per person). We could do a lot with that money, we could, you know, actually live a life. We could, and would, spend money at local businesses. We would buy handmade crafts from local (and not-so-local, thank you Etsy) crafters. We might go out to eat at one of the few nice local places once a week instead of cooking. Ayla's is good for lunch, too. What I'm trying to say is that we would inject a lot more money into the economy, specifically, the local economy. So while it may cost businesses more to pay $20 per hour, in the long run they will reap the benefits.

I wonder what's better for the economy, money circulating or sitting in stocks. Does it really help small businesses when people own billions of dollars in stock? I'm pretty sure if we all had more money, we'd be likely to spend it, no?

Good For Youth?

Something that I think might be even more important, though, is for the younger workers. Teaching kids financial sense aside, a higher minimum wage is common sense. There's no denying that we've become indebted to credit card companies. But what might surprise you is that student loan debt has surpassed that of credit card debt.

Americans owe some $826.5 billion in revolving credit, according to June 2010 figures from the Federal Reserve. (Most of revolving credit is credit-card debt.) Student loans outstanding today -- both federal and private -- total some $829.785 billion

Yeah, we have a combined $1,656,285,000,000 (that is, one trillion, six hundred fifty six billion dollars) in debt between the two. Considering also that 84% of students had credit cards in 2009 with an average debt of $3,173, maybe having the option of saving is a viable one. I figure even working part-time, a student could feasibly save quite a bit before school, and work some during school part-time as well. I don't see how slapping graduating college students with anywhere from $50,000 to $400,000 in debt is a good idea. Perhaps a better, more honest, minimum wage could alleviate some of that. (The larger problem of tuition costs and banks shelling out awful loans could use a revamp, too).

Good For The Elderly?

I've had the pleasure of working with some amazing older folks. Granted, some were a bit ornery and obnoxious, but most of them were happy people who I'm glad to have worked with. But I don't think we ought to have people working until they die. I'm all in favor of people working because they want to, but they shouldn't have to work to pay bills at seventy or eighty.

Let's face it, the older we get, the more our health, and that of our loved ones, suffers. Healthcare is, regrettably, far too expensive. Social Security isn't exactly an amount one can live on, so we have to use savings. Healthcare can obliterate savings in a matter of months to a few years. Increasingly, people are working longer than they have to just to survive. What if those older people, instead of making a paltry $8 or $9 per hour made over twice that. They are capable, and work harder than most people I've worked with. And, hey, they may even enjoy going to work, too.

Unfortunately, I don't see this ever happening. Minimum wage has stayed the same for fifty five years once adjusted for inflation, but the cost of living has skyrocketed. Minimum wage is supposed to combat poverty, but politicians who decide minimum wage don't have to worry about ever earning such a pitiful wage. Maybe they should.

Perhaps having public service jobs pay minimum wage could make a difference. Public service is, after all, a service, not a career. (FYI: most members of congress are actually millionaires). At minimum wage, politicians wouldn't be doing the job for the money, but for the people they represent. It's hard for me to imagine that a millionaire can understand my plight and where I am coming from on a daily basis.

For what it's worth, poverty, in Connecticut, is defined as $21,027 for a married couple with two children. I'm not even going to address how ridiculously low that is. I actually kind of wrote about it here, with some caveats. First, the numbers I used are for a married couple with no children. Second, I used $40,000 in annual salary, almost double the poverty level. My question is, if a married couple in Connecticut can't survive on $40,000 a year, then how can we expect a family of four to survive on $21,027?

Be Kind.

Man Cat: A True Republican

A couple weeks ago, our republican friends in the senate continued their vow to get nothing done. You see, there was a bill up for vote called the Paycheck Fairness Act. Sounds understandable, right? Nah, it's actually a jobkiller because, if you're a republican, everything except tax cuts is a jobkiller. Let's dive into this bill, shall we?

First of all, this isn't a new bill; it passed the House of Representatives almost two years ago in January of 2009. That's how congress works, the House passes things and the Senate occasionally might vote on some of them. This isn't an exaggeration; through filibustering and other nonsensical senate rules the House has passed an astonishing 420 bills that the senate has just let sit around. It's kind of stupid when you consider that the house has several hundred more members to have to wrangle to get things accomplished than the Senate. But the Senate has the filibuster, their Golden Gun, so to speak. Not only does the Senate have the option to ignore bills the House passes as they please, but should one of these bills come up for a vote a mere 41 senators can stop a bill from being voted on. Yeah, senators are such children that they need to vote on whether or not to vote. And unless you have a supermajority of sixty votes, forty one senators can block anything from getting a vote to pass.

