Had To Do It

In response to FOUR MORE YEARS' "My current issues"
I think it is sad when people are bored when talking about our current presidential race. This race is anything but boring. For the first time a woman and a black man are simultaneously running for the democratic nomination. Who becomes our next president determines how much longer we’ll be in Iraq. Our next president may pull us out of economic hard times.


I personally am not tired of hearing about our sluggish economy. Sluggish is also the wrong word. Gas is well above the adjusted inflation average. According to AAA, the average gallon of regular unleaded costs $3.64 p/gal. If we base our adjusted inflation price off the 1981 spike, gas should be on average around $3.12 p/gal. The only people that don’t want to listen to what is going on with our economy are ignorant, rich, or living on daddy’s credit card. But even smart rich people are paying attention. Many people believe that much tougher times are ahead. Times that even a credit card won’t fix.



Also, a personal friend of mine is working within this issue in San Angelo with the polygamists. There is a lot more truth to this story than she thinks. Honestly, she has no problem with little girls who don’t have an identity because they were born in the compound and don’t even have a social security card. The girl who first complained of rape drawing all the attention to these evil men is nowhere to be found. But let’s leave the “400 sum children” with those same men.



Now here’s the part that cracked me up, “I will never become a politician nor a writer or a blogger”. She got that right! “…but there are always issues that come to my attention and I will voice it at times, but right now there is nothing that concerns me about my government. They are fine the way they were.” What about the issues did she address? The government is fine the way it is? Did she take English Composition yet? This article looks like she googled “current political issues” and copied it to her blog assignment and then wrote a short personal paragraph. Spell check doesn’t cover sentences that don’t make sense, unfortunately. I don’t even know how to end this, but I’ve wasted enough energy on it. Goodbye.

Stimulate US?

You’ve just received $600 dollars! What will you do next? You could buy and Xbox 360. You could go on a cruise. You could buy a new gun or adopt a puppy. But what will most people actually do with this new found cash? Where will this money actually go? Will it really stimulate our economy? And finally, why are we doing this?

First of all, this “stimulus package” will affect our economy as much as your individual vote will count in the Presidential election (not including Floridians). Most people are probably in debt from higher prices in everything from gasoline to milk. So, $600 would make a dent in their debt. Will anyone use the money for personal desires? Of course! There are enough irresponsible people in this country that will ignore the average credit card debt of $9,900 per household in America and go get laser hair removal done. We’re not really going to see an increase in jobs or national revenue though. Those that spend their money right away will send their money straight into the belly of businesses that are just going to pay off their debts from high gas prices and discounts they can’t afford to give. So overall, only debt collectors are really going to benefit from this government induced stimulus.

If this package was really something to benefit US citizens then they should have just taken the money and put it towards lowering gas prices. The total stimulus package will cost the US around $152 billion. Five gas companies have made over $123 billion this past year and they’re getting tax breaks! Hello! Let’s use our money to regulate the oil companies and lower gas prices. If gas didn’t cost on average over $3.30 a gallon then people might be able to afford to travel more or buy more luxury items. Don’t get me wrong, I’m looking forward to receiving that $1200 check my wife and I will receive in May (at the earliest). But we’ll probably just pay off some credit card debt because we can’t afford to drive to the bank to cash it. You want to stimulate the economy? Let’s start another war and stop buying our supplies from China.

Rules suck, but rules save lives!

In Response to Jason K. B.'s opinion on TSA

I have my days too when I'm cranky, but seriously? Okay, I'll agree with one thing before I get started. Many things that make it through TSA's system shouldn't. Knives, guns, etc. should never make it through. That shows that many TSA employees aren't doing their job. Like many other government workers, laziness rules and customer satisfaction is a myth. Now for what I don't quite understand.

Telling us to remove our belt is a government "bitch-slap"? As a former Police Officer, the one thing I thought was ridiculous was how many people hated cops, unless they needed us. One day I confiscated a kid’s pit bull for attacking another dog in their neighborhood, and that kid’s parents wanted to press charges. However, a month late they were quick to call us when their neighbors were playing loud music. They didn’t want the rules to apply to them. Everyone hates rules. Oh, rules are evil. I'm sure many people aren't aware of some of the things that are caught through TSA's system. Small one-shot pistols can be disguised into the front of belt buckles. Depending on what kind of shoes someone’s wearing a non-metal knife could be hidden in the sole. If the shoes are removed and x-rayed then that cuts down on how many try it. Sure someone could still hide that non-metal knife on their person, but you are also subject to random pat downs at any time. There are people who want to scare us, but there are people out there who also want to hurt us. Now it would be great if these people wore t-shirts saying, “I’m an evil man who’s hiding a weapon so I can hi-jack a plane”. But since we’re not afforded that benefit, we kinda have to check every person just make sure we don’t miss. Yes it sucks to throw away two Red Bulls I just bought before heading to the airport. Rules suck, but rules save lives. By the way, I think those T-shirts are available at Spencer's.

$27 Million dollar Limo ride!

