$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.