One such senator is Susan Collins from Maine (yes, a woman) who argues that the bill would place an undue burden on small businesses and "impose increased costs and restrictions on small businesses in an already difficult economic climate." That's right paying women the same amount as men simply costs too much. Not to mention, asking business owners to pony up that extra cash at a time like this? Hell no, ain't gonna happen. Who wants to be restricted on what they can pay a man when they have to constantly worry if the women they employ are also worth that much. Or maybe this will hurt men in the long run, because they won't get the raises they deserve for fear of needing to also give women that same raise, as Forbes suggests.

It kind of pisses me off when people try to blame problems on unrelated things or skirt issues by changing the subject. The major complaints people have is that women have more rights in wage parity and more resources to fight for equal pay. How is that controversial? The law doesn't say that you can't pay Jim $35,000 and Susan $32,000. No, what it says is if you're going to pay Jim more it has to be because he is better at his job than Susan is.

I think we've all been at a job sometime working our ass off getting paid practically peanuts while someone less skilled was, shall we say, more handsomely rewarded. Doesn't it suck? I know I've literally been in the room with a boss of mine while he thanked someone else and told them what a good job they did on something that I actually did. And when that person pointed out that I actually did the work, not him? Nothing. I can only imagine the strife and annoyance women go through on a daily basis in the workforce.

I'm not feeling particularly wordy anymore, and I'm tired and annoyed by this kind of crap. Over and over again and this childish behavior really out to end. Be a fucking human being already.

Some People Say...

The trouble with "some people say" is that there are a great many people in this world, and a great many of them say and believe some pretty stupid things.

"Some people say" is a tactic, merely adding a veil of validity to back up a bogus claim you made up. For example: Some people say Tom Cruise is gay. Is he? Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? How about Obama is a socialist, fascist, Muslim, et cetera et cetera.

Truth be told, there's nothing wrong with the saying, pending certain caveats. You see, "some people say" is appropriate when expressing an opinion. For example, "Some people say Led Zeppelin is the greatest band to ever produce music." This is a valid sentence, and is correct; I am certain some people believe this. Or, "Some people say Stairway To Heaven is the best song ever recorded." Again, very valid. Do I agree? Probably not; I'm not all that familiar with Led Zeppelin but I'm pretty sure whoever I suggest to be the greatest fill in the blank will find some resistance somewhere. For example, George W. Bush was the greatest president in U.S. history. Is it true? That all depends upon what metrics you use to value success and greatness. So, is President Obama the worst thing to ever happen to the United States as some people might have you believe? Probably not.

Credit card reform is not a very bad thing. Sure it may inconvenience some 18-to-21 year olds but for the vast majority it's a good thing. Student loan reform? Saves bundles of money, makes the government money, and while it may be imperfect the reform is certainly an improvement over how student loans were processed before. The Affordable Care Act sounds nice, right? Truth is, it's a pretty disgusting piece of legislation more commonly known as Obamacare. Why should preventative care be free? That only drives up costs in the long run. Children and infants born, regrettably, with medical conditions shouldnt be eligible for health care like regular, non-sick people. This just makes it cost more for the rest of us, and that's not fair. Why should the bulk of people have to foot the bill for a select few people who, through no fault of their own, need a little help.

In case you can't tell, that last paragraph was a wee bit sarcastic, and I'm sure I will develop upon those thoughts at a later date. I'll maybe talk about things like socialism and things of that ilk, but I digress. As I was saying, there are legitimate uses for "some people say" and none of those legitimate uses belong on the news.

Some people say president Obama was born in Kenya; he wasn't he's an American and was born in Hawaii. Some people say he's muslim; he's not. In fact, a lot of people are unsure of the president's birthplace and religion, but why. This may seem a bit antagonistic, but the blame is probably on Fox News. You see, they pretty much invented the whole concept of "some people say" in the context of news, and they utilize the phrase all the time. So why do Americans think Obama is Muslim? Because for awhile several Fox News hosts would ask people who came on their shows. Now this might sound kind of weird, considering that "Do you think Obama is a Muslim" isn't exactly news, it sounds a bit more like opinion, which it is. But what Fox did was actually quite clever because they can (and will) deny any culpability. They never said he's Muslim, nor suggested it, they merely asked others what they thought. The genius in this plan is that when people hear this question regularly, they will doubt the truth. You hear a question over and over again and even if you are (or were) certain you'll begin to doubt yourself, especially if some of the people who are asked are unsure.

