We need more car control

To The President of the United States and All Members of Congress:


In 2012, well over 30,000 people were killed while operating a motor vehicle or were killed by someone operating a motor vehicle.  I don't know about you, but I think that number is way too high.  It's time that something is done about these killing machines.

I am hopeful that you will act quickly to address the growing problem of car-related deaths in this country.  This is a touchy subject, but I think it's time to start talking about realistic car control.  I'm not talking about banning all cars, of course, just those that are excessively fast or look like they can go fast.  I think that both Democrats and Republicans need to sit down and work out a reasonable bill that can get us on the road to meaningful car-control  legislation (no pun intended).

In order to get the ball rolling, I would like to propose banning all cars that possess one of the following attributes:

• Cars that exceed 100 MPH.  Really, do you NEED to go that fast?
• Cars that have at least one racing stripe or any other decorative decal that gives it the illusion of looking "fast" (flames, lightning bolts, etc.)
•  Red cars (they look like they can go fast too)
• Cars with any sort of "spoiler"
• Cars with a high capacity gas tank (less fuel means a smaller explosion when your car explodes)
• Cars with exhaust systems (or problems) that make them sound like they are fast
• Cars with seating capacity above 5
• Cars with a manual transmission (so you can't act like Mario Andretti)
• Cars with the letter "X" in their model name (that just SOUNDS fast).
• Scary looking cars

In addition to these reasonable restrictions, I would also like to propose that we close the existing loopholes out there and require that everyone who wishes to own a car to undergo an extensive background check just to make sure that cars aren't getting into the hands of the wrong people.  I would also like to see all areas within a quarter mile of any schools be declared "car-free zones".  If we can't come together on at least protecting our children, then what hope do we have as a society?

Now, I know that AAA and the rest of the car lobby will offer up heavy resistance.  All I can say is that you have to hold your ground against these bullies.  They won't be happy unless every man, woman and child owns a car.  If this legislation can save just one life, then we will all grow to appreciate the sacrifice of a few sports cars.  Our founding fathers had no idea that our primary mode of transportation would grow from a simple horse and carriage to the killing machines that cars are today.  

Please seriously consider what I have proposed.  Thousands of lives are at stake.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen

The Myth of "Zero Sum" Economics

In this election year, we have occasionally heard the phrase "Zero Sum".  What does this mean?  Well, simply put, it is a term used to illustrate the concept of "people getting rich off of the backs of the poor".  The people who adhere to this concept will tell you that for every dollar a man makes, especially a rich man, another person loses a dollar.  Thus, if a CEO made $5 million last year, $5 million was taken away from other people and as a whole those other people are $5 million poorer.  In other words, the rich keep getting richer and poor keep getting poorer.

This concept is based in nothing that resembles common sense or fact.  I could try to explain on a macro level why this is not the case and how it is possible, no wait, ESSENTIAL that all economic levels of a society grow in wealth in order for an economy to grow.  But I won't do that.  Instead, I would like to bring it down to the simplest of levels... a garage sale transaction between two people.  In  fact, this very thing happened to me today.

I bought an item from a person at a garage sale today.  Brand new, this item would retail for about $50, so let's say the seller paid $50 for the item.  In this case, they may have thought the price was too high or too low, but that is irrelevant.  The fact that they bought the item suggests that their demand for the item was high enough to justify paying $50 for it.  Perhaps they had the item for 3 months or 3 years before they decided to sell it.  Again, an irrelevant point.  They gained everything they could from the item and no longer had any use for it and put it up for sale at a garage sale for $2.  This suggests that they believed that they pretty much got their money's worth.  If they didn't believe that, they may have tried to sell it a different way that would have generated more money, perhaps ebay or amazon.  The fact that they were selling it at a garage sale for $2 should say to us that they just want to get rid of it, that it held VERY LITTLE VALUE TO THEM.

Here's where I come into the picture.  I walk up to their sale, see the item, determine that I will be able to resell the item for $10, and then purchase the item.  Does this mean that the sellers are now $10 poorer?  Of course not.  The item had zero value to them.  They paid $50 for it, but they no longer want it.  They've derived all value from it in their minds.  So, they made $2.  They didn't lose $10.  If I had not bought the item, they may have given the item to charity or just plain thrown it away.  So they benefited from the item as did I.  In this situation, BOTH of our incomes grew.