Everyone can visualize the Banker with the power suit sitting at his desk made of remote rain forest wood. Big dollar signs fills his eyes while he sips his coffee made with cherries after they were processed through the Toddy Cat’s bowels. He loves the expensive things, because they’re privileged possessions owned by a select few. They make him “Powerful”! People now are starting to view our government in the same light. They want control over the things that run this country, and maybe the world. Again, just like the gluttonous banker I depicted, they don’t want control because they want to better people to make themselves feel good. Control equals money, in return equaling power. The more power the better.
I was at a Houston Texans football game in the fall of 2006 and I was one of the lucky first 20,000 out of 18,000 that actually attended the game and I was given a free T-shirt. Yeah! I got another T-shirt. On the back in huge letters was the word Halliburton. I had never heard of them until now, so I looked them up. Hoover’s Online says that they provide oil and gas field services. They’ve steadily increased in closing stock prices over the last five years. Their net income has risen steadily since 2004. In 2003 they recorded a loss of $979 billion. That might be why they were charging the government $27 million to transport only $82,000 worth of fuel that they purchased in Kuwait. Kuwait’s right next door. Did they take the long way? First of all, why are they buying it from Kuwait? We’re helping Iraq with their civil war and Iraq contains the second most oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia. Is our government not studying geography? Seriously, can’t we make a deal with them to use their oil so we don’t have to pay Vice President Cheney’s old company to give Kuwait’s oil a Limo ride? That oil should get free champagne and chocolate for a $27 million dollar venture across the border. Anyways, instead of greedy bankers, all I can visual now is Cheney swimming in the money pool in Houston next January.

Too Easy...

Click on picture for link

Nicole Gaouette of the Los Angeles Times wrote on President Bush's attempt to restrict internet sales of prescription drugs, especially pain killers. Approximately 2,500 young people start abusing prescription drugs every day, while 70% of all prescription drug users obtain their drugs from the home medicine cabinet. The Bush administration’s drug strategy wants to use student drug testing, community outreach, and screening and prevention in attempts to cut youth drug use by 10%. Bush’s administration does report a drop in numbers of young people abusing drugs now compared to 6 years ago in 2002. Now approximately 860,000 fewer young people use, or rather misuse, prescription drugs. If you take the 2,500 young people that start every day and take that times 365 days a year you’ll get 912,500 young people a year. That’s a lot of drugs. If you take that number times 6 years you’ll get 5,475,000 young people. Now I know that the president didn’t actually calculate these terms himself, but maybe they should watch what they’re bragging about. Oh, we’re down 860,000 abusers in six years. They didn’t even mention how many there were in 2002 to start with. Considering we were only down 15% of just the newcomers, I wouldn’t be bragging just yet. How can politicians say that we’re going to cut down on drugs, but they allow internet sales of prescription drugs to almost anyone? Any half-witted 13 year old kid can buy some hydrocodone and down them like candy. Hopefully the Senate sees how the President hasn’t really done much and realize that drug use period is ruining our schools, our jobs, and our loved ones.

What's More Important?

Click pic for link.
Major General Paul Selva tells Congress and the President that if we don't increase our defense budget for the Air Force now, our fleet of fighters will fall apart and we'll lose our dominance in the world of air power. Steve Kosiak at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments says that the Air Force has expensive tastes. Kosiak says we’re spending more on F-22 and F-35 replacements than we spent on the F-15’s being replaced. Well Steve, considering that we bought the majority of our F-15’s over twenty years ago, things cost a little more now. Not to mention, new technology should be more expensive. Should we put the same technology we had in 1985 in our F-22’s? That makes sense. We just had an F-15 completely disintegrate in mid-air back in November because it was too old and the frame couldn’t handle the G-Forces any longer. Luckily, that pilot made it out alive. Maybe we should ask that pilot if we should try to fix all our F-15’s with 8,000 plus hours (when they’re only supposed to have 4,000 to be retired) or pay less money for a new F-22 than it would cost to fix our incredibly aged F-15’s.
Kosiak also commented that the Air Force wanted more money than all three other services combined. He says it like something is wrong with that. Considering that one M1A1 Abrams Tank costs 4.3 million to replace and one F-22 Raptor costs on average about 160 million dollars. The Air Force’s toys cost more. Maybe that’s why they require more. Then comes along Gordon Adams who says, “Until someone constrains these budget requests, the hunger for more will charge ahead unchecked”. So, the Air Force wants more money because of our hunger for more? Maybe we’re hungry because for too long we’ve starved, starved for the tools and equipment to remain the dominant Air Force in the War on Terror and throughout the world. Maybe we should cut back on government spending and stop paying these two way too much for way too little. Just a thought.

Can't Please Everyone...

McCain Slips, Confusing Real Position on Abortion
Here’s the situation. Let’s say, you oppose abortion. You hear a presidential candidate named John McCain say, “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade (case making most abortions legal), which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." You decide that you won’t vote for that candidate. Then you hear, a year ago he voted “yes” in a National Right to Life Committee questionnaire to a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. What it is, yes or no? Is he just trying to please everyone? Or is he that stupid that he forgot where he stood on the issue only a year ago. At one point, he votes to override a veto on a ban of partial birth abortions. He also supported a ban on Medicaid funding for abortions. And now, while talking to the newspaper in a very liberal city, he sounds a little timid on his stance. Timid may be the wrong word. Backsliding may be more appropriate. You can’t please everyone and get away with it John.