Some people say that more people watch Fox News than any other news show, but I call bullshit. Just because any and all Nielsen ratings put CNN viewers at one-tenth of Fox's viewers doesn't make it factually correct, that's just one groups opinion. I say that CNN is more popular. In fact, I say that 10 million people watch Anderson Cooper keep them honest on a nightly basis. And you know what? They all watch him again at ten o'clock. And some people say I'm right.

FYI: Some people say Obama's recent trip to Asia cost $200 million dollars a day. All of those people were Fox News hosts, correspondents, and a very select few republicans in congress. Oh, and one anonymous person in India. Truth is that's more per day than the entire war costs per day, and was readily debunked by every real journalist and the White House. But Fox News carried on the charade. True Story.

"Happy" Thanksgiving

Hello, and happy Thanksgiving. I hope you are enjoying this Thursday and having a happy holiday. I've never much cared for Thanksgiving. I've actually never been a huge fan of the holidays. Maybe it has something to do with the lead up to holidays and people stressing over them. Maybe it has to do with being surrounded by people, having to travel from place to place where ever a new crowd of people await. While I'm sure there are numerous reasons for a dislike of holidays, I think a more appropriate term is distaste. You see, quite literally, I don't like the taste of holidays. Easter brings ham, Christmas brings ham, and Thanksgiving offers a veritable smörgåsbord of foods that, to me, are basically unpalatable. Turkey I have to slather in barbecue sauce to get down, potatoes (of any sort) are a big no-no, yams, sweet potatoes, and stuffing couldn't be more repulsive. I definitely don't eat corn, green beans, or ham (which maybe some people eat on Thanksgiving?). Want to know a secret though? I like cranberry sauce. It's bizarre, I know. Growing up, cranberry sauce is the one think no one could stand and, for some reason, I liked it. I know know why. Cranberry sauce is sweet but tart, and has a weird smooth texture with it's edges ribbed from the inside of the can. Maybe, just maybe, that's all apart of its charm to me; it's the one thing no one else liked, so I gravitated to it. Then there's the other aspect of cranberry sauce I like. Care to take a guess as to what exactly that is? Give up? You open it up backwards. It's the one canned good (to my knowledge, anyway) that you open from the bottom. It's backwards, like me.

The other bad taste I get in my mouth from holidays is probably due to the massive over-commercialization of them due to our capitalist society. It's right there in the name. Capitalize. Where other cultures have centuries of spiritual traditions celebrated from carnivale-like proportions to the most humble ones, ours seem to be indebted to the other almighty: the green back, and as many of them as possible. Even the circumstances under which these holidays are celebrated have been twisted and mutated to fit the ideals of a capitalist society. Let's take a look, shall we?

Thanksgiving, oh a lovely holiday celebrating the pilgrims who sat down to a lovely, peaceful meal with the native Americans giving thanks for all that they had. Like a giant turkey in the middle of the table. Maybe the "indians" were thankful to the pilgrims for bringing their firearms, which undoubtedly made catching and killing the bird that much easier. Or maybe the Quakers brought their guns because they wanted the natives to know who at the table held all the cards, who was boss; the meal was, after all, to establish an alliance. Naturally, women weren't in attendance. Not exactly what I'd call a happy thanksgiving. So how did Thanksgiving become what it is today? The good old-fashioned way: lobbyists.

According to NPR, magazine editor Sarah Joseph Hale petitioned every level of government lobbying governors, every member of congress, and even the president for a national day where she, and the readers of her magazine, Godey's Lady's Book (I know, right?), could slave over an oven and stove for three days making far more food than necessary to give thanks for such a lovely bounty. Oh, and Lady Hale really liked turkeys. With that, Thanksgiving was born some three hundred (or so?) years after the "original" dinner.

And that, my friends, is how you create a holiday, and capitalize upon it.

Seriously though, enjoy the holiday at least for its most basic meaning: to give thanks, for whatever means something to you.

I leave you with this passage from Fox News host, John Stossel:

Had today's political class been in power in 1623, tomorrow's holiday would have been called "Starvation Day" instead of Thanksgiving. Of course, most of us wouldn't be alive to celebrate it.
Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.
Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of collectivism. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.
The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.
That's why they nearly all starved.