Now, I will sell this item to someone for $10.  This person, it turn, will turn around and sell it for $20.  Does this mean that I lost $20 or that the original owner lost $30 (the combined gross income of myself and my buyer)? Of course not.  As you can see, everyone gained from this.  The original buyer made $2 off of what he felt was a worthless item (by virtue of throwing it in a garage sale).  I made a net profit of $8 and my buyer made a net profit of $10.  Ah, but what about the guy at the end who buys the item for $20?  Well, he is participating in the free market system.  He is buying a product he believes is worth at least $20.  So he gains the product.  As a result, this item, which was deemed to be nothing more than a $2 product by the original owner actually injected $18 of wealth into the economy and was put to good use by another owner who may just start that cycle all over again.

No one lost ANYTHING!  I won't even go into everyone that benefited from the original purchase of the item (the manufacturer, their employees, etc.).  So, the next time you are presented with the same old line, "the rich get rich off of the backs of the poor", keep this little scenario in mind.  It's not a zero-sum game.  Both parties benefit from a fair market transaction!  Yes, people lie, cheat, and steal all the time, but that's going to happen.  Do you blame the guy who over-inflates his prices or the sucker who over pays that price?

420

I'd like to take a minute and post about the date, April 20th, or "4/20" as the legalize pot crowd calls it. Let me say this first -- Smoke 'em if you got 'em. I'm fine with you doing it in the privacy of your own home as long as you are not exposing it to anyone who doesn't want to smell it or just be around it. In fact, I'm all for legalizing marijuana. I believe that if we legalize it, the unemployment problem in this country would vanish. Just imagine how many jobs would open up after all the potheads light up for days following the great emancipation of "the chronic". Thousands would call off work and thousands would be fired as a result!

Anyway, that's another rant. The topic for today deals with just how annoying the "420" crowd can be. Just like clockwork, 12:00 AM this morning, people start posting on Facebook, "Happy 420, man! Light 'em up!", as if they are part of some secret inner circle and only they and a select few other "cool" people know what "420" means. I personally do know what it means and I find it ironic that so many people celebrate the "day" 4/20 when "420" has absolutely nothing to do with April 20th. I know that most of you probably know what it means too and that is why I don't find it necessary to go into explaining it. Google it.

But anyway, a message to the "420" crowd: You're making asses out of yourselves. I understand how you feel about pot, but give it a freaking rest, for chronic's sake. Jeez! We get it! You smoke pot. You engage in the ganja. You like to fire up a blunt. OK already! Quit your pissing and moaning about how "the man" is demonizing pot and actually get off of your lit asses and do something about legalizing it! Sitting around in circles and talking about how George Washington smoked weed and how the timber industry is against legalization accomplishes absolutely nothing. Get up, take a shower and write to your congressman. Try to be civil about it too. Don't get all hippy on them. Start a petition.  Donate money to pro-pot publicity groups. Yes, we know that Bob Marley is your own personal savior and that you never missed a Grateful Dead or Phish concert, but don't sit there and pretend like this is your civil right movement.  Don't even compare your struggle to those who faced fire hoses and had to sit at the "colored" table.  Marijuana is illegal as of this moment.  So, deal with it.  If you decide to break the law, then fine... do it.  You will be responsible for your actions and I won't feel sorry for you if you get caught.  Fight through the legal channels to get it legalized and I just may light one up with you.

Me?  Well, I smoked it... a bunch, and quite frankly I don't see what the big deal is... on either side.  For those who think pot is an evil drug... no, it's not.  If we're going to assign "evilness" to drugs, I would actually say that pot is less evil than alcohol.  Now, to the potheads out there who think that marijuana/hemp is the cure for all that ails society, no it's not.  I know, you can make clothes and rope and everything under the sun out of hemp, but I can make fertilizer out of my own poop... that doesn't mean that it's the best.  I know that pot is used for medicinal purposes as well.  There is a pill form of THC (the compound found in marijuana that makes it "sooooo awesome, dude!) but most doctors don't prescribe it because other drugs are much more effective than THC.  Some people swear by it... I'm fine with that -- to each their own. 

So my stance on the whole thing can be summarized like this:

"Legalize it!  So they'll shut the hell up!"

Not Another Isolated Incident

The comments last week by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen have sparked debate about the role of the stay-at-home mother. Rosen's comments should come as no surprise to anyone who regularly follows politics. The left have always despised the stay-at-home mom and the role she plays in our society, and there are 2 big reasons:

1. The Women's Liberation Movement

A stay at home mom is a threat to the women's movement. The traditional role of the woman in the home was always what you saw in the 50's and 60's TV shows and movies. The woman stayed at home, took care of the kids, cleaned the house, and had dinner and a pipe ready for the man when he walked in the door. That was how it was back then. I'm not saying it's right, but that was a woman's ideal role. Unless you were a teacher or a nurse, you did not belong in the workplace. The 70's saw a women's liberation movement... a well-needed one. Women started going to college en masse and entered the workplace. The pay was horrendous, as chauvinistic employers who retained the traditional thought that "a women's place is in the home" would either not hire women or just pay them much less for doing the same job that a man does. This led to equal opportunity laws that made it illegal to discriminate based on sex.  

These were all positive changes in our society.  However, with so many women entering the work force, there were an increasing number of homes with both parents working.  My home was one of them.  Kids would have to go to after-school day care or in the cases where the children were older, they would come home from school to an empty house.  These kids soon  earned the moniker, "latch key kids".  Each home was different.  For some, the situation was fine and the home didn't suffer.  For others, the kids would start getting into trouble.  Some parents, (mostly moms) started deciding that they didn't want to miss out on their kids' childhood.  A lot of women who were heavily involved in the women's lib movement saw this migration back to the home as detrimental to their movement.  "We worked hard for your freedom to escape the shackles of domestic bandage and now you want to return to your captor?"  That kind of thing.

The women's lib movement found a home on the left.  This was no surprise.  As I illustrated, the single-worker family was destructive to their movement by promoting the "traditional" family of the man working and the woman staying true to her maternal instincts and staying home.  But this disdain towards those women who chose to stay home was severely misplaced.  The pre-lib woman stayed home because society said she should.  The post-lib woman stays home because she chooses to do so.  This freedom of women's choice is ironically frowned upon by the left-wing social elites in this country.  The women's liberation movement reached an iconic status, almost to the point of dogma.  If you're a woman, you have to go to college and get a "real" job.  If you choose not to do that, you are inferior to those who do.  It actually goes against the whole original idea of the movement of freedom of choice and actual "liberation".  Now, non-working mothers are derided and shunned today almost the same way that working mothers were back before the movement.  Personally, I believe that every woman has the freedom to do with her life what she wants.  I also believe that single-worker families are ideal for raising children.  In today's society there are even examples of double-worker families that allow one of the parents to stay home and work, and I think that's great.  But it all comes down to what you believe in and what choices you want to make for your family.  Stay-at-home moms (and dads) contribute as much to this society as anyone else.

2.  "It Takes a Village"

We all remember Hilary Clinton's quote, "It takes a village to raise a child".  This can be interpreted a few different ways, but let me tell you how I think the correct way to interpret it is and then I'll show you how it is used by the left as a reason to bash the stay-at-home mom.

I believe that it does "take a village" in that you obviously can keep your kid locked up in a cage until they are 18.  Obviously, they need to interact with society.  School, sports, the playground, the grocery store, etc.  We all look out for each others kids.  Growing up, I was just as afraid of getting caught doing something by my neighbors or my teacher or my friend's parents than I was my own parents.  I knew that there was a communication network and that my folks would find out from someone that I was up to no good.  For the most part, this kept me in line and that's how I was essentially "raised by my village".  But in the end, my parents by far had the greatest role in raising me.  Yes, as I mentioned before, I was a latch-key kid, but that wasn't until I was well into middle school.  When my folks weren't there after school, my friends parents were.  I would spend time at their house.  It wasn't the ideal situation, by my parents had to support the household in any way they could and I respect them for that.  They still were very active in my upbringing and I will always view them as the driving influence for the values that I have developed to this day.

However, the way the "village" quote is interpreted by many on the left is "you don't completely know what you are doing as a parent.  The village will raise your kid while you go out and work."  This mentality is so engrained in our society that we are often throwing in the towel on parenting and letting our schools run the show.  Do you ever wonder why there is a constant push to make the schools more and more a part of the equation?  There is a very strong notion, almost dogmatic as I've said before, that the schools (and therefore the government) can raise your children better than you can.  Therefore, you will better serve society if you go out and over-pay for a four year liberal arts degree so that you can enter the work force like a woman is supposed to.  Those that CHOOSE to go the domestic route shall be deemed "inferior".


This is an ideology that has been present in our society for 4 decades.  I will repeat, I am not against working women!  I know that those of you on the left reading this will immediately brand me as "anti-woman" and "sexist", but I have absolutely no problem with a woman who decides to enter the work force on her own free will.  The left seems to think that free will only goes in one direction and they snub their noses and look down upon the stay-at-home mom.  What Hilary Rosen said about Ann Romney was not an isolated incident.  She just made the mistake of being honest about how she felt.  Ms. Rosen was merely expressing the view point that is held by several elitists on the left.  Here are her comments as reminder followed by the distinguished Bill Maher <gag>.



Go to 4:40 to hear the comments specific to Ann Romney...

Will the Media Treat This Guy the Same as Limbaugh?

Fellow Southerners (I call myself a "Southerner" now since I've been here for 14 years), in case you didn't already know, there are those in the North who look down upon you.  I used to be one of them.  Then again, I used to think that we were causing global warming too, but that was back when I was young and naive.

There is a belief prevalent among the so-called "enlightened" northerners that those of us who live in the south are a bunch of mouth-breathing hicks who just sit around in our overalls chewin' "tobaccee" while playin' the banjo.  The worst are the liberal academic elitists.  They think that the way the south is depicted in episodes of "Family Guy" is true and accurate.  It's true, the south may have been that way once... several decades ago, but it surely isn't now.  It reminds me of growing up in Pittsburgh in the 70s and 80s and out-of-towners coming in and being astonished at how clean the city was.  Their perception of the city was the same as what they were taught in school -- a smoky, dirty city.

Listen to this guy and tell me if you find him more or less offensive than Rush Limbaugh and his now infamous "slut" and "prostitue" statements. By the way, this clip is now 4 days old and I am just hearing about it for the first time.



When should the families of these "grease spots" expect an apology?
How many sponsors will leave this idiot's show?
When should southern Christians expect an apology for being portrayed in this light?

I'm not going to hold my breath.  The outrage at Rush is much less about people being offended at his remarks and more about getting him taken off the air and silenced for good.  I, on the other hand hope that this liberal talk show host continues to stay on the air and spout off the bull crap that he does.  Let the chips fall where they may, as long as it's not in the south.  The only chips fallin' down here are cow chips!  YEEEE HAWWW!!!

Rush Limbaugh May Have Been Right. Here's the Math!

I really have to sit back in complete admiration of the mainstream media today. They have held a clinic on how you systematically alter the focus of a debate this week.

As most of you know, a Georgetown Law student by the name of Sandra Fluke testified before congress about the inhumanity of Georgetown University not offering free contraception as part of its health plan to students. Rush Limbaugh responded to the testimony by basically calling Ms. Fluke a slut and a prostitute.

Now, I'm not going to fall into the trap of defending Rush Limbaugh.  He can do that himself -- he's an adult.  The debate has been shifted towards him and Ms. Fluke has been turned into a political martyr of sorts.  Instead, I will address the two most provocative words that he used and tell you what I think:


"Slut" -- This word is used mostly in an insulting manner to describe an individual, though it is usually a female, who is sexually promiscuous.  Ms. Fluke's claim that contraception costs $3,000 over the course of law school needs to be examined here in an attempt to ascertain the appropriateness of the term, "slut".  A prescription for birth control pills (without insurance) at Wal-Mart is $9.  That's the cheapest I found, and if I were testifying before congress on the affordability of contraception, I would find the lowest price possible so that I could not be debunked.  I would expect a law student to do the same.  Here's the math I came up with:

Starting contraception budget:                        $3000
- $9 a month * 36 months for law school          $324
- Diaphragm (not taking any chances here)        $75
-----------------------------------------------------
Amount left in the contraception budget          $2,601

Let's use a high price for condoms, say $1 a condom.  This leaves us with enough money to buy about 2,600 condoms, or 216 boxes of 12.  Despite the fact that we're already on the pill and using a diaphragm, we want to be as safe as we can possibly be.  So, we use a condom each and every time.  In order to use up 2,600 condoms over the course of three years (1,096 days assuming a leap year), then you would have to use 2.37 condoms a day.  In other words, sex two times a day and occasionally three.  Now, in my younger years, this would have made for a great weekend, but I would have been useless on Monday and Tuesday.  So, I would think that a single partner would be out of the question to maintain this kind of pace for condom consumption.  So, I think we have to assume multiple partners, most likely dozens.  Therefore if you are spending $3,000 on contraception over the course of 3 years, then you probably are a slut.  I'm sorry, but let's call a spade a spade.

"Prostitute" -- Prostitution suggests that the person paying is the recipient of the sex.  Since Ms. Fluke is asking the college to pay for her contraception (as thus to have sex), then she really can't be considered a prostitute unless she has sex with every student who pays tuition.  Georgetown Law School's enrollment in 2010 was 2,017 students, so current enrollment is probably very close to that number.  Let's assume half of these are men, which gives us about 1,000.  Let's assume 10% of these are gay.  That gives us 900.  This means that with her contraception budget, she could have sex with each tuition paying heterosexual male in the law school about three times over the course of three years.  Hmmm... maybe Rush was on to something here.

An Example of Responsible Reporting

This is a great example of journalism being used to affect positive change.