Can't We Work Through This Rationally?

I've had it with all of this talk about whether or not people who are gay should be allowed to openly serve in the military. Do you want to know why this topic now only serves to irritate and annoy me whenever it is brought up? It's because no one is using any factual basis for their opinions at all and the whole debate is solely based on what people feel would be best.

I'm not going to pretend that I know what would be best in this situation. Do I think it would be great if folks who were gay were allowed to serve in the military openly? Sure, but only under one condition. That condition being that it won't lessen the chances of success for any given task and/or mission that the troops are on. Now, you might be asking yourself, "How could it possibly be a detriment for folks who are openly gay to serve in the military?" To which I would answer, "I don't know." But that's what my answer would be. Other people, those who are running their lives based solely on what they feel, might answer, "It's a ridiculous policy! It should immediately cease and desist! Gays should be out and about in the military because it's the right thing!" OK, OK. Hold on a minute there, cowboy.

I don't know anything about the military other than they keep me and my country safe. Oh, and I also know that they can kick some serious ass. That's what I want my military to be. If the safety of myself and my country means that those who are gay cannot serve openly in the military, then so be it. However, if that is, in fact, the case, I'd like it to be backed up by some sort of facts based on some sort of comprehensive study which is conducted by folks who know what they're dealing with military-wise.

Is that so much to ask? Look, that's all I want. I want some sort of factual basis which determines it to be perfectly OK to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and that the result isn't a compromised military. That's all. Do you think that devising policy based upon how you feel instead of based upon some sort of facts or investigation is really the way to go? I can't imagine that it is. Yet, if you'll look around at a lot of the fiscal problems that many states and the entire country are in the throes of, you'll start seeing a trend in the number of "feel good" programs that require a great deal of money. Are they necessary programs? Are they effective programs? Are they being implemented correctly? Who knows? All a lot of folks know is that it makes them feel good that those sort of programs are in place. And it's caused me to lose my WTL (will to live) on occasion.

Just wait for the study, folks. If you're so confident (even though you have no basis to base your confidence on) that it's just fine for gays to serve openly in the military, then what is the harm in waiting for this huge, comprehensive study that the Pentagon is conducting to wrap up? Seriously, do you really want to risk the safety of the troops that protect you just because you're all thumbs up for diversity? I can't imagine that people would, but yet, they do.

I'm going to need a prescription for some Xanax soon. I'm just saying

California Is On Crack

It's official. California is definitely some sort of crack addict who is selling anything and everything that it has so that it can get its next fix. Oh, sure, it will give the state immediate access to some cash that it needs, but that's just the instant gratification part of the deal. In the long run, it will end up costing the state more and probably making things worse for a state that is already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy due to its unwillingness to cut anything at all out of the budget.

Here's the story as reported by the lovely folks over at ABC News and by the ever so diligent reporters over at the LA Times. See, California needs cash because it spends way more than it takes in. I won't even begin to delve into how the extremely large population of folks who are in this country illegally plays into this dilemma, but I will say that there are many areas in which California could trim its budget, yet it chooses not to. Just like a crack addict, California wants what it wants when it wants it.

So, California came up with a way to make a couple of billion dollars. And some of that could even be applied to its debt! California decided to sell 24 of however many buildings that it owns for the whopping total of $2.23 billion. While that sounds like a lot, just keep your pants on (because if California catches you without your pants on, you're going to be in for quite the surprise). Of the $2.23 billion, only $1.2 billion will go into the state general fund. That's because $1.09 billion goes to pay off bonds on the buildings. (I'm not sure what happened to the other .04 billion. Those are the figures that the LA Times gives me.) OK, so problem solved, right? Not so fast.

See, California is still using those buildings. It's not like they were abandoned or anything like that. No, they're fully in use every single day. They sold buildings like the Attorney General Building and the Franchise Tax Board Complex up in Sacramento. Yeah, California still needs those. But that's OK. Now California is just going to pay rent to the people that own them. Wait. What now?

Correct. Whereas before California owned the buildings, now it does not and it must rent them from the new owners. It would be like if you had a car that you owned and, because you needed some crack right that very moment, you sold it to the neighbor. Now you have money, but you have no car. Now you have to take that money that you got and you turn around and lease the car that you just sold your neighbor. How smart does that sound? Not very? Welcome to California.

According to the estimates from the California Legislative Analyst's Office "...It will cost the state $30 million more in the first year to remain in those buildings and that differential will increase to almost $200 million over the course of the 20 year leases." But do it now because you need crack now! What a bunch of morons.