Of course, the truth is a bit different. If there was hardly any food as Mr. Stossel suggests, how and why would the pilgrims have had a three-day-long feast? Truth is, there was plenty of food, and the whole socialism thing? Yeah, not quite, it was more of a co-op which each farmer owning a share of the crops and farms. But to Fox, everything is socialist; and socialism is very, very bad.

The Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear

This will be pretty picture-heavy; be forewarned.

In The Beginning...

This past weekend was Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert's Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear. I suppose you could consider it a parody of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally, except with less tea bagging and more unadulterated awesome. Let me begin by saying it was a very long, exhausting day of essentially standing still. We got up around three in the morning to leave at four. The bed was pretty stiff which, combined with the fact that we were a bit sick, basically meant that neither of us slept very well; I think I slept for, at most, a few hours. Four a.m. hits, and it's time to hit the road; two and a half hours later and we arrived at the metro station just outside of D.C Thankfully, there are 3,400 parking spaces and we were able to park and wait for the trains to show up at 7:00. I was excited seeing the people around who were headed to the rally; 'twas refreshing seeing older people going and not just young people looking for a free show.


After settling in, we were greeted by various games and videos on the Jumbotron, which made it less painful to wait for the show to start. All in all. waiting went by fairly quicker than I'd have thought. There were all kinds of people with all sorts of signs all similarly excited for whatever it was that we were all about to witness/ It was exhilarating/

Our Surroundings...

Settled in for a long day, we found a place to stand (and stand, and stand...). We were actually surprisingly close. If I had to guess, I'd say we were maybe one hundred feet away or so. Alas, neither Krissy nor myself are very tall, so without the perfect conditions, seeing stages can be tough. The media pit was in front of us and to the left; one of the comedy central cameras was in front of us; and a tent, which I think was another media tent (for viewing and such) was in front of us and to the right.

Some fellow rally goers in our surrounding area


Unfortunately, to say Krissy's view was obstructed would be an understatement


There was an older lady sitting behind us (this was before the rally, some people had brought chairs so they weren't standing for 8+ hours). Personally, I really liked her sign.


This Sikh gentleman was next to me. He was on camera a lot (probably the turban and beard). He was nice. He was pretty patient with a girl who insisted on everyone surrounding him putting towels on their heads in an effort to get on tv.


This guy was to our right.


This one, too.


This girl was to our left


This was our view. You can see the edge of the media pit to the left (note the stairs), the tent to the right, and the cameraman (and his damned ladder!) basically right in front of us.


Even Jeffrey came along for the trip! Here he is in our free noisemaker/megaphone type thing.

The Media Comes Calling...

Here is one of the anchors giving a report during the rally. I'm not sure who he is but hes older and looked distinguished, ergo I liked him.


Then there's these two (from CNN). The woman was taking notes, asking people questions, etc. She seemed so bored and uninterested, though. Then there's the hotshot in the aviators and leather jacket. He seemed pretty happy with himself hopping about; he seems like a douchebag to me.


A cameraman from NBC News


Before the rally began, one of the cameramen (I think) was carrying his son around on his shoulders. I feel weird taking pictures of kids in public sometimes. Not that I don't want to. I always want to. But I know adults, and I don't need some errant parent going apeshit on me because they take offense, so this is the picture I got.


I liked this photographer. In a sea of telephoto lenses and ultramodern digital cameras here he was taking a photo with a panoramic camera. It looks like his other camera might be a Leica, too, but I can't tell (and, truth be told, have never seen one in person)

Let The Games Begin...

Jon Stewart singing was an interesting experience. The song was exceptionally funny.


Sheryl Crow performing with Kid Rock backed by The Roots (who are actually kind of awesome)


Mick Foley (who is awesome) accepting his award


The O'Jay's performing Love Train


Papier Mache puppet Steven Colbert: The fear monster


John Oliver (dressed as Peter Pan) coming out to help Jon Stewart slay the fear monster


Tony Bennett performing America, The Beautiful, which was awesome/ The picture is a bit low quality though.


The end performance. Mavis Staples, Tony Bennett, Ozzy, Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam), Jeff Tweedy, Sheryl Crow, The Roots, The Mythbusters, and many more!


