The Abortion Business: I Want The Choice To Not Be An Investor

Abortion is a business. It is a big business. Huge. Michelle Malkin reports:

In April, the annual report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion—with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That’s a third of Planned Parenthood’s budget.

And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? 289,650 abortions in 2006.

This industry trades on other's misfortune and stupidity. The industry also violates the medical principle of "first, do no harm". Harming one living organism for the convenience of another strikes some as morally wrong, but the fact is, abortion is legal. Legal doesn't mean right.

Still, what's really galling is that people who believe it is morally wrong are forced to support the procedures. Where is my choice as a tax payer? Since feminists are all about choice, I'd like to exercise mine and not have my money subsidize what I consider a repugnant medical procedure.

If another doctor wants to sell killing and make money at it, so long as it's legal, that's his choice. As long as a consumer wants to buy the killing to escape her irresponsibility and it's legal, that's her choice. I want to exert my choice as a taxpayer and not be forced to support their disgusting commerce.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Remember Crystal Magnum?

Duke. Rape. Stripper. False. Accusation.

Remember? Yeah, well this lovely piece of humanity received her college degree in, wait for it, Police Psychology. She should be in jail for wrecking lives and wreaking havoc on our justice system.

For the record, things are still whack in Durhum and KC Johnson is still on the job which is why he's still on my blog roll. Congressional sub-committees discuss the erosion of public confidence in the Federal Justice System. Hmmm.....now why would anyone lose faith?

Happy Tax Day Suckas!

Remember the Clintons paid some big bucks, but I'm not sure the amount is "fair." Being good Dems, I'm sure they are adding an extra gift in their check. The Clintons made $109 million last year. Yep, they're just like the rest of us bitter beer drinking, bowling, hunting, Jesus loving, racist freaks.

Oh, and has Obama released his tax records? Why, no, he has not. Hmmmmm...... Since we're on the topic of Obama, James Lileks synthesizes the deal here:

I’ve been trying to find the right words for a certain theory, and I can’t quite do it yet. It has to do with how a candidate feels about America – they have to be fundamentally, dispositionally comfortable with it. Not in a way that glosses over or excuses its flaws, but comfortable in the way a long-term married couple is comfortable. That includes not delighting in its flaws, or crowing them at every opportunity as proof of your love. I mean a simple quiet sense of awe and pride, its challenges and flaws and uniqueness and tragedies considered. You don’t win the office by being angry we’re not something else; you win by being enthused we can be something better. You can fake the latter. But people sense the former.

Obama wants to divorce America and trade her in for an old, wrinkled European former model. I don't get it. Or maybe he pines for the needy, superstitious, African type. Or maybe he kinda digs the authoritarian, Marxist efficiency of the big boned Russian. I could go all day making offensive generalizations. The bottom line is that Obama doesn't love the one he's with. And it shows.

John Hawkins snarkily notes Obama's major achievement thus far in his life:

Barack Obama is an ultra-liberal, phony, racialist snob who holds ordinary Americans in contempt and is running for a job he's unqualified to hold in the first place. However, there is one thing he has been able to accomplish that no one else ever has: he's the first person who has ever been able to make Republicans see any good in Hillary Clinton.

Now, getting back to taxes and the welfare they fund. Why do those dumb Pennsylvania hicks vote Republican when Democrats what to diaper their behinds and wipe it too? Megan McCardle has a theory:

On the other hand, perhaps some of the clusters aren't quite as unrelated as they seem. In small communities, economics can be a way to exert social control. And I don't mean that in necessarily a bad way. In many ways, communities are much better disbursers of charity than the government; they have the local information to determine who is needy and who needs some strong encouragement to get a job, take the baby to the doctor, and mow their lawn. As anyone who has had to move in with their parents after a financial reversal can attest, Mom is an excellent social worker--it's absolutely astonishing how fast you get your life back together when you have to sit down with her at the dinner table every night.

Small communities are also extremely attuned to property rights, because things like property lines matter to them in ways that they don't matter to city dwellers; conversely, they have a lot less shared space relative to private space. Those core beliefs about things like property rights and work arguably build up into something akin to the Republican economic agenda.

Maybe the hicks also know that Billy Bob who has been bitching about his lack of a job, has had trouble in good economies and bad and the workers aren't interested in floating his sorry ass. It's also called pride. Sheesh! Who wants to pay for groceries with food stamps? No one with any pride. In dire straights, maybe. But the Democrats need to extricate their craniums from their nether regions. America in 2008 is not America of 1930. People are not that bad off. It's tight. It's not starvation. They need to get some perspective.

Small town folks might call it "tightening the belt". Big city folks imagine their own beneficence--raising taxes to help the little people. They might have enough money that it won't hurt them, but the middle class and working stiffs will be squeezed harder. Maybe the dumb gun nuts aren't so dumb after all. Receiving help from the government is rarely the kind of help anyone wants.

Bottom line: Keep taxes low and stay out of my business.

Charity Begins At Uncle Sam's Home

At least if you're a liberal, that is. The other day, I talked about my experiences receiving government versus church charity. Now, there is a book talking about the personal political and religious philosophies that drive giving. Betsy says this about the Obamas in her post Charitable Giving Through The State:

Of course, individual giving may vary quite widely from these averages. Yet I'd just been thinking of Brooks' findings as Michelle and Barack Obama released their tax returns that showed that they had greatly increased their charitable giving once he had decided to run for president.

The Obamas’ returns are striking on a number of levels. They show that the couple made very few charitable contributions, sometimes less than 1 percent of taxable income, until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House.

In 2004, before Mr. Obama entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to charity, 1.2 percent of the taxable income. The next year, the donations jumped, to $77,315, or nearly 5 percent of the taxable income.

The Obamas are just one example, and not typical. They are very well off, obviously, if 5% of their taxable income is nearly $80,000. But the idea behind the giving or lack thereof is philosophical. We pay taxes. Taxes are meant to help the poor. And that's that. It's absolution of sorts and a way to disconnect a person from the need that their money would help meet.

Fixing Higher Education--Guest Posted by Lorne Carignan

Editor's Note: I'm including a post from my friend Lorne Carignan, a lawyer and writer living outside Flint, Michigan. Lorne and I debate many things political and policy. He is "left leaning" which I interpret as a statist--that is, he believes the state can solve many things whereas I believe the state can turn pretty much everything to shit. Still, we agree to disagree. In this case, I agree with nearly everything he says and have some additional thoughts at the bottom of his piece. Enjoy.

**********************

Higher education is expensive. Along with K-12, education is usually one of the largest items in states' budgets, consuming as much as half or more of all revenues. It's also a fair chunk of the federal budget. Governments provide funds directly to public universities as well as offering numerous grants and incentives for specific research and development projects.

Governments furthermore subsidize the attendance of students with grants, loans, and tax credits, while parents take out a second mortgage or otherwise find ways to scrape up the several thousands of dollars needed each year to send their child to college. But, of course, all of this money is seldom enough to satiate the ever-widening maw of higher education. Tuition rises each year and schools demand more government funds.

One function of the high cost of education is the amount of time it takes to complete a traditional four-year degree. The raw cost of education is not the only cost of sending a kid to college. Room and board, transportation, entertainment, clothing, and numerous other expenses add up to a substantial portion of the cost of higher education. This cost is multiplied for each year that a student remains a student, which is getting longer and longer for the traditional four-year degree. In some universities, it is taking students six years to graduate with a "four-year" undergraduate degree.

Part of the problem is that the high cost of education forces students to work longer hours, which results in taking fewer classes and staying in school longer. But arguably, a larger part of the problem is that college is a highly enjoyable protracted adolescence where young people live a hedonistic, irresponsible lifestyle funded by mom and dad and easy-to-get government loans. Scholarship quickly takes a back seat to pleasure in today's colleges, and students opt for lighter courseloads so they can allocate more time to extracurricular activities.

In addition to increasing the cost of education, lengthy stays in college increases the time-to-market of trained college graduates. With the ever-increasing pace of technological change and knowledge growth, the job market needs workers to bring state-of-the-art training to the workplace as quickly as possible. In the course of a typical stay at a four-year university, students may well find the first two or three years of coursework obsolete by the time they graduate, particularly if that coursework involves using highly specialized tools and software.

Finally, one of the most disappointing costs of higher education is waste. Too many young people graduate from college with "worthless" degrees -- degrees that do not provide them with necessary professional training to earn a wage that justifies the expense of going to college. Many colleges continue to offer degrees in fields that are already saturated with job candidates and for which there is little or no demand. The result is that, later in life, many graduates are forced to return to college to retrain for another career. This move is complicated by all the cost factors already discussed. But particularly frustrating for graduates is discovering that obtaining a second degree requires completing a number of additional "general education requirements" that were not required in their earlier program. These general education requirements can easily tack another year onto the process of earning a second degree.

What to do?

First, we need to decouple the notion of job training and education. Trade schools already do this for a limited field of vocational occupations. It's an admirable concept that needs to be extended to more traditional four-year programs. Eliminating the general education requirements from degree programs will reduce the amount of time a student has to spend in college. There's no need for a computer scientist to take a certain number of credit hours of humanities, social science, natural science, English, and history. Let them take their computer science courses and get out and go to work!

The ostensible reason for these general education requirements (GERs) is to create a "liberally educated" well-rounded individual, i.e, an "educated" person. The reality is, they are "blow-off" subjects that pad university revenues and students' g.p.a's. They are unnecessary, expensive, and worthless (or nearly worthless) wastes of time and money. Eliminating these GERs would shorten the time to graduation by as much as two years and make obtaining second degrees much more practical for workers in need of job retraining.

Next, consolidate programs at state universities to eliminate redundancies. There's no need for every state university to offer all of the same programs and maintain all of the same departments and faculty when educational functions could be consolidated in one or two schools and adequately serve the demand. Why maintain a half dozen or more state universities that all train teachers along with a host of private schools and community colleges? One or two state universities training teachers would be enough to ensure that the demand for new teachers is met. The same is true for many other degree subjects.

Finally, curtail or eliminate the antiquated and unreasonable "vacations" and "sabbaticals" that pepper the higher education calendar. There's no good justification for completely suspending education during the summer months, allowing a professor to take a year of paid leave, or giving students and teachers several weeks off in spring and winter along with the extended time between terms. The so-called "pressures" of teaching and learning are myths in today's world of graduate assistants and cushy courseloads. The ordinary demands of higher education are no more enervating than those regularly placed on workers in many professions, and often much less. There is simply no justification for these extended breaks and sabbaticals. Students need to get into college, learn quickly what they need to know without unnecessary interruptions, and get out as soon as possible so they can be productive members of the workforce.

These changes would reduce the funding necessary to maintain state universities, reduce the tuition subsidies to parents, make college affordable for more students, make job retraining more practical for displaced workers, shorten the time-to-market of state-of-the-art skills, and make more workers more productive in a shorter period of time.

***********

One problem in American education is that the broad, liberal education from High School no longer exists. My own American History class in High School was ridiculous. My Honors World History class followed U of M's curriculum and was based on original works, but there was no continuity or time line, no perspective. So students getting into college have spotty liberal education. They leave with spotty education, too:

At universities such as Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Duke, and Berkeley, seniors scored lower on the test, available here, than freshmen, living proof of the broadening relevancy of the old Harvard adage that the university is a storehouse of knowledge because "the freshmen bring so much and the seniors take away so little."

The average foreign student studying in an American college learned nothing about the country's history and its civic institutions, according to the study.

This is a problem, but I'm not sure the solution will come in the public schools or in colleges at this rate. The educational standards are too politicized. The post-modern take on subjective "truth" forbids honestly looking at history, economics and civics. The bias against rote memorization precludes a broad base of knowledge.

Basically, any subject outside of science and math means uneven education. The SATs focus their verbal scores on grammar, analogies, comprehension, etc. But the guts of the content is pretty meaningless. And in the business world, a liberal education doesn't serve one much anyway, but a math, science, finance, accounting, engineering or some other specialized degree will.

Thadeus McCotter on Fixing Health Care in America

Who is Thaddeus McCotter? He's the House Republican Policy Committee Chairman. Here's what he said to John Hawkins (read the whole interview, lots of good stuff):

We need to get a patient centered -- not a bureaucrat centered -- version of modern medicine that allows a patient/provider relationship to be the key and to build upon that. That, to me, is going to allow the supply to meet the demand to the point where costs start to come down and adequate safeguards are there for those that cannot help themselves.

I think this is key, too. And to get a patient-centered relationship, you need to return power to the people in the relationship.

Imagine for a moment, that you are in a relationship with a guy, but that all dating times, conversation topics and every other part of your relationship was managed by a company who didn't know you, didn't particularly care if the relationship works or not, and actually hoped the relationship ended. That's what insurance companies are like. The government is even worse.

The energy exchanged while dating is love, or the potential for love. The energy exchanged in a doctor-patient relationship is knowledge and expertise for money. When a third party enters this relationship, the dynamics change. The patient takes things they don't need. The doctor gives things they don't need, or maybe that are inferior because the third party demands it.

A cash-driven relationship keeps the exchange more honest. George Bush was actually on the right track when he wanted to expand Medical Savings Accounts. It put the power back in the hands of those in the relationship. Of course, insurance companies do NOT want this. And the government itself loses power when people have more power.

Right now, the relationship is bureaucrat-centered and the bureaucrats would like it to stay that way.

Economic Check

As my regular readers know, I know dirt about the economy. There is no way for me to rationally discuss it other than in vague feelings of unease or calm. Right now, the feeling is unease. And Maxed Out Mama, whom I defer to on all matters money, has some opinions about all the recent data in manufacturing:

If you look at the full advance report (pdf), while shipments are rising inventories are generally high. Fabricated metals orders were down 4.1% after December's 1.2% increase. Shipments of fabricated metals rose 1.0% after two months of declines. Machinery shipments and new orders were down 1.7% and 1.5% respectively, but that came after strong increases in December. Overall, durable shipments are up sharply YoY. It does seem as if there is some life in manufacturing somewhere. Last year YoY shipments mostly declined and that made me very nervous. It could also be that price increases account for the rise, and that volume is largely down.

On a YoY basis, motor vehicles and parts shipments declined 5.7%, and orders declined 7.6%. However unfilled orders are down 13.2% and inventories are down 6.2%, so we are getting closer to increased volume.

This also bodes ill:

Maybe the reason that the three top presidential candidates seem to be economic illiterates is that only economic illiterates would run at a time like this. It's hard to figure that we won't be electing a one-term president in November with numbers like these.

Chicago PMI came in at 44.5, well into recessionary territory. Not the beginning of a recession, but part way in. Employment is at 33.5, which also is a reading that should be associated with a later stage of recession.

From the commentary on the release:

Like a siren warning of the approach of a tornado, the 7 point drop in the February Business Barometer sent a warning of the destructive winds of a shrinking US Economy. As the Barometer dove into retreat, the Prices Paid index continued to roar its warning of destructive inflation. The specter of recflation, recession and inflation, provides consumers, business professionals, policymakers, and politicians with a host of challenges and no simple answers.

Yep. We now get to pay for all the playing with debt.

A couple things occur to me. First, we are truly a country that is governed by and for the people. The government, far from being the bastion of restraint and right-mindedness reflects the average American's fiscal approach--spend, spend, spend and then shock when the bills come due. Second, I believe the average American's perspective has changed from self-reliance to desire for security. A capitalistic society is not a secure society--as in there are no guarantees such as promised in a socialistic system. The up side of living insecurely is freedom and the ability to far exceed the minimum that comes with security. It seems to me that people feel that exceeding the minimum doesn't hold much appeal anymore.

The next President will preside during some gut-busting difficulty. A Democrat's instinct will be to go all FDR on the country which will be the sugar every one desires but will cause more long-term pain. Eventually, we Americans will have to take our medicine. I'm still disheartened that Bush's Social Security plan got deep-sixed back in the day. This next President can try to ignore reality, but reality won't ignore him.

And for the average consumer, reality most certainly has NOT ignored him.

College Tuition Subsidies

I've written about government subsidies and college loans before. Now, the topic is receiving lots of publicity because all the candidates think it's important. It's my belief that the chief beneficiaries of government loan subsidies are the colleges themselves. The government ups loan limits, magically, tuition increases. and voila! college students are screwed.

Now, Ilya Somin sees the benefits of rising tuition costs, and makes that case that compared to not having a college education, receiving a college education is a good deal. So, that's his reasoning for no subsidized tuition:

Even at the most expensive private universities, four years of tuition, room, and board is unlikely to cost more than $180,000 or so (the approximate cost of four years at Harvard at maximum tuition rates). And, as Becker notes, many students (especially the poor) don't pay the full sticker price because of widely available financial aid and merit scholarships. The income gains of getting a higher education far outstrip the tuition. The vast majority of students can therefore afford to pay for college by borrowing against their future incomes, and still have an enormous income gain left over. Thus, there is no reason for government to subsidize college tuition on the grounds that it is "unaffordable" - even for those students who are unfortunate enough to have to bear the full cost themselves, without parental assistance.

Well, I didn't have parental assistance for any of my college and worked my way through all of them. And ten years out, I'm still paying loans off even with the income gains. What I don't think Somin is factoring in, is that the loans are such a heavy, long-standing burden, they affect the next generation.

Of course, the kids whose parents are paying the bills are at a huge, long-term advantage. Those who pay off their own loans for years, to the point that they're not saving for their own children perpetuate a cycle of governmental indebtedness. It's just not a good pattern. And yeah, there is free will. And yeah, the professional life is much better than I expect I would have had without the education. And yeah, it's worth it.

Still, my reasons for disliking governmental subsidies are different. Without them, the institutions wouldn't be subsidized. They'd have less students entering. There would be more competition. They'd have to control costs. Students would benefit.

Either way, I want the government out of the college loan business.

H/T Instapundit

Romney's Health Care Plan Costs More Than Predicted

Who woulda thunk it?

Republicans & Pork

With the exception of a tiny band of GOP senators led by Tom Coburn, R-OK, and Jim DeMint, R-SC, and House Minority Leader John Boehner, Republican Study Committee chairman Jeb Hensarling and the small caucus of anti-earmark conservatives, the congressional GOP is every bit as addicted to pork-barrel politics as the Democrats, if not even more so. (Porkbusters)

The Republicans just don't get it. And the Republicans running for President right now don't get it either. Being a greedy pig, upping taxes and being worse than Democrats gets Democrats elected.

I'll say it again: Hail, President Clinton.

Self-Reliance & Government Run Health Care

The need for universal health care seems to have concentrated like the head of a zit. Congressmen have the urge to pop the pressure and will cause a mess and scarring if they fulfill their urge to "do something". But do American citizens really want managed care?

It seems some people do, but I have to imagine that they really have no comprehension of what that would mean in practical fact. The populace has certainly moved more interventionist domestically if the majority of people truly do want their health care paid for by someone else, and by someone else, they mean themselves and other tax payers.

The notion of self-reliance seems quaint these days. People are tired of boot-straps and scrimping, maybe. They dislike the uneasiness of being one health crisis away from ruin. The economy shows signs of slowing. They have debt. Their retirement accounts are dwindling thanks to the stock market taking a nose-dive. They're not quite desperate. Yet.

It is times like these that something for nothing looks mighty good. We all want to avoid pain. And if we can receive a benefit with no possible down-side then why not? But a big government program that takes over health care is a trade. We trade individual power for government power--yet again. And the more individuals cede to the government, the less likely the individual has control of his own life.

Americans have been schooled in passivity and compliance. From day care to public schools to college to grad school to jobs, the key to succeed is complying with the rules of whatever organization one is belongs to. There is something to be said to be a part of something bigger, more universal than oneself, but there is no great mission or value in relying on the government for health care. There is only more passive acceptance.

And really, it's accepting less than there is now. A delusional belief in empty political promises must be traded for freedom and choice. It's disturbing how willing Americans are to make that trade.

Losing Freedom One Bureaucrat At A Time

Canada offers a text-book way to make sure the bad guys win: constrain the good guys. You don't have to even kill the good guys, just muzzle them. (This is a MUST view.)

The link above relates to the Mohammed cartoons that so offended Muslims. Rioting, murder, and general mayhem ensued (Mark Steyn says it better). And now, the insanity of the out-of-control Muslims aren't being questioned, but the brave publishers who had the nerve to share news is being questioned. And the questioner has a part right out of a Tolstoy novel.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

H/T Instapundit

I Trust The Government.....To Be Incompetent Boobs

Stories like these are why I'm not a government-knows-all conspiracy nut. There are just too many layers of lazy and stupid to make the whole organism out to be some efficient, fit, evil machine.

Ferret Poop Stops Drug Abuse!

The government gives some fantastic advice about disposing of unused medication.

Porky Pigs Everywhere But Pig Country

Check out this Google map of where the earmarks go in America. Now, I'd like to know the about the density of tax revenue and population maps superimposed. Say what you want about Tom DeLay, but I don't see a gazillion dollars coming to Houston, Texas. Five beneficiaries: Rice, Methodist Hospital, NASA and two aerospace companies.

And look at Detroit, that vacuum of despair sucks away at the taxpayer teet and has about as much to show for it as New Orleans--money and corruption and misery among the populace. Does anyone know if the Detroit companies are well-known and legit or is this a Murtha thing?

Pharmacists Have Had It, Too

The web is full of all sorts of intelligent, um, incisive people. The Angry Pharmacist is my new favorite. Here's what he says about Medicaid users on Clomid (the drug that forces your ovaries to pop multiple eggs thus increasing your chance of pregnancy):

That sounds pretty much like welfare to me.

I dont know where you got the bum idea. Obviously you are so ignorant that you walk around with a Medicaid chip on your shoulder looking for a fight. The whole rant you were complaining about was that Medicaid patients (who you say are "dissabled and on ssi or welfare or medicaid") should not be entitled to fertility drugs. So am I mean for making a legit point? Or are you just an idiot for wanting to bring children into this world that you self-proclaim you cannot afford.

I'm not against having children (unless you're 14, more on that later), just not while you require society's dime to survive. I guess common sense like that is why I'm a pharmacist and you aren't.

My favorite post so far, though, is about Heather, The Human Shield. Heather is the poor dear fronting for Insurance companies looking to screw doctors and patients. Here's the Angry Pharmacist's take:

So it pains me to be upset when I hear Heather's voice on the other end. I know its not her fault that her employer is retarded, or that the wrong ID number got printed on the card. I know that if she ran the world everything would probably work smoothly. Shes there to pay her rent and buy herself food. She is probably going to college or basically cant get a job anywhere else. Here we are screaming at them for something that they have absolutely no control over just to vent our frustration. Are we any better than those asshole doctors who scream at us because expensive-drug-x is $900?

So next time you're all fired up about WellCare not having the right ID number, and you hear Healthers voice on the other end, think of this post and realize that its not Heathers fault. She's there to do a job much like you are and probably goes home and rags on pharmacists like I ran on Drug Reps.

(Yeah, I realize this post isn't full of hate, bad words, sexual talk or anything like that. It just sorta struck a nerve that I'm sure lives deep down within all pharmacists. I'll try better next time. Fuck insurance companies and drug reps..There.. All better.. :-) )

Everyone loves their pharmacist, but pharmacists are people, too.


H/T Instapundit

Washington D.C.

Last week, I took the kids to D.C. As mentioned before, we hit the major branches of government, landmarks, memorials and the zoo. We were very busy and crammed lots of experiences into three days--including swimming in the hotel pool. I'm still tired.

My overall impression was this: Solidity. The city is solid. A law on the books since Britain still viewed us as theirs, requires rock and other hard building materials due to fires set to the White House and Capital by the aforementioned former enemy. Ahem. It's a good law. The city has a permanence and beauty because of it.

D.C. is strikingly beautiful, more beautiful than I remembered. I was eight the last time I visited and two memories remain from that visit: Monticello and the Lincoln Memorial. My brother peed on the porch at Monticello causing my sister and I much amusement and my parents complete mortification. The Lincoln Memorial was huge. Who doesn't love Abraham Lincoln? And how could you forget the Lincoln Memorial?

My kids favorite spot echoed mine. They absolutely loved the Washington Monument, the Mall and the Lincoln Memorial. We took it in at sunset. Grass and water and a balmy breeze served as the back-drop to these massive tributes to great men in addition to serving as baseball diamonds and football practice fields. The city is grand and eminently human at the same time.

The humanity mobs you immediately. We took the train from Philadelphia and ended in Union Station. People were purposeful and determined and seemed oblivious to the breath-taking architecture all around them. They marched to the cab or the Capital in their suits and talked about important things.

That first afternoon, we toured the Capital. Katie Weiss, a staff assistant to our representative Kevin Brady, made sure everything was perfect. She is a gem. In fact, the staff members of our Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson were incredibly helpful, too. I would very much recommend contacting your congress people to facilitate your Washington trip. When I saw the poor herded masses going on the public tours, I sighed in relief. The private tours are fabulous.

The interesting thing about all the buildings toured in Washington is that they are working, living monuments to the past, present and future. People are scurrying hither and thither debating in the halls. The history, the architecture, the tradition, the offices, the seniority, the squabbles, combine to form a hopeful soaring ideal anchored by a common-sense pragmatism.

Walking through the Senate side, I saw Carl Levin and this and that Senator. So many familiar, smiling (we were obviously not working there--with school in session, the kids were the only ones in the Capital and office buildings both times we visited) Senatorial and Congressmen faces. We met Senator Hutchinson. My son was overwhelmed with joy at meeting her and gave her a huge, unexpected, hug. She is a tiny wisp of a woman, dressed smartly in a sherbet suit surrounded by buzzing black-clad staffers. We were the last in line and she clearly had somewhere important to be, but the hug surprised and disarmed her and everyone laughed and cooed at the cuddle. Senators are people, too.

We received floor passes to sit in both the House and Senate galleries. On the house side, nothing much happened. On the Senate side, we had the opportunity to hear stringent debate on some bill where the Army would purchase farm land. We just missed a full vote on five different pieces of legislation, much to my son's dismay. We had to high tail it over to the White House to take the rare, coveted and to my daughter at least, disappointing tour.

The White House is first, and foremost, just a house. It is smaller than I'd imagined. It's not that small, but still, the furniture and room dimensions were designed around smaller people. It felt...intimate. My daughter was disgruntled because we couldn't see the President's bedroom and the other parts of the living quarters. And she was not pleased that she couldn't meet the President or First Lady. I told her to write a letter.

Perhaps the most amazing building in Washington is the Library of Congress. Words fail to describe the experience. Truly, it's magnificent. It is knowledge in architectural form. The Library holds up the intellectualism of freedom and democracy that goes back to Socrates.

Visiting D.C. renewed my faith in our institutions. It will last as long as I don't watch the news.

Unemployment Up Pretty Much Everywhere

Roaring hurricanes and the slowing economy, I'm a bringer of bad news all around. Can't help it. That's the facts for the day. MaxedOutMama has some news on employment and concludes with this interesting morsel:

Because of the drop in employment rate (i.e. workforce) in some states, unemployment rates and trends look better than they really are, and when one looks at the data in more detail a recent pattern of weakening is very evident. This is no doubt why the federal government has abruptly decided to enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens. Last year employment was in a strong growth mode for much of the year. This year the trend is reversing itself. [emphasis added]

The government is trying to get rid of extra bodies so American citizens can do those jobs that Americans won't do.

Personally, I think the economy is going to get worse. My financial advisor's scorn for my "feelings" notwithstanding, I do have some reasons as to why.

1. Home defaults are just beginning.
   
2. Home values will decline forcing people to stay in homes they can barely afford.
   
3. Without disposable income, credit card debt will increase, there will be an explosion of bankruptcies. Wait, that's already happening--they're up 48% over 2005.
4. Profits will evaporate as spending stops. This hasn't happened yet, but it will.
5. Unemployment will rise dramatically. See above.

Some see unsettling comparisons to 1987. Well, one doesn't have to be money genius to see the similarities in the graphs.

Being a good financial steward is ultimately boring, which is why no one likes to do it. Get a job. Pay your bills. Don't go in debt. Don't buy more than you need. Save for a rainy day. Diversify. Diversify. Diversify. It's advice you'd get from your Grandma.

She also says to eat your vegetables and no one does that either.

Big Brother In The Sky

Are you worried about the government using satellites to spy on American citizens? This part sounds OK:

Administration officials say the program will give domestic security and emergency preparedness agencies new capabilities in dealing with a range of threats, from illegal immigration and terrorism to hurricanes and forest fires.

I could see the border patrol being able to access this information to stop the flow of terrorists. But like everything with the government, there is always mission creep.

What do you think?

Should the U.S. use satellite imagery in criminal investigations of American citizens?
	Yes
	No
	It depends
pollcode.com free polls

Michael Vick: Barking Mad

ESPN reports tonight that Michael Vick might take a plea deal which would land him in jail for around a year.

A YEAR?!!

For dogs fighting? What the hell? There are murderers who get less time. Give me a friggin' break. They are dogs. No, it's not nice, but lots of things in this world are not nice, and in the Not Nice hierarchy why is the government busying itself over fighting dogs? As a taxpayer, I find the whole thing ridiculous.

Queen Elizabeth enjoyed bear and bull baiting for heaven's sake:

Bull baiting was a contest in which the bear was chained to a stake by one hind leg or by the neck and worried by dogs. The whipping of a blinded bear was another variation of bear-baiting. Queen Elizabeth attended a famous baiting which was described by an Elizabethan chronicler called Robert Laneham as follows:

"... it was a sport very pleasant to see, to see the bear, with his pink eyes, tearing after his enemies approach; the nimbleness and wait of the dog to take his advantage and the force and experience of the bear again to avoid his assaults: if he were bitten in one place how he would pinch in another to get free; that if he were taken once, then by what shift with biting, with clawing, with roaring, with tossing and tumbling he would work and wind himself from them; and when he was loose to shake his ears twice or thrice with the blood and the slaver hanging about his physiognomy."

Oh, and cock fighting was fun, too:

Cock fighting was another popular Elizabethan blood sport. Roosters were fitted with sharp blades on each foot and put into a cock pit to fight to the death. Fighting cocks were expensive, so it took a wealthy man to own these birds, but Elizabethans from both the Upper and Lower Classes came to see and bet on these cock fights.

But here we are in the ever-so-civilized United States marshaling all the force of the Patriot Act to jail these modern barbarians.

You know what I find barbaric? The government misusing it's excessive and considerable power to persecute frivolous misdeeds when rape, murder, and heinous crimes get ignored.

And for all the animal lovers (and I am one) who say this:

Perhaps these two football people would like to justify the means to make these dogs exceedingly aggressive and attack another dog. Being social animals, this is not usual behaviour for dogs. This aggressiveness is induced. It is taught - if you wish to call it ‘teaching.’ By all standards of decency, the aggressiveness is taught by cruel, inhumane means. In simple terms, the dogs are tortured to be aggressive and pack / social instincts to fellow canines are extinguished. - Perhaps some consider this ‘good fun.’ I contend that a majority of people see this as cruelty.

I would recommend they watch some National Geographic shows. The natural world is vicious. And then there was my friend Darryl's dog who'd sooner kill another dog that "socialize" with it. He was anything but social. He didn't like most people either. And when he fought dogs, he went for the throat. To kill. Au natural. No breeding. No training.

I'm tired of our wussified culture. I'm tired of the intrusive government and its power. Dog fighting is what the federal government thinks is a priority these days. That says it all.