Tell me something. What good is the Legislative Analyst's Office if no one listens to them? This state is already in a financial freefall into the abyss of bankruptcy, what say they trim a little bit off of the budget by eliminating the Legislative Analyst's Office. No one listens to them anyway. They just do what they want because why? They're addicted to crack, that is correct.

We're so doomed. And now we're screwed. We're totally scroomed.

Welfare on the High Seas

If you don't live in the state of California, should you be concerned about what is going on over here? I'm thinking that you should. I say that because this state is going to go broke and it is the rest of the country that is going to end up bailing out this failed experiment at trying to create a utopia. And when you hear of some of the reasons that contribute to the state going broke and then you learn that nothing is being done about them, you're going to be angry that your taxes will (likely) go up to help straighten out this fuster cluck at some point in the future.

Let's take a look at a situation that makes me so angry that I want to take all of my money out of the banks and bury it in the backyard of my walled off compound so that no one else can piss it away like they are. According to an awesome story by the fine folks over there at the LA Times, you will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn that between January 2007 and May 2010, "More than $69 million in California welfare money...has been spent or withdrawn outside the state in recent years, including millions in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands in Hawaii and thousands on cruise ships sailing from Miami." Um...wuck?

That's right. Folks on welfare spending their benefits in Vegas, Hawaii and on freaking cruise ships?! Are you dry shaving me?! What the WHAT?! OK. Calm down. Calm. Down. Breathe. Breathe deeper. OK. Now...let's look at what the benefits were spent on and maybe that will shed some light on this that won't make it seem quite so bad, shall we? Sure. Great idea. It can't be as outright fraudulent as it sounds...can it? CAN IT?! Why aren't you answering me?!

Because you know if you answer me, I'm going to have a stroke. Let's see...in Hawaii, we have folks spending MY money by dropping "...$12,433 spent at the upscale Ala Moana shopping center, $3,030 spent at a group of gift shops next to Jimmy Buffett's Beachcomber restaurant on Waikiki Beach and $2,146 withdrawn from ATMs on the island of Lanai, home to a pair of Four Seasons resorts and little else." Breathe, Mare. Breathe....

What else? Oh, Vegas! Vegas took in almost $12 million of taxpayer money in benefits. What was that spent on? Well, there was "...more than $1 million was spent or withdrawn at shops and casino hotels on, or within a few blocks of, the 4.5-mile strip. The list includes $8,968 at the Tropicana, $7,995 at the Venetian and its Grand Canal Shoppes, and $1,332 at Tix 4 Tonight, seller of discount admission for such acts as Cirque du Soleil." Breathe, dammit. Seriously, I don't know if I can take much more. What else is there? "The data also show $16,010 withdrawn from 14 cruise ships sailing from ports around the world — Long Beach, Rio de Janeiro, Beijing. Eight sail primarily from Miami." That's IT!! I've had it!

CRUISE SHIPS?! For those on WELFARE?! Now, now. Calm down. Let's listen to an alleged voice of reason on this whole matter. Let's turn to a legislative advocate for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, a one Jessica Bartholow, who tells us, "I think when somebody hears it's in a fancy hotel in Hawaii or Vegas, it's too easy to assume the [welfare recipient] is visiting that place and it wasn't somebody who stole their card." ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Are you freaking kidding me?! YES! Yes, that is EXACTLY what we think! We do NOT think that their card was stolen! That is correct! We KNOW that we, the taxpayers, are getting screwed! And now we KNOW that we, the taxpayers, are getting screwed with the help of Jessica Bartholow and her Center for Sending the Impoverished to Hawaii!! See, this is why you have to believe in God because otherwise, you wouldn't get the pleasure of believing that these folks will go to hell one day.

But what about others in California? Aren't there folks whose job it is to track down this sort of abuse? Of course there are, silly. But, as explained by a one John Haley who is the commander of the financial crimes division of the San Diego County DA's office, "...If it's a one-time thing in Miami, we would never check that out...We look for patterns of abuse." WHAT?! If you are in California and you are ON WELFARE, ANY time in Miami should be checked out! How the hell did you get there and why did you take MY money with you?! Is it because this sort of thing is rare? Uh, well....not exactly. See, Mr. Haley also told the LA Times that "...24% of all new welfare applications in his jurisdiction contain some form of fraud." One in four. But they're never going to catch you if you don't repeatedly go to Miami?! What in the hell kind of a system is THAT?!

Is it just in San Diego? It's not everywhere, is it? IS IT?! Well, um...see...it's like this..."A state audit last year found that none of California's 58 counties was adequately following up on information that could help root out fraud, including monthly computer matches that list clients who are receiving duplicate aid from other states, those who are ineligible because they're in prison and others who have died." Holy. S***.

Remember this when you hear that California has gone bankrupt and your Federal taxes are going to increase to help bail out this mess. And the next time you're going to work, remember that welfare recipients on the public dole are going to Hawaii and Vegas. And finally, remember that constructing a walled off compound is never a bad idea and it's never too late to start.

The Condescending President

You know what I can't stand? Wait. Let me narrow that down a little bit, lest we be here all the live long day. You know what I can't stand about politicians? Wait. Hmm. There's no way of phrasing this without generating an incredibly long list of possibilities. I'll just cut to the chase. I can't stand a condescending politician. And I really can't stand a condescending President. I'm talking to you, President Barry.

The huffy folks over there at The Huffington Post tell us that President Barry was at some town hall meeting that CNBC broadcast live on Monday. And I guess that the question or the issue was simple enough. Apparently, an audience member pressed President Barry to chime in on what it is that makes the Tea Party movement do its thing. For some reason, President Barry seems to think that there are no specific goals that these folks have. I'm not sure why he thinks that. But whatever the reason is, he came across sounding like a condescending jackass.

Here's part of what he replied (and it's the part that really ticked me off): "So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do?....It's not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it's important for you to say, I'm willing to cut veterans' benefits or I'm willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I'm willing to see these taxes go up. What you can't do, which is what I've been hearing a lot from the other side, is we're going to control government spending, we're going to propose $4 trillion of additional tax cuts, and that magically somehow things are going to work. Now, some of these are very difficult choices." Oh, for cryin' out loud.

There are two basic goals of the Tea Party movement. The second one can be almost automatic if the first goal is met. It's all about smaller government. Yes, it's also about lower taxes, but it's largely about smaller government. The government is huge and bloated. You don't think that there could be some cut backs in government there, President Barry? Really? Because you seem to think that we're all a bunch of idiots who would believe you that the only things that could be cut would be services that are essential.

This is what politicians do. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulls it at least once a year in California when they can't agree on a budget for this fiscally doomed state. They tell folks that, in order to stay within a budget, they're going to have to cut services like firefighters and policemen and school teachers. You don't want that, do you? No, of course not! That's when they justify raising taxes. But hold on a minute! Aren't there things within the governmental bureaucracy that could be cut other than firefighters, policemen and teachers? I'm 100% positive that there are.

President Barry, are you trying to tell me that every single government agency and department and job is absolutely, completely necessary? I don't think that it is. Are you going to tell me that every single government pension plan isn't overly generous? I don't think that you can tell me that and not have your nose grow at least six inches. You're trying to tell me that none of these governmental departments overlap and do the same work that other agencies do? And I'm supposed to believe you? Really?

How about, before you go suggesting cuts to Medicare and to veteran's benefits, you cut all services to those who are in this country illegally. How much money would that save? And that's just one area where money could be saved and where government could be shrunk. Don't go around threatening us by minimizing our obligation to our soldiers by suggesting that we should cut their services. How dare you. Seriously.

Smaller government. Lower taxes. Reduce the size of the government and spending will go down some. Reduce the size of the government to what it really needs to be reduced by and watch spending go down a great deal. Watch spending go down and watch the need to taxes to raise diminish. Remember, over fifty percent of Americans want fewer services and smaller government according to two different polls, one done in April of this year and the other conducted in September of this year. Over fifty percent want smaller government. Is that specific enough for you, President Barry? How else do we need to spell it out for you?

Brand X

Just because a procedure is performed and isn't done in the typical "normal" fashion, does that mean that someone else gets to sue because of it? I mean, if the outcome was, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same as it would have been if things were done according to the book, why would you sue? Because you're hypersensitive and think that you'll get a big payday. Hopefully, in this instance, that will prove to be wrong.

Here's the story according to those smoky folks over there at The Smoking Gun. It seems that a one 47-year old hairdresser, a Mrs. Ingrid Paulicivic, went to a doctor for a hysterectomy. The doctor, a one 50-year old Dr. Red Alinsod, performed the procedure for her. When returning to Dr. Alinsod's office for a follow-up appointment, she asked him about some small burn marks that she noticed on her thighs. He told her that it was nothing to worry about. See, what had happened was that after he had removed her uterus, he used some sort of a cauterizing tool to brand her name onto her removed organ and she must have suffered some minor burns in the process. That's all. Wait. He did what?

Correct. He took her uterus out and then branded her name, Ingrid, onto the removed uterus. Everything about this story has a question attached to it, so I'll try and keep up with any that you may have racing through your head right now. If you're wondering if this is some sort of obscure medical procedure, let me assure you that it is not. The good doctor claims that his reason for branding the uterus with the woman's name was because he “did not want to get it confused with others.” And usually what they do, instead of all of the burning of patient's names in recently removed body part, is to write the patient’s name "... on an accompanying blue sterile towel or a sterile piece of wood like a tongue depressor." Uh-huh. I see. Yeah, there's not way that you could get confused and think to do it the other way. Hmm.

I really cannot figure out what the big deal is. I mean, her uterus was removed, correct? Correct. What in the hell does she care what he does with it when she's done with it? I can understand being a little upset that the guy apparently mishandled his uterine carving tool and slightly burned her thighs. That I get. But I would I be suing over it? Hardly. You know what else I wouldn't be suing for? Loss of consortium, that is correct.

See, she's a married woman. And her husband, Joe Paulicivic, claims that he has been “permanently injured and damaged” due to the resulting loss of consortium with his wife." Hmm. Dude, she had her uterus taken out. I would expect that there might be a little loss of consortium just from that alone, but I don't really know. Can anyone help me with this one? Gerard? You seem to have a variety of sexual endeavors. Ever done it with someone who was sans uterus? What's that like? (By the way, that's Mr. Paulicivic over there on the left. Perhaps if he lost the big cross medallion, he might find himself more consortiable. I'm just saying.)

All of the logistics aside, how do small burns on your wife's thighs prevent you from getting all consortium-y with her? I don't think that they do. This whole lawsuit is obviously pointless. And if you'd like to read the filing and decide for yourself, you may do so by clicking here. Look, I don't know why the doctor did what he did, but he wasn't hurting anyone. What was going to happen to that uterus after it was taken out of commission? It gets thrown away, right? So, who the hell cares if it gets thrown away with her name on it or not? It's not like he was feeding it to the stray cats in the alley out back. But even if he was, would that be so bad? Sure, it would be disgusting (for some reason), but would it hurt anyone? No, of course not.

I just don't get people like this. You're not entitled to any money there, cupcake. And neither are you, Mr. Cupcake. Just go back to whatever you were doing before all of the suing and knock it off. Try a little consortium. Maybe that will help.

Worst Idea Ever

I'm pretty sure that I have just run across the stupidest idea I have ever heard. Pretty sure. There are a lot of morons out there who think that they have great ideas and all, but I think that this one might be a winner. I don't know. You tell me. What do you think about the idea of drilling some holes in the floor of your house so that you can stick your legs through them and sit on the floor as you pretend that it's a freaking chair? Wait. What now?

Correct. From something called the Mother Nature Network, we learn that a one completely clueless Martina Decker and one equally clueless Peter Yeadon (of something called Decker Yeadon), who seem really concerned with the idea that there is a lot of energy and waste that comes along with the home furnishing business. Granted, there is a lot of energy and waste that comes along with probably just about every business, but they're not discussing that. No, if they did that, it would make their highlighting of those issues seem silly. Well, sillier.

They're presenting this idea as a "zero-material seating alternative." Now, I would have thought that just sitting on the freaking floor would have been a "zero-material seating alternative", but how much press would that have gotten? None, that is correct. Here's how this works: The concept is called an OOoo Chair. What it requires is that the “owner” "...drill two circular, leg-sized holes in a floor and then line ‘em with recyclable plastic disks. Ready to sit? Remove the disks and stick your legs in the holes." Oh, for cryin' out loud. WHAT?!

Seriously, how can one justify such a completely ridiculous concept? Drilling holes in the floor to put your legs in?! What's the point of this again? If you're asking the 'designers', they'll explain that "OOoo Chair is an innovate design solution that attempts to address the energy and waste problems that are propelled by furniture production and disposal. The project intends to provoke a change in our behavior, and in our way of thinking about our furniture. The chair concept is almost as simple as sitting on the floor." Um, it IS sitting on the floor, you imbeciles!

Do they not think that drilling the holes will take energy? Do they not think that the production of the disks is going to take energy? Do they not think that not everyone wants to have two holes in their floor? And what is it that they want? To provoke a change in our behavior? It's provoked a change in MY behavior. I now want to punch 'designers'. I also want to build the wall around my walled off compound about three feet higher to keep me away from morons like these folks. Sit in a freaking chair! It's not going to kill anyone!

Go Straight To Hell; Do Not Pass 'Go'

Wanna make sure you go to hell? And I mean straight to hell. No passing 'Go'. No collecting $200. Just straight to hell. If so, then might I suggest purposefully going 85 mph on the freeway in the wrong direction in an attempt to kill yourself, but being unsuccessful and instead, killing a 35-year old woman (who was 4 months pregnant) and her 13-year old son. Oh, and then suing the family of the woman that you killed. Yeah, that should do it.

According to ABC News, in March of 2009, a then 16-year old Justine Winter allegedly caused the crash just an hour after breaking up with her boyfriend. As if going on a mission to kill yourself whilst driving 85 mph in the wrong direction on the freeway, she was texting as she did it. See? Texting and driving kills. Don't do it.

The prosecutors are focusing on a series of those texts that occurred right before the crash. They include sentiments such as "If I won, I would have you. And I wouldn't crash my car." And "That's why I'm going to wreck my car. Because all I can do is f*** up. Because I am a terrible person and I know it." She also made sure that her last words were not only known, but extremely significant. "Good bye ... my last words." Yeah, that seems pretty cut and dried there.

But that's only because I am a (relatively) sane individual. I am not Justine Winter, nor am I any of the adults who are representing her. They are all, clearly, horrible individuals. They have sued the deceased woman's (Erin Thompson) estate, "...with her husband Jason Thompson as a representative, as well as three businesses that operate and provide services on Highway 93." Yeah, she's saying that the businesses failed "...to properly maintain the highway, which was under construction at the time." Well, it is hard to maintain something that isn't going to allow a crash to happen when some idiot is going in the wrong direction, let alone 85 mph in the wrong direction.

The suit actually has the balls to claim that "...Winter suffered permanent injuries in the crash and a "loss of capacity to enjoy life." She is also claiming future loss of income as well as past, present and future medical expenses." Oh, I might just twist off right now. Yep. Here I go.

Are you freaking kidding me?! SHE has a loss of capacity to enjoy life? WHY?! Because she's in jail where she belongs?! I'm sure she did suffer permanent injuries in the crash that she caused! That was her goal! To cause herself injury! Injury resulting in death!! And future loss of income?! Please. Like this chick had the mental faculties to even earn any income. She sounds like a complete moron. A complete, self-centered moron. Besides, if all goes the way that it should go, she won't have to worry about future loss of income OR any medical expenses, as I'm sure that they'll all be taken care of by the penal system that she will hopefully be incarcerated in for the rest of whatever.

The lawsuit accuses Mrs. Thompson "...of causing the accident through "negligent driving." Right. Because a woman who is four months pregnant and has her teenage son in the car with her would be driving negligently. I'm not saying that it's never happened. I'm just saying that it didn't happen in this case. How this woman's husband has not snapped in two and strangled someone at this point is beyond me.

Naturally, after filing this lawsuit, "No one from the Winter or Thompson families could be reached for comment. Winter's attorneys, David Stufft and Maxwell Battle Jr., also did not return repeated calls for comment." David Stufft and Maxwell Battle Jr. Please remember those names. If you ever come across either of these individuals, do whatever comes natural. (What? I wasn't suggesting anything untoward. I could have meant something like shaking their hand. Or not.) As far as the response from the prosecution's side, "Flathead County Attorney Ed Corrigan, who is leading the criminal case against Winter, said he was concerned the lawsuit would "inflame the public". Really? Suing the family of the people that you killed could "inflame the public"? In what way?

Apparently, Justine will be going on trial, as she has been charged with two counts of deliberate homicide. (That seems about right.) The preliminary trial resulted in the judge deciding that she should be tried as an adult. Naturally, her lawyers have appealed that decision, so who knows when this is going to get underway. Oh, but it is cases like these where I wish that there were a "skip the trial" option and we just toss her behind bars and move on with our lives. Some will move on easier than others, of course. But it would likely save everyone a whole lot of grief, as if the her attorneys are willing to file suit against the victim's family, Lord only knows what their courtroom defense will end up being (other than abhorrent, of course).