I like John Oliver's expression in this picture


A better picture showing more of the people on stage than the previous pictures


Headed home (tired, achy feet)! At this point we still had a two hour drive back to Delaware. I liked these advertisements set out by Media Matters though. Very nice tie-in to the rally. I'm not sure if they were only in the metro or not, since we didn't explore too much of D.C. but there were banners inside the metro stations, too. Very cool. I approve.

These Are Not End Times

The rally was amazing, and awe-inspiring. It's hard to fathom 250,000 people, but one can't help but feel flooded by all sorts of emotions. I can't express how happy I am that we attended the rally; it was amazing feeling a part of something. The experience was absolutely amazing and I hope that people will learn from it, and that the rhetoric in this country can change.

Thumbs up from Tricky Dick

Take It Down A Notch (Or Three)

A bit of a departure today...

People are needlessly crazy. Perhaps it's a poor choice of words, since name calling tends to just feed the fires of crazy, but crazy is the best way to describe what surrounds us every day.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand. 

I feel that Yeats' Second Coming perfectly describes today. Nowadays we are complacent; we just don't care enough. Or is it simply that we've given up? Unfortunately, in today's media the more controversial, or extreme a person's view, the more attention they get. Really, when's the last time you read an AP or Reuters report and thought, "Wow! That was interesting!" Yeah, it's probably never happened. Take in your surroundings, and think; look at things objectively and think to yourself, "What is this doing for humanity?" What is more important: The real Housewives of [fill in the blank] or the actual housewives everywhere trying to make a go at this thing called life?

I feel like the media has a certain job to do and for the most part, they do a good job. No one wants to pay for their news anymore; once one gets something for free it's hard to justify paying for that same information (sometimes). There are a lot of people who argue that the media is unabashedly liberal, as if it is some giant conspiracy. To these people, Fox News is a breath of fresh air—the lone David struggling against the Goliath that is, well, everything else. But Fox News is also the most popular, and as a result, the most influential news organization as such I feel they have a certain responsibility to the American people. Lately, Fox News' latest crusade is against NPR, that is, National Public Radio, and therein lies the problem. Fox News is conservative; no one denies that (except for the latter half of their Fair and Balanced slogan). Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Wall Street Journal and basically everything else in the media, but that's neither here nor there. Republicans don't like NPR; and lately that anger has boiled over and is crackling and steaming on the burner. Every few years, Republicans try and pass some sort of bill killing public financing of NPR, PBS, and the like. It doesn't work though, because people like NPR and PBS; I mean, who wants to kill Big Bird, Elmo, and Oscar the Grouch? (I won't even mention Cookie Monster.) NPR is incredibly important as a news (and entertainment) organization, as is PBS. The problem, for some, is that NPR recently fired Juan Williams for his rather unnecessary remarks about his fear of muslims. which leads me to this quote from Karl Rove:

45 percent of NPR listeners were Saddam Hussein.

I don't even know what that means. It doesn't make sense, neither logically or grammatically. Let's begin by attacking this from a mathematical standpoint. Let's assume Saddam Hussein did listen to NPR  (I know, I know) For the former dictator to make up nearly one-half of NPR's listeners would suggest no one even listens to NPR. Anyway, to suggest that half of the people who listen to NPR are dictators (dictators in training mayhaps?) is completely asinine. To even make a comparison bewilders me. But then again, Fox seems to like comparing everything to dictators.

To be fair, crazy isn't limited to conservatives and Fox News. Who cares that Linda McMahon kicked a guy in the nuts on the WWE, or that Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft as a teenager. Isn't there a maxim about people not throwing stones and glass houses? Yeah, that. Why not instead focus on their platforms (or in their cases the complete lack thereof). Christine O'Donnell wants to bring God and Jesus to public schools, convinced the Constitution makes no mention of the separation of church and state. Or, there's Linda McMahon who has slammed all of Connecticut in ads belittling and attacking Richard Blumenthal. But what are her plans? I've seen an awful lot of her commercials pleading to mothers to vote for her, but why? I've not seen a single ad of hers suggesting why I should give her my vote. So far, I've seen that she can afford nicely produced ads, she can get her friends to say what a wonderful person she is, and that Richard Blumenthal has slipped up a couple times. Oh, and that she has no experience, but Blumenthal has been in government for too long.


[As it happens, I wrote this post before Election Day. I'm glad Richard Blumenthal won Connecticut; truth be told, it's nice to be rid of her ads as well]


I feel like this video from Crossfire sums up the premise of this blog: